From Shutdowns to Epstein Files: What “Talking Purple” Says About Power, Pain, and the People

In a world where social media feeds us outrage on demand and the news cycle resets every 10 minutes, it can be hard to step back and ask a basic question: Who is actually looking out for regular people?

In this episode of Talking Purple, host Beth Guide tackles that question head-on, weaving together topics that seem separate on the surface—government shutdowns, Obamacare, the Jeffrey Epstein files, the internal fight inside the Republican Party, the real state of the economy, and the way a Texas community honors its veterans. Underneath all of it is one core theme: narratives are being engineered, and everyday Americans are the ones who pay the price.

This blog post walks through the main points from the video and connects the dots between D.C. drama, media spin, and life on Main Street.

Beth opens by focusing on the 41-day government shutdown and asking the uncomfortable question nobody in Washington seems eager to answer: What did any of this actually accomplish?

She points out real-world consequences that don’t show up in polished press conferences:

For Beth, the shutdown becomes a symbol of something deeper: politicians using pain as leverage. When elected officials are willing to cause disruption for millions just to gain a talking point or a perceived win, they stop representing people and start treating citizens like collateral.

Her message is clear:

It shouldn’t matter if you’re Democrat, Republican, or independent—your job in office is to represent us, not use us as pressure points.

From the shutdown, Beth moves into Obamacare and the broader healthcare system. She doesn’t approach it from a theoretical policy angle, but from the messy reality so many Americans live in: high premiums, limited coverage, and constant battles with insurance companies.

Beth argues that over time, Obamacare has functioned less like a safety net for people and more like a subsidy pipeline for insurance companies:

She shares her own experience: being prescribed medication for sleep apnea, only to have her insurance company refuse to cover it under her drug plan. The cost out of pocket? Around $1,000 a month. That’s not a “minor inconvenience.” That’s life-altering money.

Meanwhile, she notes that programs like SNAP do help people who genuinely need food assistance, even if there’s some fraud at the margins. But if we’re going to subsidize something, she argues, maybe the money should go back to people, not be funneled into a system where large corporations get guaranteed payments and still deny coverage.

In Beth’s view, we’ve built a healthcare structure where:

Beth then pivots to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and this is where she really dives into her concerns about weaponized narratives.

According to Beth’s summary of recent events:

Beth points out that, in this specific context, Giuffre had stated she never witnessed wrongdoing by Trump and that, if anything, Trump tried to help her get a job. By redacting her name, Beth argues, they created just enough mystery to allow a narrative to form: “Trump is mentioned in Epstein’s world—therefore he must be guilty of something.”

In her view, this is how a manufactured narrative works:

Whether you agree with her analysis or not, Beth raises a powerful point: once a false or misleading story enters the bloodstream of the internet, the correction never travels as far as the original lie. People remember the accusation, not the retraction.

She connects this to other examples, like Alan Dershowitz, who was accused and later legally cleared, and yet still lives with a cloud of suspicion in some circles because the internet never truly “forgets” the first version of the story.

For Beth, Epstein isn’t just a scandal—it’s a case study in how social media distorts reality.

She talks about how:

She mentions how many people still believe Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people on both sides,” or think certain figures are aligned with MAGA when they aren’t—because their feeds never served them the full clips or corrections.

Beth’s show, Talking Purple, is her attempt to build a space where:

Another theme Beth explores is the divide inside the Republican Party.

She describes two broad factions:

Beth places herself squarely in the constitutional conservative camp, skeptical of the older establishment wing. She also talks about cultural differences—how her New York bravado can be misunderstood in Texas, and how that same blunt, Northeast persona in Trump rubs some people the wrong way, especially in the middle of the country.

In her eyes, Trump’s personality style and communication approach may offend some sensibilities, but she sees it as more tone than substance—and she believes the fight over tone sometimes distracts from larger policy questions.

Beth then brings the conversation home to something most people feel every day: the cost of living.

From her perspective as a small business owner, the rosy claims about the economy “improving” don’t match what she and others are living:

Beyond groceries:

For small businesses like hers:

Beth also takes aim at talk of stimulus checks and income thresholds, pointing out how small business owners often appear on paper to “make too much” because retained earnings are taxed as personal income—even though that money is earmarked to keep the business afloat, not to upgrade anyone’s lifestyle.

Her bottom line:

Main Street is still hurting, and if leaders think the economy is “back,” they’re not listening to the people living inside it.

After all the heavy political and economic topics, Beth closes on something hopeful and deeply personal: the way her community of Kingwood, Texas shows up for veterans.

