Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Sunday Mailbag
No surprise, there was an enormous response to the end of the shutdown and to the items we wrote about it on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. So, we're going to give today's mailbag over to that subject, but with a little Gallimaufry dessert at the end.
We have interesting comments on Israel in Nevada, pennies, fight songs and some other subjects we'll save for next week.
Politics: The Shutdown—Disappointment
R.M. in Gresham, OR, writes: On Monday, you posted my letter to you as an example of some of the responses you were getting about the Democrats ending the shutdown. In the coming days you described those responses as "emotional," and asked for more rational, reasoned responses. Here is my effort:
We are a one-income family. My daughter was high needs as a child and it was clear public schools would not benefit her so she is homeschooled. Thus, even though I have a good job with a decent salary, we struggle. We are beyond the cutoff for public assistance programs, but well below the median income. The expanded child tax credit being paid monthly was amazing for us. The expanded ACA subsidies were a game-changer. Last year my family had real, actual insurance which was super helpful during our two ER visits. Next year, we won't have that. The extra $300 per month for significantly worse insurance is gutting. It also eats up the only money that isn't already earmarked for bills or groceries. Emotional response? You bet, as long as fear is still an emotion.
I am the guy in this West Wing bar scene:
I don't need or want things handed to me. It should be hard. But it should be a little easier than it is, too. That difference is everything.
I know the Republicans don't give a damn about people like me and my family. I desperately want to believe that the Democrats still do.
(V) & (Z) respond: For the record, we understand entirely when people who are directly affected by the choices made in Washington react on an emotional level. We merely take the view that people who have a platform, and who present themselves as dispassionate-as-is-possible analysts, do themselves and their audience a disservice when they indulge in venting like we saw from Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart. We have been advised by numerous readers that Stewart had a more nuanced take on his podcast, which is great, but let's keep in mind which platform has the much larger audience.
R.J.T. in San Diego, CA, writes: You want to know why I hate your perspective? It's because every word of it bends toward comforting failure. You call cowardice "pragmatism," as though polishing the language makes it less pathetic. You speak like someone above the fight, like a referee calling fouls from the booth while the people who depend on courage go hungry. You want to sound balanced and reasonable, but all you're really doing is dressing surrender up as strategy.
You talk about "retrenchment" and "messaging," about how Democrats "sent a message" that they care. What message is that, exactly? Because when eight senators broke ranks and caved, the message to millions of Americans was simple: You are on your own. And you excuse it. You write paragraph after paragraph about how complicated it all is, about how there were no easy answers. That's what people say when they are too scared to pick a side. There was an easy answer: Don't betray the people who trusted you. Don't validate cruelty. Don't feed the same machine that starves the poor.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: What if people DIDN'T feel passionate about what is called "3-D chess" or the "Great Cave"? The job is engagement. No Drama Obama led to Inevitable Hillary and then to Donald Trump. I remember being absolutely stunned that Trump 1 occurred and deeply saddened by Trump 2.
We need be pissed! So pissed we can't stay home for the next no kings; so pissed we walk barefoot over hot coals, to vote!
Politics: The Shutdown—Why'd They Do It?
V.S. in Charlottesville, VA, writes: In your item "You Got to Know When to Hold 'Em, Know When to Vold 'Em," I appreciate your honest take. I was quite upset with Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart on their Monday night shows. I know Rachel knows better than that. It was interesting that, on his show, Lawrence O'Donnell called her out on it.
Clearly, the small set of Democratic senators had been holding talks with the GOP senators from the beginning of the shutdown. I had heard they were ready to give in as soon as the election was over, though the strong election results for Democrats caused them to pause. I think the two issues that pushed it over the line were the Trump administration's refusal to pay SNAP benefits and the increase in the cancellation of flights leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday. For the better, Democrats do care about people, which some may call a weakness. What many folks on the left fail to take into account is that, by the end of the shutdown, a million plus federal workers had not been paid and were about to miss another paycheck with some required to work during that period of time. Also, millions that rely on SNAP benefits did not receive them in November.
