With the threat of a government shutdown averted after the Senate passed a government funding bill Friday, Washington and the nation can breathe a sigh of relief. But in the aftermath, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is the object of angry Democrats in Congress and across the country who wanted a fight with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans. As a former senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am a veteran of numerous government-funding fights. I know what causes shutdowns and the difficulty of reopening the government after a shutdown. Schumer faced an incredibly difficult predicament and he was right to support keeping the government open.
Let’s start with the basics. Since the start of the fiscal year in October, the federal government has been operating on a continuing resolution, which means the government was being funded (with limited exceptions) at levels set the previous fiscal year. The bill enacted on Friday extends funding through September, the end of the fiscal year. It funds the government largely at current levels, although defense spending is slightly increased while domestic spending is a slightly decreased.
While a year-long CR is a terrible way to run the federal government, it is better than a government shutdown.
There is a word to describe governing by CR: failure. CRs represent Congress’ failure to do its most fundamental task: responsibly fund the government. The executive branch, especially the Pentagon, have real difficulty operating under CR’s. Some funding accounts will be depleted and in need of replenishment; others will be too flush and in need of reduction. It is very difficult for the executive branch to move monies between accounts without congressional sign-off — not that this fact will discourage the Trump administration from trying.
But while a yearlong CR is a terrible way to run the federal government, it is better than a government shutdown. Schumer is being pummeled for his decision by his angry Democratic base for not fighting the CR, but he understood things could get much worse for federal employees and congressional Democrats during a shutdown. Trump would be empowered to determine which federal employees were essential or nonessential. Trump surely would have designated as many federal employees as possible nonessential and furlough them. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency would run wild, putting even more employees at risk of permanent dismissal. Recalling all those furloughed nonessential employees would have been enormously challenging.
As for Democrats’ political struggles against the Trump administration, a shutdown would have redirected the focus away from the economy, Trump’s destructive tariffs, appeasement of Russia and betrayal of Ukraine, and Elon Musk’s chainsaw and wood chipper approach to reducing the federal workforce. Furthermore, the party making the policy demand is blamed for a shutdown. Republicans were blamed in 2013 and 2018-19 shutdowns for wanting to defund Obamacare and immigration demands, respectively. That’s because demanding policy concessions to keep the government open is not a winning argument. It’s the equivalent of a small child holding his breath and waiting for everyone else to turn blue. It doesn’t work.
Furthermore, Schumer was likely honoring the wishes of members who wanted him to save them from themselves. Punchbowl reported Monday that “based on our conversations with Democratic senators, many more Senate Democrats than just the nine who voted with Schumer agreed with his ultimate decision.” This is a familiar strategy in Washington, known as “vote no, hope yes.” Leadership can be a lonely job when tough decisions like this one are required. After all, a leader with no followers is just a guy taking a walk. To be clear, Schumer’s handling of this situation was not perfect. First, if he intended to fold, he should have done so sooner and not raised expectations of fighting the House-passed GOP funding bill. Second, congressional Democrats failed to articulate clearly what they even wanted in the bill, which muddled their message. Third, Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries were not coordinated in their negotiating strategy with congressional Republicans. But had Schumer chosen to fight, Democrats would likely have shouldered at least part of, if not most, of the blame for what could have been a protracted, painful shutdown. The bottom line is Senate Democrats were in a terrible, no-win position. The choice was to fight and shut down the government, or fold and find better ground for another day. Schumer, smartly but painfully, chose the latter. He made the right choice and took one for the team.
Charlie Dent
Charlie Dent is executive director and vice president of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, where he leads bipartisan, bicameral policy education programs for members of Congress. He is a board member of the National Archives Foundation, CARE USA and Research America and an advisory board member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. Previously, he served seven terms in the House representing the 15th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. 
