Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Government Shutdown

Could This Be the Best Government Shutdown Ever?

Take your opportunities for smaller government where you find them.

J.D. Tuccille | 9.30.2025 4:45 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
The U.S. Capitol building after dark | Eric Kayne/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Eric Kayne/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Here we go again. As I write, politicians are trying to gin up a new panic over a looming "government shutdown." We've seen this before as Democrats and Republicans play chicken over their clashing funding priorities, with a partial suspension of federal activities threatened if they can't come to a deal.

Unfortunately, the government never really shuts down, and the two parties always work out an agreement that involves spending a lot more money. The worst that happens is that some people are inconvenienced for a few days, as the only things that really cease to function are public-facing operations such as parks and offices—deliberately so, to maintain the illusion that something important is happening. What might be different this time, though, is that there's a chance to use the impasse to reduce the federal work force.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

When Spending Too Much Isn't Enough

The latest clash over passing a funding bill for the federal government is Democrats' insistence that the legislation include extensions for Obamacare subsidies to address a problem that, as Paige Winfield Cunningham noted for The Washington Post, "even supporters of the Affordable Care Act fight admit is a flaw in the original law: It wasn't generous enough to make plans affordable." Having built much of their eroding reputation on the cobbled-together public-private health care coverage scheme, Democrats need to prop it up with more taxpayer money to keep it functioning.

Republicans aren't especially interested in keeping the flagship Democratic legislation afloat. That doesn't mean they're necessarily thriftier. Having largely abandoned their small-government credentials (with a few notable exceptions), the GOP wants to spend too much money—though less than the Democrats—on its own projects. Those projects place special emphasis on defense and the Department of Homeland Security, with trillions of dollars in projected deficits for the foreseeable future.

Republicans hold a majority, but Democratic votes are needed to move funding bills in the Senate. So far, Democrats have refused to budge in what The Wall Street Journal described as "a stark turnaround for a party that often lambasted Republicans as irresponsible for threatening shutdowns in the past."


About Those Phony 'Government Shutdowns'

That means we get a kabuki-theater government shutdown. Museums and national parks will close and federal offices will furlough workers who will be unavailable to give their usual bad tax advice or slowly process forms while most of the non-public-facing work continues behind the scenes.

"The vast majority of the federal government is still in operation, shutdown or no shutdown," attorney Timothy Snowball commented for the Pacific Legal Foundation in 2019. "Even among the 8% of the federal budget that is not currently funded because of the shutdown, only 'non-essential' programs and employees are affected. For 'essential' employees it is business as usual."

Federal employees are, overall, better-compensated than their private sector counterparts. According to a 2024 Congressional Budget Office analysis, "The federal government would have decreased its spending on total compensation by 5 percent if it had adjusted the cost of pay for its employees to match the compensation of their private-sector counterparts." Even so, federal workers will inevitably cry poverty for interviewers while they're furloughed and not drawing pay—even though they'll automatically get all back pay once the shutdown concludes.

At most, a government shutdown is usually just a new excuse for politicians to posture in front of television cameras. This time, though, there's a chance the federal work force might come out the other end of the shutdown a little smaller.


This Time Could Be Different

"The White House is telling federal agencies to prepare large-scale firings of workers if the government shuts down next week in a partisan fight over spending plans," The Guardian reported last week. "In a memo released on Wednesday night, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said agencies should consider a reduction in force for federal programs whose funding would lapse next week, is not otherwise funded and is 'not consistent with the president's priorities.'"

The mentioned OMB memo points out that "with respect to those Federal programs whose funding would lapse and which are otherwise unfunded, such programs are no longer statutorily required to be carried out." It continues: "Therefore, consistent with applicable law, including the requirements of 5 C.F.R. part 351, agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities (PPAs) that satisfy all three of the following conditions: (1) discretionary funding lapses on October 1, 2025; (2) another source of funding, such as H.R. 1 (Public Law 119-21) is not currently available; and (3) the PPA is not consistent with the President's priorities."

