Given a choice between upholding the U.S. Constitution, which they have sworn to "preserve, protect and defend," or surrendering Congress' authority to a man determined to secure autocratic power over the entire federal government, Republicans in Congress chose the latter this week.
President Donald Trump will veto the resolution that overrules the president's declaration of a national emergency, and the GOP, which has surrendered its identity and traditions to a man who seeks only his own grandizement and unquestioned authority, will allow that veto to stand.
Both Trump and GOP members of Congress are looking only to the 2020 elections, which they are determined to win, even if the Constitution is shredded in their single-minded determination to remain in power. Nowhere has this determination been more obvious than in the flip-flop of Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Tillis initially vowed to vote for the resolution countering Trump's emergency authority, reminding the public, correctly, that Congress, not the president, has the authority to appropriate money. But threatened with a primary opponent and an angry Trump contingent of voters, Tillis cowardly switched sides and voted against the resolution.
Tillis (and other Republicans in Congress) knew that they had condemned then-President Barack Obama for using presidential orders to set policies. Their outrage disappeared when Trump used the same sort of authority to appropriate federal funds. Obama had acted when Congress failed to pass immigration reform; he established DACA (Delayed Action on Childhood Arrivals) to protect immigrants who had arrived as small children. Obama's DACA went beyond the usual discretion the executive branch has in deciding how to handle prosecutions but did not directly contradict Congress' funding authority. Trump plans to shift federal spending to do what Congress refused to do, spend billions of dollars on a border wall many consider wasteful and ineffective. Obama acted where Congress had not. Trump does him one better, acting contrary to Congress' clear decision against more border wall spending.
The silence you hear in 2019 is the lack of outrage by GOP members who claim to be conservative and believers in the Constitution. They make it clear that they hold Trump in greater esteem than they hold the Constitution, and their vow to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution is a blatant lie.
In the great scheme of things, a few billion dollars for a border wall is not a make-or-break issue. What matters is not the border wall; it is the principle that we abide by the Constitution. If Trump can steal Congress' responsibility to appropriate federal funds, what more can he do? Declare martial law to disallow voting by Democrats? Declare the 2020 election fraudulent and proclaim himself the winner? Refuse to leave office after being rejected by a majority of voters? Dissolve Congress? Eliminate the Supreme Court? Only the Constitution stands in his way, but Congress and the public must protect the Constitution.
When elected officials sworn to protect and defend the Constitution no longer care, Trump's powers are infinite, and democracy is dead.
Showing posts with label border wall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label border wall. Show all posts
Friday, March 15, 2019
Monday, January 28, 2019
Government shuts down over policy, not money
The longest federal government shutdown on record is over, but another shutdown appears possible, even likely, in less than a month.
The December-January shutdown ended with President Trump announcing he would sign a bill reopening the government after 35 days and two federal paydays that didn't pay off. He agreed to a deal that he could have had 35 days earlier, but he thought it advantageous to play brinkmanship with federal agencies and employees.
What is confounding about this shutdown is that it wasn't about debt limits or federal budget deficits or excessive spending, all of which were at the heart of earlier shutdowns. Conservatives have decried the economic stupidity of spending more money than you take in, year after year after year since before Ronald Reagan decried socialism. A government shutdown over excessive spending at least reduced spending for the period of the shutdown.
But this latest shutdown, which Trump said he would proudly take responsibility for, had nothing to do with federal spending or the deficit. It wasn't about money, although Trump was insisting on $5.7 billion for a border wall or else! It was about policy, the policy of building walls to keep people out of the United States. Trump had led cheers of "Build That Wall" at his campaign rallies and had insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall. No payments came from Mexico, and Democrats in the House also refused to insert payments for a physical wall into pending budget bills.
Both sides of this debate have some reasonable points. Trump says there is a crisis on the southern border with Mexico; flows of immigrants, most of them crossing in violation of federal laws, are overwhelming federal border security. He wants a solid wall to halt the "invasion."
Democrats point out that any wall can climbed over, tunneled over or blown up by determined migrants. They are willing to increase border security spending on enforcement and surveillance. More border patrolmen and immigration judges can expedite the refugee and asylum backlog and make immigration more manageable. They will give Trump the money he wants, but not for a solid wall that doesn't really address the problem.
A congressional committee will look for a compromise that will keep the government open after the mid-month deadline, but Trump might reject their proposal. A long-term solution to the immigration problem has to involve improvements in Central American economies and law enforcement in order to give desperate citizens opportunities and hope in their native countries rather than north of the border. Combined with better U.S. border security and crackdowns on corruption south of the border, the "crisis" at the border will be resolved without a solid wall.
The December-January shutdown ended with President Trump announcing he would sign a bill reopening the government after 35 days and two federal paydays that didn't pay off. He agreed to a deal that he could have had 35 days earlier, but he thought it advantageous to play brinkmanship with federal agencies and employees.
What is confounding about this shutdown is that it wasn't about debt limits or federal budget deficits or excessive spending, all of which were at the heart of earlier shutdowns. Conservatives have decried the economic stupidity of spending more money than you take in, year after year after year since before Ronald Reagan decried socialism. A government shutdown over excessive spending at least reduced spending for the period of the shutdown.
