Why Schumer, Fetterman and Company Must Go.

We Live in a Kaleidoscopic World

I'm fond of saying we live in a kaleidoscopic world with black-and-white choices. Most of the choices we face in life are binary (eat the ice cream, don't eat the ice cream), but the consequences of those binary choices have many consequences (Brain freeze, satisfaction, unwanted calories, satisfy hunger, blah, blah, blah)

Since every decision is a compromise, we weigh the benefits (it's hot, it's yummy, I'm hungry) against the consequences (I'm mildly lactose intolerant, I'll gain weight, it has saturated fats) and make a yes or no choice. Having someone point out some of the things we might be missing when making choices can be helpful, but it can not be determinative since only we know all the variables going into our decision.

Things get more complicated when other people are making choices for us. When we are young, those people are our parents, then school officials. Later in life, it becomes employers, politicians and perhaps law enforcement, among others.

In addition to those making choices for us, there is a category of people (because of their training and expertise) to whom we give complete control over immediate decisions (Surgery, dental work, legal issues, accounting). Finally, there are life events that limit our choices, some caused by past decisions we have made, some by nature, and some by other people outside our control. Heart attacks, accidents, and assaults are some that come to mind.

No matter who makes the decisions when all the implications are considered, even the most straightforward choices are not that simple. They are made simple through a combination of ignorance of the consequences and accumulated experience that prevents the exhausting task of reexamining every step and move made for fear of the consequences. That said, there are times when the potential consequences are so dire that we must weigh our options.

Choices made in our name.

Our Senators recently were tasked with voting on a proposal with no obvious or good answer. As is often the case in life, it was a choice between two bad options: cede complete control to an out-of-control government or risk being used as a scapegoat for all the bad things that would happen if the government were to shut down.

Among those bad things would be the accelerated dismantling of the very things our senators were trying to preserve and the loss of whatever political capital we might gain from moderates if they were seen as making things worse instead of better.

The decision

The choice made by a small minority of the Democratic Senators? To vote yes.

The consequences

This bill was stripped of specific instructions (unlike every previous spending bill) on how the money was to be allocated. What the Senator's vote means is that instead of Congress dictating how the president must spend the money on individual programs, the Trump administration now has a "blank check" to spend the money however he sees fit, including, but not limited to, gutting the very agencies the Senators who voted for Cloture were trying to protect. The lack of detail in this funding bill will allow the administration to redirect funds based solely on its priorities. In short, this could not be a more significant "win" for the Trump administration and a worse loss for democracy, the rule of law, or our country's future.

I respectfully submit that the consequences of a government shutdown could not have been worse than what was ceded to Trump in this budget. Every harm avoided in the short term by a government shutdown will be felt in the long term. The difference is that the very constituents these Senators were elected to represent will be the targets of the first and worst of these budget cuts and gutted agencies.

Why they made the choice they did

The Senators who allowed this bill to pass knew or should have known this, leaving us to draw only one conclusion: it was done for political reasons and not the good of the Senators' constituents. Many Senators were on the record stating they were worried about the political consequences of a government shutdown, inferring that their political fortunes are more important to them than our long-term well-being.

What to do

It takes less skill to tear down a house than to build one. Ideas are like that, yet some people are considered brilliant based solely on how many holes they have found in others' ideas without ever offering solutions. With that in mind, I'd like to offer the following.

The solution? Vote for different Senators.