The Shutdown Blame Game: Why the Republican Argument Does Not Persuade Me PLUS My Modest Proposal to End the Impasse

The federal government shutdown is now entering its fifth day with no end in sight. The lines are clearly drawn. The Republicans demand that Democrats pass the Continuing Resolution (CR) to re-open the government for seven weeks. If the government does not re-open, no negotiations will take place over health care legislation. The Democrats want health care discussions to take place now before any re-opening of the government. These include: (1) the restoration of Obamacare subsidies that are due to end on December 31, 2025; and (2) the restoration of Medicaid, Medicare, and other benefits taken away by the “Big Beautiful Bill” legislation. Meanwhile, only “essential” workers are on the job. Non-essential workers are temporarily furloughed until the government is re-opened.

The Republicans blame the Democrats for the shutdown and Democrats blame the Republicans and President Trump. I freely acknowledge that neither I nor any human being can be 100% objective in our analysis regarding who is to blame, but I submit the following evidence for why the Republicans seem to be more guilty (the six national polls that have asked this question reveal that the American people blame Republicans more than Democrats for the shutdown by 15-20%).

Evidence:

The Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives, albeit by razor thin majorities). How can they blame the minority when they have all the control?
The Republicans did not include the Democrats in any discussions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” because they did not need to do so… EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT our governmental predecessors in their wisdom, required that sixty Senators must approve certain resolutions, including the one before the Senate now. This was to ensure broad, bipartisan support for our government and its spending of tax dollars. From the beginning, the Republicans were well aware of this 60 Senator rule. Even so, they made the choice not to be bipartisan and try to bully the Democrats into submission and acquiescence at the last moment. Republicans need to accept responsibility for their choice.
Republicans accuse Democrats of trying to get Medicare and Medicaid benefits for undocumented immigrants. Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving these benefits and there is no Democratic proposal to change the law. Therefore, this Republican accusation is a bald face lie. If justice were on the side of the Republicans, they would not need to resort to such obvious lies.
Project 2025 sketches out how the White House should “take advantage” of shutdowns to justify the illegal massive firing of federal workers, especially in Departments Trump does not like (ex. Education). He has also halted billions of dollars in funds (already approved by Congress) for projects in states run by Democrats (Illinois, New York and California). During his 2024 campaign, Trump denied any knowledge of Project 2025, because it was perceived by many Americans as being too extreme. Nevertheless, its chief architect, Russell Vought, served in the first Trump administration and is currently the Director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget. Trump is now fulfilling Project 2025 “to a Tee”. It seems quite clear that Candidate Trump lied to the American people regarding Project 2025. He does not lament the pain that the shutdown is causing. This was his plan.
President Trump claims the shutdown provides an “unprecedented opportunity” for him to hack away at pieces of the federal bureaucracy he does not like. It has also provided him with opportunities to try to ridicule his opponents (perhaps to get revenge for losing his Free Speech fight with Jimmy Kimmel). Trump posted an AI generated video in which he tried to ridicule Hakeem Jeffries with a Mexican sombrero and moustache. Trump was widely criticized by politicians from both sides of the aisle for this failed attempt at humor. Vice President Vance was asked for his opinion. He said he thought it was “funny” and that “the president’s joking and we’re having a good time”. The importance of the shutdown merits greater seriousness by the president who should perhaps leave the comedy to Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert.

My Modest Proposal To End the Impasse

Let’s now turn from who is to blame to how do we achieve a just end to the shutdown. On the surface, it looks like there is no fair way to end the shutdown. Republicans won’t negotiate health care while the government is closed and Democrats won’t open the government unless health care reforms take place first. Successful mediators know that leaders on both sides must be able to “save face” with their constituents. They must be able to point to some political victory for their base. A possible solution exists because the Democrat demands are two pronged: (1) the restoration of Obamacare subsidies; and (2) the restoration of Medicaid, Medicare, and other benefits taken away by the “Big Beautiful Bill” legislation. If the Democrats separate their demands into two packets, reasonable Republicans might agree with them. I propose that Democrats and Republicans negotiate NOW the restoration of Obamacare subsidies. This is less expensive than the Big Beautiful Bill legislation and is fairly easy to reach an agreement: just extend the “sunset” of the subsidies for one year until the end of 2026. If this is passed NOW, Democrats can THEN vote for the Continuing Resolution and end the shutdown, provided that Republicans agree to negotiate the BBB benefits during the next seven weeks.

