Continuing resolutions have become the de facto federal budget process rather than the emergency measures they were designed to be. This represents a fundamental departure from the 1974 Congressional Budget Act’s vision of orderly, deliberative appropriations that could respond to changing national needs and priorities.
The 93.6% reliance rate on temporary funding measures since FY1977 indicates systematic institutional failure transcending party control or political circumstances. Both unified and divided governments have proven equally incapable of executing basic constitutional responsibilities for federal funding.
Path Forward
The data demonstrates that neither unified nor divided government provides a reliable path to functional appropriations. The three successful divided government years (FY1989, FY1995, FY1997) suggest that bipartisan cooperation, while difficult to achieve, may be more conducive to completing appropriations than partisan unity.
Fundamental budget process reforms appear necessary to restore congressional capacity for timely, responsive federal funding. The current system’s 8.2% success rate over nearly five decades represents a level of institutional dysfunction that threatens effective governance regardless of which party holds power.
The federal government’s chronic dependence on continuing resolutions reflects deeper institutional challenges that transcend partisan politics, requiring structural reforms to restore Congress’s constitutional appropriations authority and enable responsive governance in an era of complex national challenges.
Looking at the three presidents who achieved successful appropriations funding (Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton), several common characteristics emerge:
Pragmatic, Non-Ideological Leadership Style
All three presidents were known for pragmatic governance over rigid ideology:
- Jimmy Carter was a technocrat who approached problems analytically rather than through partisan lens, though he initially struggled with congressional relations
- George H.W. Bush was famously described as prioritizing governing competence over conservative ideology, willing to compromise on issues like tax increases
- Bill Clinton built his political brand as a “New Democrat” focused on centrist, pragmatic solutions that could attract bipartisan support
Pre-Polarization Era Leadership
All successful appropriations occurred between 1977-1997, before the extreme polarization that has characterized American politics since the late 1990s. This was an era when:
- Cross-party personal relationships were still common in Washington
- Compromise was viewed as governing competence rather than weakness
- Institutional norms around congressional cooperation were stronger
Experience Working with Opposition
Three of the four successful years (FY1989, FY1995, FY1997) occurred under divided government, suggesting these presidents were particularly skilled at bipartisan negotiation:
- Bush 41 had extensive Washington experience as Vice President, CIA Director, and House member, giving him deep relationships across party lines
- Clinton demonstrated remarkable ability to work with the Republican Congress after 1994, achieving major bipartisan legislation
Governor Background
Two of the three presidents (Carter and Clinton) were former governors who brought state-level executive experience to Washington. Governors are often more accustomed to working with divided legislatures and finding practical solutions to funding challenges, as state governments typically cannot run deficits like the federal government.
Notable Absence: No Modern Presidents
No president since 1997 has achieved successful appropriations, despite the presidency being held by Bush 43, Obama, Trump, and Biden across various party configurations. This suggests the common characteristic may be the pre-2000 political environment rather than individual presidential traits.
The most significant common characteristic appears to be that all three governed during an era when institutional norms favored compromise and bipartisan problem-solving over partisan warfare—an environment that has not existed in modern American politics since the late 1990s.
The current administration is an extreme example of opposite of what’s needed.
⁂
- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/
- https://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/PRES/partycon/index.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States
- https://www.livenowfox.com/news/gop-last-controlled-senate-house-president
- https://www.americanacorner.com/blog/history-divided-government
Ron's Musings 