Finally, the President and House Speaker made it clear that they were not going to negotiate on the healthcare subsidies, even though the Democrats had an awesome election night on November 4. If there is a shutdown at the end of January, SNAP beneficiaries are now off the table and Veteran Affairs is fully funded through September. I call these wins.
C.J. in Boulder, CO, writes: First, bravo for not being sucked in by all the garment-rending on the left. I watched the Jon Stewart scream-a-thon when it was broadcast (so yeah, old school) and thought, "He really thinks we're winning?" Really? The blue team was winning in the way that a member of the Jeopardy! studio audience keeps yelling out answers before contestants buzz in. You might feel good, the audience might concede you were "winning," but the cash and prizes go to those in the game. And when your sole point of leverage is the filibuster, you aren't really in as solid a spot as you might hope.
It is worth recalling that, at the start, there was a possibility the GOP might crack on the subsidies—they had, after all, delayed the most draconian moves of the BBB to after the midterms but apparently overlooked this component of the heath care system. Giving them an out seemed like a chance some on the GOP bench might take. But after a week or two, it was pretty clear that wasn't going to happen. At that point, the whole exercise was an effort to rally the troops and make the GOP look bad. And, you know, that worked pretty well.
But then things got increasingly real. Here in Boulder, where we have a lot of federal employees, we have colleagues and friends and neighbors (not to mention students) going to food banks. Several food drives popped up while others commonly run in November saw much more activity. Just this week Boulder County found $1.15M to distribute to food banks to help meet the growing need. There was an excellent chance that, as more people got hurt, the narrative would become more of "a pox on all their houses" rather than "blame Trump/GOP only." Being slightly less hated would not be "winning." While we won't ever know, odds are that the blue team was near the apex of their relative popularity. Backing off when people—especially children—were threatened with hunger seems the moral thing to do and, arguably, politically wise. You got a fresh can of ammo—a show vote in the Senate to use in ad campaigns in October, another shot at closing the government if that is really a help, and a big helping of "the GOP doesn't care about you" when Trump kept demanding the Supreme Court let him cut off food stamps as recipients struggled to even guess what they would get.
The thing I would add to your analysis from Wednesday is that what happens now is all theater. The next election is a year away, and that is when "winning" can become real. Having protected SNAP beneficiaries for most of the coming year, and having yet another shutdown opportunity over health care costs free of that hostage taking, unties the Democrats' hands to push harder if that seems helpful. In our system, the only way to fight back is to win elections. So rather than gnashing teeth and screaming at your own party, time to focus on what it will take to win the next election and work your way back to where we are now.
It is awfully hard to negotiate when those on the other side of the table don't want anything. The GOP got the Big Beautiful Bill and clearly are content to watch the administrative state collapse and burn; the next election is a year away (many political lifetimes), so why would they give up anything? And the GOP has avoided town halls and other opportunities for people to get angry with them (and this negotiation was in the Senate, which is even more distant from the public). So the information that the GOP negotiators were not giving an inch makes perfect sense, in which case you have to just decide when you've made your point and walk away...
J.E. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I abhor conspiracy theories. But sometimes conspiracy and strategy overlap. It's tempting to consider that the Democrats let the lockdown go on long enough so they could vet the 20,000 pages of Jeffrey Epstein's emails for public scrutiny before Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) was sworn in. Otherwise, they would have just settled for the same trade-offs with Republicans weeks ago.
The timing is just too good. When you squint, it kind of looks like a classic procedural ambush.
C.F. in Miami, FL, writes: Given the impeccable timing of the latest e-mail dump, my theory is that Senate Democrats decided to take the paltry winnings in the shutdown fight and let the e-mails suck up all the oxygen for the foreseeable future. I can't remember where I heard it, but House Oversight Committee Democrats received the latest batch last week, and shortly after that, momentum shifted and the shutdown fight quickly ended. The timing, right after an electoral massacre last Tuesday, always seemed off. But with the bombshell nature of these e-mails, it now makes sense. Democrats aren't screaming about their political brilliance, as that in itself sucks attention away from the Epstein drama.
G.S. in Spokane, WA, writes: On November 7, money markets were sending up flares.
For those who haven't heard, the U.S. government spends a lot of money—lubricant of the globe's largest economy. When it pauses for some reason, the economic engine is running a quart or two low. Whether mechanical or economic, this is a problem requiring immediate attention.
