CSPAN - Washington Journal Laura Blessing

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 29, 2025 01:21-02:08 - CSPAN

46:58

Washington Journal Laura Blessing

Participants

Main

kimberly adams

cspan 08:43

Appearances

chuck schumer

sen/d 00:54

Clips

dasha burns

politico 00:10

donald j trump

admin 00:16

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
		Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics.
		All at your fingertips.
		Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
		Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
		The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
		Download it for free today.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
dasha burns ▲ ● ▼		I'm Dasha Burns, host of Ceasefire, bridging the divide in American politics.
unidentified		Ceasefire, Premieres October 10th.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We are creeping closer to a potential government shutdown.
		So to get the details of that, I'm joined now by Laura Blessing, who is a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute.
		Welcome to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Good to be here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We are about three days out from the federal government running out of money.
		A government shutdown is looking like it might happen.
		How did we get here?
unidentified		Great question.
		Congress is disagreeing with itself again.
		It is not unusual to have problems with the appropriations process for passing a federal budget, but this process has gotten slammed to later in the year because of all the effort on the reconciliation bill.
		Very few bills have gotten worked on in more detail.
		And now we're coming up against the end of the fiscal year and the House has passed a clean continuing resolution, but the Senate has been unable to pass either that same bill or the Democrats' version.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		It feels like even though we're supposed to fund the government on an annual basis through the appropriations process, we've been running on these continuing resolutions for the first half of a year or so.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		For many years now, what is the impact of this sort of broken budgeting process on the way our government runs?
unidentified		Yeah, that's a really good question because running a government on a continuing resolution means that you're unable to adapt to additional circumstances that require government action, that you're unable to update programs that might be updated.
		It makes things very difficult for a variety of different federal agencies also to not be able to plan that far ahead in the future.
		If, you know, it hasn't been unusual for us to run on a string of CRs for the first six months of the year for the past couple of years or so.
		And that's an additional level of dysfunction on a process that was not smooth to begin with.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What actually happens when we hit that limit and they say we're going to have a shutdown?
unidentified		Yeah, so the discretionary funding that the Appropriations Committees are funding are 12 different bills, and that's about a little over a quarter of all federal spending.
		So there are government programs and services that are completely unaffected.
		So you'll get your Social Security check, Medicaid, Medicare will not be affected, those sort of entitlement programs that are not funded on a yearly basis by the decisions of the appropriations committees and then all of Congress.
		That being said, shutdowns are never good.
		They're painful.
		And there are a variety of different services that federal employees will be furloughed and services that won't be available or will experience delays that will hurt American citizens.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And particularly, federal workers feel these impacts quite a bit.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What happens to them in terms of their pay?
unidentified		These furloughed employees, and in the past, For full shutdowns like what we'd be experiencing here, you've seen somewhere around the range of 700,000 to 800,000 federal employees be furloughed.
		And what that means is that they can't report to work and they get paid retroactively, but they don't get paid currently.
		So, you know, right now, you know, I have friends who are federal employees and they're having conversations with their bosses doing paperwork to figure out how they're going to get paid afterwards.
		They're also having conversations with their families about how they're going to be able to weather a delay in getting their paychecks.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We are going to be taking your questions about federal government shutdowns for Laura Blessing of the Government Affairs Institute.
		Our phone line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		For Independents, 202748-8002.
		And we have a special line for federal workers, especially those of you worried about the impacts of that government shutdown, 202748-8003.
		Now, the Office of Management and Budget is requesting updated reduction in force plans.
		You were just referencing some of these plans that are underway for getting ready for a shutdown.
unidentified		Could federal workers also face permanent job losses?
		That's entirely possible.
