Stop Pointing Fingers: Why Both Parties Have Failed Us with the Upcoming Shutdown

As another shutdown looms, it’s worth asking: is government too big for its own good? Here’s what we need to explore.

It’s that time of year when teams pick sides, dig in, and play the finger-pointing game. A government “shutdown” occurs when Congress fails to pass funding legislation, forcing federal agencies to halt non-essential operations. This has become a recurring spectacle - most recently in 2023, and several times before that.

Both parties routinely posture for their base, but it’s really just a show for the public - purely theatrical. Here’s what they’re not telling you: they’re not fighting over whether to spend - they’re fighting over how much to spend and for which industries’ benefit.

What’s worse, the “compromise” almost always means more debt and more bureaucracy. So before we even get to the current spending bill, let’s address the deeper issues that make these shutdowns inevitable - and why both parties are equally responsible. We also have more taxes in the form of the inflation caused by increased budgets and a larger deficit.

Government Is Too Large

The fact that a “shutdown” even exists should be a wake-up call about how overextended government has become. Many so-called “essential” services could be handled by private markets, charities, or voluntary organizations - and in fact, they were before government expanded into nearly every sector.

Take the Transportation Security Administration as an example, created in 2001. Private security firms handled airport screening before, and still do in several other countries with comparable or better results. Canada uses a mix of private contractors under government oversight, and studies found their average screening wait times were consistently shorter than U.S. TSA lines.

Or take the Small Business Administration, which duplicates services already provided by banks, credit unions, and private lenders. So here’s the question nobody wants to ask: if we can function without these agencies during a shutdown, why do we need them at all?

The real solution isn’t a compromise between two big-spending options. It’s a serious conversation about reducing government size and scope. But that conversation never happens - why? Because it would threaten both parties’ ability to reward their supporters with federal contracts and programs.

Both Parties Are Big-Spending Parties

Republicans and Democrats argue over what to spend money on, not whether to spend it. Both parties are running the same Keynesian playbook—government intervention to juice the economy - they just pick different industries to favor based on who votes for them.

The numbers don’t lie The national debt was $10.6 trillion when Obama took office in 2009. By the time Trump left in 2021? $27.7 trillion. Today it’s over $35 trillion. That’s a 230% increase in 15 years, straight through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Break it down per person: in 2009, every American owed roughly $34,000 as their share of the national debt. Today? Over $104,000 per person. Every child, every retiree, every citizen - you’re on the hook for six figures before you’ve borrowed a dime yourself.

Does either party address deficit spending or fiscal responsibility? If they are willing to risk a standoff and increase the debt - you have to wonder. They’re equally guilty of expanding government power and running through taxpayer funds.

Rewind to the 2023 budget debates: Republicans wanted more defense spending. Democrats wanted expansion social programs. They compromised by having both sides get what they wanted, and we got a bigger deficit.

Rinse Wash Repeat

Coercive Taxation Funds This Theater

Here’s what “coercive taxation” means: You’re forced by law to fund government operations. No opt-out. No redirecting your money. No choosing which services you actually want to pay for. Try refusing to fund programs you oppose? The IRS will come for your wages or seize your assets. Simple as that.

But here’s where it gets even worse: the government doesn’t even bother funding most spending through direct taxation anymore. Deficits get financed through debt monetization - the Fed buys Treasury bonds, essentially printing money to cover what taxes don’t. It’s an invisible tax through inflation, quietly eroding your purchasing power without Congress ever taking a vote.

Your dollar buys less. Prices climb. And you’re paying for government spending whether it shows up on your tax return or not. So when politicians debate healthcare provisions or spending limits, understand what’s actually happening: they’re arguing over how to spend your money, extracted from you either directly through taxation or indirectly through inflation - and you get zero say in it either way.

Shutdowns Expose Government Inefficiency

Here’s a thought experiment: If government services can be shut down without catastrophic consequences, were they truly essential? We’ve lived through multiple shutdowns - in 2018-2019 (35 days), 2013 (16 days), and several shorter ones.

Yes, there were real costs: air travel delays from TSA staffing shortages, national park closures that hurt local economies, and scientific research projects that lost months of progress. Federal contractors and employees faced genuine financial hardship.

But here’s the key point - society continued to function. The disruptions were real hardships, though hardly existential. This reveals what economists call “bureaucratic bloat” - layers of administration, redundant agencies, and programs that exist primarily to justify their own budgets rather than serve necessary functions.

Bottom Line

Let’s be clear about what’s really happening: The true outrage isn’t just the lack of compromise - it’s that both parties share a fundamental desire to expand government power and spending, differing only in which industries receive the benefits. One party wants to centrally plan through military contracts and corporate subsidies; the other through social programs and green energy mandates. But both want to plan, both want to spend, and both want to extract more from taxpayers to do it.

The recurring shutdown crisis is a symptom. The disease is unchecked government growth, funded by mandatory taxation and debt monetization, supported by both major parties. Other nations have shown it’s possible to prosper with far less government - you just need leaders willing to try.

What Other Countries Show Us

Other nations demonstrate that limited government can work - and work well - without sacrificing freedom.

Switzerland keeps government spending at around 32% of GDP and maintains a constitutional “debt brake” that requires balanced budgets - far below U.S. levels. Their system divides power among federal, cantonal, and municipal governments, with only about one-third of total spending at the federal level.

The result? Switzerland runs budget surpluses rather than deficits, and consistently ranks among the world’s most free and prosperous nations.

Estonia offers another compelling example. After decades behind the Iron Curtain under Soviet rule, Estonia restored independence in 1991 and embraced economic liberalization. Today, government spending remains moderate, taxes are low (with a flat 20% income tax), and the country maintains efficient, minimal bureaucracy.

Estonia scores 94/100 on Freedom House’s global freedom index - higher than the United States—while also ranking among the world’s most economically free nations. The country has become a leader in high-tech innovation and digital governance, proving that limited government doesn’t mean limited services when those services are provided efficiently.

Both countries prove that smaller government doesn’t mean the collapse of society - it often means greater prosperity, fiscal stability, and respect for individual rights.

A Path Forward

So instead of asking which party is right about this shutdown, here are the real questions: How much government spending do we just accept without question? How much of our income should we be forced to hand over? And what would actually happen if we demanded real fiscal responsibility - not just slower growth, but actual reduction in the size and scope of federal power?

Libertarian policy proposals offer concrete alternatives - and before you write them off as fantasy, remember other countries have already done this successfully:

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment: Require government to not spend more than it collects. Balance the budget by cutting expenditures, not raising taxes. Switzerland and other nations have constitutional rules like this on the books. It works.

Hard Spending Caps: Stop letting spending grow forever. Cap total federal spending as a percentage of GDP—20%, 18%, maybe lower. Milton Friedman had it right: government spending is the real tax burden on the private economy. Cut spending, and that’s what actually matters.

Dramatic Reductions in Specific Areas: Libertarian candidates have proposed cutting military spending by 60% or more, closing foreign bases, and bringing troops home—which would save each American family approximately $4,100 annually. Similar cuts could target redundant domestic agencies and programs that duplicate private sector services.

Elimination of Debt Monetization: End the Federal Reserve’s practice of buying Treasury bonds to finance deficits, which amounts to hidden taxation through inflation. This would force Congress to make spending transparent and subject to real constraints.

Here’s the reality: Shutdowns won’t end until voters demand politicians stop expanding government in all directions - military, social, corporate, or bureaucratic. Without that reckoning, the script won’t change.