Senate Democrats presumably knew this. It wasn't as visceral to the public as SNAP benefits or Supporting the Troops™, but hopefully a consideration for the adults in the room.
(To be clear, I firmly support and appreciate everyone's service, past and present. It's rote overuse of the phrase that I find ironic.)
A.T. in Washington, DC, writes: I had a thought about the end of the shutdown that I haven't seen elsewhere (maybe I haven't looked hard enough?). The CNN tracking poll has the president at a 37% approval rating. I've seen lots of reporting arguing that his bedrock support is about 35%, and his supporters are extraordinarily loyal. So I don't know how much lower his approval rating can plausibly go. Ending the shutdown now is a logical calculation—it did him about as much damage as possible while minimizing the damage it did to others.
H.R. in Cudahy, WI, writes: Retired orchestra musician here. Every few years, most of America's professional orchestras (at least the unionized ones) re-negotiate their master agreements. These are often stressful times for everyone, and sometimes musicians are faced with difficult choices, as not every non-profit organization is well-run. I remember our lawyer once telling us, "You should want to settle more than you want to strike, even if you're really mad at management." Sometimes, no good strategy appears, and you can't do much besides accept bad conditions.
One thing I haven't heard from Democrats, is "we were going to use XYZ strategy, and those scoundrels (the 8 Senators) caved before we could do it." No, I haven't heard about any strategy at all, which leads me to believe that the blue team didn't have one. That's what can happen when you're in the minority, and have no real power. If I'm right that there was no effective strategy, then I would say that the Democrats did the right thing by delaying the fight. I love Jon Stewart and others, but they've failed to take into account that big electoral wins don't help when the current GOP has talked itself into being completely unresponsive to voters. Gotta try something else.
C.J. in Burke, VA, writes: Just want to add one more vote for "they did the right thing." Bottom line for me is you have to be able to count votes and the Democrats just don't have them. There is zero reason to make real people suffer further when there is zero chance of achieving your goal. The best we can do is expose the GOP for what it is and win elections and then have the votes to accomplish what we want.
Politics: The Shutdown—It's a Two-Party System
C.O. in East Lansing, MI, writes: I would like to reply to M.O. in Metamora, who is rightly furious at the Senate Democrats right now.
I am incensed by the lack of spine in the eight Democratic senators who caved, just as you are. But as a fellow Michigander, I have to ask: Why are you giving up on our Democrats who tried to hold the line? Michigan is a purple state where I'm sure our senators received incredible pressure, but they pushed back against it. Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) is retiring and it's more critical than ever to hold the seat; we have some really strong options coming up, but they are going to struggle all the more if good people such as yourself are "done with them". State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) seems like everything you would want and has a good chance of winning the primary, but even the other Democratic alternatives (Rep. Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed) don't seem like bad choices.
I do hope you reconsider.
E.S. in Salem, OR, writes: I'm writing in to respond to readers who say they "are done" with supporting the Democrats. I'm curious who these people intend to support. Not voting—joining 1/3 of eligible voters—means first, your voice absolutely doesn't get heard, and second, in some of our close elections, the GOP wins. I'm assuming that those fed up with the Democrats aren't conservative issue voters or they'd be voting GOP already. So what is their plan of action? Supporting third-party candidates got us George W. Bush and Trump 1.0. I would hope these voters will note which issues they care about and then research which candidates hold the same stances on these issues. A moderate who consistently votes for the environment, women's and minority rights, democratic values, etc., is a much better candidate to support than someone who has no chance of getting elected.
The GOP has gotten where it is because they are more homogeneous, yes, but also because their constituents are willing to "hold their noses" and vote for the candidate that wants what they want. Think about the moderate Republican voters who stuck with the Tea Party candidates and now the MAGA candidates.
Voters should understand that politics is a long game generally. When the Democrats have been in power, they gave us the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation Reduction Act. These all protect normal people, not billionaires. What the GOP has accomplished under both Trump's terms is the dismantling of much of the Democratic Party legislation coupled with tax breaks for wealthy people who really aren't creating jobs or helping civil society.
