Budget vs. Continuing Resolution
Every fall, as the leaves start to turn and the government fiscal year looms on October 1, lawmakers in Washington find themselves in a familiar situation: racing against the clock to fund the government. Occasionally, they successfully complete the task with a comprehensive budget. Other times, they settle for a temporary fix called a continuing resolution. Behind this high-stakes process lies something more profound—a constitutional principle rooted in American democracy: the power of the purse. And it’s no accident that this power lies squarely with the U.S. House of Representatives.
Let’s break down what this all means—budget vs. continuing resolution—and why the Founding Fathers trusted the House, not the Senate or the President, with the country’s checkbook.
What Is the U.S. Budget? Planning the Nation’s Spending Priorities
At its core, the federal budget is a blueprint. It outlines how the government plans to spend money over the next fiscal year, funding everything from Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements to military salaries, national parks, and space exploration.
The budget process starts when the President sends a detailed proposal to Congress, usually in February. It outlines spending goals and policy priorities like education funding, infrastructure upgrades, or tax reforms. From there, Congress gets to work. The House and Senate Budget Committees each draft a budget resolution, which then guides the 12 individual appropriations bills responsible for funding federal agencies and departments.
The lengthy, intricate process should conclude before October 1. But in reality? It often drags on, gets bogged down by politics, or breaks down altogether. However, when everything aligns, the federal budget transcends mere financial calculations. It’s a powerful expression of national values: where we invest, what we prioritize, and whom we choose to support.
What Is a Continuing Resolution? A Temporary Fix for a Long-Term Problem
When Congress can’t agree on those 12 funding bills in time, lawmakers often pass a continuing resolution (CR). Consider it as a means of ensuring the government operates autonomously. A CR keeps agencies funded at the same levels as the previous year—no new programs, no significant changes, just enough to keep the lights on.
CRs are better than nothing—they prevent federal workers from going unpaid and keep national parks open—but they come with real costs. Agencies can’t plan long-term projects. Military operations may face delays. Even local governments and nonprofits that rely on federal grants are left in limbo, unsure if they can hire staff or start new programs.
Both Parties use Continuing Resolutions
It’s important to clarify one point: both major political parties have depended on continuing resolutions, which has contributed to the breakdown of the full budget process. While it’s easy to blame the party currently in power, the reality is that both Republican and Democratic leaders have frequently used continuing resolutions.
Occasionally, it’s due to a divided government—when one party controls the House and the other controls the Senate or the White House. Other times, even a single-party government can’t get its members to agree on what to fund and cut. Political standoffs over controversial policies—like immigration enforcement, military aid, or healthcare funding—have led to budget gridlock and forced last-minute CRs to keep the government running.
Budgets vs. CRs: What’s at Stake if Congress Fails to Act
When Congress passes a full budget on time, it’s doing what the Constitution intended: setting national priorities through a process shaped by public input and representative debate. It’s an example of democracy working.
But when lawmakers rely on CRs—or worse, let funding lapse and trigger a government shutdown—they’re essentially sidestepping that responsibility. Continuing resolutions aren’t inherently bad, but when they become the default, they reflect a breakdown in the system.
The House’s power of the purse isn’t just about math or spreadsheets. It’s about honoring a centuries-old promise that government decisions about money will reflect the people’s will. And when that promise isn’t kept—when the budget process breaks down—it doesn’t just delay projects. It erodes trust in government.