Democrats could claim a victory in that they have restored the Obamacare subsidies and a (good faith) promise by the GOP to negotiate the BBB benefits. Republicans could also claim a victory in that they have re-opened the government, and that the major chunk of negotiations (the BBB benefits) will take place only after the shutdown is over.

How will the restoration of the Obamacare subsidies be paid for? I do not recommend raising the national debt! I do propose reducing the tax benefits for the very rich. Several months ago during the BBB discussions, even President Trump recommended this reduction. Will the adults in the room identify themselves and get the government back to work!

Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”: Are Republicans Gaining the Whole World of Wealthy Donors, but Losing Their Soul?

This past week Republicans in the House of Representative passed President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”. It is really big, but is it beautiful? It is a megabill that funds a laundry list of items on the president’s agenda. It now needs to go the Senate, where it will likely be modified and then returned to the House for “reconciliation”.

Budgets are moral documents, insofar as they represent one’s priorities. It is appropriate to raise moral questions about this legislation. Will this budget bill help or hurt most Americans, but especially our poorest citizens? Is it beautiful or is it selfishness disguised as efficiency?

What might Jesus of Nazareth say about this big, beautiful budget bill? Jesus (revered as the Son of God by billions around the globe, and as a great moral teacher by many others) taught a lot about money and economics. He warned that human greed is deceitful and destroys true life. He raised a probing question: What does it profit a person to gain the whole world, if they lose their soul? (Mark 8:36) If many people are losing their soul, their conscience, their compassion for others, this loss of our soul will be felt by “the least of these” that Jesus loved so much.

Jesus also warned his followers that human rulers usually lord it over their fellow citizens, while at the same time, they lie about all the “good” they are doing for people. (Luke 22:25) Therefore, we the people need to be diligent and discern the truth from the propaganda misinformation that comes at us from both sides of the aisle. I would like to “forward” Jesus’s question to the Republican members of the House of Representatives. Although they claim this bill would do so much good, if it hurts our neediest neighbors, are we losing our soul?

Since both Republicans and Democrats tend to spin information for their own advantage, what sources can we trust? I suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is nonpartisan. Both Republicans and Democrats love the CBO when it backs up their claims, but they both hate it when it reveals their distortions and disinformation. (“Figures never lie, but liars do figure”) The CBO is the closest thing we have to an impartial “referee” in Congress. The predictions below are the estimates of the CBO based upon the budget bill as currently passed in the House of Representatives.

The most significant items in the bill are (1) the renewal of the Trump 2017 income tax legislation scheduled to end this year; (2) cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits; (3) cuts in food stamp benefits / SNAP.

Democrats claim that the legislation favors the very rich whereas Republicans affirm that the budget bill is beautiful for all citizens, especially the middle class and the poorest people. The CBO estimates that, due to the provisions of this bill, the wealthiest 10% of the population will see a 4% increase in their wealth next year. The CBO predicts the poorest 10% of our people will see a 2% decline in their income next year and a 4% drop in the following year.
President Trump promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits. The CBO predicts over $800 billion will be cut from these programs. Republicans claim most of this is due to waste, fraud, and the removal of “dead people” on the list who are currently receiving benefits. The CBO denies these claims. It sure seems to me that Trump broke his promise and would sign this legislation.
The CBO claims that the “big, beautiful” bill will add to our national debt by at least $3.3 trillion. Republicans don’t like this prediction and they claim the CBO (the official referee) underestimates the growth in our economy. During his first term, Trump predicted his economic plans would not add to the debt. He was very wrong. His supporters seem to forget that Trump increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion during his first administration (the highest jump in any four-year term).
There are major changes in health care, especially in Medicaid and “Obamacare”. The CBO predicts that 13 million Americans would no longer have health insurance. Here again, Republicans don’t like these figures and they claim the CBO is “wrong”

