October 19, 2025 • 14 mins
The U.S. government shutdown enters a new week with Congress deadlocked and millions facing uncertainty over federal paychecks, Social Security, and national parks. Discover how the standoff is impacting veterans, the military, and American families as Washington politics grind to a halt. #USPolitics #GovernmentShutdown #SocialSecurity #TrumpNews #PoliticalPodcast #BreakingNews #WhiteHouse #AmericanPolitics #Congress #FederalWorkers #EconomyUpdate #MilitaryNews #PoliticalNews
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate. We are now past the two
week mark and well barreling towards the three week threshold
of this ongoing federal government shutdown. This prolonged closure is
entirely propelled by the persistent, unyielding budgetary impasse between congressional
Democrats and Republicans, you know, with the Senate having failed
(00:21):
ten times now to pass a finding bill. This legislative
abdication has really forced the executive branch into a series
of incredibly difficult discretionary choices. Right, the central intellectual disagreement
arising from this crisis is profound. Does the selective application
of executive authority, you know, through targeted funding shifts, emergency workarounds,
(00:45):
project pauses, does that serve as necessary pragmatic crisis mitigation
or does it fundamentally undermine constitutional principles of legislative control
and well administrative neutrality A key question.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
So I will be arguing that the executive in this
instance is acting as a necessary stabilizer. These discretionary actions,
while yeah certainly controversial, are vital tools. They're used to
prioritize critical functions like national security and exert unavoidable pressure
in what's become a dangerous legislative deadlock.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
And I come at it from a very different perspective.
I believe these highly selective actions reveal the executive not
as a stabilizer but actually as an intentional saboteur. You see,
these choices transform a budgetary crisis into a highly partisan weapon.
When the administration can explicitly target certain federal investments and
(01:42):
create glaring pay disparities based purely on legal designation rather
than functional duty, well that breaches the administrative branches required neutrality,
and it creates unacceptable differential harm.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, I recognize the deep concern regarding harm, I really do,
but my position is founded on the primacy of national
security and operational stability. When Congress fails and it has
failed to fulfill its constitutional duty, the executive must sort
of fill that appropriation's void to prevent operational collapse. The
(02:17):
clearest and frankly most urgent case is military pay. To
maintain operational stability, President Trump directed the Defense Secretary to
shift about what was it, six and a half billion
dollars in funds to ensure paychecks went out for active
duty troops on October fifteenth. Now, that was an immense necessary,
and i'd argue justified measure to uphold troop morale and
(02:39):
ensure the backbone of our defense system remained solvent. Now
regarding the other side of this, this high stakes calculus,
the pause on eleven billion dollars in infrastructure projects in
certain Democrat led cities. Yes, that is politically sensitive, I
concede that. But they are legitimate, albeit difficult pressure points.
They generate the necessary leverage too, for senators who have
(03:01):
repeatedly failed to act, to finally return to the table
and sign off on a funding bill. This is well,
this is crisis governance.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
That's a compelling argument for systemic stability. I grant you that.
But the moment the executive brand stops acting neutrally, the
system stability you praise becomes entirely selective. The harm is
unevenly distributed, and that is what transforms this from mitigation
into weaponization. Let's look immediately at the military pay example
you just cited. We have roughly forty six thousand full
(03:29):
time US military members. These are the vital dual status
technicians of the National Garden Reserve who are not being paid.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Right, the dual status techs.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Exactly they have to wear their uniform to work daily,
performing essential duties, often working shoulder to shoulder with the
very paid active duty peers you just mentioned. Senator JD.
Vans himself publicly acknowledged the necessity, stating I think the
quote was they had to figure out how to pay
these marines. Yet the massive work around was selectively implemented,
(04:02):
leaving these crucial members financially exposed. And furthermore, your defense
of explicitly targeting federal funding in quote blue states and
cities is well, it's unacceptable.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
The executive is.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Using the power of the purse for partisan retribution, not
responsible governance.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Okay, we absolutely must delve into that specific military pay
disparity because it really is a flashpoint for this debate
between legal necessity and ethical obligation. I am not convinced, though,
that the failure to pay the dual status technicians proves
partisan malice. The executive's action was selective, I'd argue out
(04:40):
of technical legal necessity. The immediate six point five billion
dollars emergency pay measure was aimed at the primary active force,
those falling under Title ten of the US Code. That's
federal control. However, the dual status technicians are legally complex.