		I mean, what exactly will happen with those threats is uncertain at this time because they've just, we've seen the memo from OMB was reported last Wednesday by Politico, and the wording of it, I have it with me if you want me to read from it, is fairly general.
		So, you know, they're looking for Let me give a bit of context for folks.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		This is, yes, it was originally reported by Politico.
		This is a story in government executive.
		Agencies should prep for mass layoffs if a shutdown occurs, the White House says.
		The OMB is requesting updated reduction in force plans, even if a shutdown is averted, and that federal agencies should implement mass layoffs of their workforces if the government shuts down next week.
		The White House told agencies on Wednesday, dramatically escalating the stakes of a potential funding lapse.
		Agencies should prepare the reduction in force notices for all employees whose work is not funded through means other than annual appropriations and does not align with President Trump's priorities.
		The Office of Management and Budget said in a memorandum, agencies will also prepare the standard furlough notices that go out to employees not otherwise exempted to work during the shutdown.
		The OMB said, and those actions will have no bearing on who is subject to layoffs.
unidentified		Can you give a bit more context of what's going on here?
		Well, this is a negotiating tactic that the Trump administration is using, but it also looks like one that they're actively hoping to be able to use this as a pretext for additional firings, which they've done through DOE.
		They've done in a variety of different ways.
		And, you know, as you just read the qualifications that OMB has directed agencies to start pursuing this, that's pretty broad.
		You know, that potentially could include a lot of different plans that are being promoted from these different agencies that are very much on board with President Trump's vision for the United States.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What about the other parts of government?
		We've talked a lot about how various executive agencies might be affected by a shutdown, but what about Congress and the White House itself, the courts?
		What happens there?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		So members of Congress get paid.
		Their staffs do not.
		So they'll take it on the chin.
		And In terms of looking at what shuts down during a shutdown, there are a number of different parts of government that sometimes have their own financing mechanisms, and courts are absolutely on that list, right?
		So they have a variety of different fees so that some courts will continue to function as long as it's a relatively short shutdown.
		That being said, what's happened in the past is that immigration hearings in particular have been canceled and postponed en masse.
		So different courts are different, but a lot of courts have the ability to fund themselves for short periods of time.
		We're talking maybe a week or two if past is prologue.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, speaking of the past, we have a chart here looking at some of the previous government shutdowns and the length of them.
		There was a shutdown under President Bush in 1990 that lasted three days, a five-day shutdown in 95 under President Clinton, another 21-day shutdown from 1995, tail end of that year, into early 1996, also under Clinton.
		2013 under Obama, a 16-day shutdown.
		2018, a three-day shutdown under President Trump.
		And many folks will remember the 35-day shutdown between 2018 and 2019 under President Trump.
		That is quite a litany of these shutdowns.
		And I wonder what you think is the reason that we can't seem to get this process through over and over again.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, we've had 20 different lapses in appropriations, but people tend to talk about this in terms of being four true shutdowns.
		So the big ones are two in 1995 and 1995 and 1996.
		We've got the Obamacare-related one with Ted Cruz in 2013, and of course, the 35-day one that you just referenced under the first Trump administration.
		And, you know, the appropriations process and funding the government has been something that's become more and more difficult.
		It's not a surprise that those bigger and longer shutdowns are more recent, just like the process is broken down on a number of different levels.
		So we've had higher polarization is a contributing factor to that.
		This has just become a much more difficult process.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's listen here to President Trump in his first term back in January of 2019 demanding that Congress appropriate border wall funding before reopening the government.
unidentified		We have a very, very unified party.
		Mitch has been fantastic.
		Everybody in that room was fantastic.
		There was no reason for me even to be there.
		I knew that before we went.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But the Republicans want border security.
unidentified		They want national security.
		They want to have a steel barrier or a wall of concrete.
		They don't care, but I'll use any term they want.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We need a barrier to stop the human traffickers, the drug trade, and to stop all of the big problems that come, including gangs.
unidentified		They don't come through your checkpoints.
unidentified		They come through areas where you have hundreds of miles without walls and without barriers or without strong fences.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		So the Republican Party, I can say, and I just left an hour meeting.