Food stamps (the SNAP program) currently serves one-in-eight Americans each month. This bill would cut $230 billion over ten years, literally taking food out of people’s mouths.
Some of the provisions of the bill do help low wage earners (for example, no taxes on tips). Nevertheless, these are mere “crumbs” compared with the lavish deductions given to the very rich.

As I affirmed at the beginning of this post, budget bills are moral documents that should be evaluated by their (estimated) consequences. I choose to use the criteria taught by Jesus: What happens to the “least of these” among us? According to his standards, this bill does not seem very beautiful. In fact, it is quite ugly.

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the people he wants to fill out his Cabinet. This is appropriate because he won the presidential election in November. (His claim of a landslide victory is false. He won 49.81% of the popular vote compared with 48.33% for Kamala Harris, the smallest margin of victory since 2000.) According to our Constitution, the President nominates candidates, and the Senate examines them and then approves or rejects each one, based upon their background, expertise, policies they would pursue, and their moral character. Some of his nominees are well qualified and should sail through the Senate. Nevertheless, other nominees are quite controversial and will probably not get confirmed. Most have not been properly vetted. Some, like Matt Gaetz, will withdraw their nomination or suffer the embarrassment of being rejected by the Republican controlled Senate. One of the most troubling is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who himself was a candidate for president, then threw his support to Trump. As compensation for his “loyalty”, Trump named him to become the Secretary of the powerful, sprawling Health and Human Services Department (HHS). He told RFK to “go wild” on health. Perhaps he is too “wild”. He has received sharp criticisms from at least these three constituencies.

The Medical Community – If he is confirmed, Kennedy would oversee 13 federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RFK is so controversial because he has made many affirmations that are contrary to scientific evidence. For example, he is known as an “anti-vaxxer”, who urges people not to get vaccinated. He has claimed (without proof) that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism. He has just petitioned the FDA, through his lawyer, to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The Salk polio vaccine has protected an estimated twenty million people from getting this dreaded disease. This past Monday, 77 Nobel laureates, from the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics wrote an open letter to the Senate, urging its members to reject the RFK nomination. The letter states that “placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of HHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in health science”.

The Pro-Lifers – Some pro-lifers are realizing that Trump’s support of pro-life issues was largely transactional. He manipulated them and he is not a true believer in their cause. An early indication was the platform of the Republican party. Trump promoted a change in the abortion plank which watered down its wording which had endured for decades. Now, the President-elect has nominated Kennedy to head up HHS. RFK has been pro-choice on abortion, yet he tried to walk that back when he was courting Republican voters. Significant pro-lifers are raising their voice against RFK. For example, former Vice-President Mike Pence wrote, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.” He added, “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as Secretary of Health and Human Services”. (Here I am not weighing in on the morality of abortion; I am just reporting that Pence sees the RFK nomination as a betrayal of the pro-life movement.)

Corn Farmers – RFK has been quite outspoken regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. He denounces that our high consumption of this corn syrup in many food products has been the major factor in childhood obesity and other illnesses. (The medical community largely agrees with RFK on this issue.) In one of his promo videos, he affirmed that high-fructose corn syrup “is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic”. The political controversy swirls around what he might do about corn syrup and how this might negatively affect the jobs of farmers. As Secretary of HHS, he could urge the elimination of farm subsidies for corn production. This would be devastating for rural farmers (rural folk are some of Trump’s most solid supporters). Senators from corn producing states have raised the alarm. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, “I may have to spend a lot of time educating Kennedy about agriculture”.

U.S. Senators, you are responsible for seriously evaluating the experiential and moral fitness of each nominee and their mental judgment. Next week, Kennedy will be meeting with many of you. Please, do your job of serving the citizens by being rigorous in your evaluation of RFK.