They are, with the Supreme Court deemed rare birds because
(05:00):
they often operate under Title thirty two state control even
while performing federal duties. This distinction creates a vastly different
appropriation's hurdle. The failure to pay them, while genuinely regrettable
and frankly cruel to the individuals affected, is its a
limitation inherent in the complex existing legal framework that the
emergency order couldn't easily bypass. It wasn't I believe a
(05:23):
deliberate slight against their functional duty or risk.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
I recognize the technical difference between Title ten and Title
thirty two appropriations. I do, but I just don't buy
that the complexity justifies the ethical failure in a crisis
of this magnitude. If the administration, through the Office of
Management and Budget could somehow bypass standing legal hurdles to
shift six point five billion dollars for the active force,
(05:48):
are you truly arguing that the administrative will to solve
the remaining forty six thousand cases was absent simply because
the legal problem was genuinely insurmountable. I find that hard
to square well. The willingness to apply discretions so broadly
for the largest group and then use legal complexity as
a shield to ignore a smaller but equally vital group
(06:11):
That shows an immediate failure of moral and administrative leadership.
It demonstrates that priority was given to the politically or
systemically easiest fix, not the most functionally or ethically required one.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Right, That's a powerful challenge regarding administrative will. But I'd
still argue the immediate priority in a systemic crisis must
be ensuring the largest components remain stable first. Perhaps we
can shift our focus now to the other side of
this discretionary choice, the politicization of economic impact. You criticize
(06:45):
the announcement that the Army Corps of Engineers will be
immediately pausing eleven billion dollars in infrastructure projects in several
Democrat led cities.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I agree that this is politically charged, its high stakes poker,
no doubt. However, we must view this through the lens
of political leverage generated by congressional in action. We are
weeks into this budgetary impasse. If pausing eleven billion dollars
in projects creates economic friction that forces key senators who
have obstructed meaningful funding attempts to return to the table
(07:17):
and fulfill their duty. Then, under the doctrine of necessary
implication and crisis governance, the executive is perhaps obligated to
use such leverage. It's a painful way to restore the
appropriations process, but sometimes that pain is unavoidable to stabilize
the entire system.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
That perspective frames this as political chess, sure, but it
constitutes a profound breach of administrative trusts, and it creates
genuine downstream economic damage beyond mere leverage. We aren't just
talking about abstract numbers here. We are talking about fiscal paralysis,
real world effects. When you pause eleven billion dollars in
(07:54):
construction and infrastructure work, you aren't just punishing a mayor
or a state representative. You are causing immediate layoffs of
private sector contractors, construction workers, engineers. You are introducing project
delays that will inevitably lead to massive cost overruns when
those projects eventually get restarted. This calculated partisan damage undermines
(08:17):
the public's faith that the government can act neutrally. It
makes people view the shutdown not as a catastrophic failure
to be minimized, but as a legitimate tool for political
retribution against opponents, and that's at a terrible precedent for
future administrations.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
While the economic pain is undeniable and yes, regrettable, the
immediate calculable cost of project pauses is often seen as
a necessary, lesser evil compared to the incalculable cost of
a prolonged systemic collapse, like the failure to pay the
entire active duty military or the inability to run border security.
(08:54):
The executive is trying to create pressure points that are,
at least in theory, reversible once funding is restored, and
we must also focus on where the executive has successfully
managed core stability. Mandatory spending, for instance, remains utterly stable.
Social Security payments for retirement disability survivors they continue because
they are mandatory. Okay, Medical centers and clinics run by
(09:17):
the VA are still open, as are core benefits like
compensation and pension. Essential non federal entities like the US
Postal Service continue business as usual. We also see executive
efforts to mitigate public disruption in non essential areas. Consider
the national parks. All sixty three national parks are technically
(09:40):
open for public use. Yes, services like visitor centers and
restrooms are limited. Sure, but the decision to keep the
land accessible rather than completely barricaded like in previous shutdowns
shows an administrative effort. I think to minimize the visibility
of the failure.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
You emphasize stability, but that stability is highly inco and
frankly misleading in some cases. Let's just return to the VA,
which is a perfect microcosm of this administrative inconsistency causing
unnecessary harm. While you correctly note that critical medical care
and core cash benefits continue, the non mandatory side of
(10:17):
the VA is well. It's decimated VA benefits, regional offices closed,
halting assistance for disability claims. Cemetery grounds are not being maintained,
which is a profound disrespect to veterans and their families. Crucially,
Transition Program assistance, which help service members move back into
civilian life, has ceased, and the messaging and execution have
(10:41):
been so confusing that members of both the House and
Senate Veterans Affairs committees have publicly criticized the VA's response.