Please don't let political setbacks take your eye away from the party that really does care about the people, the planet, and our democracy.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Wednesday's post regarding some Democrats' decision to reopen the government without extension of the Obamacare subsidies, but with 10 months of SNAP funding, is one of the most cogent, nuanced, analytically sound essays I have ever read—and I say that as someone who spent two decades teaching legal writing and analysis, and 35 years thinking and writing about arguments with two or more sides. It was a tour de force (and anyone here should know that I am no sycophant of Z and V—a couple of weeks ago, I ripped them (or, at least, did what passes for ripping in my world) about presidential succession).
I agree with (Z)'s conclusion and analysis of the different points of view expressed by Democrats. Politically, I agree with much of the Democratic Socialist platform, but unlike the Susan Sarandon wing of the Party, I live in the Real World. As Bismarck said, politics is the art of the possible. The carping from the Loony Left again boils down to "I want ALL the toys, AND NOW, and if I don't get them, I'm going home and pouting." Anything short of total victory is viewed by them as abject failure and betrayal.
These are the same people (or their ideological descendants) who elected Bush 2.0 by voting for Ralph Nader, Trump 1.0 by voting for Jill Stein, and Trump 2.0 by staying home, all because Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were not "pure" enough for them. I really wouldn't mind their cutting off their noses to spite their rabid faces, but they are cutting off my nose and the noses of millions of others victimized by four terms of Republican misrule and abuse as a direct result of their actions.
Here, the own-flatus inhalers apparently are arguing that letting poor children starve is a fair trade-off for standing firm and pure to support healthcare subsidies. I guess they view it as the necessary sacrifice the must be made (by others, of course) to vindicate the Socialist Dream.
Hey, I, too, have fantasies about what Democrats could do with a trifecta and an abolished filibuster. We haven't had that (functionally, at least) since Ted Kennedy died, and I do blame Barack Obama for squandering the 7 months when he had 60 Democratic Senators. But when all you have is 41+ votes in the Senate, you play the hand the voters (including the feckless, self-immolating Loony Left) have dealt you. This was the best deal Democrats could have gotten right now. Part of what is so breathtaking about (Z)'s analysis is that he articulates the counterargument so clearly, to the point of being plausible, though not, for him or for me, to the point of being convincing.
R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, writes: Ever since the announcement last Sunday that enough Democrats had agreed to break the filibuster on the government shutdown, I've spent a lot of time reading, watching, and thinking about this issue. As I began reading your item on Wednesday regarding the end of the shutdown, I started formulating in my mind what I would write about my personal assessment to submit for your comments section. But by the time I finished reading all 5,312 words of it, I realized I had almost nothing to add, because you already captured my thinking on this subject magnificently (far better than I could have captured it myself)! As someone who has read literally every post on this site going back to 2004, I can confidently say that, in my opinion, this ranks among the top three items you've ever posted (and it is a serious contender for the #1 spot). Nicely done!
To my friends on the left who are outraged by the Democrats "caving," I'd like to say: I feel your pain and frustration. I get it. No, I really do. The emotional side of me feels the same. But the rational side of me quickly realized that there's a lot more going on here than the one-dimensional initial responses I've seen and read from many of my personal heroes in political punditry (Jon Stewart highest among them).
There's really not much I can add to what (Z) captured in his posting, but I'd like reiterate that many (perhaps even most) Congress-critters are not as stupid as we like to pretend they are when they do things we disagree with, and they have a far better understanding of the dynamics in play than most of us do (including the more politically astute among us). When you consider all the complex and intersecting pieces (again, superbly summarized by Z), a picture emerges suggesting a much more sophisticated strategy in which the timing of this so-called "caving" is about as perfect as could be. Even the genuine outrage from the left is, itself, a highly predictable factor that will actually work to the advantage of the Democrats in January, by providing political justification for exercising the option to shut the government down again (if it comes to that). I suspect that the outrage will also benefit the Democrats in the long run, setting the stage for going beyond the ACA to something closer to a single-payer system for healthcare. Moreover, it (the outrage) also will further encourage a generational shift in the congressional demographic towards something many of us would prefer (including among the Democratic leadership).
