The House was able to barely pass the Continuing Resolution that will allow the government to stay funded until September of 2025. The vote went straight down party lines with one notable exception, Kentucky's "principled politician" Thomas Massie.
Massie has made a career out of cosplaying the "Libertarian" in the Congress and voting whichever way his principles take him. This has become an issue of some consternation to Republicans as a quick glance shows that, although Massie is said to vote for or against anybody, some of his more famous votes are against the Republicans, more especially President Donald Trump.
Date | Bill Name | Party Sponsorship | Massie's Vote | Notes |
March 21, 2013 | House Budget Bill (H.Con.Res. 25) | Republican | No | Massie was among 10 Republicans who voted against this budget proposal, which aimed to set forth the congressional budget for fiscal year 2014. |
March 27, 2020 | CARES Act | Bipartisan | Attempted No | During the COVID-19 pandemic, Massie attempted to force a recorded vote on the $2.2 trillion aid package, expressing concerns about the lack of accountability in passing such a significant expenditure by voice vote. |
December 17, 2019 | Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 | Bipartisan | No | Massie voted against this appropriations act, which authorized the Department of Homeland Security to nearly double the available H-2B visas for the remainder of FY 2020. |
December 17, 2019 | Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1158) | Bipartisan | No | Massie opposed this act, which effectively prohibited ICE from cooperating with Health and Human Services to detain or remove illegal alien sponsors of unaccompanied alien children (UACs). |
March 11, 2025 | GOP Measure to Fund the Government | Republican | No | Massie was the sole Republican to vote against a GOP measure to fund the government through September 30, citing concerns over spending cuts and increases in military spending. |
Massie's voting record reflects his commitment to fiscal conservatism and constitutional principles, often leading him to oppose spending bills regardless of party sponsorship when they conflict with his views on limited government and fiscal responsibility.
However, his view is one that should have been a bit more analyzed by team Trump and calculated for it's effect on stiffening the resistance of the democrats in Congress.
On his "Nyet" vote against the Continuing Resolution, Massie has now doubled down against Trump and the CR as is evidenced in his recent videos on X. (ED. note you can see them on his account @repthomasmassie)
The reason being is that while Massie is used to cosplaying the outsider, he has now taken it upon himself to be the open opposition to Trump in the Republican congress.
Trump has called for him to be primaried and there are at least two person who are looking into that at this moment. Once again, this should have been expected from Massie as he has shown a lack of team play and understanding of who the new politic works in 2025.
We can follow his claim that he had to vote NO due to various issues that the CR would continue the wasteful spending of the past administration BUT he was more interested in the "tax holiday" that had existed in the past few years (the Trump tax cuts continued by Biden)
If he or his people had spent the five minutes or so to look over the press release from Sec State Rubio regarding the dismemberment of USAID, they would have seen Rubio's quote "83% of the programs from USAID were cancelled and the rest brought under State Department for administration". Instead he stays on the hill with his "stop government waste" position.
So let's compare and contrast here.
Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky opposed the recent House continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through September, citing concerns over fiscal responsibility. He argued that the CR perpetuates "waste, fraud, and abuse" in government spending and contributes to the national debt. Massie questioned on social media why he should "vote to continue the waste fraud and abuse" he associates with such funding measures.
He also expressed that the package would add "hundreds of billions to the national debt over the next two years," underscoring his belief in the need for a balanced budget to prevent further indebtedness.
This stance aligns with Massie's consistent advocacy for reduced government spending and balanced budgets, reflecting his commitment to fiscal conservatism.
Now let us overlay this with the statement from Sec. Rubio
Representative Thomas Massie and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both addressed concerns about government spending, but their approaches and the contexts of their statements differ significantly.
Thomas Massie's Position on the Continuing Resolution (CR):
Representative Massie opposed the recent House continuing resolution aimed at funding the government through September. He expressed that supporting such measures perpetuates "waste, fraud, and abuse" in government spending, further contributing to the national debt. Massie emphasized the need for a balanced budget to prevent additional indebtedness, aligning with his consistent advocacy for fiscal conservatism.
Marco Rubio's Actions Regarding USAID:
In contrast, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a substantial reduction in the programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Specifically, 83% of USAID's programs were eliminated, with the remaining 17% integrated into the State Department. Rubio credited Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team for identifying inefficiencies, leading to the termination of approximately 5,200 contracts deemed not in the national interest. This move aligns with President Donald Trump's executive order to halt foreign aid and curtail federal programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Waste Identification:
The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has been instrumental in identifying and addressing inefficiencies within federal programs. Their efforts have led to significant budgetary changes, such as the reduction of USAID programs. While these actions aim to eliminate wasteful spending, they have also raised concerns about the potential impact on global health initiatives and humanitarian aid.
