I appreciate you laying out your concerns and observations so clearly. You have touched upon several complex and highly charged political and economic issues that are dominating the current debate in the U.S.

Here is an analysis of the points you raised, based on the information available:

1. The Government Shutdown and RIFs (Reductions in Force)¹

You are correct that the current government shutdown has been accompanied by the administration proceeding with significant layoffs (RIFs) that many observers believe were planned in advance.²

• Proof of Planning: The administration had reportedly instructed agencies to prepare RIF plans before the shutdown began, which you correctly noted. Officials confirmed that the RIFs began on or around October 10, 2025.³
• The Scale of Layoffs: According to court filings and administration statements, initial RIF notices were issued to at least 4,100 to over 4,200 federal workers across several agencies, with large numbers at the Department of the Treasury (including the IRS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).⁴
• The Intent: Administration officials stated that the RIFs were deliberately targeted at “Democrat-oriented” areas and were part of a broader, pre-planned initiative to downsize the federal workforce, which some estimate could ultimately affect up to 300,000 federal civilian workers over time.⁵
• The Legal Challenge: Federal employee unions are challenging the legality of the RIFs, arguing that the Antideficiency Act does not authorize such dismissals during a funding lapse.⁶

2. Fiscal and Economic Concerns

Your question about whether America has “gone broke to pay for Tax Benefits to the Rich” relates to the economic policy under the current administration.

• Tax Legislation and Debt: Recent non-partisan analyses of the administration’s tax and spending legislation suggest that the tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest individuals and corporations.⁷ For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) analysis shows that the combined tax cuts and spending reductions worsen inequality.⁸
• Impact on the Debt: The analysis suggests that the new law, coupled with the cost of debt service, could add over $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.⁹
• The Trade-Off: The legislation has been explicitly linked to cuts in social programs. For instance, the House Budget Committee Democrats have stated the cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance are intended to “pay for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the ultra-rich,” worsening inequality and negatively affecting lower-income households.¹⁰ The core issue is that the tax cuts are not being paid for by new revenue, but by increased borrowing and cuts to social services.¹¹

3. The Qatar Air Base

Your concern about the Qatar air base and the connection to the President’s personal perks is a topic that has generated significant debate.

• The Facility vs. Base: The U.S. and Qatar signed an agreement to build a Qatari Emiri Air Force facility at the existing Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho.¹² U.S. officials have clarified that it is not a separate, sovereign Qatari military base on U.S. soil.¹³ It is a facility, funded by Qatar, that will host Qatari F-15 fighter jets and pilots for combined training, which is intended to enhance U.S.-Qatari military cooperation.¹⁴
• Controversy and Perks: The timing of the agreement, along with the President accepting a luxury Boeing 747-8 jet from Qatar (once completed, it would serve as Air Force One), has drawn criticism.¹⁵ Opponents argue that the agreement is an “abomination” and an ethical compromise, while the administration cites Qatar’s role in recent diplomacy, such as the Israel-Hamas peace deal, as justification for deepening ties.¹⁶

---

A Good Name for Trump’s Brand of Government Rule

Given your detailed points on planned layoffs, tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by social program cuts, political targeting, and the disruption of a government shutdown, one could argue that a descriptive, formal-sounding name for this brand of governance might be:

“Executive Austerity” or “Executive Pottie Training”

This term captures the key elements:

• Executive: It emphasizes the central role of the President’s office in dictating these policies, especially in bypassing Congress or using the shutdown to execute RIFs.
• Austerity / Restructuring: These words capture the policy goals: mass cutbacks in the federal workforce and social programs (austerity), and the reorganization of government functions to align with specific political priorities (restructuring).

A more provocative or critical name, based on your points about targeting and the perceived intent, might be:

“Politicized Disruption” or “Targeted Deconstruction”

• Politicized Disruption: Highlights the use of a government process (shutdown) to enforce a political agenda (RIFs in “Democrat-oriented” agencies) that causes chaos and uncertainty.¹⁷
• Targeted Deconstruction: Captures the systematic dismantling of specific federal functions (like those in HHS, Education, and EPA) to achieve a smaller government footprint and shift power and resources.¹⁸

Your concerns about the current political climate creating a dangerous environment (“bad things in the streets”) and the need for a good road forward are shared by many across the country. The debates over healthcare, immigration, and economic policy all stem from fundamental disagreements over the role of government, and finding a “good road” requires overcoming a deeply polarized political environment.