unidentified		We had a great time, actually.
		There was no discussion about anything other than solidarity.
		We want national security and border security for our country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Senator Chuck Schumer was also in the position of minority leader at that time and during that shutdown in 2019.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And here he is urging the Republican majority and President Trump to end that shutdown.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		I want President Trump to see his face in the face of all these others.
		I want President Trump to look into these faces and see what he is doing by using these men and women as pawns.
		Using them in an extortion game to say, I am going to hurt these people unless I get my way.
		Mr. President, President Trump, look at the pain and suffering you're causing.
		So we have one simple message today.
		Three words.
		Open the government.
		To Senate Republicans.
		Open the government.
		To Leader McConnell, open the government.
		To President Trump, open the government.
		And start paying folks like Mr. Garfrancesco for their work.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Senator Schumer there was talking about the impact on federal workers, but there are broader economic impacts to government shutdowns as well, right?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		So you have GDP is affected.
		You are spending money because of the shutdown.
		You are paying federal workers to not work because you're then paying them retroactively.
		So if you're doing that accounting as well, you're losing that.
		But you're also having broader economic impacts because all of the different activities that you would do in an economy are, a number of them are being slowed down because people are, you know, their loans are not going through.
		New mortgages are not going through.
		And different shutdowns vary a little bit in terms of individual agency contingency plans.
		But you are putting a damper on the economy.
		It's also one that is not uniformly felt throughout the United States.
		So places like D.C., for example, where you have a lot of federal workers have really taken a sucker punch.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's get to your calls for Laura Blessing of Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute.
		Our phone lines again for Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		For Independents, 202-748-8002.
		And if you are a federal worker and have questions or thoughts to share about a potential shutdown, 202-748-8003.
		Let's start with Audrey in Huntsville, Alabama on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Audrey.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, Kimberly and Ms. Blessing.
		I got something.
		Kimberly, if you could look it up, it's called the Pay Our Troops Act.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The Pay Our Troops Act, you said?
unidentified		Pay Our Troops Act of probably 2025-2026.
unidentified		I can't remember the House number, the Senate number for it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		2025, you're correct.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		There's a 2026 version as well.
unidentified		Okay.
		And I know that Speaker Johnson's not planning on having any votes until, you know, Monday and Tuesday, which will be the 29th and the 30th.
		And they will shut down, you know, midnight of the 30th.
		And as far as I understand, it's still sitting in appropriations.
		And the National Defense Authorization Act hasn't been passed by the Senate.
		And they haven't had the conference to get it done.
		And I was just wondering if Ms. Blessings has any idea of how long it would take to pass that so that my son's on active duty so that he would get paid.
		And thank you so much and have a very blessed day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		That legislation that she mentioned, that Audrey mentioned, has been introduced.
		It doesn't look like it's made it out of committee yet, but I did see this other story here from Bloomberg government that the National Guard troops deployed to D.C. would go unpaid in a shutdown, that the National Guard troops deployed to Washington, D.C. for President Donald Trump's safe and beautiful mission are set to keep working in the city without pay.
		If the U.S. government shuts down over a funding dispute with the White House and Congressional Democrats, active duty troops, including reservists on federal duty, are required to show up for work in the event of a shutdown, but would not receive any paychecks until federal funding is restored.
		While Congress has sometimes passed legislation in prior shutdowns to ensure that military members get paid even during the lapse in government funding, House and Senate leaders so far have not brought up such a measure for a vote.
		And I think that's that legislation that Audrey was talking about.
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		Yeah, to be sure, the military is less affected by a shutdown than other parts of the government.
		There are a variety of different rules that govern shutdowns, including protecting human life and property that come from the civil idity memos in 1980 and 1981 that govern the rules for how we do these things.
		So the military is less affected by that.
		That being said, they'll be on the job, but they will be getting back pay.
