HERE WE GO AGAIN.

Another end of September, another summer of no regular order appropriations, another government shutdown.  Only this time it is a Democrat opposition that wants to shut the government down in order to keep a few payoffs to favored constituents in the latest continuing resolution.

The problem: a president notionally governing with a reduced-government coalition might not mind a shutdown.

Donald Trump just pulled off a political maneuver that has Democrats reeling — and, frankly, they should be. With a potential government shutdown looming on September 30, the Trump administration has made it clear that if Congress can’t pass a clean Continuing Resolution to keep the government running, federal workers could be facing mass firings. Not furloughs. Firings. Real jobs on the line. For years, Democrats thought they could weaponize shutdowns as a way to extract concessions from Republicans. Now, Trump has flipped the script by putting the pressure right back where it belongs: on them.

The House passed a stopgap to fund the government through November 21, but Senate Democrats won’t move it forward. Why? Because they’re holding out for a laundry list of demands, from making Obamacare subsidies permanent to funding transgender surgeries for minors and free health care for illegal immigrants. Essentially, they’re trying to hold government funding hostage in return for policy demands the voters rejected.

And Trump isn’t having any of it.

Like everything else involving the public purse, those dependent on the funds hesitate to give them up.

"As Democrats have made healthcare their line in the sand to avert a partial government shutdown on Oct. 1, Biden-era expansions of Obamacare are receiving new attention as a symbol of both expanding access to healthcare and of spending run amok."

The Democrats have created new constituencies who live at the expense of others, and their continuance in office depends on the printed money continuing to circulate.

The Obamacare expansion at issue came about through legislation and regulations during Biden’s term and was often cast as a response to the COVID pandemic. First, the scope of who was eligible for subsidies was broadened, making it available to households with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line – making a family of four earning up to $160,000 eligible for subsidized plans. Also, increased subsidies made Obamacare free for those with incomes between 100% and 150% of the poverty line, and longer enrollment periods were created.

The cost for this, on the other hand, is borne by taxpayers.

“Biden’s COVID credits didn’t reduce health care costs – they just shifted them to taxpayers while padding insurer and enrollment intermediary profits,” Paragon President Brian Blase said.

Like all gigantic markets and massive government programs, the Affordable Care Act and what people pay each month have become a very complicated thing, varying by age, state, level of plan, and other factors. But the figures for the Obamacare “reference plan” (silver level) reveal what has happened since the COVID pandemic.

In 2021, when Biden was inaugurated, that basic plan cost an individual $27 a month if they reported income along the federal poverty line, which stood around $14,500 a year. For those making 50% more, the “reference plan” cost $75 a month, and so on up to $152 a month for someone making more than $30,000. Those monthly payment figures were constant regardless of what the insurers charged, with taxpayers making up the difference.

Through legislation Biden pushed through by narrow majorities or via reconciliation, the amount someone would pay each month in the first two categories dropped to zero. And as Obamacare became essentially free, millions signed up – enrolling at rates the plan had never seen since its inception in 2013.

The overall figures reflect this explosion. Between 2016 and 2020, an average of 8.5 million people signed up for a subsidized Obamacare policy each year, and in none of those years did the figure equal 9 million, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

In 2021, however, the subsidized total topped 10 million, and by 2024 it had nearly doubled to 19.5 million, CMS figures show.

That puts us exactly where we were in March.

House leadership would like members of the Republican caucus to submit their requests between now and when the new fiscal year begins. If Senate Democrats want to impede that, they have a problem. "The dilemma facing Democrats is that many see the government shutdown fight as their last major opportunity to extract concessions from Republicans until the appropriations process in September." Let's see: the party of "Give us more government or People Will Die" can prevent the government from being funded through the end of September in grand defiance of a president whose attitude might be "every day those government functions aren't provided is a day we're spending less money."

Hot Air's  "Captain Ed" Morrissey is thinking along those lines.  "Nice Swamp Ya Got There, Chuck. Shame If Something Happened to It."

That's why Congress passes budgets -- to ensure that Congress controls spending and operations. If Schumer wants Trump to obey the "law," then the "law" has to exist in the first place. If the budget expires, then there is no statutory requirement to keep agencies and bureaus in operation. Schumer had it right in March, and he's playing into Trump's hands now. The only way to force Trump to operate is to pass the CR while the final budget gets negotiated.

Such optimism, "a final budget gets negotiated."  Prove me wrong:  "Official Washington prefer these shutdown dramas to regular order."  They work better for the political class, though, when the political class has the presidency.  That is not currently the case.

The Trump administration is threatening to fire a ton of government workers if Congress is unable — or unwilling — to avert another shutdown.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo instructing federal agencies to prepare for mass firings in the event of a shutdown.

The memo, addressed to federal agency leadership, laid out guidelines for a possible government shutdown. It blames congressional Democrats for blocking a “clean CR” (Continuing Resolution) that would maintain government funding. The OMB warned that if a CR is not passed by September 30, agencies will implement shutdown protocols, including furloughs and mass layoffs through Reduction in Force (RIF) notices.

Programs that did not benefit from an infusion of mandatory appropriations will bear the brunt of a shutdown,” the memo reads. The OMB instructs federal agencies to consider RIFs for employees working on initiatives that “are not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

Dear reader, don't those regular order appropriations, even if those include rescissions and reductions in force, sound more deliberative than share-the-pain protocols?  That's what Matt Margolis was thinking.

The memo leaves Democrats a clear choice: pass a clean continuing resolution before the September 30 deadline, or trigger a shutdown that would unleash thousands of layoffs in the very federal workforce they claim to protect. Democrats now must weigh their obsession with expanding government handouts against the livelihoods of the bureaucracy they champion. This is Trump at his political sharpest, turning a Democrat tactic into a weapon against them.

By forcing their rhetoric about protecting workers to collide with their own shutdown brinksmanship, Trump ensures that if the government falters, it won’t be Republican voters paying the price—it will be the Democrats’ own allies in the swamp.

What voters, irrespective of political persuasion, might prefer is a Congress staffed by people who respect the idea of regular order appropriations.  Pajamas Media's Eric Florack suggests that this time around, taxpayers might be the winners if there is a government shutdown.

The memo from OMB is a brilliant response to the Democrats' gamesmanship. What we have here essentially is a stare-down contest. Last time we saw this, Schumer blinked. With the increasingly loud screaming coming from his side of the aisle, it’ll be interesting over the next few days to see this play out. Whatever the Democrats do in the next few days, I am guessing that the past is prologue, and that they will decide against swallowing what they consider a poison pill, specifically, Trump winning again.

This fight is connected, like it or not, to the mid-term elections. The thing is, no matter which way this goes, Trump wins, and I have to wonder if Schumer has this figured out. At the moment, at least, he’s not acting like it. It’s an open question as to how long he waits to blink.

It all comes down to this: Either a shutdown is avoided with the clean CR the White House is demanding be passed, or Trump starts weeding out government spending incidental to an unpopular shutdown brought about by Democrats — Democrats who really don’t need more negatives than they already have, going into the mid-term elections. Either way, Trump wins.

Negotiations among senators continue.  We're exactly where we were in April of 2024.  "The House appears to be struggling to temper two principles: that the federal functions be funded, and that the government not borrow too much printed money, by making it harder to bundle the functions, sprinkles, and crap sandwiches."  With exactly the same destination.  "The bad news: when bond traders cease to buy Treasuries, none of the oratory of Barack Obama or the bluster of Donald Trump or the caffeinated shouting of Joe Biden will have any effect."

Let's see what Monday and Tuesday bring.