Five Alarm Fire Threatening To Engulf Midterms
'voter mobilization will be critical for Republicans'
There’s Still Time For Trump To Turn Things Around Before The Midterms
The midterms are still eight months from now, and all it takes is a little focus and the will to push Trump’s team and Republicans in Congress to do the work.How to break Washington’s dumbest habit
Every year, Congress flirts with a government shutdown, driven by partisan squabbling and political showmanship. It’s an avoidable cycle that harms taxpayers, disrupts businesses, and creates uncertainty for the public — without producing meaningful policy outcomes. Shutdowns have become a costly ritual Washington should abandon.
Last year’s record 43-day shutdown brought large parts of government to a standstill. Flights were canceled. Permits stalled. Military personnel and civilian federal workers went without paychecks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the lapse caused as much as $14 billion in permanent GDP loss — about the size of Kosovo’s entire economy.
Supporters of shutdown brinkmanship claim deadlines create leverage to force policy changes. In practice, shutdowns harden positions instead of producing compromise.
Now Democrats are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which has been closed for over a month. This partial shutdown is hitting TSA workers and other essential homeland security personnel.
Nobody wins in a shutdown.
The good news: Congress has tools to stop this nonsense for good. Last year, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) and Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) reintroduced the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. The bill would keep the government operating temporarily at current funding levels while negotiations continue on longer-term deals. It would also bar members of Congress from spending taxpayer dollars on travel, taking recess, or considering most non-spending legislation until they finish the budget.
Shutdowns don’t save money. Agencies burn time and resources preparing contingency plans, restarting operations, and cleaning up the mess. Workers ultimately receive back pay after funding is restored. Taxpayers foot the bill for Washington’s dysfunction.
Financial markets and businesses also pay a price. Companies that depend on permits, contracts, or federal data releases face delays that disrupt investment decisions. Entrepreneurs seeking approvals may postpone hiring or expansion. Credit rating agencies have warned repeatedly that shutdown brinkmanship undermines confidence in America’s governance — an unnecessary risk for the world’s largest economy.
The politics make reform urgent. Nearly all government funding is set to expire just weeks before Election Day, a pressure point at the height of campaign season. Recent history shows how easily the minority party can see strategic advantage in prolonging a lapse to reinforce a narrative of chaos and dysfunction heading into the midterms.
RELATED: Bidenflation? Trumpflation? Try unipartyflation
Americans expect disagreement in a democracy. They also expect basic governance to continue. Shutdowns signal that politicians will use essential functions as bargaining chips. That deepens cynicism about institutions and reinforces the belief that Washington prizes partisan victories over practical solutions.
Supporters of shutdown brinkmanship claim deadlines create leverage to force policy changes. Last year, Democrats tried to use a shutdown threat to extend temporary, expensive tax credits to subsidize Obamacare. In other cases, Republicans tried to use shutdowns to force a repeal of Obamacare. Neither strategy worked. In practice, shutdowns harden positions instead of producing compromise.
Ideally, Congress would pass the 12 regular appropriations bills before the fiscal year begins on October 1. It hasn’t done that in nearly 30 years, largely because the process has become a political weapon.
Avoiding shutdowns doesn’t mean abandoning fiscal discipline. It means recognizing that responsible governing requires stability alongside vigorous debate. Congress can fight over spending levels, taxes, and policy priorities without threatening the continuity of government operations.
Washington should end the brinkmanship, reopen the government, and adopt reforms that keep shutdown threats from holding the country hostage again.
Trump and Rubio are playing ‘the art of the squeal’ in Cuba
Commentators keep treating President Trump’s moves against Venezuela and Iran as random, emotional, or “impulsive.” They aren’t. They read like strategic actions aimed at the real peer adversary — China — which now finds itself short roughly 20% of a key commodity that powers everything from industrial output to military operations: oil.
Orange Man Bad managed to hit another long-term communist adversary at the same time: Cuba.
Trump isn’t sending Marines to Havana. He’s squeezing the regime into an economic takeover.
After the Maduro snatch-and-bag operation — and after Washington threatened heavy tariffs on Mexico if it kept shipping petroleum products to Cuba — Havana’s fuel supply has reportedly fallen to roughly 35% of its monthly needs.
In 2025, Cuba imported about 13.7 million barrels of oil — roughly 112,000 barrels per day of crude and refined petroleum products — supplied primarily by Venezuela (about 61% of imports) and Mexico (about 25%), with Russia and Algeria covering most of the rest.
Trump’s executive order in late January authorized heavy tariffs on any country supplying oil to Cuba. Mexico suspended shipments to avoid U.S. retaliation. At the same time, a de facto maritime quarantine has targeted “ghost tankers” attempting to evade sanctions. Even Russian deliveries have run into trouble. Reports say the tanker Sea Horse, carrying roughly 200,000 barrels of Russian gas and oil, diverted in late February to avoid seizure or sanctions risk.
Cuba now faces a severe fuel crunch.
International observers — including U.N.-linked agencies — have described the situation as catastrophic. The island’s power grid has slid toward collapse, and the global fuel spike tied to U.S. action in Iran has only tightened the vise.
The petroleum deficit has reportedly cut national electricity generation capacity by about 65%. That leaves roughly one-third of needed power available at any given time. In Santiago de Cuba and Guantánamo, residents report blackouts lasting more than 20 hours a day. In Havana, scheduled cuts reportedly jumped from four hours to as many as 18 hours a day. Hospitals have reportedly performed surgeries by cellphone light. Water systems that rely on electric pumps have failed across large areas. Garbage collection in Havana has stalled because the trucks are out of gas.