She shares how:

Beth’s roots with the military are strong: her dad served in the Air Force, and many of the most important people in her life are Air Force as well. That background makes her especially passionate when she says:

For her, Kingwood isn’t just a place on the map; it’s a community that still knows how to rally around something bigger than politics—respect for the men and women who wore the uniform.

Taken together, this episode of Talking Purple is less about any single issue and more about a pattern:

Beth’s goal with Talking Purple is to create a space where those patterns are challenged, where debunked stories are brought back into the light, and where real-world experience is allowed to speak louder than curated headlines.

Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, the invitation is simple:

Elections don’t just choose winners; they surface what voters care about, what messages broke through, and where both parties misread the room. Coming out of yesterday’s results, a few themes stand out—especially in Texas and across major urban races—along with some hard lessons for Republican strategists going into the next cycle.

Texas voters approved all 17 statewide propositions. Two of the clearest signals:

Harris County turnout was sizable given its population, though not as strong as reform advocates would have liked. Still, the mandate on safety and taxes is unambiguous: voters want safer neighborhoods and relief at home.

Several contests are heading to runoffs, with Dwight Boykins taking the early lead in his open-seat race. Elsewhere, Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards advanced in a prominent regional contest. Republican ballots won’t appear in those two-candidate runoffs, but that doesn’t mean Republicans should sit it out—coalition-building and pragmatic voting still shape governance in a city as complex as Houston.

Whether you blame Democrats or Republicans for the latest government shutdown fight, the political effect was real. Voters who only catch headlines and social clips often absorb the simplest narrative—too often, that’s “X party broke government.” If one side appears to “flip the switch” and reopen government right after Election Day, the implication is obvious and corrosive: shutdown tactics are being gamed for short-term wins.

Layered on top is the filibuster. As long as 60-vote cloture remains, it’s easy to muddy accountability: “We couldn’t pass it because of them.” There are respectable arguments for minority rights in the Senate—but when everything is reduced to process, voters tune out, resent the stalemate, and punish whoever they think is in charge.

Most people don’t marinate in policy PDFs. They scroll. If your feed only reflects your priors, you’ll never see the other side’s best arguments or worst excesses. That’s why balanced curation matters—and why headline language (verbs, adjectives, insinuations) becomes the de facto “news.” Journalism classes once drilled impartial phrasing; today’s incentive structure rewards opinionated framing. The result: a public that feels whipsawed and unsure what’s true.

Two strategic errors showed up again:

Across party lines, there’s a durable center on a few basics:

Candidates who speak to that center—consistently and concretely—are outperforming those who anchor themselves to narrower ideological fights.

Both parties have played hardball with district lines—Texas, Harris County, and plenty of deep-blue states included. When 40% of a state’s voters have effectively 0% representation in a congressional delegation, people don’t feel heard. Until there’s a credible fix (whether through independent commissions, tighter contiguity rules, or judicial standards with teeth), trust in election outcomes will continue to erode.

If your strategist tells you to avoid the issues that are actually moving voters in your district because “Twitter won’t like it,” find a new strategist. The job is to understand the electorate you have, not the timeline your consultant scrolls. Align your team with your convictions—and insist on fieldwork that tests messages with real neighbors, not just online “sentiment.”

Voters rewarded messages that put working families and community safety first, and they punished muddled or consultant-polished campaigns that ducked the hard conversations. Heading into primaries and then the general, the winning playbook is hiding in plain sight: be transparent about tradeoffs, focus on everyday life, and build majorities where people actually live—not where your feed lives.

Welcome back to Talking Purple, where we try to cut through the noise and ask a simple question: what solution would actually work? This week’s episode moved fast—touching on mortgage-fraud prosecutions, voting reminders for Texans, the politicization of the judiciary, pragmatic immigration ideas, and the endless filibuster/“clean CR” standoff. Below is a written companion to the show, with timestamps-in-spirit and key takeaways.

We opened with a quick reminder: turnout isn’t a spectator sport. Texans have constitutional amendments on the ballot that directly affect property taxes—and Houstonians have local races that shape basic services (yes, even the trash pickup you notice when it doesn’t happen). If you think assessments and tax policy are “someone else’s problem,” they won’t be for long. Get informed and show up.

The spark for this segment was a familiar claim that “nobody gets prosecuted for mortgage fraud.” That doesn’t square with reality. When you look—really look—you find a long list of people who faced serious consequences, from corporate leaders to media personalities to political figures. The point isn’t to dunk on anyone; it’s to challenge the narrative that certain crimes are “never” enforced. They are. And sometimes, the sentences are stiff.