At the very least, I would encourage my fellow lefties to pay close attention to how things play out between now and the end of January. We're already starting to see the benefits of the so-called "caving" (ahem... Adelita Grijalva and a robust renewal of focus on the Epstein files) that we would not have seen as long as the government was shut down, and I suspect we'll see more of this sort of thing over the next couple of months. Most of all, to anyone inclined to "give up" on the Democrats, please allow for the possibility of getting over your frustration and outrage by next November.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: Your 10 well-considered and well-articulated points regarding Democrats and the shutdown has made me all the more invested in my own observation that people (particularly Americans, in my experience) have a really hard time distinguishing between "Bad" and "Worse." I'm certain this played a large role in the 2024 election, for instance. (Yes, eggs were expensive. Yes, Joe Biden seemed to be faltering and Kamala Harris seemed foisted onto us. But... really? This is better? And, considering that Trump and Project 2025 announced in advance exactly what they would do, a significant number of non-Republicans thought that would NOT be worse?
Now I'm reading (again) from ticked-off progressives and other Democrats that this shutdown was "the last straw" and they're "done" with supporting the Democrats. OK, where you gonna go? You're livid they didn't stand up to the vile GOP so... what? ...you're going to support the party you think is vile? Join the Greens or Libertarians, where your vote will carry no meaningful power within your lifetime? Not vote?
Putting aside the (well-taken) point running throughout many of (Z)'s 10 observations—that the Democratic congress critters have a LOT of concerns coming at them from ALL directions in their constituency (including being able to simply eat), and they had to navigate a strategy that was perhaps "bad" but was not, in fact, "worse"—the fact remains that the best opposition to any tyranny is a unified opposition. Half the Founders couldn't stand significant numbers of their own leadership against the Crown, but they persevered because they understood the "enemy of my enemy" construct. There'll be time enough to reward or punish our own representatives in the next primaries, but that'll be impossible if we're not in the tent to begin with.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: One of the issues that people who are upset about the bill reopening the government are having is that they don't understand the difference between the best possible bill and the best bill possible. These people want to keep the government shut down until they get everything they want, regardless of whether there is a realistic chance the Republican majority would grant those things or not. Instead they should be looking at the fact that the Democratic minority in the Senate was able to get several concessions, which is what politics is all about.
This is similar to the situation where there is a candidate who I agree with on 99% of the issues but only has a 10% chance of winning the election if nominated while I only agree with their primary opponent on 80% of the issues but that person has a 60% chance of winning in the general election. I would vote for the latter every single time because it doesn't matter how good a candidate is... if they lose in November they are no help at all.
Politics: The Shutdown—Metaphors
D.R. in Portland, OR, writes: Count me among those who think the Democrats did the right thing. Your term "retrenchment" is a good one. Another metaphor I like is "letting go of the rope," as in a game of tug-of-war. If the tugging has gone on long enough, sometimes the best thing is to say, "On the count of 3 let go," then shout, "You win!" and walk away leaving the winners sitting on their butts in the mud.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: I appreciated your analyses of the strategy behind the passage of the continuing resolution, and it seems to me that a chess metaphor would also have worked.
By sacrificing a few pieces (that is, by no longer insisting that the ACA subsidies be immediately restored), the Democrats put the Republicans into check; that is, forcing the Republicans to make a series of moves they would have preferred not to make (ending the shutdown, restoring and protecting SNAP, rehiring the fired workers, etc.). They also positioned themselves to put the Republicans in check one or two more times (the scheduled vote on the ACA subsidies, and the January 30 negotiations) before the final checkmate in the 2026 midterm elections.
A.D.R. in Roseville, MN, writes: I think that holding out for more is playing desperate defense at one's own end zone. (The Democrats are getting blamed for holding the Republicans to a field goal, even when they were 1st-and-1 at the end zone.) That's how you prevent disaster, not how you win the game. The way you win is you pass laws that work. (Like we did in Minnesota, when the Democrats took the trifecta in 2023.) You pass paid family and medical leave. You make breakfast and lunch free for all kids (not means-tested*). You pass laws protecting reproductive freedom and trans people. You create new "safe and sick time" legislation. You show that makes a better world. (It really does.)
