SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
continuing resolution
Shutdown 101: Why It's Continuing and What's at Stake
It appears the shutdown will continue until there is a major reversal of positions by one side or other. In the Democrats’ case, it would mean giving up any leverage they have on spending.
Oct 21, 2025
Since there is a lot of confusion surrounding the shutdown, I thought it would be useful to go over some of the main points as I understand them. I will not pretend this is a comprehensive account, but there are some issues that are reasonably clear.
First, when Republicans claim that they are proposing a “clean” continuing resolution, they are ignoring a trillion-pound elephant in the room. In the past, when Congress passed a continuing resolution, it meant that the money appropriated in the resolution would be spent on the designated items. Under President Donald Trump, this is no longer true.
Trump has decided that because he was elected with a huge mandate (almost as large as Hillary Clinton’s in 2016) normal rules don’t apply to him. He has decided to unilaterally refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress.
He has done this through two routes. The first is through the recission process. Under this process, Congress can vote to reverse appropriations that were made in prior spending bills. Under the rules of the Senate, a recission bill cannot be filibustered so it can pass with just 50 votes. This was the process that Trump used to eliminate much of the foreign aid budget, as well as funding for public broadcasting.
If there is no commitment not to reverse appropriations through recission, and to prevent Trump from doing pocket recissions, Democrats cannot prevent any item in the continuing resolution from being subsequently cut.
The use of the recission process strips the Democrats of the filibuster power they hold with normal appropriations. The process had rarely been used in prior decades because it effectively means undermining the deals that were made to get an earlier budget bill approved.
But the situation gets even worse with the newly invented “pocket recission.” With a pocket recission, Trump effectively just refuses to spend appropriated money and then tells Congress towards the end of the fiscal year, “What do you know, I never got around to spending the money you appropriated in this or that area.” Congress never gets a chance to vote since the fiscal year is reaching its conclusion. It would have to reappropriate new money in the next fiscal year if it wanted the money to be spent.
In the old days, this pocket recission likely would have been ruled unconstitutional, since it makes a mockery of Congress’ power to spend, but it’s not clear what this Supreme Court would say. At this point, Trump has gotten away with pocket recissions covering several billion dollars of spending. There is certainly no guarantee that he will not do pocket recissions again in the new fiscal year.
Trump’s recent decisions to “cancel” items like a train tunnel between New York and New Jersey would also fit into this category of pocket recission. The possibility of a pocket recission means that any deal on spending with Trump is pointless, since any time he gets angry about something he can totally ignore his commitment, sort of like his trade deals.
This is why it is disingenuous to say that what the Republicans are offering is a “clean” continuing resolution. If there is no commitment not to reverse appropriations through recission, and to prevent Trump from doing pocket recissions, Democrats cannot prevent any item in the continuing resolution from being subsequently cut. This means that they effectively have no control over the budget once the continuing resolution is approved.
The treatment and rules on recissions would ordinarily be the sort of thing that would be negotiated prior to the approval of a continuing resolution, but there were no negotiations. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent the House home shortly after July 4, in large part to avoid any vote on releasing the Epstein files, and Trump ordered Republican senators not to negotiate. There was only one negotiating session involving the congressional leaders and Trump one day before the end of the fiscal year. When no agreement was reached, we got the shutdown.
The Republicans had obviously prepared for the shutdown. They immediately started screaming about how the shutdown was because Democrats wanted to spend trillions providing Obamacare to “illegals.” They knew this was a lie but apparently hoped they could sell it anyhow. (Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for healthcare coverage, except through a Reagan-era law requiring that emergency rooms treat anyone in need of care. This obviously is not the issue, since Republicans have not even proposed repealing this law.)
It seems they have mostly given up on the lie, which Speaker Johnson bizarrely claimed to have in writing, and instead are harping on how Obamacare has been a disastrous failure. This also flies in the face of reality. The share of the population that is uninsured fell from 18% in 2010 to around 8% at present.
More importantly, the ACA ended the ability of insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. In the pre-ACA insurance market, people with serious health conditions, like cancer or heart disease, would have to pay ridiculous prices for insurance, or were unable to get coverage at all. The ACA changed this, requiring that all people within an age group were charged the same.