		And that's not what a lot of people would like.
		It sounds like your son included.
		Again, shutdowns cause pain.
		That's undeniable.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		John is in West Island, New York, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, John.
		Can you turn down the volume on your TV, John, and then go ahead with your question for Laura Blessing?
unidentified		Hi, Laura.
		Good morning.
		Why can't the illegal aliens write to the country that they came from to request subsidies to help pay for their medical?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So we're talking about the potential government shutdown, John.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Did you have a question for Laura about that?
unidentified		Is anyone concerned about the even though they're going to have a shutdown?
		Why are they having the shutdown?
		Because the Democrats want trillions of dollars and we don't have it.
		Sure.
		So the Democratic position that they've advanced, the Senate bill that's been advanced is asking for additional money on top of the House plan and, well, the Republican plan, because it's been passed in the House and introduced, but not able to be passed in the Senate yet.
		It's about a trillion dollars more, and the bulk of that is for ACA or Affordable Care Act subsidies that are slated to expire in December, as well as reversing cuts to Medicaid.
		And so it does cost more money.
		It's not trillions, but it's about a trillion, is the difference between that.
		But we've got a number of the broader question of what is the difference between the parties here is both a question of policy and health care policy in particular, but also a question of executive actions that are undermining the congressional power of the purse.
		Because the other thing, while one could imagine that congressional Democrats have a number of different disagreements with the White House, what's actually in the bill is both the health care policy and a number of different things to protect the congressional power of the purse against a lot of highly unusual actions that we've seen in 2025 that we haven't seen before.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're talking about the rescissions.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain a little bit about how what happened with the rescissions package is factoring into these negotiations?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		So the White House has both has canceled a lot of contracts and has rescinded money.
		And that's a word that comes from the Impoundment Control Act because a previous president, President Nixon, tried to not spend money that Congress had appropriated in a very large fashion.
		He was trying to not spend something like a third of all discretionary funds.
		Is really quite large.
		And we've seen these actions from the Trump administration that makes not only Congress say, gosh, we have the power of the purse and this is going against that.
		The Government Accountability Office has ruled that these are illegal impoundments from the executive branch.
		You know, you've had a number of different court rulings against these sort of things.
		But it also, not only is it going against the congressional power of the purse that we see in the Constitution, but it's also making it hard for negotiators to trust the White House that any sort of bargain that they come up with is going to stick.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nancy is in Rogers, Texas, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Nancy.
unidentified		Yes, well, let me say first: I'm 81 years old and I have worked all my life.
		And every time that I'm not working, like I've been laid off or something, I don't get paid.
		And I think the Congress should not get paid.
		I mean, even retrospectively, not back paid.
		If they're not getting working, they shouldn't get paid.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Nancy, just for clarification, do you mean just members of Congress, or do you think this is that federal workers in general should not get back pay?
unidentified		All federal workers, if they're not working, they should not get paid.
		That goes for the average person.
		When you work, you do not get, I mean, when you don't work, you don't get paid.
		When you work, that's when you get paid.
		And I think that would make them come to an agreement quicker if they weren't getting known that they weren't getting paid.
		The longer they stayed off, the more it would hurt them.
		And that's the only way to get things done sometime is to hit them in the pocketbook.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		Various actors in politics have thought about different painful things that might be able to prompt people coming together.
		Congress has tried a variety of those over the years.
		That being said, these federal workers who are going to be furloughed are people who are going to then continue in those jobs.
		So they're not losing the jobs.
		They want to work.
		They're being prevented from working.
		And we've seen different studies that have shown that the experience of being furloughed makes these people more statistically likely to go seek other work.
		I know and work with a lot of federal employees, and these are really admirable public servants who are doing hard work, often without a lot of attention for the American people.