The other thing that I have not seen discussed is that people get used to anything. People get used to food sometimes making them sick (because we are running without food inspectors). People get used to long lines at the TSA (because they are working without pay). I mean, look at how we've normalized getting sick from communicable diseases (because we never fixed our HVAC systems in buildings and schools). Or how we've normalized losing your life savings because you had a hospital emergency. Or hell, gun violence.
So I worry about running too long under the negative space of the shutdown. I don't want people to get used to it. I want people to recognize that government is good and useful (which unfortunately means suffering when it is closed). And then I want them to get back to their lives. And THEN I want to make the case that the economy was good when we had high taxes on the wealthiest Americans and a strong safety net for everyone. (Not means tested! Means testing is bad.)
I think the Democrats played this right. They held the shutdown long enough to show how bad things are without a government. They won key elections. But now they are going to open things back up (including the House, which got Adelita Grijalva sworn in).
* - Means testing is bad policy. It adds bureaucratic burden, creates shame in accepting it, and leaves the people with actual political power uninvested in it. Things that are not means-tested (like libraries) are strong and stable. Things that are means-tested are not.
Politics: The Shutdown—The Punditry
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Thank you for your write-up of Ezra Levin's perspective on the Democrats and the shutdown. On Wednesday, A.R. in Los Angeles had also expressed a perspective adjacent to yours, which I greatly appreciated. I would add to A.R.'s comments that not only do I wish Ezra would acknowledge the pain and suffering, but that he would actually run for Congress to try to fix the many things he believes the Democrats are doing "wrong."
I also think that a bit of framing and background is important for many folks to understand what Indivisible is and what their goals are. This organization formed in late 2016, after the election of Donald Trump. At that time, they were the only organization attempting to pull together a coalition of people to resist what we all knew was coming down the pike. I was an early joiner and distinctly remember the early days, when their advice and mantra was to tailor each Indivisible chapter to fit the community in which it was formed. Pragmatic and laudable.
Fast forward to a year later. By this time, National Indivisible/Ezra Levin had really started pushing the progressive agenda, and all of the tools they offered really only had one direction. So much for the "tailor to your local community." (As almost anyone who has spent time here knows, there are a wide range of views, and a lot of moderates up and down the South Coast.) While I agree with several of their goals, by early 2018, I had stepped back from involvement because I knew it wasn't a good fit for Santa Barbara.
So, while I greatly appreciate and subscribe to the e-mails from Indivisible/Mobilize/No Kings (which are all connected, BTW), I only do so to find out when and where I can participate in public protests. Ezra's "to do" list is always interesting to read, but certainly approaches our members of Congress from an inflexible, liberal-progressive angle. I think he and Indivisible are completely missing nuance, and have but one agenda. Thus, I completely agree with both your and A.R.'s assessment of Indivisible's angry messaging.
C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK, writes: I think Ezra Levin is spot on when he says that "the only path to a real opposition party is through a cleansing primary season." If, however, you don't want the Democrats to be an opposition party, but the next majority party, then I think that may not be the best strategy...
H.M. in Tallahassee, FL, writes: Regarding your comment "...we have been very disappointed in the pundits listed at the top, particularly Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow."
Here's how I see it: If you were to look into the refrigerators and pantries of Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, and everyone else talking about how the Democrats in the Senate "caved," I've no doubt that you would find those refrigerators and pantries full of food, and no concern among any of them about being able to afford to buy groceries the next time they need them, at whatever cost the groceries are.
Meanwhile, I'm willing to wager that if you were to look into the refrigerators and pantries of those who were relieved at what "The 8" did (not only the food insecure, but also the furloughed/fired federal workers), you would find more than 40,000,000 American people who are grateful that now they might be able eat. While affordability, and especially affordable health care, affect all Americans, hunger and food insecurity is a potential fear of human beings everywhere. A person who has the flu might postpone a visit to their primary care physician for a few days because of the cost. If your refrigerator and pantry are full, it is easy to concentrate on affordability. If your refrigerator and pantry are bare and your stomach is empty, or you have to listen to the cries of your child because they're hungry for food, a fight over affordability is a luxury you simply do not have. In this case, you are in survival mode.