This change is a huge deal not only for the people who directly benefit by now being able to get affordable insurance, but really the entire pre-Medicare age population. In the pre-ACA world, most of the working age population got insurance through their employer. This meant that even people with serious health issues could get insurance in their employers’ pool.
But if a heart attack or some other health problem prevented them from working, they would be forced to get individual insurance as a person with a serious health condition. The ACA effectively provides insurance that people can get insurance.
The ACA also sharply slowed healthcare cost-growth. The cost of Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid in the years since the ACA passed came in far below projections. The Republicans are obviously hoping that people either do not remember or do not know about the state of the insurance market before the ACA. Few who do would want to go back to that world.
The other game that Republicans are playing is the claim that they would be happy to negotiate, once the Democrats pass the continuing resolution. This is a silly game, since there is zero reason to expect Republicans to negotiate in good faith, once the Democrats have no leverage. They had all summer and September to negotiate but refused to do so.
In fact, there is absolutely no reason they can’t negotiate now. In prior shutdowns both parties had no problem carrying on negotiations. Trump himself even negotiated in the 2019 shutdown, the longest in history. If there is some principle about not negotiating during a shutdown, the Republicans have just invented it now.
Anyhow, it appears the shutdown will continue until there is a major reversal of positions by one side or other. In the Democrats’ case, it would mean giving up any leverage they have on spending. In the Republicans’ case, it would mean agreeing to negotiate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In the Ongoing Billionaire Heist, Schumer and Fetterman Are Driving the Getaway Car
While the senators claim to be fighting for the working class, their actions—like voting for a government funding bill that slashes social spending while protecting corporate interests—show they’re more focused on keeping the machine running than fixing what’s broken.
Mar 18, 2025
Let’s discuss something happening under our noses: The middle class is disappearing.
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) teamed up with Republicans to pass a government funding bill. If you ask them, they’ll say, “We did this to save American workers!”
But, if they cared about American workers, they wouldn’t have cut $13 billion from healthcare, education, and infrastructure while adding $6 billion to defense. Unless the average American is now classified as a fighter jet, that extra money isn’t going to help you.
So the next time a politician tells you they’re fighting for you, ask them: What are they doing to take wealth and power away from the billionaire class?
And that’s the problem. Over and over, we’re told that these decisions are in our best interest. Yet somehow, the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us are left with higher bills, lower wages, and a government that never seems to have money for schools or healthcare—but always has billions for bombs.
Why? Because the billionaires at the top have turned the economy into a giant vacuum—and guess what? It’s sucking up everything you own.
Here’s the kicker: Most people don’t even realize it’s happening. Things cost more. Your savings may be shrinking. But you still have food on the table, so it doesn’t feel like a crisis—yet.
Seniors notice it first—property taxes and school taxes. Their fixed income isn’t stretching as far, so they complain about taxes because they assume the government can do nothing about rising prices but can lower taxes.
Younger people? They know something is off, but they’ve been told to blame immigrants. ”They’re buying up your homes! They’re driving up rent!” That’s exactly what the rich want you to believe—because as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’re not paying attention to the people rigging the system.
Are we going to fall for it again? Or are we going to start paying attention?
While Schumer and Fetterman claim to be fighting for the working class, their actions—like voting for a government funding bill that slashes social spending while protecting corporate interests—show they’re more focused on keeping the machine running than fixing what’s broken.
What’s broken? The fact that wealth isn’t disappearing—it’s just being moved.
The Pandemic Was Among the Biggest Wealth Transfers in History—And You Paid for It
It started how these things always begin: with regular people getting squeezed. Offices shut down. Businesses closed. Millions of people were laid off overnight. Rent was still due, bills kept coming, and suddenly, survival wasn’t just about avoiding a virus—it was about making it to the next month without losing everything.
Meanwhile, something very different happened in a parallel universe occupied by the world’s wealthiest men. In just two years, the 10 richest men on the planet doubled their net worth—going from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion. That’s an extra $15,000 per second. Not for doing anything new. Not for inventing anything, building anything, or working harder than anyone else.
At the same time, 160 million people fell into poverty. That’s roughly half the U.S. population—wiped out financially while the wealthiest men on Earth raked in $1 trillion.
This wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t a glitch in the system. It was the system. The pandemic proved that the real money isn’t in work; it isn’t in clocking in early and staying late. It’s in ownership. If you have read Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Robert Kiyosaki tried to teach us this; the rich listened.
