US Government Shutdown Would Be Better Than Current State, Says Progressive Journalist
The US government shutdown that seems inevitable is being framed as a positive development by some progressive voices. In an opinion piece, journalist Judith Levine argues that the current state of the federal government is more harmful than no government at all.
According to Levine, a shutdown would have little impact on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has a substantial budget reserve to sustain its operations during a government shutdown. However, it would have significant consequences for other government agencies and programs.
Levine criticizes the current government's priorities, arguing that they are largely driven by partisan interests rather than the public good. The Pentagon's massive budget, the health and human services agency's emphasis on punitive policies, and labor regulations that promote white supremacy are just a few examples of how the government is misusing taxpayer dollars.
The journalist also draws on historical precedent, citing the Declaration of Independence's warnings about standing armies without consent from legislatures and the protection of military power over civil authority. She argues that the Trump administration has crossed this line, with the border patrol and ICE engaging in actions that are tantamount to war against their own citizens.
Levine suggests that a government shutdown could be a catalyst for more radical action, such as mass tax resistance or economic slowdowns. By forcing lawmakers to confront these issues, the shutdown could potentially lead to meaningful reforms and a reevaluation of the country's priorities.
Ultimately, Levine frames the government shutdown as an opportunity for Americans to ask themselves if they want to continue supporting a system that is so clearly out of touch with their values and needs. The choice is clear: either reform the current system or abolish it altogether in favor of something new and better.
The US government shutdown that seems inevitable is being framed as a positive development by some progressive voices. In an opinion piece, journalist Judith Levine argues that the current state of the federal government is more harmful than no government at all.
According to Levine, a shutdown would have little impact on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has a substantial budget reserve to sustain its operations during a government shutdown. However, it would have significant consequences for other government agencies and programs.
Levine criticizes the current government's priorities, arguing that they are largely driven by partisan interests rather than the public good. The Pentagon's massive budget, the health and human services agency's emphasis on punitive policies, and labor regulations that promote white supremacy are just a few examples of how the government is misusing taxpayer dollars.
The journalist also draws on historical precedent, citing the Declaration of Independence's warnings about standing armies without consent from legislatures and the protection of military power over civil authority. She argues that the Trump administration has crossed this line, with the border patrol and ICE engaging in actions that are tantamount to war against their own citizens.
Levine suggests that a government shutdown could be a catalyst for more radical action, such as mass tax resistance or economic slowdowns. By forcing lawmakers to confront these issues, the shutdown could potentially lead to meaningful reforms and a reevaluation of the country's priorities.
Ultimately, Levine frames the government shutdown as an opportunity for Americans to ask themselves if they want to continue supporting a system that is so clearly out of touch with their values and needs. The choice is clear: either reform the current system or abolish it altogether in favor of something new and better.