It seems to me that if Trump flatly declares he will allow the government to stay shut down indefinitely unless the spending bill to reopen fully funds his wall, eventually Congress has to cave. That it would be harder for Congress to reach a veto proof majority than to ante up the 50 billion it would take for a several thousand miles 30 foot concrete wall.
I am not for the wall, I think it’s a waste of money, but it does seem like Trump has the power to force it to happen. And for legacy reasons - this is the only way he can leave a lasting legacy as President. This structure would probably stand for decades if not longer and would probably be called the great Wall of Trump long after the man is dead.
A lot of us on the left don’t like the wall because its just a proxy for nativist white nationalism. Not only that but its ineffective at stopping immigration, and immigrants aren’t really a bad thing anyway (they pay more in taxes than they take out of the system for one thing).
But anyway, there are blue dog democrats who would vote for the wall. I’m guessing Pelosi would let it pass if Trump agreed to pass something the left liked in the same bill.
That is how Pelosi got the minimum wage increased in 2007. She tied it to the Iraq war funding bill. The democrats agreed to fund the Iraq war if the minimum wage got hiked.
If Trump agreed to sign a bill that expanded health care, increased the minimum wage, expanded voting rights, etc. then I could see Pelosi letting a bill for the wall pass and blue dog democrats voting for it.
In that case I wouldn’t mind if wall funding got passed. Its a giant waste of time and money, but if something valuable comes out of it due to Pelosi’s negotiation abilities then great.
I don’t believe they have to cave. Let Trump author and own the economic results. He won’t be occupying the office forever. Eventually he has to leave. The wall is an idiotic idea that would be at minimum a blight on the scenery. It would be tragic ecologically, and would fuck with the natural course of wildlife. It would also not prevent people from sneaking into this country, and would cost a fortune, which Trump The Liar lied that Mexico was going to pay for.
That any politician supports this stupid fucking idea blows my mind. I promise, as someone who votes for Democrats, to vote against any Democrat that enables this bullshit.
People who thought walls were a solution learned better in Berlin last century, and in China centuries ago.
By the way, Pelosi told Trump in that crazy televised meeting that he didn’t have the votes in the House for the wall. Guess what just passed in the House. 5 billion dollars not pesos for the wall. Guess the votes were there after all, eh?
Umm, a 2 year government shutdown is untenable. I assume at some point that means no federal funding for healthcare, which would kill hundreds of thousands of people. Possibly a disbanding of the entire military, not quite sure what would happen there.
I guess technically what could be done is that the government, since taxes would still be collected, could carefully fund the most critical sections of it. The crucial parts of the military (nuclear weapons units and maintenance), ground and furlough everything else. Some of the federal police and federal courts. Medicare but not social security.
No, all he has is the power to block (veto) any spending bill. But the House and Senate each has that same power.
The only advantage Trump had was, his supporters don’t care if the government is shut down (the smaller the government the better, as far as they are concerned) , but Democratic voters generally do care. But I think that’s changed, because after last week’s temper tantrum, Democratic voters won’t blame the Democrats for the shutdown.
? I explain why I think that power means he can force the House and Senate to act the way he wants. Because it’s either that or they pass a bill with enough bipartisan support for a veto-proof majority.
a. Democrats give up a wall to Trump in the House and in the Senate the Republicans get everything they wanted, or
b. Democrats and Republicans both have to give a lot to the other side, on many separate issues, in order to put together a bill so well supported that 2/3 of both house and Senate vote on it.
I am not even sure what could possibly be in the bill in these divided times that 2/3 of both houses could agree on.
The Senate Democrats have the same power - they can say “We will filibuster any bill that funds the wall; the government shutdown will continue until/unless the House passes a spending bill with no wall funding, and the President signs it.”
The House majority party (Republicans now, Democrats in a couple of weeks) has that power as well.
Long before any of that it will become clear even to staunch conservatives that not paying border agents, TSA and anyone else on the Department of Homeland security pay roll is a much larger danger to our nation than the lack of a wall. Eventually they wold come up with some way to not actually fund the wall but word it in a way that Trump can claim victory and credit for re-opening the government.
Washington used to be able to have grand bargains in a case like this where you get a bill where everyone gets something. Why is nobody talking about an omnibus bill where the wall is funded and the Dems get DACA, partial amnesty, a pathway to citizenship, better refugee processing, an increase in legal immigration, etc?
The negotiations could be around the edges of those. Trump can erect secure barriers, but Congress can stipulate that it won’t look like the Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China. Negotiate around the fringes of this amnesty and the number of people, etc., but pass a quality bill where each side can take credit for what it accomplished.
The system is broken. Unless your party has 60 votes in the Senate (which is about a once in every generation and a half thing) then absolutely nothing gets done. Voters can vote for Obama or vote for Trump, yet their preferred policies can never get enacted. That is not a functioning democracy.
I’m not saying that. I would have to read the bill cited above, but it seems like one that he should be proposing or in the absence of it, one that the GOP should be proposing, or maybe a modified version of DACA; they should at least find a negotiating position.
Look, I agree with Trump’s proposal. We need to build a border wall. That should not be tied to giving yet another amnesty to illegal immigrants. But if I was in his place, I would realize that this position was not going to happen: the votes are not there. Just like anything in life, there needs to be compromise or else nothing gets done.
If I want to go on a day trip with my wife to see a Civil War battlefield in the morning, and she really doesn’t like battlefields, but will go if we stop at an outlet mall on the way back, and I would rather not go to the stupid outlet mall (which really offers no good discounts anyways, but I digress) then I can whine and pout and demand that there be no outlet mall, and my wife can stomp in the other room and say that she doesn’t want to go if it is only a battlefield.
OR, we can do what sensible people do. I realize that the price of a battlefield tour is putting up with the fucking outlet mall and my wife realizes that the price to a trip to the outlet mall is putting up with me at the battlefield. We each get what we want, but have to put up with things we don’t want.
OR, we can stay mad at each other and nobody gets their battlefields or outlet malls. That doesn’t benefit anyone.
I agree with your second point, but if we only beef up those certain areas, would the cartels just close up business or direct their illegal entries to other areas not so secured?
Not if Congress passed it. The President may not impound funds. He would have to go back to Congress and ask for a repeal of the law.