Which J. D. Vance should we Believe? The Author of Hillbilly Elegy or the Republican Vice-President Nominee?

Several years ago, I belonged to a reading club. Our group read J. D. Vance’s famous little book Hillbilly Elegy which came out in 2016. It was an excellent book! Vance compelling told his family’s story against the backdrop of people from Kentucky (my dad’s home state) who, for economic reasons, migrated to Ohio (where I was born and raised). His book was intensely personal and factually accurate.

At that time, he also made several sharp criticisms of Donald Trump who was running for president. Given Trump’s comments about immigrants who came from “sh.thole” countries, Vance correctly denounced Trump as a racist. Given Trump’s daily and dangerous lies, Vance said he was “unfit” for office. Vance affirmed, “I am a never-Trump guy” and “I never liked him”.

Somewhere along the way, Vance had a “political conversion”. He retracted all of his criticisms of Trump. Without a shred of credible evidence, he seconded Trump’s claim of a stolen 2020 election. (Remember, Trump appealed to dozens of courts, as was his right, but lost every appeal, even with judges that he had appointed). Vance has changed his positions to match Trump’s on all major issues (the border, Ukraine, abortion, etc.). For Vance’s newly discovered support of Trump, Donald supported him in the 2022 Senate race in Ohio which Vance won. Vance is now Trump’s VP nominee.

I believe that people can, and should, change their minds and their positions when the factual evidence compels them to do so. That is why I write these posts on my blog. Nevertheless, our changes should always be towards greater truth, not towards greater falsehoods. I fear Vance’s changes have been made due to his political ambitions.

So, who should we believe? The younger Vance who wrote and spoke with integrity and with a concern for truthfulness, or the more recent nominee who peddles “stolen elections” due to his personal and political ambition? I prefer the earlier, more honest version.

Dear Republican Friends: Believe the Facts from Arizona

I have many friends and relatives who are registered Republicans. Recent polls suggest that a majority of Republicans do not believe that last November’s presidential election was essentially clean and fair. They believe that substantial fraud took place in the tabulation of votes in states like Georgia and Arizona that voted with their ballots (and therefore their entire slate of electors in the Electoral College) in favor of Biden. This blog is for you.

I have tried to be patient with these friends. I have hoped that they were not just “sore losers” who did not want to admit that Biden defeated Trump. But news coming out of Arizona should answer any doubts about the election in that state.

A little bit of background. Arizona has been a competitive state with Republicans having a slight edge over Democrats in the presidential elections. Nevertheless, with the significant growth of urban areas where Democrats tend to be stronger, the Democrats have been narrowing the gap. Here are the presidential results from the last 20 years.

Presidential elections (according to Arizona Presidential Election Voting History (270towin.com)

Republicans Democrats Republican margin

2020 Trump-R 49.1% Biden-D 49.4% – 0.3%

2016 Trump-R 48.7% Clinton-D 45.1% +3.6%

2012 Romney-R 53.7% Obama-D 44.6% +9.1%

2008 McCain-R 53.6% Obama-D 45.1% +8.5%

2004 Bush-R 54.9% Kerry-D 44.4% +10.5%

This gradually growing Democrat strength is also evidenced in the U.S. Senate races. Republicans won all of the races in the 21^st century until 2018 when Democrat Kyrsten Sinema defeated Republican Martha McSally (a Trump supporter) 50% to 47.6%. In that same 2018 election Democrats won 5 of the 9 congressional races in the state.

Therefore, it was widely expected that the 2020 presidential race between Trump and Biden would be competitive. Prior to election day, 11 of the 16 news agencies making predictions gave Biden a slight lead. The other five considered the election to be a toss-up.

According to the official results, Biden defeated Trump by some 10,000 votes 49.4% to 49.1%. Significant factors in Biden’s victory were a 3% increase in the number of Latino votes and a ringing endorsement by Cindy McCain (John McCain’s widow) which persuaded many traditional Republicans to vote for Biden.