Contrast Between Massie and Rubio's Approaches:
While both Massie and Rubio advocate for reducing government waste, their methods differ:
Massie's Approach: He focuses on opposing broad funding measures like continuing resolutions that, in his view, perpetuate unchecked spending and increase national debt.
Rubio's Approach: He implements targeted cuts to specific programs, such as those within USAID, based on assessments of their alignment with national interests and efficiency.
In summary, both officials aim to promote fiscal responsibility but employ different strategies—Massie through opposing generalized funding extensions and Rubio through executing targeted program reductions based on efficiency evaluations.
So, could we consider the Massie stance(and vote) to be severe and not politically nuanced?
Massie's stance could be seen as ideologically consistent rather than overly severe when compared to Rubio’s approach. However, the key difference lies in methodology and targeting:
Rubio’s Targeted Cuts via DOGE – Rubio, working with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), focused on eliminating specific programs deemed inefficient, such as the 83% reduction in USAID. This approach, while controversial, is a surgical effort to eliminate perceived waste while keeping some functions operational.
Massie’s Broad Rejection of Funding Mechanisms – Massie opposes entire budget extensions like the Continuing Resolution (CR), citing concerns about overall government bloat, regardless of program specifics. This could be seen as a more sweeping or hardline stance, as it risks defunding necessary programs alongside wasteful ones.
Severity vs. Consistency
Rubio’s approach, although aggressive, maintains some level of operational function by transferring the remainder of USAID under the State Department.
Massie’s rejection of the CR applies blanket opposition to government funding without clear distinctions between essential and wasteful expenditures.
While both advocate for fiscal conservatism, Rubio’s stance appears more calculated, while Massie’s could be seen as more absolute—potentially leading to government shutdowns rather than restructuring. This might make Massie’s position seem severe to those who prioritize maintaining essential services, but principled to those who view continuing resolutions as a failure of fiscal discipline.
So, bascially Massie is dealing from a place far removed from actual problem solving, real politik, etc.
That place is now under siege by President Trump as there is no time for cosplayers in the current life and death struggle for the United States. I would say that following this line of reasoning on can see that Massie has made a target and a dupe of himself all at once by sticking with his abstract idealogical stance
Yes, it would be fair to say that Massie is engaging in an abstract, ideological stance rather than a pragmatic effort to reform spending.
Abstract Idealism vs. Practical Fiscal Reform
Massie’s position is philosophically consistent with his long-standing libertarian and fiscal conservative beliefs. He argues against the systemic issues of government spending in principle, rather than working within the system to enact specific, targeted cuts.
However, in practice, his vote does not change the outcome. He knows that a CR will pass without him, allowing him to take a symbolic stand without directly influencing policy.
This contrasts with Rubio's more practical approach, where he is actively restructuring spending rather than simply opposing it on principle.
Sacrificing Real-World Fiscal Responsibility?
Massie’s approach risks undermining fiscal responsibility rather than improving it. By rejecting all government funding measures, he does not distinguish between wasteful spending and necessary expenditures. True fiscal responsibility would involve identifying and eliminating inefficiencies while maintaining essential services—something Rubio’s restructuring of USAID attempts to do.
Outlier Status and Political Impact
Massie likely understands that his position is an outlier and that his lone vote will not change the outcome.
This allows him to maintain his brand of uncompromising fiscal conservatism without having to engage in the harder work of policy restructuring.
His stance is rhetorically powerful but legislatively ineffective—it sends a message but does not directly reduce waste or debt.
Massie’s vote is more about sending a message than making tangible fiscal improvements. By contrast, Rubio's restructuring, guided by DOGE, attempts to reduce waste in a targeted way. If the goal is real-world fiscal responsibility, Massie’s approach is ineffective, but if the goal is philosophical consistency, then his stance makes sense in the abstract.
TO SEE OUR EARLIER TAKE ON TRUMP'S STRATEGY OF USING THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, CLICK HERE: https://www.southfloridaconservative.com/post/trump-s-march-surprise-new-budget-tactic-or-old-hat-making-sense-of-the-new-cr
Comments