Politics: The Shutdown—What's Next?
D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: First, full disclosure. I am not in a position where I have a desperate situation in terms of health insurance, so I can't pretend to know what it feels like to be in those shoes. However, I am deeply concerned about millions of people who are impacted; I feel the same way about those who were losing SNAP and needed to eat and about federal workers losing their jobs or working without pay. The totality of the situation and the immediate suffering that was starting to take place makes me think that ending the shutdown on the current terms was the correct thing to do. Additionally, with the holidays coming and the air traffic situation, people were going to start getting very upset; and who knows where the blame would fall regarding that? At this point, the Democrats were winning the PR battle overall. They still look like the adults in the room.
The main thing related to ACA is that this fight is far from over. That is what is getting lost in a lot of the hollering from the Democratic side (although I support the hollering too, because it keeps healthcare on the front burner). A week in politics is a long time, but also, a few weeks pass quickly. We will soon have a chance to get every Republican in the U.S. Senate on record as opposing keeping healthcare benefits for millions of Americans. Then in January, the Democrats can block funding again, and this time without endangering federal jobs or causing people to starve without SNAP. A lot of Republican leverage has been removed. So this war is far from over, and it's going to push closer and closer to the fall elections. The results of what was simply the first battle are mixed, no doubt, but it was definitely not a total loss. On to the next one! (And getting the House back in session and more action on the Epstein petition is a nice bonus as well.)
C.K. in Rochester, NY , writes: In the interest of making sure our cry for extending the ACA subsidies is sound, it's worth mentioning that the increase most people are seeing in their health care premiums is NOT directly related to the current fight in Congress. J.L. in Los Angeles told their friend that restoring the Obamacare subsidies would be money in their family's pocket. That would ONLY be the case if the friend's family obtained their health insurance through the exchange. As a teacher, it is much more likely that his friend's wife has employer-paid healthcare.
My daughter's biweekly health care premium is going to go from $7 to $120. Why? Because her employer, a local hospital, is changing the amount they will cover for their employees' insurance. This has nothing to do with Obamacare (at least, not directly). I reminded her that, 6 years ago, as a self-employed consultant, I was paying $1,200 a month for my (high deductible) health insurance. I did not qualify for Obamacare subsidies. Thankfully, today my Medicare coverage is a fraction of that. While her increase is huge, it is still way below what the insurance companies are charging. So yes, those who have been able to take advantage of Obamacare subsidies will see their premiums rise if the subsidies are ended. Those who are covered under their employer's health care plans may also see their premiums rise, but that is due to the employer cutting back on out-of-pocket costs. The cry that "Obamacare needs to be replaced with something that makes financial sense" needs to be changed to "Our health care system needs to be replaced with something that makes financial sense." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is right.
D.M. in Cleveland, OH, writes: I think (hope?) there's something going on nationally that's a little more subtle than the talking heads would have it, while they chase clicks, views, and ratings from the entrenched tribes being targeted.
What Americans are getting exhausted by, writ large, is extremism. On both sides. Both sides have an outrage bus, and cheap gas to fill it with. To what degree the daily affronts are overstated, exaggerated, or even manufactured out of whole cloth almost doesn't matter at this point—what matters is that the need for it has permeated our society, and a very effective industry has become increasingly dedicated (and incentivized) to provide a supply of it.
The extremists on both sides of this deal are gonna see what they wanna see, and start dutifully pumping gas. Far-left progressives are going to scream bloody murder at the "spineless sellouts who caved in to the fascists", and vow to primary them into oblivion. Far-right red-hatters are gonna scream bloody murder that "RINOs even considered restoring food stamps to the brown vermin infesting Blue urban areas", and vow to primary them into oblivion.
But, in the middle (whose death, like that of Mark Twain's, has been exaggerated), I see hints of a burgeoning awareness that "we can't live like this." Our government is essentially broken, and most Americans know it. Those at the far ends of the spectrum would just as soon break it the rest of the way—blow the whole thing up and remake it in the (largely illusory) image they long for.
