Without some kind of additional funding legislation, the federal government will run out of funds and enter a partial shutdown at Midnight on December 21, as Friday becomes Saturday. Another continuing resolution (CR) – this one supported by both President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk – failed to pass the House on Thursday, December 19. The Trump-backed bill came quickly on the heels of the massive spending package that died when Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) caved under pressure from the president-elect and many of his fellow Republicans to pass a simple, clean CR rather than a 1,500-plus-page monstrosity full of legislative pork. But it died just as quickly.
Now, with just one day left before the funding runs out, questions loom. Will the government shut down? If so, for how long – and what will the spending package that ends it look like? Finally, what will this funding debacle mean for Johnson’s chances at keeping the speaker’s gavel in January?
The Continuing Struggle for a Continuing Resolution
As Liberty Nation News Editor-in-Chief Mark Angelides explained on Thursday:
“Though necessary to fund the government through March 2025, a more-than 1,500-page Continuing Resolution (CR), which some described as ‘pork-filled,’ was defeated before reaching the House floor yesterday, December 18. Leading conservatives pressured Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to drop the measure and instead focus on a simple package without additional pet projects.”
The president-elect, Elon Musk, and some Senate Republicans contributed mightily to that pressure, as well. The Trump-backed follow-up bill voted on Thursday, however, didn’t fare any better.
The House rejected the newer measure, which Trump called “a very good Deal for the American people,” 174-235. A couple of Democrats – Reps. Kathy Castor of Florida and Washington’s Marie Gluesenkamp Perez – did support the bill, but a whopping 38 House Republicans joined the rest of the Democrats in killing it.
If some sort of funding legislation isn’t passed by 11:59 p.m. (EST), the federal government will “shut down.” Scare quotes, of course, are appropriate here. After all, if the so-called shutdown actually meant lights out in the Swamp, it would never be allowed to happen. This outcome doesn’t affect the core operations of government, but it would impact national parks, public transit, and plenty of other similar services. You know, the stuff regular Americans actually enjoy and use regularly.
Hundreds of thousands of paychecks could be at risk – even for many “essential” government employees who will remain on the job even if they aren’t getting paid – but back pay is always a part of the inevitable deal that ends the shutdown. No jobs or programs are actually cut, shrinking the Leviathan and saving the taxpayers money, and the reimbursement for those who are furloughed just makes it more expensive. Notably, congressional pay is not affected, despite the fact that it’s members of Congress who create these issues to begin with. In the end, a shutdown isn’t really a shutdown – it’s just a political club with which to bludgeon whichever side gets stuck with the blame.
Trump Blows Up the Debt Ceiling Debate
But the annual spending debacle is just one-half of this disastrous cycle. When it comes time to pay the debts that always accrue from whatever spending deals do emerge, we have this whole hostage situation all over again in the debt ceiling argument.
In 1917, Congress created the debt limit, or ceiling, which sets the maximum amount of outstanding debt the federal government can have. At the time, the limit was set at $11.5 billion. By 1960, the national debt had grown to $290 billion. According to the US Department of the Treasury, it has been raised 78 times in the 64 years since. Today, the debt is so large that the 1960 number looks like pocket change. Not only is it in the tens of trillions of dollars now, but it’s growing by more than a trillion a year, and, for most of this century, it has increased by a trillion or more each year.
The current interest payment just to service the debt each year is over $1 trillion, and that’s the key to the argument made by those who keep pushing to increase the limit. Both parties agreed to the spending bills (never mind the shutdown threats and coercion required to get there), and now both parties should vote to pay the debt – for the sake of the government’s credit rating and reputation.
Donald Trump, though, seems to be tired of it. “The Democrats have said they want to get rid of it,” Trump said on Thursday, December 19. “If they want to get rid of it, I would lead the charge.”
“It doesn’t mean anything, except psychologically,” he continued, explaining that no one really knows what would happen for certain if America defaulted on its debts, and no one should want to find out. Well, he has a point. Every year, when the debt ceiling debate comes up, inevitably the limit is either raised or suspended. Remember, the Treasury reports that it has been done 78 times in the last 64 years! In other words, much like the so-called shutdown come funding time, it’s little more than a political weapon that doesn’t change things for the better in either the short or long term.
On the other hand, what has become the regularly scheduled debt limit battle – even with its equally inevitable outcome – does slow down the legislative process. It takes time and creates a logjam that keeps other measures from being passed through Congress and signed into law.
For many, this is precisely the reason it should be scrapped. There is an argument to be made, however, that this obstruction is actually a good thing. Most of the blame for the government becoming so massive, unwieldy, and expensive comes from either bipartisan legislation or when one party overwhelmingly controls both chambers. How often do lawmakers get together and pass laws that reduce the size or cost of government or that deregulate to increase individual liberty? That’s a rhetorical question with an obvious answer.
America Will Survive a Shutdown – But Will Mike Johnson?
Whether a continuing resolution or even a full-year funding bill is passed or not – and whether Congress raises the debt limit on or before the January 1 deadline – the House will vote for a speaker in about two weeks. Will Mike Johnson be able to keep hold of the gavel? Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) already tried and failed to vacate his speakership, and it seems unlikely she or her closest allies will support him regardless of how the twin spending and debt spectacles play out.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Wednesday, December 17, that he wouldn’t support Johnson for speaker again. “Mike Johnson just gave me another 1,557 reasons not to vote for him,” he said regarding the resolution that failed that day. “We get the same lump of coal right before Christmas every single year,” he continued. “They will literally tell you, ‘If you don’t vote for this steaming pile of poo, you’re gonna be here over Christmas break.’”
Indiana Republican Victoria Spartz was upset enough by Johnson’s performance that she left the GOP caucus. “I will stay as a registered Republican but I will not sit on committees or participate in the caucus until I see Republican leadership in Congress is governing,” she posted to X. “I do not need to be involved in circuses. I would rather spend more of my time helping @DOGE and @RepThomasMassie to save our Republic, as was mandated by the American people.” A spokesperson for the representative told Daily Caller she has not yet decided whether to back Johnson in the January 3 speaker vote.
Spartz’s decision, of course, indicates yet another problem Johnson and House Republicans may face, at least in the early days of the new Congress: a razor-thin majority that requires every Republican to pass any party-line measure.
Perhaps the most entertaining suggestion floated yet in this mutiny against the speaker came from the Senate. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul suggested Elon Musk should be the next speaker of the House – though, of course, he doesn’t get a vote on the matter. The craziest part of that story, however, is that it’s possible. The Constitution doesn’t require the speaker to be a member of the House. All speakers so far have been representatives, but numerous outsiders have been proposed over the years.
Will Elon Musk be the next speaker of the House come January 3? Probably not. But, these days, Mike Johnson’s chances aren’t looking that great, either.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