The communist government has responded with wartime austerity measures. Major airports have suspended refueling for international flights. Airlines such as Air Canada and Air France have canceled or rerouted flights, gutting tourism — one of the regime’s few remaining sources of cash. State companies have shifted to reduced schedules to conserve power.
RELATED: Iran, China, and Trump’s ‘art of the squeal’
Washington has offered one narrow escape valve. On February 25, the U.S. issued a limited license allowing American companies to sell oil to Cuba’s emerging private sector. Analysts have described it as “a drop in the bucket.” It isn’t enough to run the heavy thermoelectric plants the national grid needs.
Last week, Trump publicly floated the idea of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. The phrase stays diplomatically vague, but the surrounding actions and rhetoric suggest a specific approach. Trump described Cuba as a failing nation because it has “no money. They have no anything right now.”
He isn’t going to send a Marine expeditionary force to Havana. He’s pressuring the regime to cut a deal that looks like gently coerced economic integration: end the communist monopoly over banking and energy, allow U.S. firms to buy and operate failing infrastructure (telecom, ports, the power grid), and expand the private sector until the Communist Party can’t enforce centralized control.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has echoed that direction. He has argued that Cuba needs a “different economic model” and said the U.S. would welcome reforms that open space for economic and political freedom. Reports also suggest back-channel contact, though the administration has not confirmed details.
Cuba’s current leader, Communist Party chief Miguel Díaz-Canel, now sits in the position of a man about to get a colonoscopy. He should pray Orange Man Bad feels generous with the sedation — or he’ll learn the hard way what “the art of the squeal” means.
Mamdani Says Quiet Part Out Loud About Democrats’ Tax-Hiking Agenda
Elected Democrats rarely limit tax increases to wealthy families once in office.How Foreign Factories Turn Our Entire Economy Into A Somali Daycare (And How To Fix It)
Regulations depend on Anglo-Saxon norms of voluntary self-regulation. They no longer work when those norms are not shared by trade partners.This coast-to-coast rail merger could cut your expenses
Government micromanagement has throttled economic growth for decades. The latest example came when the Surface Transportation Board deemed the Norfolk Southern-Union Pacific merger application incomplete and rejected it without prejudice. That decision delays what would be the first uninterrupted transcontinental railroad in American history — a privately financed project that could strengthen supply chains, boost growth, and improve American competitiveness without costing taxpayers a dime.
For now, that vision sits on hold.
A stronger rail network would help stabilize the supply chain while lowering costs for producers and consumers alike.
The STB said the 7,000-page filing lacked several key materials, including a full market-impact analysis with traffic projections. Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific now must fill in the gaps and refile.
That setback does not decide the larger question. Rail mergers have recovered from early regulatory obstacles before, and the STB’s ruling on completeness says nothing definitive about the underlying merits of this merger.
In May 2021, for example, the STB rejected CSX’s application to acquire Pan Am Railways as incomplete. Two months later, CSX resubmitted the application, and the board accepted it. The combined railroad later expanded shipping options, lowered freight costs for shippers, and supported regional growth.
Opponents of the present merger nevertheless treat the incomplete ruling as a final victory. It is not. It is a procedural delay, not a substantive rejection. And history shows that rail mergers of this kind can generate real economic benefits.
Today, shipping goods across the country by rail often means navigating a patchwork system of freight lines, transfer points, and carriers. Businesses must coordinate among multiple operators just to move a product from one coast to the other.
That fragmentation imposes real costs. It slows delivery, raises uncertainty, and forces businesses to protect themselves with larger inventory buffers and wider shipping windows. Those costs do not disappear. Businesses absorb some of them, and consumers pay the rest.
Farmers, manufacturers, and other suppliers feel that pressure most acutely. Many already operate on thin margins. Add shipping delays and higher freight costs, and those businesses face hard choices: eat the loss, cut investment, or raise prices.
That is why the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger matters.
A stronger rail network would help stabilize the supply chain while lowering costs for producers and consumers alike. It also would mark the first time companies attempted to create a true transcontinental rail line without asking taxpayers to foot the bill.
RELATED: The railroad that could unite — and revive — America
The competitiveness argument matters too. A USDA study found that wheat grown in 2022 cost more to ship by rail to western ports in the United States than in Canada, even across comparable distances. Canada produces far less wheat than the United States, but its less fragmented rail network gives its exporters an advantage. American farmers, by contrast, compete from a structurally weaker position because the U.S. rail system remains broken into discontinuous lines.
That disadvantage carries real consequences. When uninterrupted, rail can move freight at costs up to 60% lower per ton than other transportation modes. A more seamless coast-to-coast rail network would narrow the gap between American producers and their foreign competitors.
Critics argue that the merger would reduce competition in shipping. That view is too narrow. Freight competition does not occur only within rail. Shippers compare rail with trucking, barges, pipelines, and air cargo. A stronger rail network would not eliminate those alternatives. It would complement them. In a resilient supply chain, businesses need multiple transportation options, not fewer.
An efficient rail system would make the entire freight market stronger by giving shippers another dependable, lower-cost tool for moving goods.
The task now is straightforward: Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific should complete the review process quickly and responsibly. The precedent exists for a successful resubmission after an incomplete ruling. If that happens here, Americans will gain the kind of privately financed infrastructure upgrade the country badly needs.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com