(Daily Signal)—Another year, another “government shutdown” fight on Capitol Hill.
As of this writing, 12 appropriations bills need to pass by Sept. 30 or the government will “shut down.” This means that some workers will be furloughed and most agencies will close temporarily.
We had a similar situation last December and the result was a rather pathetic cave by Republican leadership during a lame-duck session and nearly $2 trillion in spending for fiscal year 2023.
This year’s numbers likely will be similar.
The House Freedom Caucus, whose members are conservative Republicans, has vowed to oppose additional spending that leads to more inflation and debt, especially if the federal government continues to let the border crisis burn out of control with no end in sight.
We desperately need to get this problem under control for this country’s future.
At this moment it’s important to take a step back and consider why we seem to end up in these situations all the time. Why is government spending never under control? Why are we always being threatened with a government shutdown and the end of the world?
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, had an excellent explanation in a lengthy thread Thursday night on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The crisis, Lee explains, has been concocted by leadership in both parties to maintain high federal spending and suppress individual legislative input.
22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach…
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) September 15, 2023
In his thread, the Utah Republican says party leadership—what he calls the “law firm” (or “The Firm”) of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.—has caught on to the fact that voters and members of Congress don’t like massive, consolidated spending bills.
More on that in a bit.
Lee then writes about what omnibus spending packages entail and how the process has worked in recent years. Lee says a consolidated spending bill typically is written in secret with a few hand-selected appropriators on House and Senate committees.
Lawmakers then release the spending bill just a few days before a potential government “shutdown.” That way, there is little opportunity for debate and the spending legislation advances without substantial changes.
“At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy,” Lee writes.
What’s important to note is that the dividing lines on spending bills aren’t necessarily partisan. This is the “uniparty” phenomenon where leadership on both sides of the aisle basically swims in the same direction.
There tends to be more resistance to this phenomenon among Republicans, Lee says, for two reasons: “(1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats.”
Republican appropriators, Lee writes, generally favor their spending priorities over policy victories, which keeps leadership happy.
Because of the extremely short timeline on these massive spending bills and the threat of a government shutdown, Lee writes, rank-and-file lawmakers typically are browbeaten into voting “yes.”
Anyone who has followed government shutdown fights over the years knows it’s an iron law of the universe that corporate media narratives always revolve around blaming Republican opponents of runaway spending for a shutdown, rather than the big spenders themselves.
This reality is usually enough to corral members to submit and sign off on the spending, objections or not.
The result of all this is that lobbyists and special interests often have more power than legislators in the spending process because they have the ears of appropriators and The Firm, as Lee calls Senate and House leadership.
“It’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt,” Lee writes.
Importantly, Lee writes that he doesn’t necessarily have an issue with an omnibus spending bill in general. Where he has a problem is with the secretive, rushed process in Congress that makes genuine deliberation impossible.
Lately, the opposition to these tactics has become more intense as members and voters have caught on to the game. The Firm’s process is evolving to create the illusion that congressional leaders actually oppose the omnibus approach, Lee writes.
“That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus,” the Utah Republican writes.
Of the 12 spending bills Congress is working on, only the “MilConVA” to fund military-related construction through the Department of Veterans Affairs has passed through the House. But the bill was consolidated into a “minibus” by The Firm, Lee writes in his thread, with two other spending bills from Democrat-controlled Senate committees.
This move essentially played right into the hands of congressional Democrats and would give them leverage in end- of-the-year spending fights. The minibus plan was scuppered only after a few Republican senators objected and stood their ground.
32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an…
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) September 15, 2023
What Lee is getting at here is one of the essential issues with American governance: We desperately need Congress to act like the deliberative body it was created to be, or the idea of self-government at the national level is little more than a farce.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.