Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base



Washington’s latest fights make one thing unmistakable: Democrats shift their arguments as needed, but always in service of higher taxes, higher spending, and a bigger federal footprint. When the question earlier this year was whether to keep current tax policy and avoid a massive tax hike, Democrats fought against keeping current policy.

Now, after forcing a government shutdown, they claim they must preserve current — but temporary — Obamacare subsidies. Two opposite stances, one consistent goal: bigger government.

On taxes, ‘current policy’ doesn’t count. On spending, ‘current policy’ functions like holy writ.

Earlier this year, Congress faced a hard deadline. Lawmakers had to choose between extending the 2017 American Job Creation Act tax rates or letting them snap back to pre-2017 levels — a $4 trillion tax increase across income brackets. Republicans pushed to retain the lower rates. Democrats pushed for the tax hike.

Democrats insisted the looming deadline was Republicans’ fault and said the surge in revenue would help slow growth in deficits and debt. Republicans ultimately prevailed and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Democrats erupted.

We all know what happened next. Less than three months later, Congress approached the September 30 deadline for annual appropriations. With negotiations still incomplete, Republicans advanced a clean, short-term extension to keep the government open. The House passed it. President Trump signaled he would sign it. Senate Democrats filibustered it.

Republicans tried over a dozen times to reopen the government. Senate Democrats blocked them every time — until this week. Their central demand: extend the temporary “emergency” premium subsidies that Democrats expanded during the pandemic. Those subsidies, scheduled to expire, broadened eligibility beyond 400% of the federal poverty line and boosted benefits for those below it. Democrats already extended them once through 2025.

Now, with the pandemic long over — President Biden signed the resolution ending it on April 10, 2023 — Senate Democrats want the emergency expansions made permanent.

The inconsistency could not be clearer.

When expiring tax law meant taxes would rise, Democrats described preventing that increase as a tax cut — even though extending the law simply kept existing policy in place. The fact that the policy had been the law for eight years meant nothing.

But when expiring pandemic-era subsidies would return Obamacare to its original structure, Democrats suddenly insist that current policy must prevail. They now treat temporary emergency expansions — linked explicitly to COVID, extended once already, disproportionately benefiting upper-income households — as untouchable programs that must become permanent.

On taxes, “current policy” doesn’t count. On spending, “current policy” functions like holy writ.

RELATED: Trump officially ends ‘pathetic’ Democrats’ record-breaking shutdown

Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The reasoning shifts, but the outcome never does: Democrats always land on whatever argument leads to more government. Their broader shutdown demands confirm it — ending Medicaid reforms and restoring spending levels President Trump and Republicans reduced. Every item points in the same direction: more federal dollars out the door.

Democrats note that Republicans, too, support keeping some expiring policies. True. Which makes the underlying purpose even more important to identify.

Republicans fought to maintain 2017 tax levels so Americans could keep more of what they earn — and keep that income out of Washington’s hands. Democrats want permanent expansion of Obamacare subsidies to preserve and grow benefits for people who were never intended to receive them, locking in a larger federal role.

Future fights will come; today’s climate guarantees them. One more thing is just as guaranteed: Democrats’ arguments will continue to change as needed, and their demands for higher taxes, higher spending, and a larger federal government will not.

Defusing the debt bomb: 'We're almost out of time,' warns watchdog



“The entire world's economy is on the top of a soup bubble. There has never in history been a failure of this kind of magnitude. All of the money in the world is gone. Where did it go? Who knows, but it's gone.”

It’s been almost a decade and a half since conservative commentator Bill Whittle — railing against the Obama administration’s orgy of federal spending — offered this dire prognosis on national debt.

'A default is an economic breakdown. It's for real. We may never reclaim America’s position in the world.'

And those were the good old days — when America was a paltry $15 trillion in the red. By the time President Barack Obama left office in January 2017, the number had climbed to just shy of $20 trillion — $8.6 trillion more than when he took office in 2009.

Since then, we’ve experienced three administrations and the chaos of the COVID pandemic. The virus alone cost $4.7 trillion in total budgetary resources for the federal government.

As of October 21, the national debt now sits at an astounding $38 trillion, and all indications are that it will only continue to grow, with current projections suggesting it will hit $39 trillion by March 30.

A post-default world

Mark Minnella is the co-founder of the National Association of Christian Financial Consultants and the host of the faith-based radio show "Financial Issues." He tells Alignthat America may be getting closer to a “point of no return” and warns that the path to a debt default will be painful and destructive.