They're saying the agency has been deliberately misleading overclaims it
can't respond to necessary communications during the shutdown. This proves
that while some critical services are stabilized, administrative clarity, and
(11:03):
vital support services are being inconsistently cut, often prioritizing political
optics over actual functional consistency.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
I concede that the internal communication, particularly regarding the VA
and the cessation of services like cemetery maintenance, reflects poor,
perhaps ambiguous prioritization within that department's framework. The ambiguity of
these choices is indeed painful and damaging to trust. But
(11:34):
the ultimate moral and constitutional responsibility lies not with the
executive branch attempting to keep essential operations functioning. You know,
Transportation security administration officers and air traffic controllers are still
required to work even without paychecks or trying to pay troops.
But with Congress, the executive is, by necessity cleaning up
(11:56):
a systemic mass created by the failure of the appropriation's pit.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
That framing shifts the blame for administrative choices entirely onto
the legislative branch, but it doesn't excuse the use of
selective authority to create winners and losers. Internally, the selective
use of executive power from creating those unacceptable paid disparities
among military workers based purely on legal title to explicitly
(12:22):
targeting politically unfavorable infrastructure projects. It prioritizes high stakes political
maneuvering over neutral public service. This, in turn, critically weakens
the foundations of government stability during a legislative crisis, transforming
a budget crisis into a profound crisis of integrity that
impacts public trust for decades to come.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
I understand the gravity of prioritizing political maneuvers, I do,
but I must reiterate that in the face of complete
legislative failure, the executive branch isn't merely cleaning up a mess.
It feels compelled to act, perhaps under the doctrine of
necessary implication, to mitigate the worst potential harms and ensure
(13:07):
basic stability. The choices are truly ambiguous, difficult choices, but
they are driven by the vacuum of funding authority. The
ultimate responsibility for generating this painful choice, I maintain, lies
squarely with the legislative branch.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
And the question we are left with really is what
precedent does this selective harm set for the future use
of shutdown powers? Will the executive branch now view the
shutdown not as a failure to be minimized, but as
a legitimate tool of leverage that question.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
The establishment of new administrative norms in the face of
constitutional friction is crucial. This situation clearly demonstrates the profound
challenge inherent in maintaining constitutional balance when a budgetary impasse
forces administrative officials into by making these difficult discretionary choices,
(14:03):
choices that carry deep political and ethical implications for every
citizen they serve.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Indeed, there is certainly much more to explore here, particularly
concerning the long term impact of this kind of administrative
politicization on federal programs in public trust.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
A crucial area for future discussion. Thank you for joining
us on the debate.
Welcome to the debate. We are now past the two
week mark and well barreling towards the three week threshold
of this ongoing federal government shutdown. This prolonged closure is
entirely propelled by the persistent, unyielding budgetary impasse between congressional
Democrats and Republicans, you know, with the Senate having failed
(00:21):
ten times now to pass a finding bill. This legislative
abdication has really forced the executive branch into a series
of incredibly difficult discretionary choices. Right, the central intellectual disagreement
arising from this crisis is profound. Does the selective application
of executive authority, you know, through targeted funding shifts, emergency workarounds,
(00:45):
project pauses, does that serve as necessary pragmatic crisis mitigation
or does it fundamentally undermine constitutional principles of legislative control
and well administrative neutrality A key question.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
So I will be arguing that the executive in this
instance is acting as a necessary stabilizer. These discretionary actions,
while yeah certainly controversial, are vital tools. They're used to
prioritize critical functions like national security and exert unavoidable pressure
in what's become a dangerous legislative deadlock.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
And I come at it from a very different perspective.
I believe these highly selective actions reveal the executive not
as a stabilizer but actually as an intentional saboteur. You see,
these choices transform a budgetary crisis into a highly partisan weapon.
When the administration can explicitly target certain federal investments and
(01:42):
create glaring pay disparities based purely on legal designation rather
than functional duty, well that breaches the administrative branches required neutrality,
and it creates unacceptable differential harm.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, I recognize the deep concern regarding harm, I really do,
but my position is founded on the primacy of national
security and operational stability. When Congress fails and it has
failed to fulfill its constitutional duty, the executive must sort
of fill that appropriation's void to prevent operational collapse. The
(02:17):
clearest and frankly most urgent case is military pay. To
maintain operational stability, President Trump directed the Defense Secretary to
shift about what was it, six and a half billion
dollars in funds to ensure paychecks went out for active
duty troops on October fifteenth. Now, that was an immense necessary,
and i'd argue justified measure to uphold troop morale and
(02:39):
ensure the backbone of our defense system remained solvent. Now
regarding the other side of this, this high stakes calculus,
the pause on eleven billion dollars in infrastructure projects in
certain Democrat led cities. Yes, that is politically sensitive, I
concede that. But they are legitimate, albeit difficult pressure points.