But I believe more Americans—perhaps grudgingly, perhaps privately—don't want a sequel to the Civil War, and realize we simply have to pivot back to a less combative and adversarial governance. As objectively as is possible, it's fair to say that the lion's share of this realization has to come from the Trumpers. And it's fair to chalk off some 25-30% of his MAGA cultists as essentially unreachable. But, buried within the ranks of the GOP, there exists a population of conservatives who, yes, are sick and tired of trans girls playing basketball right out in front of God and everybody. But they're also getting sick and tired of being sick and tired.
If Democrats can play the long game—and maybe walk, instead of taking the bus—the needle will bend back. And instead of solely being pulled back by the Left, there may be more than one hand pushing it back... from the Right.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Watching the House Floor on the CR vote.
Couldn't help but notice that, as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was speaking, there was a red trucker cap on the table behind him that said "MAGA—Make Appropriations Great Again."
Is Congress ready to reassert its authority?
Gallimaufry
M.Y. in Alto, NM, writes: I was a bit surprised to see (V) write that C# is not open source. The compiler, the .NET runtime, and the ASP.NET web framework are all under the MIT license, with some third party dependencies where the license may be a bit different. It's all under the dotnet org in Github.
Rust is indeed a very interesting language, and I'm surprised (V) hasn't done more with it. I'm not an expert, but have dabbled in it for a few years. Even gave a talk on it this summer at a missionary technologist's conference (yes, there is such a thing). It is somewhat complex, particularly with the pesky borrow checker, but not as complex as C++ and that borrow checker is what gives it its safety magic. The vast majority of the learning curve is getting your code past that borrow checker!
Rust is even quite decent for web app backends, assuming that speed of the service is of utmost importance. I recommend the Axum framework.
It's true that industry is not adopting it with lightning speed, and most Rust jobs are currently in crypto, but it is steadily gaining. If you want to get into systems programming, I think learning it is a good move.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Thanks to D.E. in Lancaster for explaining and demystifying the hold LEGO kits have on a sizable chunk of the population. Now I get it.
And I am fascinated by T.B. in Santa Clara and the data collection of their dreamscape playlist! Waking up to a dream score is a new one on me, but the 17 years' worth of raw data is tantalizing, demanding analysis. By hand analysis, hunting for patterns, no running data through a computer program (cheating). There, I've outed myself as an autodidact, obsessively reinventing the wheel (where's the fun in reading someone else's results?).
J.H. in Peterborough, ON, Canada, writes: For the word "putrescible," thank you, R.H. in Paradise. Not too often that I can encounter a word that I have no memory of seeing before!
R.T. in New York City, NY, writes: Loved this item so much: "This Week in Freudenfreude: Carvd N Stone, Guardian of Good Vibes."
I watch my local evening news in New York most evenings, and as you would imagine, nearly all the crime, and nearly all the bad things happening to people (residential fires, violence, etc.) feature poor Black and brown protagonists. It's no wonder much of the public (or at least the older folks who watch evening news) have an image in their head that Black and brown people = criminals and impoverished victims.
Nyesha Stone is doing the work of angels in showcasing talented, successful, philanthropic people of color. It may not counter the full weight of all the negative stereotypes out there, but at least in Milwaukee (and I hope further afield) people can see inspiring role models.
L.L. in Boston, MA, writes: "This Week in Freudenfreude: Thank U, Part I" gave top billing to a saying by Mr. Rogers. I'd like to share that one of my personal guidelines is the "Two Rogers Rule": If neither Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) nor Steve Rogers (Captain America) would approve of what I'm about to do, I probably shouldn't do it.
J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: You've mentioned Jonathan V. Last so many times recently that he actually popped up on my dream. He and I were attending some sort of class together. For the record, we got along famously. I hope you find that as funny as I do!
(V) & (Z) respond: It is probably bad news for you that we mention Donald Trump at least ten times as often as we mention JVL.
Final Words
D.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: A poor Irishman, who was on his deathbed, and who did not seem quite reconciled to the long journey he was going to take, was kindly consoled by a good-natured friend, with the commonplace reflection that we must all die once. "Why, my dear, now," answered the sick man, "that is the very thing that vexes me; if I could die half a dozen times, I should not mind it."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones