The deadline for funding the government is approaching fast

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your Inbox.

MEANWHILE, THERE’S A BIG FUNDING DEADLINE

By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent

Let us set impeachment aside for a moment. (Especially as we are already emailing three times this week on that topic in our Impeachment Brief.) There is other news. Funding for nearly all government agencies is due to run out at the end of the day Thursday. Here’s where things stand on that and, more importantly, what it means:

There is a plan!
The House of Representatives today passed a bill to fund the government through Dec. 20, but it was not an easy sell. The measure passed with 231 votes-- just 13 more than needed. It next moves to the Senate, where, the Senate will likely take a final vote on the deal on Thursday, just hours ahead of the deadline, according to senior aides there. Despite the tight timeline, both House and Senate sources tell NewsHour that there is no concern; everyone believes funding will be continued.

The POTUS Factor
A few are leaving wiggle room for the remaining “X factor” - President Donald Trump. When a deadline for government funding was approaching last year, the president’s opposition to a basic, short-term deal directly triggered a shutdown.

Then there’s December 20
Looking ahead, the December 20 date brings its own dynamics.

That week is widely expected to be one during which House Democrats could be moving on impeachment on the House floor.
It is one day after a Democratic presidential debate.
Don’t forget it will be nearing the end of the year, and both parties will likely want to get home for the holidays.

So why is there a funding issue to begin with?
That’s the right question. (Says the reporter who wrote this story and asked it.)

This kind of funding is called “discretionary funding” because Congress controls it and can spend it at its discretion. It does not include funding that is set by mandatory formulas, like Social Security. Discretionary spending is supposed to be worked out by Congress through a year-long appropriations process and a series of carefully-thought-out (or at least somewhat-thought-out) bills by September 30.

But in modern politics, full appropriations bills are rarely passed on time. Since 1977, it has actually only happened four times. There are a few reasons for this. One is that the funding process has become a magnet for the most controversial issues in government, from abortion in the 1980s to immigration now. Lawmakers routinely attempt to force through divisive policies by threatening or carrying out a shutdown. That gamble almost never pays off. And often the party forcing the shutdown pays in polling numbers.

But nonetheless, the kick-the-can process still continues, in some part because gridlock and the hollowing out of the ranks of moderates in Washington has meant there are more lawmakers with passionate, sometimes controversial beliefs.

Among the many problems with this way of doing things, it encourages increasing deficits as if they are automatic parts of the process. And it regularly leaves many government agencies in difficult situations, unable to plan ahead or spend efficiently.

Stay tuned. Because appropriations bills do take time, and there is wide skepticism that Congress will have enough time to put together proper funding bills by the end of December.

Which means, potentially, we will be back here looking at another temporary funding bill.

FIVE OVERLOOKED POLITICAL STORIES FROM THE PAST WEEK
By Alex D’Elia, @AlexDEliaNews
Politics production assistant

Woman who threw drink at Rep. Gaetz sentenced to jail -- Nov. 19. A woman who threw a drink at the congressman as he left an event will spend 15 days in federal custody after pleading guilty to assault on a member of Congress. Gaetz had requested she serve some time. Why it matters: The congressman views the sentencing as a statement on whether or not violence over political disagreement will be tolerated. -- Pensacola News Journal

State Department staffer resigns after allegations she inflated her resume -- Nov. 18. Mina Chang resigned after an NBC News report accused her of overstating her academic credentials. Why it matters: In her resignation letter, Chang emphasizes a lack of support from the State Department superiors -- a trend that has been prevalent throughout the impeachment proceedings. -- POLITICO

Muncie Mayor Dennis Tyler charged with theft of government funds -- Nov. 18. Arrested by FBI agents at his home on Monday, the mayor has been accused of accepting a $5,000 bribe. Why it matters: The mayor is the seventh individual to face charges since federal authorities began investigating corruption in Muncie, Indiana nearly four years ago. -- Indy Star

To lower costs, Trump to force hospitals to reveal price of care -- Nov. 15. The federal rule -- set to take effect in 2021 -- would require hospitals to reveal the prices they negotiate with insurance companies, allowing patients to shop around for options. Why it matters: The move highlights the administration's push to increase transparency between health care markets and patients. -- The New York Times

The complicated politics of vaping -- Nov. 18. The president has done a 180 on his September announcement to ban flavored vaping. Why it matters: Political polling is reported to have played a role in the president’s decision. -- The Washington Post

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Kate Grumke, @KGrumke
Politics producer

On this day in 1998, another important public impeachment hearing happened. Independent counsel Ken Starr testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Our question: How much time passed between Ken Starr’s testimony and the Hhouse approving articles of impeachment against Clinton?

Send your answers to [email protected] or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Here at Here’s the Deal, we’ve got impeachment on the mind. The process isn’t just for presidents -- Samuel Chase holds the distinction of being the only Supreme Court justice to ever face impeachment, though he survived the attempt to remove him. The third article against him accused him of promoting a political agenda, by “tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan.”

Our two-part question: What was Samuel Chase’s party and what party controlled the Senate at the time? Chase was a federalist and the Jeffersonian Democrats controlled the Senate.

Congratulations to our winners: Barry A. Weinstein!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your Inbox next week.