“If the treasury of the country fails to pay creditors and obligations, or if interest payment goes unpaid, what you see is that trust immediately goes away in the currency. Markets panic. Interest rates rise," says Minnella. And that's when the real trouble begins:

When the world stops trusting our currency, the dollar loses its position in global trade as the global reserve. Then other nations will step into that vacuum, like the Chinese and Russians. That will erode American influence and leadership. Internally, we would see inflation as the dollar loses its trust. We’ll see the government having to print money to stay ahead. We’ll see a surge in the cost of mortgages and business loans, a decline in spending, housing, and companies failing. We’ll have serious economic pain. It’ll self-correct over time, but we’d lose our position as world leaders.

As is often the case, those clinging to the bottom rung of the economic ladder will get hit hardest, warns Minnella. “Especially for those people who are the weakest and most vulnerable, our most impoverished people will be hurt the worst. It hurts them more than anybody else because they don’t have a little more to spend.”

More than political theater

The recently ended government shutdown has given many Americans a painful preview of what happens when the money spigot turns off. Hundreds of thousands of employees have gone unpaid, government services have been limited, and SNAP benefits have been threatened. Even for those not directly affected, financial insecurity looms and the future looks uncertain.

But to Minnella, a debt default would make the last 40-something days look like a vacation.

“I don’t think [default] looks like a government shutdown. That looks like inconvenience and political theater," he tells Align.

"A default is an economic breakdown. It's for real. We may never reclaim America’s position in the world. The shutdown wasn’t really a danger. The danger is a Congress that refuses to stop spending.”

Minnella is far from alone in his fears. Just last week, noted economist Kent Smetters predicted that the U.S. could hit a breaking point with interest payments as soon as 2045 and offered this grim observation: “Almost every empire has been taken down by debt." Even JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has raised alarms, warning in September, “Like most problems, it's better to deal with it than let it happen.”

Bipartisan boondoggle

While President Trump has made some noise in addressing the debt through DOGE cuts and tariff dividends, it hasn’t curbed federal spending enough to make a difference. He did declare on Monday that tariff income would be used to “SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT,” but this year’s tariff revenue is just $195 billion, and the majority of that money is set to go to $2,000 taxpayer dividends. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act also cost $3.4 trillion in spending.

According to Minnella, the skyrocketing national debt is a shared disgrace for both major political parties, neither of whom have the will to explain federal belt-tightening to their constituents.

“It’s not Republican or Democrat,” he says. “It's Washington in general. And as much as it's a problem, it's also part of the solution."

RELATED: The right needs bigger ideas than tax cuts

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Spines wanted

Unfortunately, those in power — whether the MAGA right or the socialist left — seem unlikely to rise to the occasion.

"We don’t have adults in Congress anymore who care about our nation," says Minnella. "We have politicians who care about their careers. They don’t want to cut any spending that might cause somebody to vote against them. They want to encourage as much spending as possible."

Which means fiscal responsibility is ultimately up to voters.

"We need to start electing people with a spine who aren’t there for themselves. We need to vote them out and hold them accountable," says Minnella.

“We need to speak the truth ... that we’re almost out of time," he continues. "American citizens need to take back their power and force out people who will not listen.”

Democrats Want Republicans To Bail Them Out Of Their Bad Political Gamble

By punting the issue into 2025, Democrats hoped they could secure a permanent extension of Obamacare subsidies. That plan backfired.

Fearmongering over Medicare hides the real fix seniors need



Democrats are casting the shutdown showdown as a battle over health care costs, tapping into widespread anxiety over the cost of health care, especially among those enrolled in Medicare. For them, it’s politics. But for millions of American seniors, the worry is real — not just a convenient talking point.

Recent polling shows 58% of Medicare recipients 65 and over are concerned about future health care costs, and half are worried a major health situation could result in either debt or bankruptcy.

If left unchanged, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2036.

While medical debt is a growing concern among Medicare recipients, the staggering size of the federal debt — largely driven by Medicare spending — is a ticking time bomb Congress can no longer ignore. As one of the largest federal spending programs, Medicare consisted of a jarring $874 billion out of the $6.75 trillion federal budget (about 13 cents of every dollar spent in FY2024).

While Medicare receives some funding from premiums paid by enrollees, the single largest source of revenue comes from the federal government's general fund. If left unchanged, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2036.

Medicare Advantage toes the line

Fortunately, policy solutions exist that can help both seniors and taxpayers.

Medicare Advantage merges public financing with private delivery under accountability. The government pays a fixed amount per enrollee to private plans, calibrated by benchmarks and quality measures. Plans that achieve higher star ratings — which were just released for 2026 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this month — receive bonus payments. Meanwhile, poor performers lose ground.

