Continuing Resolutions Aren’t Real Fiscal Policy

Rather, they showcase central planning inertia and entrench the last bad bargain

The House GOP just released its latest Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act. Strip away the legalese and the acronyms, and what do we have? More of the same: Washington on autopilot.

A continuing resolution (CR) doesn’t debate priorities, weigh tradeoffs or rethink the federal government’s role. It just extends the previous year’s bloated budget through November 21. No reform, no restraint, just copy-paste governance.

And worse than that, these CRs don’t just preserve last year’s excesses; they smuggle in costly policy changes without debate. This latest bill quietly rewrites Affordable Care Act funding tables to channel more money into federally run clinics, delays Medicaid hospital payment cuts yet again and even rewrites parts of Veterans Affairs’ mortgage program—all under the guise of a “stopgap.”

CRs show central planning inertia in action. Instead of markets reallocating resources where they’re most valued, or even Congress debating tradeoffs, bureaucrats get their marching orders by default. The federal Leviathan keeps growing, not by conscious choice, but by inertia.

CRs Are Fiscal Malpractice

· They ratchet up spending. Each year’s “temporary” funding levels become the new floor. CRs quietly entrench programs that should face scrutiny and democratic debate.

· They exempt themselves from fiscal rules. By designating pet items as “emergencies” or “disaster relief,” Congress sidesteps PAYGO (the pay-as-you go budget rule) and deficit caps. It’s budget gimmickry that worsens debt without accountability.

· They lock in distortions. From agriculture subsidies to shipbuilding earmarks, CRs keep capital trapped in politically favored corners rather than allowing reallocation through markets.

In short, CRs aren’t neutral stopgaps; they’re vehicles for institutionalizing the last bad bargain.

The Myth of Stability

Defenders say CRs at least keep the lights on and avoid government shutdowns. True, but that’s like praising a drunk driver for staying on the road. Not crashing isn’t the same as driving well.

If Congress were serious about fiscal governance, it would use deadlines as opportunities for discipline, not excuses to rubber-stamp the past. Instead, deadlines just generate theater, with both parties declaring victory when they manage to hit “repeat” before the clock runs out.

Real Fiscal Policy vs. CR Inertia

Real fiscal policy requires prioritization, restraint and recognition of tradeoffs. CRs offer none of that. They are central planning by default: Washington sets the trajectory of trillions of dollars not through decision-making, but through neglect.

The irony is thick: Politicians rail against “socialism” while embracing a process that ensures continuous, centrally planned flows of spending with no market check and no democratic debate.

Continuing resolutions aren’t a prudent compromise. They’re central planning inertia masquerading as fiscal governance. And every year we accept them, the debt grows, the market shrinks and the illusion of control deepens.