They generate the necessary leverage too, for senators who have
(03:01):
repeatedly failed to act, to finally return to the table
and sign off on a funding bill. This is well,
this is crisis governance.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
That's a compelling argument for systemic stability. I grant you that.
But the moment the executive brand stops acting neutrally, the
system stability you praise becomes entirely selective. The harm is
unevenly distributed, and that is what transforms this from mitigation
into weaponization. Let's look immediately at the military pay example
you just cited. We have roughly forty six thousand full
(03:29):
time US military members. These are the vital dual status
technicians of the National Garden Reserve who are not being paid.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Right, the dual status techs.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Exactly they have to wear their uniform to work daily,
performing essential duties, often working shoulder to shoulder with the
very paid active duty peers you just mentioned. Senator JD.
Vans himself publicly acknowledged the necessity, stating I think the
quote was they had to figure out how to pay
these marines. Yet the massive work around was selectively implemented,
(04:02):
leaving these crucial members financially exposed. And furthermore, your defense
of explicitly targeting federal funding in quote blue states and
cities is well, it's unacceptable.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
The executive is.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Using the power of the purse for partisan retribution, not
responsible governance.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Okay, we absolutely must delve into that specific military pay
disparity because it really is a flashpoint for this debate
between legal necessity and ethical obligation. I am not convinced, though,
that the failure to pay the dual status technicians proves
partisan malice. The executive's action was selective, I'd argue out
(04:40):
of technical legal necessity. The immediate six point five billion
dollars emergency pay measure was aimed at the primary active force,
those falling under Title ten of the US Code. That's
federal control. However, the dual status technicians are legally complex.
They are, with the Supreme Court deemed rare birds because
(05:00):
they often operate under Title thirty two state control even
while performing federal duties. This distinction creates a vastly different
appropriation's hurdle. The failure to pay them, while genuinely regrettable
and frankly cruel to the individuals affected, is its a
limitation inherent in the complex existing legal framework that the
emergency order couldn't easily bypass. It wasn't I believe a
(05:23):
deliberate slight against their functional duty or risk.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
I recognize the technical difference between Title ten and Title
thirty two appropriations. I do, but I just don't buy
that the complexity justifies the ethical failure in a crisis
of this magnitude. If the administration, through the Office of
Management and Budget could somehow bypass standing legal hurdles to
shift six point five billion dollars for the active force,
(05:48):
are you truly arguing that the administrative will to solve
the remaining forty six thousand cases was absent simply because
the legal problem was genuinely insurmountable. I find that hard
to square well. The willingness to apply discretions so broadly
for the largest group and then use legal complexity as
a shield to ignore a smaller but equally vital group
(06:11):
That shows an immediate failure of moral and administrative leadership.
It demonstrates that priority was given to the politically or
systemically easiest fix, not the most functionally or ethically required one.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Right, That's a powerful challenge regarding administrative will. But I'd
still argue the immediate priority in a systemic crisis must
be ensuring the largest components remain stable first. Perhaps we
can shift our focus now to the other side of
this discretionary choice, the politicization of economic impact. You criticize
(06:45):
the announcement that the Army Corps of Engineers will be
immediately pausing eleven billion dollars in infrastructure projects in several
Democrat led cities.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I agree that this is politically charged, its high stakes poker,
no doubt. However, we must view this through the lens
of political leverage generated by congressional in action. We are
weeks into this budgetary impasse. If pausing eleven billion dollars
in projects creates economic friction that forces key senators who
have obstructed meaningful funding attempts to return to the table
(07:17):
and fulfill their duty. Then, under the doctrine of necessary
implication and crisis governance, the executive is perhaps obligated to
use such leverage. It's a painful way to restore the
appropriations process, but sometimes that pain is unavoidable to stabilize
the entire system.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
That perspective frames this as political chess, sure, but it
constitutes a profound breach of administrative trusts, and it creates
genuine downstream economic damage beyond mere leverage. We aren't just
talking about abstract numbers here. We are talking about fiscal paralysis,
real world effects. When you pause eleven billion dollars in
(07:54):
construction and infrastructure work, you aren't just punishing a mayor
or a state representative. You are causing immediate layoffs of
private sector contractors, construction workers, engineers. You are introducing project
delays that will inevitably lead to massive cost overruns when
those projects eventually get restarted. This calculated partisan damage undermines
(08:17):
the public's faith that the government can act neutrally. It
makes people view the shutdown not as a catastrophic failure
to be minimized, but as a legitimate tool for political
retribution against opponents, and that's at a terrible precedent for
future administrations.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
While the economic pain is undeniable and yes, regrettable, the
immediate calculable cost of project pauses is often seen as
a necessary, lesser evil compared to the incalculable cost of
a prolonged systemic collapse, like the failure to pay the
entire active duty military or the inability to run border security.
