The Long Road to FY2025
Article by Aly Moreno | Art by Jillian Hartshorne
Each year, a federal budget is set for the upcoming fiscal year; the year of which the federal budget lapses from October 1st to September 30th. This budget includes distributions of funds to specific federal agencies, introduced by the president, and approved by Congress. If the budget is not set by the end date, September 30th, a government shutdown occurs. A shutdown entails the halting of all non-essential federal agencies. Additionally, essential workers must proceed with their work despite a lack of payment. FY2025 took its reign on October 1st, yet confidence in setting a federal budget is lower than ever before. How we avoided a government shutdown? A continuous resolution is a bill introduced to temporarily continue funding the federal government through the same budget as the prior fiscal year. The Continuing Appropriations and Extension Act of 2025 (H.R. 9747) extended the FY2024 federal budget through the earlier of December 20th, 2024. If a federal budget is not set by the continuous resolution’s extended deadline, December 20th, the government runs the risk of facing shutdown once more.
Past continuous resolutions have been introduced before the passage of H.R. 9747, but have been killed for various reasons. One of the most controversial resolutions belonged to Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. His bill was logical in its continuity, however, the negative connotation derived from Johnson’s proposal was its rider bill– an act attached to a must-pass resolution (such as a continuous) to force it through the House. It was not the resolution that both parties detested, but rather the attached SAVE Act. The SAVE Act was entirely irrelevant; it called for provisions regarding election security, and the extended requirement for proof of citizenship for voter registration. The act would have amended the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by mandating that the states require additional documentary proof of citizenship. Acceptable forms of DPOC included; photo identification, a United States passport, birth certificate, military identification with service record, or certain government photo identifications. These provisions would have been applied to all current and future registers and future registrants, including existing registrants undergoing a name change, party switch, or relocation. As a result of these extensions, election officials ran the risk of federal charges being faced if a registrant lacked the needed DPOC. These processes would be lengthy, and alongside adding criminal offenses to election officials, questions were raised regarding the grade of necessity behind the SAVE Act. The Heritage Foundation estimates a mere twenty-four instances of noncitizen voting since 2003, making the issue of noncitizen voting close to nonexistent and therefore problematic in its pursuit of heavy provision. Johnson’s plan faced heavy backlash from Democrats— President Biden promised a veto if the bill landed on his desk—and was never introduced.
At present, President Biden has proposed a $7.3 trillion budget. President Biden’s proposal expanded Medicare negotiations from FY2024 to 75% of the budget and reinstated the Child Tax Credit. $5.7 of the $7.3 trillion budget is mandatory, while the remaining $1.6 trillion is discretionary (agenda-focused) spending. Altogether, President Biden’s FY2025 proposal projects a deficit of $1.8 trillion, a 38% increase from FY2024. However, this proposal is highly unlikely to pass Congress, due to its target of increased taxes on corporations and high-income individuals— an estimated additional $5 trillion. The president’s budget faces significant political opposition in the Republican controlled House for its taxation Additionally, such vast Medicare focus is naturally in misalignment with Republican policies, making it ever more unlikely to pass the House. The fate of the budget lies entirely in Congress, making it necessary for the two to reach an agreement. When the House and Senate are divided, the implementation of a budget is bound to be immensely challenging.
Another factor in considering the FY2025 budget is the election year on which it lands. Transferring executive power with a set federal budget already generates many conflicts. By postponing the new federal budget into a new office, a future President’s agenda may or may not be construed significantly, leading to an inability to perform promised tasks. When a president is unable to perform said tasks by the restriction of their budget, the contrast of fiscal proposals loses the integrity and trust of citizens. Essentially, the best-case scenario of FY2025’s decision is that the policy platform of the elected is flexible around the signed budget. The federal budget allocation in relation to the future president’s party alignment status is detrimental to the political climate of the upcoming Presidential office term.
As national debt and interest payments rise, so do fiscal concerns. As of now, President Biden’s FY2025 budget proposal likely will die in the House. This does not mean the budget will face major change, but rather be compromised to that of a bipartisan degree in order to (a) pass the House, and (b) ensure the peace and order of 2025’s political state, despite the President-elect.
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fy-2025-budget-in-brief.pdf
