Congress is facing a looming shutdown — again. How did we get here?

First the good news. Congress once again avoided an unnecessary, costly and counterproductive government shutdown. 

Now for the bad news. Nearly 100 House Republicans once again voted to shut down the government because they were unhappy that keeping the government open didn’t come with massive cuts to domestic funding. More bad news: Those extreme members are going to threaten to shut down the government again early next year if they don’t get their way. 

But they don’t need to get their way. Instead of bowing to the most extreme elements of their caucus, House Republican leadership could instead acknowledge that Democrats already agreed to real cuts earlier this year, and work to enact reasonable, bipartisan bills with the same bipartisan coalition that just voted to keep the lights on.

Over the summer, as part of the negotiations to convince House Republicans to avoid having the country default on its obligations, the Biden administration and congressional Democrats agreed on overall funding levels for the next two years, which included painful — and frankly unnecessary — reductions to appropriations. 

That deal, which I was part of negotiating, set a limit on total appropriations for defense and all other funding. Those limits mean that real funding for everything outside of defense will be lower in 2024 and 2025 than in 2023. 

In other words: cuts. 

As someone in the room for those negotiations, I can tell you we were willing to accept some cuts, in part, because having a bipartisan agreement on overall funding levels should have meant Congress could proceed with a reasonable appropriations process, without fear of shutdown threats or extremist demands. It should have granted the American people some certainty that the programs and services they depend on wouldn’t suddenly be shuttered or dramatically altered.

And in fact, the Senate set about doing exactly that, writing bipartisan appropriations bills largely aligned with the deal we struck. If House Republicans had done the same, we wouldn’t be here, with yet another can being kicked down the road and the threat of a shutdown still looming in the distance.

But that’s not what they did. Instead, they ignored the bipartisan agreement and pursued a strictly partisan process, bowing to the most extreme elements of their caucus and insisting on massive cuts well beyond what was previously agreed to. Their demands include cutting K-12 education funding for high-poverty schools by 80 percent, slashing funding for clean drinking water infrastructure, nutrition assistance, cancer research and more.

These cuts are unpopular, with several GOP bills failing to garner enough support even from within their own caucus. They are also damaging and painful. We know better-funded schools mean better outcomes for students, families and local economies. We know scientific and health care research pays dividends for generations. We know giving the IRS the resources it needs to ensure that high-income households pay the taxes they owe will generate big returns to the public. And yet, these are the kinds of massive cuts House Republicans are insisting on.

Fundamentally, cuts like this are simply unnecessary. Total annual appropriations, outside of defense, have actually been on the decline as a percent of the total economy over the last several decades. And while funding in fiscal years 2022 and 2023 did go up a bit from the very low levels of the prior years, the total spent today is still lower than the average level of the last 50 years.

What is true, however, is that federal debt has grown faster than expected over the last two-and-a-half decades. But the culprit is not higher spending on appropriations, nor even big bedrock federal commitments like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Funding for those programs has actually grown more slowly than expected in the past two decades. No, in fact, the major cause behind growing debt has been repeated tax cuts, costing us roughly $10 trillion since 2001.

In our negotiations over the summer, we understood cuts in these areas were unpopular, unproductive and unnecessary. And while we successfully deflected the demands of the most extreme parts of the House Republican caucus, we did agree to real limitations in service of setting the table for a reasonable, bipartisan appropriations process. The cuts we agreed to may not have satisfied the extremists, but 149 House Republicans voted for the deal.

Budgeting is always challenging because it’s about much more than numbers on a table. Budgets often reflect difficult choices over how to prioritize the use of shared resources. It’s not unusual for there to be strong disagreements. 

If House Republicans believe deep cuts to scientific research and food assistance for low-income pregnant women is a fiscal necessity, I strongly disagree with them, and the facts don’t support that position, but they are entitled to believe it. What they are not entitled to do is pretend that concessions have not already been made to their viewpoint. 

If House Republicans are unhappy with this year’s dysfunctional appropriations process, they have no one to blame but themselves. A better budgeting season was possible. It would have only required House Republicans to take the concessions they already won and abide by the terms of the deal they agreed to, just as the Senate has done. 

Until they come to their senses, everyday Americans will continue to be the ones who are paying the price.

Michael Linden was the executive associate director at the Office of Management and Budget until this past June. He is currently a senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.