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
Most Popular