A few examples we discussed on the show:

The lesson: yes, mortgage fraud gets prosecuted. Different cases carry different facts and sentencing ranges, but the blanket claim that “nobody gets prosecuted” just isn’t true. Enforcement has occurred under multiple administrations.

Next, we moved to an uncomfortable subject: the judiciary feels politicized. Whatever your tribe, you’ve probably said (or heard) the phrase “Obama judge,” “Trump judge,” or “Biden judge.” The Founders didn’t design the system with that expectation. One argument we explored: perhaps the 17th Amendment—which changed how Senators are chosen—unintentionally re-routed judicial appointments into the center of partisan conflict.

The original setup had state legislatures choosing Senators, aligning the Senate’s incentives with state institutions rather than national party dynamics. After the 17th Amendment, direct election recalibrated accountability, fundraising, and nationalized media dynamics—all of which can flow into how judicial nominees are evaluated and approved. The result, some would argue, is a bench that swings like a stretched rubber band: from one ideological extreme to the other with each electoral wave. That volatility can’t be healthy for the rule of law or public confidence.

Is repealing the 17th realistic? Politically, it’s a moonshot. But it’s worth discussing the spirit of the critique: can we de-politicize judicial selection, slow the performative confirmation wars, and return to evaluating nominees by record and temperament rather than by tribal loyalty? If we want outcomes that feel fair—and are seen as fair—we’ll have to address the incentive structure that produces the current spectacle.

If there’s a policy area crying out for adult supervision, it’s immigration—and specifically DACA. We talked through a practical compromise for long-resident DACA recipients: legalize status now, with no immediate right to vote, paired with a clear, achievable path to citizenship over time. It recognizes reality (these are our neighbors, often culturally American) while addressing political anxieties around electoral impact.

Two things can be true at once:

That’s not radical; it’s common sense. And it’s miles closer to a stable consensus than the all-or-nothing shouting match we get every election cycle.

We also touched on SNAP/EBT abuses—not to paint everyone with the same brush, but because the system can be gamed and should be safeguarded. The trick is avoiding false choices. It is absolutely possible to tighten enforcement against bad actors and keep help flowing to families who need it. (That’s the “purple” in Talking Purple: guardrails + compassion.)

A better conversation would ask:

Reducing leakage in safety nets isn’t cruelty; it’s stewardship. And it protects the political durability of programs by maintaining public trust.

We briefly touched on wiretaps, code-named operations, and the broader theme of oversight. The details are often opaque by design—which is precisely why robust legislative and judicial checks are essential. Intelligence tools can be vital; they can also creep. The line between “legitimate tool” and “overreach” is a moving target unless Congress and the courts keep reasserting the guardrails the Constitution requires.

The principle here is simple: power expands unless it’s bounded. Sunshine and due process aren’t luxuries; they’re the price of admission for wielding state power in a free society.

If you’ve felt like Capitol Hill is stuck on repeat, you’re not alone. The current standoff—framed as filibusters and votes on a “clean continuing resolution” (CR)—isn’t just parliamentary arcana; it’s the operating system for the federal government’s budget. A “clean” CR simply extends funding at current levels to keep the lights on. Critics argue that’s not a real solution and that we need substantive legislation to fix broken programs (the show specifically pointed at Obamacare implementation issues and the need for long-term policy work).

Here’s the tension:

Both sides have a point. But the “permanent crisis” model we’ve adopted turns every deadline into brinkmanship and every negotiation into a purity test. If you’re exhausted, you’re paying attention.

Across these topics—mortgage fraud, courts, immigration, surveillance, and funding fights—the common thread isn’t left vs. right. It’s incentives vs. outcomes:

Flip the incentives and you start getting different results:

Talking Purple isn’t about getting everyone to agree; it’s about getting everyone to engage. If you made it this far, I’d love to hear from you:

Drop your solutions in the comments—not just slogans. If you disagree with anything above, tell me why and offer a better idea. When we argue in good faith, we all get smarter.

If you missed the episode, watch it now and share it with someone who loves policy talk. Then tap Subscribe and so you never miss a conversation that tries to color outside the red/blue lines.

Thanks for reading—and for thinking in purple.

Sources: This article reflects the themes and statements discussed in this week’s Talking Purple episode, including examples of mortgage-fraud prosecutions, the 17th Amendment argument around judicial selection, DACA legalization-without-immediate-voting, and the filibuster/clean CR debate.

