Federal workers obviously don’t like government shutdowns. Most of them are furloughed. Others are forced to continue working without pay. But in a letter addressed to members of the Senate, which I obtained, Everett B. Kelley, head of what I believe is the country’s biggest federal government employee union — the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) — asks senators to vote “no” on the House-produced continuing resolution, and says that a shutdown is actually preferable to passing the bill.

“AFGE is particularly struck that even as the Senate prepares to debate and vote on [the continuing resolution], the Trump administration has announced its intention to effectively destroy the Department of Education regardless of whether Congress approves or disapproves of that decision,” it reads. It also says they categorically reject the idea that voting against the CR means voting for a shutdown. They then go on to discuss that the administration just unilaterally canceled the collective bargaining agreement with TSA workers and declared the agency “union-free.”

In the half-hour or so that I thought Dems were actually going to go to the mat over the continuing resolution, it occurred to me that, if it were up to me, my opening offer would be this: We’ll actually vote for a clean continuing resolution. We’ll even let you have all your DOGE cuts … with one condition. Write up exactly what the end state for each department and agency is. And then we’ll hold a vote for each department. Each department or agency individually. But it’s a bill. And it’s binding. We’ll even give up the right to filibuster. Straight majority votes in both houses. You’re the majority. How can you refuse that? Just put each one to a vote.

As you could see from my comments here and some occasional comments on Bluesky, I felt pretty confident for most of the day that Senate Dems were in the process of caving. Then I had to go offline for a couple hours in the late afternoon. I was a bit stunned and more than pleasantly surprised when I saw clips of Chuck Schumer’s floor speech saying that Senate Dems had the votes to block cloture. Wow, I thought: things were turning out better than I realized. I mean, if you have the votes to block cloture, you block cloture, right? Pretty quickly I heard from multiple sources what was actually happening. This was a deal between Schumer and Thune to allow a brief performative episode to throw Democratic voters off the scent while the Democratic caucus allowed the bill to pass. The deal is this: Democrats agree to give up the 60-vote threshold in exchange for being allowed to offer amendments to the House bill. The “amendment” or “amendments” will likely be some version of Sen. Murray’s 30-day CR. It doesn’t even matter what they are. But this is all for show. Once you give up the 60-vote threshold the whole thing is over.

Senator Kaine put it with great clarity: “Democrats had nothing to do with this bill. And we want an opportunity to get an amendment vote or two. So that’s what we are insisting on to vote for cloture.” Again you’re giving up “cloture,” the 60-vote threshold, in exchange for the ability to offer amendments that will certainly fail.

I feel pretty certain that today is the last day to have any impact on what Democratic senators will do on the upcoming vote on the House-produced “continuing resolution.” There was apparently a pretty intense argument yesterday in a caucus meeting about what to do. (I’ll say more about that shortly). But I think Democratic senators have made a collective decision to keep their constituents in the dark about what they plan to do. That is part of a larger culture of opacity that has seemed to me to be an increasingly consequential part of the failure of civic governance in the country as the drama has played out. If you’re able to get any answers from your senator, please let me know.

Over the last week a few TPM Readers have written in with contrary arguments about how to deal with the “continuing resolution” that just passed the House and will soon be voted on in the Senate. These weren’t critical or acrimonious letters but frank constructive counters, which I appreciate. I wanted to discuss them because they line up pretty closely with the arguments that seem to have strong advocates in the Senate Democratic caucus.

Let me summarize them briefly.

We’re now one week into our Annual TPM Membership Drive, which we do every year in March. Memberships are our life blood. Revenues directly from TPM Readers make up over 90% of our revenue. They keep our operation going and they also make us beholden to you. No one else. If you’ve already heard enough and you’re not already a member, please click here and join us.

If not, let me share a few other details with you.

This year, we felt it was necessary to set what was really an absurdly high sign-up goal: 2,500 new members, more than twice the goal we set last year. It fit with our unfolding 25th anniversary celebrations. But the key was that we believe the need for what we do, amidst this harrowing climate of political predation and fear, is greater than it’s ever been during our 25 years. That means expanding our reach, both by expanding our reporting resources and bringing what we do to more people. Your memberships do that. They make that possible. To my great surprise, we’ve made it 50% of the way toward that goal in the drive’s first week. That’s stunning. The appetite is meeting the need.

I’ve written many times over the years about the importance of our independence. In normal times the importance of the kind of independence we have is more muted, less visibility. But these aren’t normal times. Publications owned by big diversified corporations are trimming their sails because their other businesses are so vulnerable to political assaults and regulatory harassment. Billionaire ownership, which once seemed rooted in noblesse oblige, now displays the most naked oligarchic interest. We’re very small. But we don’t have those vulnerabilities. There’s no outside ownership. There’s no corporation that’s going to lose interest in journalism, which is mostly a break-even proposition in the first place, and simply shut us down. We answer to our readers. Literally and figuratively. As long as you are satisfied with what we produce, as long as you think we’re worth the price of a subscription, nothing else can touch us. We work for you and we’re accountable to you. Right now that’s irreplaceable. As long as we have your subscription, the chaos of the publishing and news economies are meaningless to us, the pall of fear that blankets the political world doesn’t matter to us.

We think this is important and we hope you agree. If you’re ready to join us, just click right here. For the length of the drive you also get 25% off your membership.

Thank you.

A very odd query went out today through NIH: a “short turnaround call” from the office of the director looking for “every NIH investment in South Africa.” The query aims to collect a list of all “intramural projects, contracts or other projects” by tomorrow (Wednesday, March 11th, 2025).

The document went out today.

Kevin Drum died on Friday. Many of you knew Kevin’s blog. For those who didn’t, he was one of the first well-known politics bloggers, dating back to early in the first George W. Bush administration, and he never stopped. His last post was three days before he died. He began as “Calpundit” and then took his blog in-house at a series of publications before again going independent. His passing was not a great surprise. Kevin was first diagnosed with cancer a number of years ago and recently shared with readers that as part of that ongoing battle his health had grown acutely precarious.

I never knew Kevin terribly well. As I thought about it today, I’m not sure we ever met in person. But we would exchange notes, tips, even career advice on a couple of occasions. He was one of the few people to whom I could say, figuratively if not literally, I understand what you do. Because I do it too. And it’s a very weird, idiosyncratic and personal enterprise.

In this post, I am collecting reports about where Democratic senators are telling constituents they stand on the Trump/Elon continuing resolution bill. If you haven’t, please read the piece immediately below this one (or click here) about the choice Dems now face.