Billionaires became more prosperous by owning companies that laid people off, raising prices, and cashing in on government bailouts. They owned the companies from which we bought food, mortgages, and electricity. The system isn’t designed to reward labor but to reward the people who profit from it.
Trillions of dollars in stimulus money flooded the market. Some of it went to everyday people, but most of it—directly or indirectly—ended up in the pockets of those who already had more money than they could ever spend. And just like that, the most significant wealth transfer in modern history was complete.
Your Wealth Didn’t Vanish—It Was Transferred Upward
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the government injected massive cash into the economy to prevent total collapse. And let’s be clear—that was the right move. Despite all the hand-wringing about inflation on the news, people needed money to survive.
But then, when workers didn’t immediately rush back to low-paying jobs, the rich threw a tantrum. Suddenly, they claimed that the government had “overstimulated” the economy—suggesting that people were so flush with cash that they just decided to stop working.
You’re not struggling because of bad luck or bad budgeting. You’re struggling because the rich own everything—and they’re making sure you own nothing.
Like most economic takes from the ultra-wealthy, this was a complete lie. Yes, increasing the money supply can contribute to inflation, but this kind of inflation is easy to manage. You can pull money back out of the economy through taxation or adjustments to monetary policy. The real problem wasn’t too much money—it was that, for once, regular people had a tiny bit of breathing room, and billionaires didn’t like it.
Here’s how they pulled off the biggest wealth heist in modern history:
We Pay Them for Everything
The rich don’t make money by working. They make money because they own everything, and because they own everything, we’re forced to pay them for everything.
- They own our homes → We pay rent.
- They own the businesses where we shop → We pay for goods and services.
- They own the farms and energy companies → We pay them every time we eat or turn on the lights.
- They own the banks → We pay them interest when we borrow money.
They Raise Prices—Because They Can
Now, here’s where it gets worse. Since they own everything, they set the prices. And what do they do? Raise them.
- Housing is unaffordable. That’s because investors buy homes and turn them into overpriced rentals.
- Grocery prices are ridiculous. That’s because big corporations own the farms, the processing plants, and the grocery chains.
- Energy bills keep rising. That’s because the same handful of companies own the power plants, oil refineries, and gas pipelines.
And when everything gets more expensive, what do we do? We pay them more, and now they have us blaming immigrants.
They Loan Us Money—And Make Us Pay Them Back With Interest
Since prices are rising faster than wages, most people can’t keep up. But instead of fixing the problem, the rich found another way to profit: debt.
- Can’t afford a home? Here, take out a mortgage—and pay them interest for 30 years.
- Struggling with everyday expenses? Just put it on a credit card—and pay them interest forever.
- Want to get an education? Take out student loans—and keep paying them long after you graduate.
So, we pay them for necessities, and when we can’t afford those things, we borrow from them—and pay them even more in interest.
The End Result?
Every year, the rich own more because they’re constantly collecting our money. Every year, we own less because we’re constantly paying them for necessities. And it gets worse. The more money they collect, the more they buy up assets—houses, land, businesses—making it even harder for the rest of us to catch up.
Schumer and Fetterman Just Helped Keep This Rigged System in Place
So why does this all matter? Because instead of addressing these problems, our leaders keep making them worse. Schumer and Fetterman’s latest vote shows exactly where their priorities are. They passed a funding bill that keeps the government running but at the cost of cutting billions from social programs. Meanwhile, defense spending—where corporations and wealthy investors make billions in profits—keeps growing.
It’s Time to Face the Truth
You’re not struggling because of bad luck or bad budgeting. You’re struggling because the rich own everything—and they’re making sure you own nothing. And as long as our leaders keep protecting them, things will only worsen.
So the next time a politician tells you they’re fighting for you, ask them: What are they doing to take wealth and power away from the billionaire class?
And let’s be clear—Chuck Schumer is not the leader we need right now. Under his watch, Democrats failed to deliver real economic relief, leaving millions frustrated enough to turn to President Donald Trump. Under his leadership, the party keeps acting like taking the high road will somehow fix a rigged system. It won’t.
It’s time to fight back. And that starts with demanding new leadership—because Schumer has already shown us whose side he’s on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Schumer Should Resign Now
At this critical inflection point for democracy, America cannot afford a rudderless resistance from a compromised leader.
Mar 17, 2025
Maybe Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer was correct.