This structure introduces incentives for efficiency and quality that are lacking in traditional Medicare. Yet, successive years of cuts to how Medicare Advantage plans are reimbursed have forced several major insurers to announce they’re withdrawing from certain Medicare Advantage markets next year.

Companies like UnitedHealth, Humana, Aetna, as well as regional plans such as UCare (serving Minnesota and parts of Wisconsin) and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, are withdrawing from select Medicare Advantage counties across the country, citing rising costs. Seniors are using more medical services than expected, driving up claims, while federal reimbursement rates are being cut. Added regulatory and administrative burdens (such as expanded reporting requirements and prior authorization rules) further limit insurers. Together, these pressures make participation unsustainable in some markets.

If unchanged, more insurers will leave Medicare Advantage, and options for seniors will continue to shrink. Meanwhile, Medicare costs are growing much faster than private health care spending.

In 2023, traditional Medicare spent $15,689 per enrollee, more than double the private sector amount. This is a result of the traditional fee-for-service model, which pays providers per treatment instead of per patient, rewarding volume over outcomes, encouraging unnecessary care, and driving up costs.

Conversely, Medicare Advantage’s structure encourages prevention and coordination. To attract enrollees, Medicare Advantage offers supplemental benefits such as vision, dental, hearing, wellness programs, transportation, and over‑the‑counter benefits. Many Medicare Advantage plans now include these extras at little or no additional cost. That flexibility helps tailor benefits to beneficiary needs.

Better treatment, lower costs

When allowed to work, Medicare Advantage delivers higher satisfaction, lower costs, and greater access to coverage than traditional Medicare. One Harvard study found that seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage had better health outcomes than seniors on traditional Medicare. A National Institutes of Health review of hundreds of studies found that Medicare Advantage provided significantly better quality of care and health outcomes than traditional Medicare by a factor of four to one. Another NIH study found that across 48 studies, Medicare Advantage enrollees received more preventative care and had fewer hospitalizations and emergency visits, shorter stays, and lower total spending.

The financial and quality advantages are clear. One study comparing expected out‑of‑pocket costs in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare found that from 2014 to 2019, projected costs were 18% to 24% lower under Medicare Advantage. For seniors on fixed incomes — that is significant.

RELATED: Democrats deny shutdown is about health care for illegal aliens — then one admits the truth

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Seniors get it. This year, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Over the last two decades, enrollment in Medicare Advantage has skyrocketed. Unsurprisingly, polling shows 93% of Medicare Advantage enrollees were satisfied or very satisfied with their coverage, and 94% would recommend it to their family and friends. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that by 2034, Medicare Advantage could account for nearly two-thirds of all Medicare beneficiaries.

The model for the future

Medicare Advantage provides the model for quality, affordable health care for seniors that aligns with what they prefer. Reducing regulatory burdens and barriers within the insurance market will provide Medicare Advantage plans greater flexibility and even entice those insurers leaving the Medicare Advantage market to reconsider.

Medicare cannot continue as purely fee‑for‑service without reform — neither for the medical and financial health of Americans, nor for the sake of the federal budget. The current fiscal challenges plaguing the federal budget demand models that can bend the cost curve while improving quality. Medicare Advantage is not a cure-all, but it is among the most promising tools in the toolbox.

2025 Budget Review Shows We Can’t Afford To Extend ‘Temporary’ Obamacare Subsidies

CBO's review of the 2025 fiscal year shows Republicans have every reason to reject Democrats’ demands to end the 'Schumer Shutdown.'

Current Congressional Spending Levels Are Already A Compromise With Democrats

Democrats are pushing for an unserious, radical set of policy changes that would add another $1.5 trillion to the debt.

While the lights are off, let’s rewire the government



The United States faces an existential threat from the accelerating military power of communist China — a buildup fueled by decades of massive economic expansion. If America intends to counter Beijing’s ambitions, it must grow faster, leaner, and more efficient. Economic strength is national security.

The ongoing government shutdown may not be popular, but it gives President Trump a rare opportunity to make good on his campaign pledge to drain — and redesign — “the swamp.” Streamlining the federal government isn’t just good politics. It’s a matter of survival.

A government that builds wealth rather than expands debt can out-produce China, sustain deterrence, and restore the American ideal of self-government.

George Washington ran the nation with four Cabinet departments: war, treasury, state, and the attorney general. The Department of the Interior came later, followed by the Department of Agriculture, added by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when America was an agrarian power.