Importantly, the memo adds: "Once fiscal year 2026 appropriations are enacted, agencies should revise their RIFs as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions."

We could see more than the usual theatrical finger-pointing and interviews of suffering Department of Education employees this time around. The government could reopen its public-facing functions after a few days, or maybe a couple of weeks (the longest shutdown was 35 days from the end of 2018 through the beginning of 2019), with a trimmed payroll.

That would, of course, be the best government shutdown ever.

There's no guarantee this will happen, of course. Politico's Sophia Cai suggests "OMB Director Russ Vought is using the threat of permanent job cuts as leverage" to get Democrats to drop their demands and approve the GOP spending plan. Democrats may blink and end the opportunity for easy work force reductions.

Then again, Our Revolution, a group backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), surveyed its members and found "overwhelming support for Democrats holding the line in the shutdown fight." That's an important signal for the increasingly left-leaning Democrats, and one that could clear the way for a shutdown and work force reductions.

Following the relative disappointment of the Department of Government Efficiency, we should seize any opportunity to shrink the government that we can. If that opportunity comes in the form of one of the rare government shutdowns that's actually meaningful, so be it.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Can Americans Trust RFK Jr.'s Health Advice? A Breakdown on Vaccines, Autism, Food Dyes, and More

J.D. Tuccille is a contributing editor at Reason.

Government ShutdownBig GovernmentFederal governmentLaw & GovernmentTrump AdministrationPoliticsCongressBudgetGovernment Spending
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (72)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Chumby   2 months ago

    Only if it sticks.

    1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

      Some judge will make them reopen.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        Some judges should be removed to GitMo.

    2. mad.casual   2 months ago

      '"Two weeks" is the least they deserve'?

  2. Thoritsu   2 months ago

    Somehow TDS among some Libertarians has caused them not to recognize how awesome DOGE, closing departments, laying off workers and this government shutdown is. Sure, Trump talks like a goon, but his administration is the first in a century or more to really reduce government size and power.

    There is nothing like a shutdown to demonstrate how little we need government!

    1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

      ^BINGO +100000000000000 Well said.

      1. 5.56   2 months ago
    2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

      But hes doing it without asking congress or inferior court judges! Sure past presidents have constantly expanded their power without doing either, but the ratchet is supposed to only go in one direction!

      1. 5.56   2 months ago

        "Your wrong makes my wrong right."

        Seriously though, if you insist on right of the strongest, you need to consider that conservatives and religion are going extinct in real time and that more progressive individuals are going to hit critical mass soon. The constitution you are about to undo won't be there to help you once that happens.

        And, uhm, learning how to use a gun, guess what, a prog-tranny can do that too if they have to. I always roll my eyes when obese, old, white right-wing rejects without a family act like they have some kind of cringey power monopoly.

        Replacement incoming. Sorry bud.

        1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

          "Replacement incoming. Sorry bud."

          Doesn't matter if the [D] [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire wins.
          It will EAT itself to it's own death ... because 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
          As history has shown time and time again.
          And for the most part is literally doing just-that right now here in the USA.

          1. 5.56   2 months ago

            Accelerated by: the trump party

        2. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

          "I always roll my eyes when obese, old, white right-wing rejects without a family act like they have some kind of cringey power monopoly."

          Lol. Friends of yours, or is this what you imagine happened to the bigger stronger boys that bullied and pummeled you as a child?

          Or maybe just cartoons in your newsletters?

          1. 5.56   2 months ago

            Im not even from this underdeveloped country to begin with. Fortunately I have not been raised in the described backwater style non-culture, which is likely why I am significantly more successful than native born degenerates.

            And I hear that, in highschool, it is typically the frail or obese white children that have to suffer under the natural advantages of better, more well-equipped americans.

            It must be tough to be on the wrong side of history, but unfortunately you consistently chose your replacement when you did have a choice.