Even though Biden’s victory was certified by Arizona’s election authorities, Trump claimed the election was fraudulent. Even after Biden’s inauguration, the Republican controlled State Senate in Arizona authorized the formation of the Maricopa County Presidential Ballot Audit to de a recount of the votes in that county. This was an extremely partisan endeavor carried out by Trump supporters who wanted to find extensive fraud. The final report of the audit was released two weeks ago (September 24,2021). The hand tabulated recount revealed that Biden had actually received 99 more votes than originally reported and Trump 261 fewer votes. (See Schwartz, David; Layne, Nathan (September 27, 2021). “‘Truth is truth’: Trump dealt blow as Republican-led Arizona audit reaffirms Biden win”. Reuters. Retrieved September 28, 2021.

My plea is that those who have claimed fraud in Arizona would admit the truth. If the state election authorities found no fraud, and if a Republican appointed private auditing firm could not find fraud, what evidence would persuade these “unbelievers”? There comes a point when the facts are overwhelming, when we must accept the truth even when we don’t like it. The truth is good for us. It can set us free.

What Kind of Republicans (and Democrats) does our Country Need?

In the United States, we have had two main political parties (Republican and Democrat) since before the Civil War. There have been third parties on occasion, but these have not been very successful. Political parties are subject to the same challenges that other institutions have: leadership structures that do not encourage change from within. Leaders gather around them “yes men” and “yes women” who say what the leader wants to hear and not what needs to be heard. These people are “enablers” who contribute to the corruption of their institutions from within. This is unhealthy for the institution and for the broader society.

In the current reality of the Republican Party, some leaders who are no longer in office (like former Ohio governor John Kasich and former White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly) have felt free enough to criticize President Trump’s policies and personal behavior. Nevertheless, most officials who are still in office or who are running for reelection have become enablers and have jumped on the president’s bandwagon on every single issue, no matter how absurd. It is accurate to say that Republicans have become the Trump party and have moved away from traditional Republican principles (fiscal conservatism, standing against dictatorships, etc,).

An exception to this trend is Republican senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Earlier this week he criticized President Trump on a phone call with 17,000 of his supporters. He pulled no punches in his use of words. Regarding Trump’s support of dictatorships around the world like Russia, North Korea and others, Sasse says he strongly condemns “the way Trump kisses dictators’ butts. I mean, the way he ignores that the Uyghurs are in literal concentration camps in Xinjiang right now. He hasn’t lifted a finger on behalf of the Hong Kongers,”

Sasse continued his criticism, “The United States now regularly sells out our allies under his leadership. The way he treats women and spends like a drunken sailor. The ways I criticized President Obama for that kind of spending I’ve criticized President Trump for as well. He mocks evangelicals behind closed doors. His family has treated the presidency like a business opportunity He’s flirted with White supremacists.”

The Nebraska senator explained that he is concerned about the large number of people leaving the Republican Party. “If young people become permanent Democrats because they’ve just been repulsed by the obsessive nature of our politics, or if women who were willing to still vote with the Republican Party in 2016 decide that they need to turn away from this party permanently in the future, the debate is not going to be, you know, ‘Ben Sasse, why were you so mean to Donald Trump?’ It’s going to be ‘What the heck were any of us thinking that selling a TV-obsessed narcissistic individual to the American people was a good idea?’ It is not a good idea.”

The senator also honed in on the main issue of the election: Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. “The reality is that Trump careened from curb to curb. First, he ignored Covid. And then he went into full economic shutdown mode. He was the one who said 10 to 14 days of shutdown would fix this, and that was always wrong, So I don’t think the way he’s led through Covid has been reasonable or responsible or right.”

Senator Sasse is trying to shape the future of a post-Trump Republican Party. Republicans need to decide today what kind of party they want. Who has the better understanding of reality, Donald Trump or Ben Sasse? The future of the Republican Party hangs in the balance.