The “government shutdown” is, functionally, a filibuster fight; vulnerable families shouldn’t be collateral damage; local ballots matter more than most people realize; and voters—whether in Texas, Houston, New York City, or New Jersey—should pick the best person, not the party letter.

I’m a big believer in accurate labels. Words shape how we think about problems—and how we solve them. So let’s start here: this isn’t just a vague “shutdown.” It’s a filibuster fight.

You can disagree with policy aims on either side and still acknowledge the mechanism: one party is blocking a continuing resolution (CR). That distinction matters because it shifts the conversation from mysterious dysfunction to a specific procedural roadblock with clear accountability.

I don’t care which team “wins.” I care whether the American people—especially the most vulnerable—lose.

One of the more interesting wrinkles in this standoff: using tariff revenue to keep WIC benefits flowing so moms and kids aren’t punished while adults in D.C. posture. You can call it unorthodox. You can call it classic Trump—finding a workaround when the process stalls. But if the question is, “Are families getting milk, eggs, and cheese?” then I’m going to applaud anything that answers “yes” while Congress plays chicken.

Meanwhile, look at what some versions of the CR drag along for the ride: funding riders, PBS dollars, and even congressional death benefits. I’m not anti–public broadcasting, and I respect public service. But when we’re weighing who gets helped first in a shutdown—children who need nutrition or the machinery of politics—I know where I land. The priorities should be crystal clear.

And about welfare “work requirements”: spare me the hysteria. Versions of that idea existed in Democratic circles during the Clinton era. Reasonable people can debate design and carve-outs without pretending the entire concept is some cartoon villain.

Bottom line: Fund the essentials for the people who need it. Strip the ornaments off the CR tree. Solve the problem in front of you.

Voter turnout is soft. Non-presidential cycles always dip, but this year feels worse—and that’s dangerous because “small” elections often punch above their weight.

If you’re a Texas homeowner, you should be laser-focused on the homestead exemption floor. Codifying a higher baseline matters. A lower exemption later means higher taxes sooner than you think. If you care about keeping your house affordable, get to the polls. Don’t outsource your mortgage to apathy.

Parents: pay attention to measures that affect parental rights. We already have laws for criminal abuse. What worries me is the creeping normalization of schools and agencies overruling families on non-criminal disagreements. Every kid is different; one-size-fits-all bureaucratic “solutions” rarely fit anyone.

Turnout takeaway: Low-salience ballots let organized minorities decide for silent majorities. If a candidate only wins when no one’s looking, maybe they shouldn’t be winning.

At-large seats aren’t neighborhood trophies; they’re citywide responsibilities. I want people on council who help a mayor that’s actually delivering—more policing where it’s needed, more attention to communities long ignored. That requires grownups who can govern, not climbers who see low turnout as a ladder.

Party labels don’t fill potholes, and they don’t make neighborhoods safer. Competence does. Character does. Judgment does. If you’ve watched long enough, you know who shows up prepared and who shows up when a camera does.

I grew up staring at the Manhattan skyline from New Jersey. I remember a city you didn’t wander after dark, and I watched it come back to life when leadership decided “safe and open for business” wasn’t optional.

Say what you want about personalities, but public safety is the floor everything else stands on. Kill the floor and the house collapses. If policing becomes a partisan litmus test, regular people lose—especially those who can’t afford to move to the suburbs when things go sideways.

Leadership in New York should be chosen by one measure first: Who protects New Yorkers? Not who wins Twitter. Not who carries the right letter in front of their name. The candidate who actually defends the city—day in, day out.

If you think “Taylor ham vs. pork roll” is trivial, you’re missing the point. Culture cues are shortcuts to authenticity. They tell you whether a candidate knows the people they’re asking to represent. You don’t have to love the sandwich—but you should know why the question itself matters to voters who do.

When a 30-point summer lead becomes a single-digit autumn race, it usually means a candidate spent too much time talking at voters and not enough time listening to them.

For every dollar Washington prints to “solve” a problem, a family somewhere tightens a belt. Inflation is a tax that doesn’t need a roll call vote. You’ve already paid it at the pump and the grocery store. Prices easing at the gas station? Great. But durable affordability comes from policy discipline, not wishful thinking and a federal money printer set to “infinite.”

We don’t need symbolism. We need solutions. Sometimes that’s a clean CR. Sometimes it’s a hard “no” on riders. Sometimes it’s an uncomfortable compromise that funds what must be funded and shelves what can wait.