            It will sting, but it will be over, I promise.

            1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

              Martian Kirkland!

            2. The Radical Individualist   2 months ago

              OK, I get it. You're just another big bag of hot air.

            3. Zeb   2 months ago

              I though the "great replacement" was supposed to be just a racist, right-wing conspiracy theory.

        3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

          “….soon.” ..,. “…,incoming.., “

          Lol. Any day now.

          Loser.

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   2 months ago

      Seems like a libertarian dream come true. But Reason is tentative or outright hostile. But, oh that's right, Reason editors are just bog standard Democrats in libertarian costumes. Gotta keep their preferred adults in the room.

    4. Jim Logajan   2 months ago

      Is it really TDS to complain about his unilateral changes to tariff rates? Asking for a friend who wants to know why Ikea furniture is a threat to national security.

      1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

        If you ever sat on an ikea chair, you would know why.

        1. Chumby   2 months ago

          Something about those with TDS have Stockholm syndrome for the current thing narrative.

        2. Jim Logajan   2 months ago

          I've only ever seen their bookshelves, but I see your point.

      2. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        He didn't mention tariffs. Maybe you only have tDS, but it's just as annoying in this context.

      3. mad.casual   2 months ago

        Once again, until The Civil War the government was *overwhelmingly* funded by tariffs and until WWII it was *predominantly* funded by tariffs. Income taxes were Progressive and largely the result of an increase in the US's standing military and federal policing/domestic regulatory role.

        If you're any kind of *Classical* Libertarian and/or any kind of economist, direct and absolute taxes like income or sales taxes are an obviously greater tyranny than taxes that can generally be avoided or paid indirectly even if the latter are not an absences of taxes or completely voluntary taxation.

        How clearly and faithfully he's executed it aside, if you presumed or identified his administration by a vision of near-forcibly shrinking the government while increasing tariffs, it arguably makes him the most (accidentally or incidentally) libertarian President since Calvin Coolidge or James Garfield, both of whom, themselves believed in, supported, and used protectionists tariff powers. Even if you think Trump shouldn't be unilaterally levying tariffs, handing Congress tariff *and* income tax (*and* regulatory) powers isn't more libertarian and wades into "tyranny/socialism is OK as long as the majority votes for it" mendacity (Trump won the election the same way Biden did after all).

        You don't have to have to be a pro-Trump supporter to know, believe, or agree with any of this, but if any of it strikes you as dishonest, subversive, socially destructive, white supremacist, inhuman, or cravenly stupid or strikes you as justification for shooting someone, burning down a police station or church or business or courthouse, or vocalizing support for someone who does any of the above or otherwise causes your hair to catch fire; you clearly have some form of reality-denying, narcissistic, and/or violent psychosis and lean pretty hard in the social democrat/socialist/Marxist direction.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          I've said it many times. If we could get rid of all federal income tax and decimate the federal goverment in size and expense, I'd take tariff funding in a minute. It's not ideal, but nothing is when it comes to government. Everything's a tradeoff.

        2. Jim Logajan   2 months ago

          My friend says thanks for the explanation.
          Me, I'm a pragmatic anarchist who doesn't expect any reduction in the size and scope of governments in my lifetime. That said, I expect governments to whither once a frontier opens up which inhibits the reach of the police (force projection) power. In this case, the space frontier. All those traveling beyond the frontier must of necessity look to their own devices and adopt strategies in dealing with others they meet. The results of N-player game theory seems to have provided evidence that a great deal of mutually beneficial peaceful cooperation should occur.

        3. TJJ2000   2 months ago

          Excellent comment. Worth the read. +100000000 TY.
          That's the kind of writing any self-proclaiming libertarian magazine should be hiring.

      4. CE   2 months ago

        Yeah, there's plenty of reasons for libertarians to not like Trump, jacking up tariff tax rates without Congress, and federalizing National Guard troops to patrol cities that didn't request them and aren't suffering from a disaster. First term Trump was decidedly more libertarian.