(08:54):
The executive is trying to create pressure points that are,
at least in theory, reversible once funding is restored, and
we must also focus on where the executive has successfully
managed core stability. Mandatory spending, for instance, remains utterly stable.
Social Security payments for retirement disability survivors they continue because
they are mandatory. Okay, Medical centers and clinics run by
(09:17):
the VA are still open, as are core benefits like
compensation and pension. Essential non federal entities like the US
Postal Service continue business as usual. We also see executive
efforts to mitigate public disruption in non essential areas. Consider
the national parks. All sixty three national parks are technically
(09:40):
open for public use. Yes, services like visitor centers and
restrooms are limited. Sure, but the decision to keep the
land accessible rather than completely barricaded like in previous shutdowns
shows an administrative effort. I think to minimize the visibility
of the failure.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
You emphasize stability, but that stability is highly inco and
frankly misleading in some cases. Let's just return to the VA,
which is a perfect microcosm of this administrative inconsistency causing
unnecessary harm. While you correctly note that critical medical care
and core cash benefits continue, the non mandatory side of
(10:17):
the VA is well. It's decimated VA benefits, regional offices closed,
halting assistance for disability claims. Cemetery grounds are not being maintained,
which is a profound disrespect to veterans and their families. Crucially,
Transition Program assistance, which help service members move back into
civilian life, has ceased, and the messaging and execution have
(10:41):
been so confusing that members of both the House and
Senate Veterans Affairs committees have publicly criticized the VA's response.
They're saying the agency has been deliberately misleading overclaims it
can't respond to necessary communications during the shutdown. This proves
that while some critical services are stabilized, administrative clarity, and
(11:03):
vital support services are being inconsistently cut, often prioritizing political
optics over actual functional consistency.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
I concede that the internal communication, particularly regarding the VA
and the cessation of services like cemetery maintenance, reflects poor,
perhaps ambiguous prioritization within that department's framework. The ambiguity of
these choices is indeed painful and damaging to trust. But
(11:34):
the ultimate moral and constitutional responsibility lies not with the
executive branch attempting to keep essential operations functioning. You know,
Transportation security administration officers and air traffic controllers are still
required to work even without paychecks or trying to pay troops.
But with Congress, the executive is, by necessity cleaning up
(11:56):
a systemic mass created by the failure of the appropriation's pit.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
That framing shifts the blame for administrative choices entirely onto
the legislative branch, but it doesn't excuse the use of
selective authority to create winners and losers. Internally, the selective
use of executive power from creating those unacceptable paid disparities
among military workers based purely on legal title to explicitly
(12:22):
targeting politically unfavorable infrastructure projects. It prioritizes high stakes political
maneuvering over neutral public service. This, in turn, critically weakens
the foundations of government stability during a legislative crisis, transforming
a budget crisis into a profound crisis of integrity that
impacts public trust for decades to come.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
I understand the gravity of prioritizing political maneuvers, I do,
but I must reiterate that in the face of complete
legislative failure, the executive branch isn't merely cleaning up a mess.
It feels compelled to act, perhaps under the doctrine of
necessary implication, to mitigate the worst potential harms and ensure
(13:07):
basic stability. The choices are truly ambiguous, difficult choices, but
they are driven by the vacuum of funding authority. The
ultimate responsibility for generating this painful choice, I maintain, lies
squarely with the legislative branch.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
And the question we are left with really is what
precedent does this selective harm set for the future use
of shutdown powers? Will the executive branch now view the
shutdown not as a failure to be minimized, but as
a legitimate tool of leverage that question.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
The establishment of new administrative norms in the face of
constitutional friction is crucial. This situation clearly demonstrates the profound
challenge inherent in maintaining constitutional balance when a budgetary impasse
forces administrative officials into by making these difficult discretionary choices,
(14:03):
choices that carry deep political and ethical implications for every
citizen they serve.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Indeed, there is certainly much more to explore here, particularly
concerning the long term impact of this kind of administrative
politicization on federal programs in public trust.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
A crucial area for future discussion. Thank you for joining
us on the debate.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.