Maybe it was more important for him to align himself with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and congressional Republicans than to resist them with one of the few weapons that Democrats possess—the Senate filibuster.
Maybe calling the Republicans’ bluff to shut down the government would have been worse than the pain that Trump, Musk, and their allies continue to inflict on the nation and the world.
Or maybe Schumer just blew it.
Rather than walk the confident path of a leader, Schumer’s missteps undermined his future effectiveness and empowered Trump, Musk, and MAGA Republicans.
We’ll never know, but it doesn’t matter. Regardless of his ultimate rationale, Chuck Schumer failed a critical test of leadership and should resign as minority leader.
Hanging on Too Long
Age isn’t the reason that Schumer should step aside, but it’s a contributing factor. At 74, he’s one of the youngest of an aging old guard. Like his elderly colleagues, he had to sacrifice a lot personally to reach the heights that he now enjoys. The allure of power and prestige causes too many leaders across numerous professions to hang on too long.
The phenomenon is pervasive in politics. But eventually reality becomes painfully obvious. For President Joseph Biden Jr., it was a disastrous debate performance; for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), it was periodic public “freezes” as news cameras rolled; for the late Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), it was humiliating physical and mental deterioration.
For Chuck Schumer, it was his confusing rhetorical journey to a vote that intensified the GOP’s grip on the nation and made the Democratic party complicit in their destructive agenda. Rather than walk the confident path of a leader, Schumer’s missteps undermined his future effectiveness and empowered Trump, Musk, and MAGA Republicans.
At this critical inflection point for democracy, America cannot afford a rudderless resistance from a compromised leader.
From Vocal Opponent…
With the barest of majorities and nearly unanimous Democratic opposition, House Republicans passed a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government open for the next six months. But overcoming the 60-vote threshold necessary to end a Democratic filibuster in the Senate required the support of eight Democrats. (Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had announced that he would not vote with his fellow 52 Republicans to support the resolution.)
As minority leader, it’s not Schumer’s job to govern. His responsibility is to lead the opposition, especially in the rare situations where the Democratic minority holds even a modicum of leverage. Controlling the votes needed to break a Senate filibuster provided such leverage.
At first, Schumer performed his role. Shortly after the House approved the CR, he announced that Democrats would insist on limiting it to 30 days—through April 11—rather than the six months that House Republicans had approved:
Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort, but Republicans chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input—any input—from congressional Democrats. Because of that, Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the House CR…
Schumer added, “Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass.”
So far, so good. That was March 12.
To Apologetic Supporter…
The next day, Schumer reversed course and said that he would vote with Republicans. Rather than lead fellow Democrats in the Senate, he also said that they were on their own. In the end, nine Democrats joined him in supporting the GOP’s resolution.
But it’s not merely the debatable wisdom of Schumer’s final vote that renders him incapable of leading Senate Democrats from here. His public journey and feeble rationale are his undoing.
Schumer’s op-ed in The New York Times offered an elaborate rationale for the final decision:
- “[A] shutdown would give Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk permission to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now.” Schumer said that It would give them the ability to declare vast swaths of the government “non-essential” and close them until the budget impasse broke.
But it’s difficult to see how Musk and his team could operate more quickly or more ferociously to destroy the federal workforce.
- “[C]ongressional Republicans could weaponize their majorities to cherry-pick which parts of government to reopen.”
But congressional Republicans have ceded their constitutional responsibilities to Trump and Musk. Weaponization began on Inauguration Day.
- “[S]hutdowns mean real pain for American families.”
But the Trump/Musk agenda is already inflicting “real pain” on a massive scale.
- “[A] shutdown would be the best distraction Donald Trump could ask for from his awful agenda.”
But if Trump and Musk tried to blame Democrats for a shutdown, the Democrats’ rebuttal is simple: Republicans control the entire government. Instead, he gave Republicans a new talking point: Democrats joined Republicans in bipartisan approval of the CR.
More pointedly, Schumer’s stated reasons for supporting the CR also existed 24 hours earlier, when he announced his unqualified opposition to it.
To Incriminating Explanations of His Reversal
During an interview after the vote, Schumer tried to justify his flip-flop.
- He said that he didn’t expect the resolution to pass the House and reach the Senate.
That reveals a lack of foresight and planning.