    5. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

      administration is the first in a century or more to really reduce government size and power.

      1.Newt Ginrich and the Contract with America and the Tea Party got the sequestration through were not over a century ago.

      2 His admin also signed 5 covid spending bills and teamed up with the Dems to end the sequestration.

      3. Hopefully he has learned his lesson and works to cut spending.

      1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

        He’s trying. You democrats will do anything to stop that.

    6. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

      But…. but……. Trump!

  3. Use the Schwartz   2 months ago

    "only 'non-essential' programs and employees are affected."

    I think "non-essential programs and employees" is a great place to begin a RIF. Although I suspect my definition of "non-essential" is quite a bit more broad.

    1. Thoritsu   2 months ago

      Government employee is a 80% marker for non-essential.

    2. StevenF   2 months ago

      President Trump essentially stated anyone deemed non-essential should be fired. If, and ONLY if Congress explicitly reauthorizes their positions, they can apply for the positions.

      1. Thoritsu   2 months ago

        That is why I hugely advocate for the continuing, long-term value of the RIFs. It will take several administrations to recover the waste, assuming anyone has the stomach for it.

    3. CE   2 months ago

      Even using the government's definition would be a great start. Just make it permanent.

  4. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    Biden and the democrats had the time and ability to extend the ACA and they failed. So sorry but the program is failing and needs to sunset.

    Crying because the GOP and Trump are increasing spending on the military when looking at the condition of the world is disingenuous. Yeah you might be a pacifist and anti war yadda yadda which most folks are but most folks realize that the reason they are safe is because of the military and spending is required to stay safe.

    If the US workforce is reduced by 20% this will be a win for America. Make it so! Shut it down and thin it out before it can return.

    Oh and if Bernie Sanders gets his suspenders in an uproar you have accomplished something. Keep up the good work!

  5. Longtobefree   2 months ago

    It is beginning to look like "if you like your free healthcare for illegals, you can keep it" may also be a big fat lie.

  6. KeninTX   2 months ago

    A couple quick points:

    "the GOP wants to spend too much money—though less than the Democrats—on its own projects. Those projects place special emphasis on defense and the Department of Homeland Security, with trillions of dollars in projected deficits for the foreseeable future."

    When haven't we run up $1 Trillion plus deficits year after year?

    And, not for nothing, but arent Democrats a bit premature sbout ACA subsidies? The run out at the end of the calendar year, not the end of the fiscal year - so if i wake up tomorrow and the government is shutdown, ACA subsidies will still be paid for three more months...

    Also, Democrats are really over-playing their hand - they think by holding the federal budget hostage they can simply roll-back several major Trump admin advances? They forget they lost, they don't understand that elections have consequences, and if they really wanted to stay in power they should have run a better candidate last year, rather than Joe Biden snd then Kamala Harris.

    To quote a recent Donald Trump line "you don't have the cards" Democrats!

    1. Stupid Government Tricks   2 months ago

      Minor quibble: Yes, the ACA subsidies are authorized til the end of the calendar year, but they can't be sent out if they aren't appropriated.

    2. Bruce D   2 months ago

      and if they really wanted to stay in power they should have run a better candidate last year, rather than Joe Biden snd then Kamala Harris.

      If they really wanted to stay in power, they'd dump the gun-control, which has no evidence of being effective with plenty of other policies being more effective.

  7. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

    You want to shrink government, fine, do it. But do it wisely and carefully. Doing it haphazardly is stupid and destructive.

    1. Cannot read SQRLSY (formerly longtimelistenerfirsttimecaller)   2 months ago

      @MollyGodiva- "You want to shrink government, fine, do it. But do it wisely and carefully. Doing it haphazardly is stupid and destructive."

      I call bullshit, you could use a squirrel to randomly select the headcounts to cut in almost all areas of US GOV and do no worse than your 'wisely and carefully'..

      There is no competition in gov like private sector hence you get govt employees that are paid more and get more benefits, and no risk of losing jobs... result: shitty govt.

      1. Tom   2 months ago

        The way to wisely reduce government spending is to eliminate or reduce programs. Cutting workers reduces spending only slightly. If wasteful programs are eliminated the number of employees will also be reduced. This is the correct way to reduce spending.

        1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

          If there is nobody there to run the program, the money won’t get spent.

          1. 5.56   2 months ago

            Republican style: Attack people over policies. Attack who, not what.

            Always misguided, always antisocial, always pretending to care about the individual while quietly hoping to eliminate it one day. The true soul and deep conviction of the american conservative.

            1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

              You’re a worthless cunt that has nothing to say and is saying it too loud.

            2. Bruce D   2 months ago

              Sounds a lot like the Democrats also.

        2. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

          We’ve got to take the cuts where we can get them. Democrats and RINOs limit those opportunities.

    2. damikesc   2 months ago

      Dems could not filibuster bills to keep it open.

      Just sayin'

    3. CE   2 months ago

      Continuing to overspend by one to trillion dollars per year is stupid and destructive. Haphazard cuts are quite likely to be an improvement.

  8. Longtobefree   2 months ago

    "Could This Be the Best Government Shutdown Ever?"

    Only if it never ends - - - - - -

  9. Gaear Grimsrud   2 months ago

    An asshole DC judge just ordered the administration to restore funding to VOA because some town in Africa had their radio show shut down. These judges will conclude that all government spending is essential.

    1. Chumby   2 months ago

      Damon, Boehm, or Sullum will do an article about this how Trump was defeated in court. #libertarianism

    2. Longtobefree   2 months ago

      How, exactly, does an asshole judge in DC gain jurisdiction over some town in Africa?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. mad.casual   2 months ago

        Along those lines, out of curiosity, what's the cost of funding a radio show in Africa relative to the salary of a circuit court judge in DC?

    3. Jim Logajan   2 months ago

      The judge ruled "that President Trump's administration must restore VOA programming to levels commensurate with its statutory mandate to "serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news."" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-agency-for-global-media-voice-of-america-job-cuts-suspended/)

      This can be accomplished by inserting reliable and authoritative news bulletins into coconuts and then tying the coconuts to swallows who then distribute the news to oppressed people everywhere.

      1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        For the higher tech folk send morse code over air.

        1. 5.56   2 months ago

          Morse must sound like exceedingly high tech in the defeated circles of right wing misfits.

          1. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   2 months ago

            You confuse an Etch a Sketch with an iPad.

            And given your ongoing confusion, let’s make this clear. Every non democrat here is is far more intelligent than you can ever conceive.

      2. Stuck in California   2 months ago

        What do you mean? An African or European swallow?

    4. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 months ago

      Meanwhile, the taliban turned off the internet in Afghanistan.

    5. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Good thing Obama ended racism. Otherwise, the backhanded soft racism of "If the US taxpayer doesn't fund international broadcasting propaganda, Africa won't have radio.", in 2025, would seem really offensive.

  10. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

    I am going to unequivocally say good job J.D. Tuccille.

  11. Doug Heffernan   2 months ago

    What might be interesting is if Democrats don't cave and the shutdown lasts for months, if the Republicans would change the senate rules to end the filibuster, blaming Democrats for its loss, of course.

    Democrats can't really get anything anyway, since even if they were even able to negotiate some trivial face-saving concession, Vought would just pocket it back later.

  12. AltheDago   2 months ago

    I hate to break it to the uninitiated, but "Reduction in Force" (RIF) is what the bureaucracy calls it anytime the G shuts down. It has always meant "everybody comes back to work with back pay as soon as we have a budget."

    This time may be different, but I wouldn't count on it. If Trump succeeds in reducing the Federal workforce, it will be another instance of a stopped clock being right twice a day. He cares nothing for the size of the government, only that his political opponents are punished. He perceives Federal workers as part of the enemy.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      He cares nothing for the size of the government, only that his political opponents are punished. He perceives Federal workers as part of the enemy.

      So, if 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', where do you think that puts you in regard to libertarians and the size of government?

      Moreover, and I know this will be hard for you to follow but stick with me here; if even my kids knew and understood 'enemy of my enemy' implicitly, if not explicitly, from the time they were about 5, whom exactly are you trying to declare your retardation to?

      Because Trump and his supporters have been crystal clear about all of this for years.

      1. Bloodaxe   2 months ago

        Except the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. See Nazi Germany and the USSR. The USSR may have been our ally, but they certainly were not our friend.

    2. Zeb   2 months ago

      I agree Trump isn't really a small government guy in principle. But it's still the best opportunity for some kind of real change we've had in a long time. Time will tell, but I'm trying to maintain a little optimism.

  13. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   2 months ago

    SHUT IT DOWN!!!

    First, eliminate all jobs deemed unessential. These people would be eligible for any back pay and a modest buyout package after the budget is balanced.

    Eliminate pay for all government officials while there isn't a balanced budget. This should first apply to every member of Congress and the Senate. With no back pay at all, just lost pay as a ramification of failure to do their jobs.

    Congressional and Senate staffers would be eligible to receive minimal back pay such as a 20% of their regular pay, but only after the budget is balanced. However if congressional and senate staffers are deemed unessential, then they would be eligible any back pay and a modest buyout package after the budget is balanced with the caveat that the number of allowed congressional and senate staffers would be permanently reduced.

    Extent this to the leadership of the various federal agencies, who would receive only minimal back pay such as a 40% of their regular pay, but only after the budget is balanced. This would include cabinet officials, the judicial branch including every judge from the lowest to the highest level. This includes the executive branch including the president and vice president. This also includes the military top brass leadership, the pentagon, the CIA, FBI and every other agency.

    For essential jobs that have middle management roles, they would be eligible to receive minimal back pay such as a 60% of their regular pay, but only after the budget is balanced.

    For essential jobs that have zero leadership roles, are not within the leadership or middle management and not politically appointed, would be eligible to receive back pay after the budget is balanced.

    Any savings would be directly applied to principle of the national debt and not the budget deficit.

    SHUT IT DOWN!!!

  14. NCMB   2 months ago

    You know, Congress could do their fucking jobs and pass a legit budget every year per the Regular Order process they established with the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974. But, I’m not holding my breath since thy’ve only done it four times since the Act was passed over 50 years ago (the last in 1996).

    As far as ACA subsidies being the issue for this year’s fall shutdown season (not to be confused with the annual holiday shutdown season that comes when the CR passed in the fall shutdown season expires), Congress had five years to see this coming and, as usual, did jack shit to avoid it (the enhanced ACA subsidies were part of the Covid “onetime spending” that is now forever baked into the budget baseline).

    Anyone who thinks there are political-government solutions to economic issues really needs to wake up.

  15. CE   2 months ago

    Only if they don't reinstate all the non-essential government personnel, and give them back pay, again. If they're non-essential, why are they getting paid by the taxpayers in the first place?

    And if they don't close parks and monuments that need zero staff to run, just to protest being shut down temporarily.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

They Built a Hemp Business in Good Faith but Washington Is About To Crush It

Brittany E. Hunter | 11.30.2025 6:30 AM

Knitters Need Free Trade: Trump's Tariffs Are Making Crafting Supplies Harder To Get

Fiona Harrigan | From the December 2025 issue

America's Politicized Holiday Dinner

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 11.29.2025 7:00 AM

Trump Slammed Biden's $52 Billion CHIPS Act. Then He Used It To Buy a Federal Stake in Intel.

Peter Suderman | From the December 2025 issue

Trump's $1.1 Billion Tax Hike on Toys and Games

Eric Boehm | 11.28.2025 7:45 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300