The modern Cabinet, by contrast, is a bureaucratic junkyard built more in reaction to political problems than by design. The Labor Department was carved from the Commerce Department to appease the unions. Lyndon Johnson invented the Department of Transportation. Jimmy Carter established the Department of Energy in response to the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence emerged after 9/11.

The result is a patchwork of agencies wired together with duct tape, overlap, and patronage. A government designed for crisis management has become a permanent crisis unto itself.

Enter the Department of National Economy

A return to first principles starts with a single question: How can we accelerate American productivity?

The answer: consolidate. Merge the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Transportation, and Energy into a Department of National Economy. One Cabinet secretary, five undersecretaries, one mission: to expand the flow of goods and services that generate national wealth.

The new department’s motto should be a straightforward question: What did your enterprise do today to increase the wealth of the United States?

Fewer bureaucracies mean fewer fiefdoms, less redundancy, and enormous cost savings. Synergy replaces stovepipes. The government’s economic engine becomes a single machine instead of six competing engines running on taxpayer fuel.

Fold Homeland Security into the Coast Guard

Homeland Security should be absorbed by the U.S. Coast Guard, which already functions as a paramilitary force with both military and police authority, much like Italy’s Carabinieri. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, DHS personnel would share discipline, training, and accountability.

FEMA would cease to be a dumping ground for political hacks. Any discrimination in disaster aid — such as punishing Trump voters — would trigger a court-martial.

The Secret Service would focus solely on protective duties, handing its financial-crime work to the FBI. The secretary of the Coast Guard would gain a seat in the Cabinet.

Restoring intelligence to the OSS model

The Office of Director of National Intelligence should be re-established as the Office of Strategic Services, commanded by a figure in the tradition of Major General “Wild Bill” Donovan. Elements of U.S. Special Operations Command would be seconded to the new OSS, reviving its World War II lineage.

All intelligence agencies — CIA, DIA, FBI, the State Department, DEA, and the service branches — should share common foundational training. The current decline in discipline and capability at the National Intelligence University, worsened by the DEI policies of its leadership, demands urgent correction. Diversity cannot come at the expense of competence.

RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: Our military’s problem isn’t only fitness. It’s bad education.

Photo by Isaiah Vazquez/Getty Images

Law enforcement and the flat tax

At the Department of Justice, dissolve the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Shift alcohol and tobacco oversight to the DEA, firearms and explosives to the U.S. Marshals.

Let the DEA also absorb the Food and Drug Administration, which would become its research and standards division.

Return the FBI to pure investigation — armed but without arrest powers. Enforcement should rest with the U.S. Marshals. Counterintelligence would move to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, reinforced by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

The IRS should be dismantled and replaced with a small agency built around a flat-tax model such as the Hall-Rabushka plan.

Move the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response to Homeland Security. Send its Office of Climate Change and Health Equity to NOAA — or eliminate it entirely.

At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, expand the inspector general’s office tenfold and pay bonuses for rooting out fraud.

Restoring deterrence

The Pentagon needs its own overhaul. Because of China’s rapid military buildup, the Air Force’s Global Strike Command should be separated from U.S. Strategic Command and report directly to the secretary of war and the president under its historic name — Strategic Air Command.

Submarines and silos are invisible; bombers are not. Deterrence depends on visibility. A line of B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, and 100 new B-21 Raider stealth bombers, all bearing the mailed-fist insignia of the old SAC, would send an unmistakable message to Beijing.

RELATED: Exclusive: China behind massive nationwide SIM farm network that directly threatens American critical infrastructure

Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Toward a leaner republic

With Trump back in the White House, this moment is ripe for radical efficiency. A government that builds wealth rather than expands debt can out-produce China, sustain deterrence, and restore the American ideal of self-government.

George Washington’s government fit inside a single carriage. We won’t return to that scale — but we can rediscover that spirit. A lean, unified, strategically organized government would make wealth creation easier, limit bureaucratic overreach, and preserve the republic for the long fight ahead.

New Audit Reveals Shady Way Biden Increased Medicaid Spending

The Biden administration’s actions demonstrate Democrats' desire to turn Medicaid into a vehicle for an all-encompassing government.

‘Self-Care’ Spending Might Explain Why America Is So Deeply In Debt

However much we want to blame Congress for the nation’s budgetary woes, our lawmakers do little more than reflect the societal zeitgeist.

History On Trump’s Side In Quest To Gut Congress’ Wasteful Spending, Russ Vought Says

'What would the founders have thought?'