I'm sorry that reality has a well-known liberal bias, but the Brookings link that was posted is simply data - it's not opinion or analysis: > This data tool al

I'm sorry that reality has a well-known liberal bias, but the Brookings link that was posted is simply data - it's not opinion or analysis: > This data tool allows users to track the flow of federal funds in real time. It shows actual daily, weekly, monthly, and annual processed outlays to key programs and departments, as well as to states, Congress, and the Judiciary. This tool only reports outlays of federal funds, meaning the actual transmission of funds from the federal government to another entity. > This tool makes few to no adjustments to the data, meaning that cyclical, seasonal, idiosyncratic, and expected variation in patterns of outlays over time remain. Because this tool only reports outlays, one cannot discern directly whether there is a gap between obligated funds and their outlay. Furthermore, if federal agencies have changed the rate at which they are newly obligating funds (e.g., by declining to sign new contracts), those changes would only gradually be reflected in outlays. The fact that you attack the messenger (and not in any way questioning the methodology of the data collection, for example) explains why so many of us in the current environment are so sick and tired of these lazy attempts at "argument". I'm sure you have your own alternative facts, though.