- He said that his initial opposition was a negotiating tactic aimed at giving Democrats maximum leverage in their fight against the legislation.
That reflects a lack of judgment and the absence of negotiation skills.
- He said that he “hoped” they could negotiate with Republicans to get a 30-day extension, rather than the 90 days in the House’s CR.
That suggests a strategy that is no strategy at all: hope.
And Schumer remains blind to the reality surrounding him:
I think the whole Democratic Party is united on what I mentioned in the earlier broadcast, showing how bad Trump is in every way… We’re succeeding.
United? Succeeding? On the same day that the Times published Schumer’s interview, a national poll showed that the Democratic Party’s favorability rating had dropped to an all-time low: 29%. Even among Democrats, the party’s approval rating is below 50%.
And that was before nine Senate Democrats supported the Republicans’ CR. It was a Trump-Musk-GOP win for which Trump congratulated Schumer:
Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing—Took “guts” and courage! The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights.
Maybe Trump’s praise will be Schumer’s kiss of death as minority leader.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tell Your Senators: Don’t Give Trump and Musk a Blank Check to Continue Their Pillage
Why should any member of Congress vote in favor of a continuing resolution to fund government services that are no longer continuing?
Mar 12, 2025
Yesterday, the U.S. House passed legislation to fund the government through September 30 and thereby avert a shutdown at the end of this week.
The measure now goes to the Senate, where Democrats must decide whether to support it and thereby hand President Donald Trump and Elon Musk a blank check to continue their assault on the federal government.
The House bill would keep last year’s spending levels largely flat but would increase spending for the military by $6 billion and cut more than $1 billion from the District of Columbia’s budget.
Today’s real choice is between a continuing resolution that gives Trump and Musk free rein to decide what government services they want to continue and what services they want to shut down—or demanding that Trump and Musk stop usurping the power of Congress, as a condition for keeping the government funded.
In normal times, I recommend that Democrats vote for continuing budget resolutions because Democrats support the vital services that the government provides to the American people—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans services, education, the Food and Drug Administration, environmental protection, and much else.
In normal times, Democrats want to keep the government open.
In normal times, Democrats would be wrong to vote against a continuing resolution that caused the government to shut down.
But these are not normal times.
The president of the United States and the richest person in the world are already shutting the government down. They have effectively closed USAID and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. They have sent half the personnel of the Department of Education packing. They are eliminating Environmental Protection Agency offices responsible for addressing high levels of pollution facing poor communities.
They are usurping from Congress the power of the purse—the power to decide what services are to be funded and received by the American people—and are arrogating that power to themselves.
In 1996, when I was in then-President Bill Clinton’s cabinet, we opposed Newt Gingrich’s budget bullying. We also understood that Gingrich’s demands would seriously cripple the federal government. So Bill Clinton refused to go along with Gingrich’s budget resolution, and the government was shuttered for four long painful weeks..
Today’s situation is far worse. Trump and Musk aren’t just making demands that would cripple the federal government. They are directly crippling the federal government.
Why should any member of Congress vote in favor of a continuing resolution to fund government services that are no longer continuing?
Why should any member of Congress vote to give Trump and Musk a trillion dollars and then let them decide how to spend it—or not spend it?
Why should Congress give Trump and Musk a blank check to continue their pillage?
The real choice congressional Democrats face today is not between a continuing resolution that allows the government to function normally or a government shutdown. Under Trump and Musk, the government is not functioning normally. It is not continuing. It is already shutting down.
Today’s real choice is between a continuing resolution that gives Trump and Musk free rein to decide what government services they want to continue and what services they want to shut down—or demanding that Trump and Musk stop usurping the power of Congress, as a condition for keeping the government funded.
Trump, Musk, and the rest of their regime have made it clear that they don’t care what Congress or the courts say. They are acting unconstitutionally. They are actively destroying our system of government.
The spineless Republicans will not say this publicly. So Democrats must—and Democrats must insist on budget language that holds Trump and Musk accountable.
The House’s Republican-drafted budget resolution isn’t contingent on Trump observing existing laws. It does not instruct the president to stop Musk from riding roughshod over the federal government. It doesn’t tell the president and his cabinet to spend the money Congress intended to be spent.
Members of Trump’s team are already saying that if a continuing resolution is passed they will not observe laws that Congress has enacted and will not spend funds that Congress has authorized and appropriated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, says that even if the State Department is fully funded, he will void 83% of the contracts authorized for USAID.