I’ve voted for Democrats. I’ve voted for Republicans. I’ll keep voting for adults who can govern. If your ballot is basically a jersey you wear on game day, you’re not voting—you’re spectating.

Choose the person who will fix the thing in front of you:

That person may not be from “your side.” Vote for them anyway.

Exit the echo chamber. Pick competence over cosplay. And vote like your everyday life depends on it—because it does

In our latest episode for Talking Purple we are covering the Texas Constitutional amendments for 2025 that are to be voted on.  I also am covering CD18, Shelia Jackson Lee’s old district as well as this At Large Houston City Council Seat.  Thanks to my friend Pat Morlan for helping me compile the list for today. 

Proposition 1 – SJR 59: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund and the available workforce education fund to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.”

Oppose: This amendment sets up a fund outside state budget and legislative oversight. Putting spending into the constitution, which creates ongoing expenditure without legislative control

Proposition 2 – SJR 18: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.”

Support: Comment: This proposition prevents future legislatures from taxing capital gains, aligning with TTP’s principles of limited government and personal responsibility

Proposition 3 – SJR 5: “The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to people accused of violent crimes.

Support: Comment: This amendment would allow officials to deny bail under certain extraordinary circumstances by changing Article I, Section 11 of the State Constitution. Magistrates could deny bail to those accused of first-degree felony sexual offenses, violent offenses as defined in the Texas Constitution, or continuous trafficking of persons. The amendment aims to address concerns about public safety and the release of violent offenders.

Proposition 4 – HJR 7: The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue

Oppose: Comment: This amendment allocates $1 billion per year from sales tax revenue to a water fund for infrastructure projects until at least 2035, with possible extension by the legislature. While water infrastructure is important, embedding this funding in the Constitution limits fiscal flexibility and accountability.

Proposition 5 – HJR 99: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of the property for sale at retail.”

Support: Comment: We generally oppose amendments that grant additional exemptions from property taxes, because it puts an additional burden on the rest of the property taxpayers. This one is fairly benign, and it does not require exemption, but permits future legislation to implement it should they choose to do so.

Proposition 6 – HJR 4 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.”

Support: Comment: As with Proposition 2, this amendment binds future legislatures from imposing taxes on securities transactions or creating new occupation taxes on financial market operators.

Proposition 7 – HJR 133: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a veteran who died as a result of a condition or disease that is presumed under federal law to have been service-connected.”

Support: No fiscal implication to the state is anticipated, other than the cost of publication. The cost to the state for publication of the resolution is $191,689

Proposition 8 – HJR 2: “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.”

Support: Comment: This is another amendment that seeks to bind future legislatures from imposing an estate or inheritance tax.

Proposition 9 – HJR 1: “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that is held or used for the production of income.”

Support: Comment: This amendment authorizes businesses to exempt up to $250,000 of market value of income generating property (like equipment, tools, etc). The current exemption is $2,500. Consider it comparable to the homestead exemptions on homeowners’ primary residence.

Proposition 10 – SJR 84; “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.”

Support: Comment: We support this “temporary” homestead exemption for fire damaged property. People who have lost everything in a fire. They should not be taxed on the full value of what they used to own but own no longer. This is one of those “compelling reasons” to have tax exemptions. We would love to see this for Flood victims as well, but they did not raise appraisal rates for two years after Harvey

Proposition 11 – SJR 85: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled.” 

Neutral

Oppose: It is a carve out for a specific group of people elderly & Disabled and it will have a negative impact of $1.2T through the biennium.

Support: because the school tax and MUD taxes are the highest Taxes on your Tax bill even when frozen for age or reduced in the MUD cases for disabled and the elderly. It would be wonderful to eliminate property taxes but that will not happen anytime soon so why not do what we can to help those who need it the most.

Proposition 12 – SJR 27: “The constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission’s recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.”

Support: Comment: This amendment expands and restructures the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The changes seem to be positive in giving more public representation on the committee and enhancing ability to sanction judges.

Proposition 13 – SJR 2: “The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.”

Support: Comment: Proposition 13 aims to provide property tax relief

Proposition 14 – SJR 3: “The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.”

Oppose/ Support Texas is renowned for its cutting edge on Cancer research Dementia has affected just about every family in the world it is time the US steps up and starts to fight this disease why not TX be the place to do it. This is one of those personal issues you must make the choice on.

Proposition 15 – SJR 34: “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.”

