A Group Of Senate Democrats Spinelessly And Pathetically Cave To Trump

PoliticusUSA remains ad-free, thanks to the support of dedicated readers like you. Please consider becoming a subscriber to help sustain our work.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently raised alarms that have now materialized: during a tense Senate session, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) attempted to justify an impending betrayal by a faction of Democratic Senators. These Senators are poised to grant greater authority to Trump and Elon Musk, motivated by a fear of being held accountable for a government shutdown.

The complete roster of dissenting Democrats may not be revealed until the vote, but as of now, Schumer stands as the sole spokesperson trying to rationalize this empowering of Trump. He is, predictably, attempting to spin a narrative around what many perceive as indefensible.

In his remarks, Schumer stated:

“Unless Congress acts, the federal government will shut down tomorrow at midnight.”

“I have reiterated numerous times that there are no winners in a government shutdown.”

“However, there are certainly victims: the most vulnerable Americans who rely on federal programs for food, medical care, and financial stability.”

“Communities dependent on government services will experience significant suffering.”

This week, Democrats proposed a practical solution: fund the government for an additional month to give appropriators more time to fulfill their responsibilities.

However, Republicans dismissed this proposal outright. What was their reasoning?

Because Donald Trump seeks total control over government spending.

He isn’t the first president to desire such authority, but he is the first to instill such fear in his party.

This Republican refusal leads to a rather bleak choice.

It’s not really a choice—it’s more of a Hobson’s Choice: either advance the current bill or risk plunging the country into chaos with a government shutdown.

This, in my assessment, is hardly a choice at all.

While the continuing resolution (CR) bill may be objectionable, the repercussions of a shutdown far exceed its drawbacks.

Indeed, the Republican bill is a questionable option.

It is not a straightforward CR.

It is heavily partisan.

It fails to address many critical needs across the nation.

Nonetheless, permitting Donald Trump to consolidate even more power through a government shutdown is an even more perilous scenario.

Let me clarify one point: no one on my side of the aisle desires a government shutdown.

Members supporting this CR do not want a shutdown.

Members opposing this CR do not want a shutdown either.

Those opposing it hope that Republicans will take their duties seriously and negotiate spending bills that actually meet the needs of the American populace.

I commend them for that.

Regrettably, the current Republican party has become synonymous with Trump.

As distasteful as passing the CR is, allowing Donald Trump to seize more power through a shutdown is an even graver option.

For one, a shutdown would empower Donald Trump and Elon Musk to dismantle essential government services at a pace we have never seen before.

In the event of a shutdown, the Trump administration would possess unilateral authority to label entire agencies, programs, and staff as “non-essential,” resulting in furloughs without guarantees of reemployment.

The determination of what constitutes essential would rest solely with the executive branch, leaving no checks within the agencies.

In essence, a shutdown would hand over the keys to the city, state, and country to Trump, Musk, and their allies.

Moreover, Musk has openly expressed his desire for a shutdown and is reportedly planning to exploit it to accelerate the dismantling of vital government services.

Musk has stated, “If the job is not essential, or they are not performing adequately, they obviously should not remain on the public payroll.”

Many federal employees and experts are justifiably concerned that a temporary shutdown could lead to permanent reductions.

Secondly, if a shutdown occurs, Congressional Republicans would likely weaponize their control to selectively decide which parts of the government to reopen.

During a prolonged shutdown, House and Senate Republicans might push bills to reopen only their favored departments while leaving essential services they oppose in limbo.

Thirdly, a shutdown is no trivial matter; it inflicts real pain on American families.

Take veterans’ services as an example: a shutdown could lead to reduced staffing at regional VA offices, delayed benefit processing, and cutbacks in mental health services—abandoning veterans who have earned and depend on these resources.

Social Security and services for seniors could also suffer, with a shutdown potentially allowing Trump to slash administrative staff, resulting in delays for new applications, benefit adjustments, and forcing seniors to endure longer waits for their rightful benefits.

Alarmingly, a shutdown could stall federal court cases, one of the few avenues for combating Trump’s lawlessness. This could result in furloughed staff, denying victims and defendants their day in court, prolonging appeals, and congesting the justice system for an extended period.

This administration has demonstrated an alarming readiness to sacrifice American families for political gain.

A shutdown would significantly amplify this risk.

Finally, there’s another compelling reason to oppose a shutdown: President Trump and Republican leaders would relish the opportunity to plunge us into a protracted government shutdown.

For Trump, a shutdown would serve as a perfect distraction from his abysmal agenda.

Presently, Trump is the face of chaos in the government.

He is responsible for the turmoil in the stock market.

He is accountable for the economic damage that stretches nationwide.

As the stock market plummets and consumer confidence wanes, Trump is counting on a shutdown to divert attention from his true motives: enacting significant tax cuts for the wealthy funded by the American populace.

He seeks to undermine Social Security, hollow out Medicaid, and impose taxes on consumer goods through reckless trade policies.

During a shutdown, the focus would shift to skirmishes with Republicans over which agencies to reopen, rather than engaging in discussions about the harm Trump’s agenda inflicts on the American people.

It is my duty to make a decision that prioritizes the welfare of the country and minimizes harm to its citizens.

Thus, I will vote to keep the government open and prevent a shutdown.

There is no one—absolutely no one—who desires a government shutdown more than Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

We should not grant them this wish.

And let it be clear: Democrats will relentlessly confront Trump’s actions.

Everything Trump, Musk, and the Republicans have undertaken aligns with a clear objective: slashing taxes for billionaires and dismantling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

This is the critical battle, and it is the struggle we must focus on.

All of the chaos, lawlessness, and corruption we have witnessed is about rigging the system in favor of the ultra-wealthy at the expense of working Americans.

This is the fight the American people need to witness.

This is the battle that Democrats will win.

A shutdown would merely serve as a costly distraction from this vital conflict.

The faction of Democrats willing to vote in favor of enabling Trump is attempting to frame these issues as separate battles.

In reality, they are intimately intertwined.

A shutdown is part of the same struggle.

How can Democrats expect voters to rally around them at the polls when they so easily abandon their principles out of fear of blame?

A shutdown would not divert attention from the struggle; it would sharpen the focus on what Trump and his party are doing.

A shutdown could energize citizens nationwide, as they observe Senate Democrats fighting on their behalf.

Sure, the corporate media would still place blame on Democrats, but that’s a given regardless of the circumstances.

Not all Democratic Senators lack backbone; figures like Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin, and Chris Van Hollen have already publicly stated their opposition to this CR.

House Democrats showed courage by nearly unanimously opposing this problematic CR. They fought.

In contrast, a group of Senate Democrats seems prepared to cut and run.

It is insufficient to assert that some party members, who previously warned the American populace about Trump’s threat to democracy, should retain voter support if they endorse this CR.

Any Democrat who votes to empower Trump—because that is precisely what voting for this CR entails—should not expect any financial support from donors and should face challenges in primary elections.

While I won’t dictate how others manage their finances, should any of these Democrats reach out to me for funding, the response will be a firm “no.”

We are not deceived by their excuses; what reveals itself is a cadre of self-serving individuals prioritizing their careers over the nation’s welfare.

This betrayal will not be forgotten and represents another step toward the Democrats losing the support of their base and demoralizing their party.

What are your thoughts on the Senate Democrats’ capitulation? We invite you to share your opinions in the comments below.

Leave a comment