Senate Democrats are needed to obtain 60 votes needed to pass the House’s continuing budget resolution through the Senate. But there is no point in Democrats voting to fund the government only to let Trump and Musk do whatever they see fit with those funds.
Senate Democrats have an opportunity to stop Trump and Musk from their illegal and unconstitutional shutting of the government. Democrats should say they’ll vote for the continuing budget resolution to keep the government going only if Trump agrees to abide by the law and keep the government going—fully funding the services that Congress intends to be fully funded and stop the pillaging.
If Democrats set out this condition clearly but Trump won’t agree, the consequences will be on Trump and the Republicans. They run the government now. They are the ones who are engaging in, or are complicit in, the wanton destruction now taking place.
This is an opportunity for the public to learn what Trump and Musk are doing, and why it’s illegal and unconstitutional.
In 1996, when Bill Clinton refused to go along with Newt Gingrich’s plan to cripple the federal government, causing the government to shut down for a month, Clinton wasn’t blamed. Gingrich was blamed.
If you live in a state with a Democratic senator, please phone them right now and tell them not to vote for the continuing resolution that gives Trump and Musk free rein to continue shutting the government. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Needs to Call Their Dem Senator Right Now' to Stop Republican Funding Disaster
"There is a very serious danger that Senate Democrats are on the verge of folding," said the leader of one progressive advocacy group.
Mar 12, 2025
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and grassroots organizers were among those urging Americans to call their Democratic senators on Wednesday and demand that they vote against a Republican funding bill that would bolster the Trump administration's assault on the federal government and working-class families.
"Everyone needs to call their Dem senator right now. They are starting to cave," Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) warned in a social media post, alluding to comments from some Senate Democrats indicating that they could support the government funding package that Republicans rammed through the House on Tuesday.
"It should be very clear to every Senate Democrat that any vote for cloture will also be considered a vote for the bill," she added, referring to the process of ending debate on legislation. According to Punchbowl, one unnamed Democratic senator suggested a group of Democrats could vote with Republicans to end debate, which would mean the bill needs just a simple majority—and only GOP votes—to pass.
"People aren't going to be tricked with procedural games," Ocasio-Cortez wrote. "They know exactly what is going on. Defend Medicaid. Vote NO on cloture. NO on bill."
People wanting to call their senators can use the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Democratic senators who are undecided on the funding package, according to one tally, include Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats, has also not said which way he will vote, calling it a "very tough choice."
🚨 Everyone needs to call their Dem Senator right now. They are starting to cave. Tell them: 1. Vote NO on Cloture AND 2. Vote NO on the Republican spending bill. Don’t let them pivot to reconciliation. GOP doesn’t need Dem votes on that and they know it. TODAY is the showdown. 🤳🏽: (202) 224-3121
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc.bsky.social) March 12, 2025 at 10:19 AM
Senate Republicans will likely need at least eight Democrats to support the six-month funding measure, which calls for $13 billion in cuts to non-military spending and a $6 billion increase in military outlays. Opponents of the bill say the package would effectively create a "slush fund" for President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk by giving them wide discretion on how the approved funding is spent, while also attacking critical programs.
"To be clear, this isn't a 'clean' continuing resolution that would keep the government open while they negotiate, it's a slush fund that gives Trump and Elon Musk even more power over federal spending. Instead of trying to rein in the Trump and Musk power grab, this CR legitimizes it," said the progressive advocacy group Indivisible, which is imploring Americans to call undecided Democratic senators immediately.
Leah Greenberg, the group's co-executive director, wrote on social media that she is "hearing from sources that there is a very serious danger that Senate Democrats are on the verge of folding on the MAGA CR & giving up their leverage on the budget."
"The whispers we're hearing that key votes might fold are a huge red flag," Greenberg wrote. "Call NOW."
Indivisible is specifically demanding that Senate Democrats "use their leverage"—the threat of a government shutdown—to secure a bill that both "rejects extreme funding cuts and MAGA poison pills attacking abortion rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and immigrant communities" and "includes real, ironclad protections to stop Trump and Musk from hijacking federal spending."
"Until Republicans agree to these terms, Democrats must not support anything beyond a clean, two-week continuing resolution—keeping the government open without giving Trump and Musk a blank check," the group said.
"Business as usual must not continue. We call on you to withhold all votes for any spending bill until this stops."
The government will shut down at midnight on Friday if Congress doesn't pass funding legislation. Democratic appropriators have introduced an alternative measure that would keep the government funded at current levels for another month to give Congress additional time to negotiate full-year spending bills, but it's unlikely that Republicans—who narrowly control both chambers—would support it.
But some Senate Democrats appear willing to back the Republican bill.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has already committed to voting yes, and others have signaled that they're open to supporting it. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is reportedly taking a "neutral position" with his caucus, declining to advise members to vote one way or the other.
Citing an unnamed Senate aide, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that "some Democratic senators are 'furious' at Schumer for not having a strategy and message to counter the House Republican bill."
In a letter to Schumer and the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus on Wednesday, a coalition of nearly 150 advocacy groups urged the minority party to "stand strong in the fight to protect the federal government from an unprecedented assault."
"If Democrats do not stand up to Musk and Trump, they will continue to escalate their aggressive and illegal dismantling of key government functions, and they will keep illegally ignoring Congress," the groups wrote. "In light of this unprecedented assault on the government, business as usual must not continue. We call on you to withhold all votes for any spending bill until this stops."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'True Ebenezer Scrooge Stuff': Final Spending Bill Omitted SNAP Theft Protections
"Ending the process to replace stolen benefits for victims will also make it more difficult to track and stop the individuals behind these crimes, because fewer people will report the crime," wrote one food assistance advocate.
Dec 24, 2024
Congressional budget watchers concerned with food insecurity are lamenting the loss of a provision impacting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the final spending deal Congress passed Saturday, which very narrowly averted a government shutdown. The measure is a continuing resolution that will keep the government funded through mid-March at current levels, and includes funding for a few select priorities, like disaster relief.
The final bill did not extend protections for victims of SNAP benefit theft after it was axed from an original spending deal—a move that Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, called "true Ebenezer Scrooge stuff." Kogan laid blame at the feet of billionaire Elon Musk, who whipped up opposition to the earlier, bipartisan version of the spending deal.
Under the original deal, the SNAP benefit theft protections would have been continued for another four years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
SNAP benefits, a far-reaching social program that helps low-income Americans buy groceries, is vulnerable to theft through "skimming"—a practice where thieves can take advantage of the relatively low security on SNAP EBT cards by hiding devices in payment machines that allow them to clone card information, including users' PINs.
"Today, I'm thinking about the low-income families across the country who are about to discover that the SNAP benefits they were counting on to buy groceries were stolen after 11:59 pm last night—and who no longer have a way to get those benefits replaced because of this decision," wrote Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst on the food assistance team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, on Saturday.
Congress approved federal funding for states to reimburse the stolen benefits in 2022. A couple of states reinstate skimmed SNAP funds using state money, according to NBC. Federal funds have so far replaced $53.5 million in stolen SNAP benefits, a dollar amount that has impacted 115,596 households, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"Ending the process to replace stolen benefits for victims will also make it more difficult to track and stop the individuals behind these crimes, because fewer people will report the crime," wrote Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in a statement Monday.
Cox said that omitting this protection will lessen SNAP benefits by roughly $1.5 billion over the next ten years, citing Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Looming Government Shutdown a 'Terrifying Preview' of Trump and DOGE
"Nothing like a couple billionaires wreaking havoc on working families right before the holidays," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
Dec 18, 2024
U.S. President Trump and his allies, including billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, are blowing up bipartisan efforts to prevent a government shutdown that could begin this weekend with statements opposing a proposed stopgap measure.
"Currently reading the 1,547-page bill to fund the government through mid-March. Expecting every U.S. congressman and senator to do the same," Ramaswamy posted on Musk's social media platform X late Tuesday. Trump has asked the two billionaires to co-lead the forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which they have said will pursue massive cuts to federal regulations and spending.
Musk responded to Ramaswamy early Wednesday, asserting that "this bill should not pass," a sentiment he repeated in several posts throughout the day, as the clock ticked closer to the Friday night deadline set by September legislation.
Ramaswamy also came out against the continuing resolution (CR) Wednesday morning, declaring that a "debt-fueled spending sprees may 'feel good' today, but it's like showering cocaine on an addict." He blasted various provisions, including $100 billion in disaster relief needed after hurricanes as well as funding to renew the Farm Bill for a year, replace the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and raise federal lawmakers' pay.