Oppose (as unnecessary because this is a right already established by God)

Support: Prop 15 I wish we did not need this amendment, but we have seen the schools and the federal government strip parents of their parental rights over and over again this amendment is needed.

Proposition 16 – SJR 37: “The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.”

Support: Comment: This amendment prevents cities and other political subdivisions from allowing non-citizens to vote (like we’ve seen in San Francisco, and other cities). We believe that only Texas citizens (and therefore US citizens) should vote in Texas elections, and we support this amendment to ensure that is the case for all Texans.

Proposition 17 – HJR 34:“The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements. “Support This is not a tax exemption, but exempts added border security infrastructure from property appraisal increases.

There is a lot of talk these days about what the government should be paying for and the costs that will rise if it does. But to me, it begs the question, how does stuff get paid for? If you’re a household, it often is covered by your paycheck. If you’re the government, most of the time it comes from the people through tax money. Sales tax, income tax, property tax, and gas tax are parts of a very long list of taxes we pay in every facet of our lives. And as we talk through this government shutdown, there are a lot of facts and figures that are missing.

There is a full-court press to disassociate the fact of how we are getting from those taxes. On a local level, we see our police and fire. On a national level, we see our military and security mechanisms. We don’t often have the thought that each and every government worker works for us, not us subservient to them.

So let’s talk about the government shutdown. How it works and who is responsible. for it and why. So here is a brief civics lesson without the background music of Schoolhouse Rock.

In a broad sense, the Senate and its cloture rule is at the root of the government shutdown. Historically, a filibuster is not part of the Constitution. Rather, it is a rule created by the Senate and one that can be changed at any time. In modern applications, in this hyper-partisan era we are living in, it basically empowers the minority party to stop bills it does not want passing in the Senate.

The filibuster in the early days of the country was interesting. It forced people to just talk until they could talk no more and the vote would then take place. In 1917, the Senate got tired of legislation just dying because people would talk it to death, and they invented the cloture rule, which required 2/3 of the present senators to invoke cloture and force a vote. But in 1975, they lowered the threshold to 3/5 or the present day 60 votes.

The present shutdown is really nothing more than the Democrats filibustering the continuing resolution, a stopgap funding mechanism that helps the government function until Congress can pass an appropriations bill.

So every time you hear the Republicans are the cause of the shutdown, understand that the real sentence is, the Democrats are filibustering until they get what they want. It is them who are not providing the balance of 60 votes to stop the debate and hold a vote. There are not 60 Republicans, so it requires at least five democrats to end the debate. So the government has no choice but to shut down.

The first reason is that two provisions from the COVID-19 era were added to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). First was a change in the Premium Tax Credit (PTCs) that helped subsidize premiums, which completely lifted the cap of 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. For example, a family of two making $100,000 could now qualify for premium subsidies in the form of a PTC. And the second provisional change was made in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act bill, which saw an 8.5% in your income for medical premiums if you were an ACA participant. So no matter what you made, your medical premium on Obamacare could not exceed 8.5% of your household income.

Without congressional intervention to codify those changes into law, premiums for the ACA will rise dramatically. But exactly how many people use Obamacare? Presently, less than 8% of Americans get their insurance from the ACA. The rise in premiums only applies to ACA participants. The other 93% with private insurance or other programs like Medicare may see premiums rise

The next reason is that the democrats are attempting to roll back cuts that were made in the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) that just passed in July. These primarily focus on work requirements for people who receive Medicaid. This provision in the BBB is reminiscent of the 1996 law signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, which introduced work requirements for welfare recipients and subsequently led to a reduction in the welfare rolls. The present provision requires able-bodied adults to work, train or volunteer part-time (80 hours per month) to qualify.

In addition, this is where the healthcare for illegals comes in. Although federal money cannot pay for illegal aliens’ healthcare, the loophole is to subsidize the states, giving them approximately $638B. This loophole was closed in the BBB, and Democrats want it reinstated.

The problem is, as it always is, that neither side’s base hears both sides of this discussion. But make no mistake, the Democrats are filibustering, and that is why the government is shut down.

In the same vein of how stuff gets paid for, Steve Toth has changed his explanation of why he voted against the dredging bill, therefore increasing the likelihood of my neighborhood flooding.

After meeting with people in town who had explained adnausium that their houses would have flooded in May 2024 had it not been for the dredging effort paid for with federal dollars and by the efforts of our sitting congress critter, Dan Crenshaw, the new reason Mr. Toth voted against it was that it had no taxing authority.

Before addressing the taxes, the firing of Jace Houston isn’t even a concern. In the end, Mr. Houston didn’t even get fired. Instead, he stepped down and got a very nice severance package. If you don’t know what happened, then this answer is plausible, but for those of us in Kingwood, we know what happened, and this unvarnished truth is so far from the reality that most Kingwood residents live under. We do not have PTSD from Harvey, and Harvey was not a one-time event, yet this is what we keep hearing. Again, I ask, do we need a Congress person who doesn’t take the time to find out the situation?

So let’s talk about the no-taxing authority portion of this. First, a program that does not require tax dollars is innovative and attractive. But let’s see how this is being accomplished. The dredging bill is funded by the sale of aggregate that will be dredged out of the lake, and it will fund the program as a self-funded program. It solves the issue for the residents of Lake Houston, all while doing it in a manner that does not put the financial burden on taxpayers.

We have already seen programs like this work, as demonstrated by the Woodridge property that flooded Elm Grove. The 15 feet of dirt put on that property to elevate 300 acres was removed similarly. Instead of Harris County Flood Control paying to have it removed, they sold the dirt to the contractors, who then removed it without any charge to the taxpayer. So we have a similar program that shows that self-funded programs can work.

However, if it does not self-fund, the program will be funded through the water program provided by the city of Houston. This means a dredging fee will be added to the water bill each month for the city’s 6 million residents who receive water from Lake Houston, likely amounting to just pennies monthly.

These are two entirely different approaches to problems and their solutions. The reality is that government subsidies never work because they disrupt the capitalist principles on which the free market is built. Obamacare needs to be retooled to work correctly. There is a place for it for sure, as it helps fill a need. But there are a few issues with it, most of all, it is enriching insurance companies at the expense of taxpayers, of whom 80% are paying for their own premiums.

And lastly, tomorrow is “No Kings Day.” I keep trying to find some reason to understand why these folks are coming out and protesting. I continue to attribute some of this to the fact that we live in siloed echo chambers, hearing only our own viewpoints. As long as social media is filled with untruthful posts that go unchecked, this is the world we will live in, making shows like this all the more relevant. The irony of it all to me is that for every quote I see, I can make the argument that the left also participates in the exact thing they are protesting, but it’s done on a leadership level and therefore the rank and file only get the tweets and affirmation from their own side and don’t see it. The funny thing is, Trump was an authoritarian as the far left claims, the 2500 planned protests would not be happening.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them, and that is the case with Texas House Representative for District 15, Steve Toth. It is abundantly clear that Mr. Toth has no idea about flooding and its impact on the region, but what is worse is that rather than learn about flooding and its issues, he would rather talk over with constituents who try to educate him on the matter, going as far as to delete their posts that explain the situation to him.

He speaks on the issue as it is a one-time event. He casts aspersions on the people who have worked for years to stop the loss of life and property due to flooding.

Toth claims to be conservative, but his voting record and his behavior are anything but. Here is an initial list, and unfortunately, it gets worse every day.

There is a deep divide between Kingwood, a North Harris County Houston Suburb, the Lake Houston watershed, and its neighbor to the north, Montgomery County, concerning the causality of flooding issues in the region.

This story begins on the Harris County side in 1953 with the completion of Lake Houston Reservoir, which became the primary water source for the growing city of Houston. It sits approximately 4 miles north of Sheldon, which was the previous reservoir for Houston.

There was a concrete dam and spillway built as part of the Lake Houston project in 1953, which met the necessary specifications. It was built for 10,000 cubic feet per second. For 2025, however, the current flow rate of about 65,0000 cubic feet per second is inadequate. [1]

There is a plan in the process of being approved that will see 11 gates added adjacent to the present structure, whereas it cannot be added on to safely. And thanks to the efforts of Congressman Dan Crenshaw, he has been working with the city to fund this project since he won the seat after Ted Poe decided not to seek re-election.

At the epicenter of the issues is Kingwood, a master planned community developed by Friendswood Development Corporation, a then division of ExxonMobil Corporation, in 1972. It sits in the northeast corner of Harris County, which borders Montgomery County and on the banks of Lake Houston, where the east and west forks of the San Jacinto River converge. It is approximately 10 miles from George Bush Airport. It has an approximate population of 60,000 and was annexed by Houston in 1994.

Kingwood continues to be one of Harris County’s premier communities to live. With its historically great schools and low crime, it has always been a great place to raise a family, and many residents age in place within the community.

Montgomery County’s population in 1953 was approximately 24,000 people, and by 1970, the population had grown to 45,000 as the Houston suburbs began to form.

Conroe was a small lumber community founded in the 1880s, that grew to approximately 7,000 residents in the 1970s. In 1968, the City of Houston contracted to have Lake Conroe built as a response to the 1950s droughts and to add a secondary reservoir to its system to help protect the growing population of Houston. The lake was completed in 1973 and became an economic draw to the community of Conroe, to Montgomery County as a whole. Although Houston owns Lake Conroe, it has been allowed to be used for recreational purposes. In 2025, Conroe is home to 120,000 people, who believe that Lake Conroe is theirs for recreational purposes first, creating a great divide with their neighbors to the south in Kingwood.

In 1974, George P. Mitchell changed the trajectory of Montgomery County by founding The Woodlands as another master planned community that at the time rivaled Kingwood as a premier place to live. This, along with Lake Conroe, has led to a meteoric rise in Montgomery County’s population to 750,000 in 2024, as well as significant economic contributions. It is deemed the reddest county in Texas and home to many high-profile politicians and celebrities.

Started in 1937 for agricultural management, the role of the SJRA morphed into an agency to help protect water resources after the 7-year drought of the 1950s. It has overseen the construction of many reservoir lakes throughout Texas, including Lake Conroe, which was built in collaboration with the City of Houston and the Texas Water Development Board. And, the SJRA continues to manage Lake Conroe, its tide pools, and its water releases, which flow down to the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River and directly into Lake Houston. It now stores 430,000 acre-feet and maintains a 201-foot pool elevation.

In 1994, right after the opening of West Lake Houston Parkway to the South of Kingwood Drive, a large flood occurred. Water encroached into Kingwood through the Forest Cove section and reached as far as Kingwood Drive via the new section of West Lake Houston Parkway. Lower-lying homes that were adjacent to the lake flooded. Although much of Forset Cove was flooded, most of Kingwood itself was not.

This flood was random, and no one had ever seen an event like this. As government officials investigated the matter, it was determined that the SJRA had released too much water too quickly from Lake Conroe, causing it to flow down the San Jacinto River to Lake Houston faster than it could be released from Lake Houston. And thus began the fight between Kingwood and Lake Conroe.

At the time, there was a gentleman’s agreement that would never be done again, and it held until Hurricane Harvey.

Hurricane Harvey brought an unprecedented amount of rainfall to the Houston area and Lake Conroe. In doing so, the water rose so quickly that they opened the gates on Lake Conroe, letting out 79,000 cfs, well above the 10,000 cfs that Lake Houston can release, causing catastrophic flood damage through Kingwood, with the water crossing over Kingwood Drive and going into homes and schools that had not seen water ever. The entire south side of Kingwood was flooded from the San Jacinto River to Rustic Wood Drive and all points in between. 50% of all the lives lost in Harvey were in Kingwood.

This flood event had nothing to do with the historical situation with the SJRA and Lake Conroe. Instead, this had everything to do with the lack of enforcement of laws by Montgomery County, as they turned a blind eye while Perry Homes came in and clear-cut 300 acres, using an inadequate drainage ditch that flooded 600 homes unnecessarily, not once but twice, within 4 months.

Flooding is a more recent issue because of Montgomery County’s over zealous building initatives. Their refusal to enforce laws create situations with homeowners that take years to manifest, only to allow the builders to walk away from projects before issues happen.

It seems all the elected officials in Montgomery County have little regard or understanding for the dymanics of this situation. Some take a position of neutrality and don’t vote for or against initiatives.

In the case of Steve Toth, he seems to be the worst of it, because he has not researched the issue enough to even have a solid conversation about it. But worse is that he doesn’t want to learn. He wants to try to tell the people on the front side of this we are wrong after so many have worked for years to bring about change that protects the ressidents of Kingwood. We can only hope this is arrogance that drives this rather than being in the tank for donors, which I have long felt was the case with many in Montgomery County. Builders are donors and there for we can only do what the donors say.

The problem is that people are getting killed because of these policies. When you tell them this happend, they tell you we are making it up yet we have a list of the people killed in Harvey. We have a list of the home owners in Elm Grove that lost their pets. We have a property damage report after property damage report.

But maybe the biggest issue of all is the not being willing to listen. To have so much huberis as to not want to hear about the struggles of the people you are wanting to represent. So when people tell you who they are believe them. And Steve Toth has told us who he is in actions, not in words. We have all been warned.