As I’ve been following the recent government shutdown debate, I’ve been trying to look past the partisan noise and focus on what really drives these standoffs. What drives me crazy and strikes me most is how both parties seem to use deadlines as leverage, rather than opportunities for real discussion.

One of the main flashpoints is the pending expiration at the end of the year of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. My sense is that the original intent of having an expiration date was not to guarantee automatic renewal, but to force Congress to revisit the issue — to ask whether the policy is still working, and whether it should be extended, revised or replaced.

To me, that’s an important principle of good governance. When a law includes a sunset clause, it’s meant to ensure accountability and encourage evidence-based review. The assumption shouldn’t be that every temporary expansion automatically continues forever.

So why didn’t this review happen well before the expiration date? That’s the bigger issue — and it’s not just about this policy or one party. It’s a pattern.

Both Republicans and Democrats seem to wait until the last possible moment to act. By turning every policy deadline into a crisis, they create leverage for their side — but at the cost of responsible governing. Instead of thoughtful evaluation months in advance, we end up with “all or nothing” negotiations under the threat of a shutdown.

I don’t think that’s how this process was meant to work. A deadline should spark deliberation, not brinkmanship.

This crisis-driven approach also fuels the kind of rigid, winner-take-all thinking that now defines Washington. Every funding deadline becomes a test of political purity, where compromise is treated like surrender. The result is predictable: late-night deals, public frustration and agencies caught in the middle.

The sad irony is that both sides claim to be acting on principle — fiscal responsibility versus protecting people’s health care — but the process itself undermines both goals. A government that can’t plan or debate in a timely way can’t serve anyone effectively.

In my view, real reform would mean:

• Requiring early hearings and evaluations months before key programs expire.
• Using objective data — not political talking points — to decide whether a policy merits renewal.
• Decoupling essential government funding from ideological fights, so the country isn’t held hostage to policy disagreements.

Ultimately, the issue isn’t just whether to extend ACA subsidies. It’s whether Congress is willing to govern proactively instead of waiting for a crisis.

It’s also very sad to me that the way that our national leaders govern has influenced our local politics.  Whether it’s the lack of transparency to push through agendas or pushing both camps into an all-or-nothing battle, there’s a failure to sit down in a responsible way to first discuss the issues so that everyone really understands both sides, and then debate the issues, before they become impending crisis.  

Expiration dates were meant to promote accountability, not chaos. When Congress turns those checkpoints into cliffhangers, it betrays the public’s trust. If both parties truly value responsible governance, they need to start these discussions earlier — not when the lights are about to go out.

Chris Millias

Ashland