Donald Trump Jr. then weighed in, taking issue with a provision about subpoenas for U.S. House of Representatives data.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends" Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that he was on a text message thread with Ramaswamy and Musk, claimed that "they understand the situation," and suggested he convinced them that the CR must pass.
However, later Wednesday, the president-elect and Vice President-elect JD Vance—who still represents Ohio in the Senate—released a lengthy statement opposing the CR and calling out specific policies, including the subpoena provision and the pay hike for lawmakers.
Trump and Vance—who are set to take over for Democratic President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris next month—also argued that "the most foolish and inept thing ever done by congressional Republicans was allowing our country to hit the debt ceiling in 2025. It was a mistake and is now something that must be addressed."
"Increasing the debt ceiling is not great but we'd rather do it on Biden's watch," the incoming Republican leaders said. "If Democrats won't cooperate on the debt ceiling now, what makes anyone think they would do it in June during our administration?"
"Republicans want to support our farmers, pay for disaster relief, and set our country up for success in 2025," they claimed. "The only way to do that is with a temporary funding bill WITHOUT DEMOCRAT GIVEAWAYS combined with an increase in the debt ceiling. Anything else is a betrayal of our country."
Trump echoed that point in a series of posts on his platform Truth Social, saying that "if Republicans try to pass a clean Continuing Resolution without all of the Democrat 'bells and whistles' that will be so destructive to our Country, all it will do, after January 20th, is bring the mess of the Debt Limit into the Trump Administration, rather than allowing it to take place in the Biden Administration."
"Any Republican that would be so stupid as to do this should, and will, be Primaried," Trump added. "Everything should be done, and fully negotiated, prior to my taking Office on January 20th, 2025."
Citing unnamed sources familiar with Johnson's thinking, outlets including The Hill and Politico reported Wednesday that the House speaker is now considering trying to pass a "clean" CR that would cut provisions such as disaster aid and economic assistance for farmers.
According to Politico, "As GOP members streamed into Johnson's office to pick up gifts and stop by an ironically timed Christmas party, they didn't voice enthusiasm for Trump's demands."
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a Wednesday statement that "Republicans need to stop playing politics with this bipartisan agreement or they will hurt hardworking Americans and create instability across the country."
"President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance ordered Republicans to shut down the government and they are threatening to do just that—while undermining communities recovering from disasters, farmers and ranchers, and community health centers," she continued. "Triggering a damaging government shutdown would hurt families who are gathering to meet with their loved ones and endanger the basic services Americans from veterans to Social Security recipients rely on. A deal is a deal. Republicans should keep their word."
Progressive leaders in Congress suggested that Trump's eleventh-hour statements on the CR were guided by his billionaire allies.
"Democrats and Republicans spent months negotiating a bipartisan agreement to fund our government," noted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "The richest man on Earth, President Elon Musk, doesn't like it. Will Republicans kiss the ring? Billionaires must not be allowed to run our government."
Also taking aim at Musk, Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) said that "an unelected billionaire was crowned co-president by the Republican Party. They've given him the influence to make a damn post that throws a spending bill into limbo cause House Republicans are scared of him. No greater example of oligarchy. Where the ultrawealthy run the show."
Outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) accused House Republicans of "bowing to Elon Musk and pushing us toward a shutdown," which would force active duty service members to work without pay, pause rent and food assistance, and cancel and delay flights right before major holidays.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) quipped: "'President-elect' Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump want to shut down the government. Nothing like a couple billionaires wreaking havoc on working families right before the holidays."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog Public Citizen, similarly said that "an unelected billionaire should not be allowed to shut down the government. Musk's temper tantrum this afternoon—and the speed at which Trump fell in line after being cornered—is a terrifying preview of what a Trump-Musk co-presidency will look like."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was also critical, saying: "House Republicans have been ordered to shut down the government. And hurt the working-class Americans they claim to support. You break the bipartisan agreement, you own the consequences that follow."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tied the anti-CR push to Republicans' ambitions to pass another round of tax cuts for the superrich.
"Remember what this is all about: Trump wants Democrats to agree to raise the debt ceiling so he can pass his massive corporate and billionaire tax cut without a problem," he said. "Shorter version: tax cut for billionaires or the government shuts down for Christmas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy