There are a lot of reasons why elected office holders behave the way they do. But one fundamental razor for understanding them I find useful is assume their primary motivating question with regard to any issue is, "How do we get this off of my desk?" We're about to find out if Senate Democrats will extend this principle to... well... the entirety of their constitutional mandate.
But most important, the bill grants an open invitation to Trump and Elon Musk to continue to ignore Congress and toss out disfavored spending. Vice President JD Vance, while selling the deal to House Republicans, stated outright that “Trump would continue cutting federal funding with his Department of Government Efficiency initiative and pursue impoundment—that is, holding back money appropriated by Congress.” This has been reiterated by others in the Trump administration.
In fact, the House Republican bill gives the president more leeway to move money around. It appropriates money for things that Musk has eliminated, meaning that money can operate as a floating slush fund for Trump’s priorities, as long as the courts don’t roll back the illegal impoundments.
Think about what this means. The Trump administration is saying that they will sign a bill appropriating specific funding, and then go about cutting funding anyway. If you’re a member of Congress, you’re being told that your work product doesn’t matter, that the constitutional power of the purse doesn’t matter, and that there’s no guarantee that anything you pass will actually reach the people you serve.
To most modern politicians, that is a tempting offer. With no expectation that your office has any relevance to the work of governing, you are now free to focus on the real work of raising money and being on TV a lot. This is an especially attractive proposition if you happen to be a member of the "opposition party." Why bother with performing the frustrations of exerting your limited power when you can scale that back to simply performing.
So far, only Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) has committed to voting yes. But as Josh Marshall has documented at Talking Points Memo, a number of Senate Democrats have stated no position on the bill, leaving their options open. In general, senators have been hedging their bets until forced to make a decision. That time has come.
Credible sources indicate that the most likely Democrats to offer up the remaining seven votes to avoid a shutdown are Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Mark Warner (D-VA).
Some Democrats seem to be consumed with Senate brain, worried that they would be blamed for a government shutdown. What they’re not understanding is that the Musk-Trump assault on government has created a kind of permanent government shutdown, where so-called nonessential personnel are fired and operations are deeply circumscribed. Why would any Democrat sign on to a bill making that state of affairs even more likely, out of fear of the same government shutdown that the Trump administration is locking into place anyway?
I'm a little harsher than David Dayen in that article. I think Democrats understand what's happening perfectly well. They're being offered a chance to avoid responsibility and are keen on taking it. That's just good political instincts. Your Social Security check didn't come? The bad people must have taken it from you. Meanwhile, now my job doesn't involve looking after Social Security anymore. One less thing I have to do.