		And trying to give them a hard time or make them less likely to want to stay in their jobs is, I don't think, something that Congress should be doing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Derek is in Lakeland, Minnesota on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Derek.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		Good morning, America.
		All right, I have a quick question before I make my comment.
		You had said that it's a sucker punch to a federal worker.
		What do you mean by that?
		And then I'll make my statement.
		Sure.
		So furloughing what could be somewhere in the range of 700,000 to 800,000 federal employees where they are not allowed to work and then they get back pay after a shutdown ends is something that is disruptive in their economic lives.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What was your comment, Derek?
unidentified		Okay, so my comment is this.
		Obviously, Obamacare did not work or else we wouldn't need to be subsidizing it, thus the cut.
		On top of it, Medicaid has more enrollees than Medicare, which is completely disgusting.
		And so I'm all for the government shutdown.
		I want that vote guy to get in there and who's essential, who's not essential, and let's clean house once and for all.
		Go Vikings.
		Okay, we've got a lot of feelings there.
		In terms of health care policy, you know, Medicaid is a means-tested program, so you have to be at a certain economic status or below in order to receive it.
		You have roughly one out of every five Americans is on Medicaid, and those folks are having a tougher time, which is why they're on that program.
		You know, you can think whatever you want about Medicaid, but that is what it's designed to do.
		We're also going to see fairly large cuts to that program come into play in 2026 because of the big, beautiful bill that was passed earlier this year.
		So, you know, it's entirely possible that the lawmakers that enacted those cuts share some of your feelings.
		That being said, that bill is underwater in terms of public opinion, and part of those reasons are the cuts to programs like Medicaid.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You touched on this earlier, but we also have a question about it from Jay Sanders on X. Do government employees automatically get paid for the time they were furloughed, or is that something Congress has to approve in any deal?
unidentified		Oh, that's a lovely question.
unidentified		Yeah, we had, after the last government shutdown, they put it into law that they had to, that it wasn't going to be a question that they get paid after the fact.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tony is in Flowertown, Pennsylvania, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tony.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I am definitely also in support of the shutdown.
		I do not see that our government is representing the people.
		So there was a Princeton study in 2014 that looked at the relationship between voter preference and legislative outcome.
		And what they found was that there was no relationship between what voters wanted and legislative outcomes.
		But they did find that moneyed interests get what they want 75% of the time.
		I think the people of Italy have it right right now.
		There's massive protests in the sheet streets.
		I think the people of Nepal have it right.
		I think that the people need to seize back power from the moneyed interest.
		The other part that I would be happy about is if we ran out of funding for the genocide that Israel is committing and we stopped funding that, I would be very happy if Israel wasn't able to bomb the six countries and seize land from them that they're bombing.
		I would be very pleased to see our government shut down.
		I am not in support of Democrats.
		I am not in support of Republicans.
		I am in support of the people who work in this country and are paying taxes but have no representation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tony, before we get Laura's response, just out of curiosity, what sorts of demands do you think the Democrats should be making in order to get on board with funding the government?
unidentified		Well, I would be happy to talk about that.
		I think that Momdani in New York City would be a good template if Democrats were interested in winning, but they're not.
		They would much rather see another Trump presidency than a Bernie Sanders or a candidate like Momdani.
		And that is why they're losing.
		And until they change, they'll probably continue to lose.
		And they deserve to lose.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Laura, any thoughts on what Tony said?
unidentified		Yeah, so we've got a lot of different thoughts here.
		And to be sure, we've seen lessening electoral and policy accountability in government over time.
		You mentioned an earlier study.
		So we've seen the erosion of that link.
		So that's a good concern that you have.
		The presence of money in politics is another good concern that you have.
		So there's a lot of different ways that you can measure that.
		And I could teach an entire class on it, so I'll limit myself here.
		But to be sure, you have far more corporate organizing than you do public interest group organizing.
		Of course, most lobbyists are there for access and not for directly paying for policy change.
		That being said, policy change tends to go in the interest of wealthier Americans.
		So I think you have a lot to say about a lot of different things here, but those two concerns I think are well-founded.
		That being said, is the shutdown an answer to that sort of thing?
		Well, if you're worried about vulnerable people instead of wealthy interests, shutting down the government, I don't think is a path to do that.
		So a lot of vulnerable people, as well as middle-class people, will be harmed by shutdown.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Diane is in Randolph, New Jersey on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Diane.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		So my question to Laura is this.
		Perhaps I don't understand, but what I do understand is my question is, why is the argument for the government paying, you know, i.e. the taxpayers, U.S. citizens, having to pay health care, Medicare, Medicaid benefits for illegals even on the table?
		By definition, they are illegal.
		A lot of people in this country do not support illegal citizens, the U.S. dollar going to them for health care, rent, so on and so forth.
		My position is to help the U.S. citizens that are struggling.
		So can you answer that question?
		There's actually a lot of limitations in terms of undocumented citizens not being able to receive a lot of those government benefits.
		So they're actually not able to receive a lot of those health care benefits that you're concerned about.
		Whether or not that's a good idea from a policy perspective, I think you and I have a difference of opinion.
		But in terms of what's in the law, you know, there are a lot of limitations to folks who are not American citizens, folks who are undocumented, actually being able to receive those benefits.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Andre, excuse me, Deneb is in West Babylon, New York on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Deneb.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I'm calling because I just wanted to mention or bring back up with the government shutdown of this time, this current government shutdown that we're facing.
		I just wanted to mention that this is the same government that went around the United States and shut down banks all around the country.
		They shut down Silvergate, Signature, Silicon banks in the South.
		They've shut down banks everywhere.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Deneb, I'm not sure I'm familiar with what you're referencing there.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Is there something specific that the Trump administration has done regarding banks that you're talking about?
unidentified		I'm not referring to the Trump administration.
		I'm actually referring to the previous administration.
		And after COVID, they shut down all the banks.
		They shut down First Republic Bank.
		I mean, you could name a million banks and they shut them all down.
		Silicon Valley Bank shut down.
		Signature Bank, Silvergate Bank, they shut them down because they didn't like, you know, so this is the same government that wants to shut the government.
		The Democrats want to shut the government down, but they shut down people's personal finances.
		And this was in the Biden administration.
		So now if they're going to continue to threaten shutting the government down, whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans that's threatening to shut the government down, we're looking and we're observing that it's the same people that all they want to do is hold people hostage.
		Because it wasn't just honestly, it wasn't just the President Donald Trump whose bank got closed.
		It was regular people whose banks got closed, small businesses whose banks got closed.
		And this is all about money.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Deneth, I do think the government shut the federal government shutting down is a different issue than these bank closures that you're talking about.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Did you have a question specifically for Laura about the potential shutdown that might be coming this week?
unidentified		I would rather her response to what I'm saying.
		I'm just bringing up the power that the government has that they exercise.
		And now they want to threaten or scare the people and saying, oh, the government might shut down in a few days again.
		They do this every nine months.
		I want you to respond to what I'm saying and referencing how the previous administration literally shut down banks.
		And all they're doing is trying to scare the public, you know, because I'm on Medicaid.
		Medicaid is the worst health care.
		I don't even use it.
		I know how to take care of myself.
		If I have to go to the hospital, I have health insurance.
		So I don't agree with them funding Medicaid.
		I agree with them putting people to work that have a knowledge base and can help other people and allowing the economy to search and do what it's supposed to do instead of scaring people and taking away their financial power.
		And the government shutdown, they're just trying to scare people.
		Oh, the government might shut down.
		That's all.
		I just wanted to respond.
		It's always possible for a bank to fail.
		That is not something that's directed by the federal government.
		There are a number of different regulations in place that are trying to make it harder for that sort of thing to happen.
		That being said, that this is not something that's being instigated in the past.
		I'm not familiar with all the bank names that you just cited, but this seems to be an unrelated issue.
		But if you're interested in the strength of our financial institutions, that's an important issue to think about.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Andre is in West Virginia on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Andre.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Andre, make sure to turn down the volume on your TV and then go ahead with your question for Laura Blessing.
unidentified		Okay, yes.
		I'm calling for Laura Blessing.
		First of all, good morning, C-SPAN.
		I've been listening for years.
		This is the first time I've called.
		I'm a veteran.
		I'm 68 years old.
		I use a role leader.
		I get all my meds and everything from the VA hospital.
		I get free, you know, free medical from the VA.
		But because of this so-called shutdown, we're losing doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, because I have PTSD.
		And I'm up under a social worker who found a place for me.
		And the thing about it is, what will this shutdown do to the VA that would sit there and affect me?
		That's a great question.
		I would like to know.
		That's a great question, sir.
		And first of all, thank you for your service.
		The VA will not, your medical as well as pension services from the VA will not be interrupted with the shutdown.
		So, you know, there are, you know, those are safe things for you.
		I think there's a kind of a wider Conversation about health care in this country, as well as the health of rural hospitals, healthcare funding in general, that some of those larger choices, including funding cuts previously from the Trump administration and with the Big Beautiful Bill, might be of concern to you.
		That being said, the shutdown will not affect VA services.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		David in Baltimore, who identifies as a federal employee, says, regarding mass layoffs during a shutdown, how would that work logistically if the people in these agencies were not allowed to work?
unidentified		That's a great question.
unidentified		We are how they would roll this out, nobody knows yet.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, Paul is in New York, New York, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
		So, Laura, I'd like you to explain something to me.
		You just said that federal workers are hardworking, they're admirable.
		Can you explain to me why they're harder working and more admirable than the average American, who, again, as the Texas caller said, doesn't get paid when they are laid off?
		I mean, there's substantial privileges that people in academia and government get that I don't think they seem to realize that average Americans don't get.
		So, you made that statement.
		I'd like you to clarify that.
		That's number one.
		Number two, in terms of health care, you made another interesting statement that I've heard also guests on C-SPAN make, which is there are laws in place to stop, to prohibit benefits to go to illegal, illegal migrants who are here.
		And that's true.
		But again, if you actually look what happens in practice, and I can tell you, come here to New York City, they're getting health care benefits.
		Now, there's a policy question on that, but the idea that they're flying back to Venezuela to get chemotherapy or if they break an arm or whatever, that they're not getting health care in the United States, or that they're paying for it, which is prohibitively expensive, is just not the reality.
		The fact is, taxpayers are paying for it.
		Now, maybe they should.
		I mean, you know, that's a different argument.
		But let's pretend that people who are here, legally or not, are not receiving health care.
		And if they're low income, for the most part, taxpayers have to subsidize it massively.
		And I think it's just really important that we're honest and discuss this issue frankly and honestly with people as opposed to making those statements.
		If you could answer those two questions, I'd really appreciate it.
		Thanks so much.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Paul raised two issues following up on your point about federal workers being hardworking but comparing them to other workers in the economy.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And then the follow-up point about undocumented immigrants potentially getting access to health care.
unidentified		Sure.
		I don't think that we should be comparing who is more deserving as a worker and who isn't.
		I know many really wonderful federal employees and have a lot of admiration for them after working with them and teaching them for many years.
		I've also just been a human existing in the American economy, and I feel the same way about a lot of people I've met in the private sector.
		So I'm not trying to put anybody down by complimenting another group.
		And in terms of undocumented folks being able to access health care, you're correctly citing that there are limitations for Medicaid as well as other government benefits that say that these folks are not able to get those benefits.
		Are they able to get health care at all?
		That's a little bit of a different issue.
		Whether they're paying for it, whether they're in mutual aid societies, they're able to access this stuff in other ways.
		In terms of what that looks like, that is not, I'm not going to be able to comment on that in detail, but those are what the laws are.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		A comment from Mace in Freeport, Illinois.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The only problem with holding Congress's pay is that most of them are millionaires, so they could care less.
unidentified		Members of Congress will continue to be paid.
unidentified		It's their staff that are not going to be paid.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Charlie is in Florida on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Charlie.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		I am glad to participate in this discussion because it is in the national interest for more people to be benefiting from the budget than less people.
		Now, let me go into more detail.
		The tax cuts are going to benefit more so the rich people, and that's a smaller sector of the population.
		They're trying to mitigate the tax cuts that's going to inflate the deficit by cutting benefits to poor people, to the small people.
		And those are the majority of the people in the country.
		So, therefore, the national interest is being sacrificed.
		Secondly, the amount it costs for illegal aliens or whoever they are to get emergency care is very minimal, and they're going to get it regardless because they are here.
		And if they are seriously ill and they go to the hospital and emergency rooms, they have to treat them.
		They're humans, okay?
		So, so they can't just turn them away because they're illegal and they're suffering.
		So, they are already here.
		So, it's a red herring.
		The thing about it is this government wants to serve only the rich people and they don't care about the poor.
		They're only using immigration as a political football to blame.
		They point fingers at illegal aliens in order to divert attention from the very rich people who are the problem.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Charlie, we're just about out of time.
unidentified		Did you have a question for Laura?
		I asked Laura on those grounds if she thinks the Democrats holding out is justified.
		That's a great question because the Democrats holding out previous shutdowns typically don't result in policy concessions to the people holding up the process.
		That is what has happened in the past.
		There are good reasons to identify that what we're seeing right now in the actions of the executive in 2025 are different from previous shutdowns, and it's a different circumstance.
		That being said, the likelihood that we're going to have policy gains of significance anyway for the Democrats is probably not particularly high.
		So, are we doing this to call attention to larger things for the American people?
		Sure, it might absolutely do that.
		You know, what exactly will happen, nobody has a crystal ball.
		We've just seen the negotiations, well, are about to start back up.
		The White House is going to meet with congressional leaders of both parties on Monday afternoon after canceling meetings that they had early last week.
		So, we'll see how this goes.
		It could be a, we could not shut down the government at all.
		We could have a short shutdown, we could have a longer shutdown.
		You know, it's hindsight will be 2020 on this one, I think.
		And we've got some unusual elements, including the threats of additional federal firings or rifts, reductions in force, that we're looking at here.
		Polling is tended to punish the people who are holding up the shutdown.
		So, in those previous kind of four true shutdown cases, that's been the Republicans.
		That being said, so it's possible that the Democrats might take a polling hit.
		That being said, this is kind of a different time.
		And whether it's the Big Beautiful Bill Act, whether it's the promise of additional federal firings, whether it's Trump's polling numbers in general, you could see a different polling scenario here where people are going to look to the White House as being the problem when they're asking, answering polls.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you so much for your time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Laura Blessing, who is a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, thanks for joining us.
unidentified		Happy to be here.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
		Coming up Monday morning, we'll talk about the potential government shutdown and other news, first with former Biden Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tandon, currently the president of the Center for American Progress, and later with USA Today White House correspondent Francesca Chambers and the Manhattan Institute's Rob Henderson discusses how to combat political extremism in the United States, including why some young men are increasingly being radicalized online.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
dasha burns ▲ ● ▼		I'm Dasha Burns, host of Ceasefire, bridging the divide in American politics.
unidentified		ceasefire premieres october 10th this fall c-span invites you on a powerful journey through the stories that define a nation From the halls of our nation's most iconic libraries comes America's Book Club, a bold, original series where ideas, history, and democracy meet.
		Hosted by renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein, each week features in-depth conversations with the thinkers shaping our national story.
		Among this season's remarkable guests, John Grisham, master storyteller of the American justice system, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, exploring the Constitution, the court, and the role of law in American life.
		Famed chef and global relief entrepreneur Jose Andres, reimagining food.
		Henry Louis Gates, chronicler of race, identity, and the American experience.
		The books, the voices, the places that preserve our past and spark the ideas that will shape our future.
		America's Book Club, premiering this fall, Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.

▲