But this latest shutdown, which Trump said he would proudly take responsibility for, had nothing to do with federal spending or the deficit. It wasn't about money, although Trump was insisting on $5.7 billion for a border wall or else! It was about policy, the policy of building walls to keep people out of the United States. Trump had led cheers of "Build That Wall" at his campaign rallies and had insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall. No payments came from Mexico, and Democrats in the House also refused to insert payments for a physical wall into pending budget bills.
Both sides of this debate have some reasonable points. Trump says there is a crisis on the southern border with Mexico; flows of immigrants, most of them crossing in violation of federal laws, are overwhelming federal border security. He wants a solid wall to halt the "invasion."
Democrats point out that any wall can climbed over, tunneled over or blown up by determined migrants. They are willing to increase border security spending on enforcement and surveillance. More border patrolmen and immigration judges can expedite the refugee and asylum backlog and make immigration more manageable. They will give Trump the money he wants, but not for a solid wall that doesn't really address the problem.
A congressional committee will look for a compromise that will keep the government open after the mid-month deadline, but Trump might reject their proposal. A long-term solution to the immigration problem has to involve improvements in Central American economies and law enforcement in order to give desperate citizens opportunities and hope in their native countries rather than north of the border. Combined with better U.S. border security and crackdowns on corruption south of the border, the "crisis" at the border will be resolved without a solid wall.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Donald Trump, the Great Negotiator
The federal government is in the midst of another partial government shutdown, but this one could be longer lasting than previous shutdowns. Each of these shutdowns is evidence of a failing, inept, incompetent government. It doesn't seem to matter whether Democrats are in charge or Republicans are in charge, whether there is divided government or one-party rule in Washington. From Capitol Hill to sixteen blocks away at the White House, the government can't get the simplest, most important things done, such as passing a comprehensive budget on time.
What might make this shutdown different is the man in the Oval Office. President Trump fancies himself a shrewd businessman and "stable genius." Democrats have a lesser assessment of the president's skills and character.
Trump has said he welcomes a government shutdown (just as he welcomes trade wars). He markets himself as a great negotiator and frequently touts his great breakthroughs in negotiations with foreign leaders, but those breakthroughs have a habit of breaking down once Trump has finished tweeting.
Trump has demanded that Congress approve a budget that includes $5 billion for the wall along the southern border that he promised in his 2016 campaign, leading chants of "Build that Wall!" But Democrats, who offered five times as much for his wall if Trump would only agree to changes in immigration rules and a chance at full citizenship for immigrants who came here as children. Trump, the great negotiator, turned that deal down.
The president's behavior in this and in past talks contradicts his claims of skill as a negotiator. He has failed to deliver in most negotiations, despite his bragging.
Trump's problem likely is rooted in his background. He grew up as the anointed son of a real estate mogul, who started at (or near) the top. He could run the family business according to his own whims. He didn't have to ask advice. He didn't have to answer to anyone. He was the boss, the king, the emperor, the ruler of all he surveyed.
When he negotiated, he could look out only for his own interests. There were no co-equal parties to the negotiations, only subordinates, "losers" in his vocabulary. If he wanted to refuse payments to a subcontractor, he could get away with it. He could offer them low offer or nothing else. It was his way or the highway. If worse came to worst, he could declare bankruptcy and leave the creditors to plead for pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court.
Trump would like to negotiate the way he did as a private businessman, but he can't. Congress is equally as powerful as the executive branch, and the judicial branch is equal to the other two branches. Trump cannot bully Congress the way he bullied subcontractors. He cannot expend money on his centerpiece border wall without an appropriation from Congress. He will have to learn to negotiate in good faith and to compromise if he wants more end this shutdown.
What might make this shutdown different is the man in the Oval Office. President Trump fancies himself a shrewd businessman and "stable genius." Democrats have a lesser assessment of the president's skills and character.
Trump has said he welcomes a government shutdown (just as he welcomes trade wars). He markets himself as a great negotiator and frequently touts his great breakthroughs in negotiations with foreign leaders, but those breakthroughs have a habit of breaking down once Trump has finished tweeting.
Trump has demanded that Congress approve a budget that includes $5 billion for the wall along the southern border that he promised in his 2016 campaign, leading chants of "Build that Wall!" But Democrats, who offered five times as much for his wall if Trump would only agree to changes in immigration rules and a chance at full citizenship for immigrants who came here as children. Trump, the great negotiator, turned that deal down.
The president's behavior in this and in past talks contradicts his claims of skill as a negotiator. He has failed to deliver in most negotiations, despite his bragging.
Trump's problem likely is rooted in his background. He grew up as the anointed son of a real estate mogul, who started at (or near) the top. He could run the family business according to his own whims. He didn't have to ask advice. He didn't have to answer to anyone. He was the boss, the king, the emperor, the ruler of all he surveyed.
When he negotiated, he could look out only for his own interests. There were no co-equal parties to the negotiations, only subordinates, "losers" in his vocabulary. If he wanted to refuse payments to a subcontractor, he could get away with it. He could offer them low offer or nothing else. It was his way or the highway. If worse came to worst, he could declare bankruptcy and leave the creditors to plead for pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court.
Trump would like to negotiate the way he did as a private businessman, but he can't. Congress is equally as powerful as the executive branch, and the judicial branch is equal to the other two branches. Trump cannot bully Congress the way he bullied subcontractors. He cannot expend money on his centerpiece border wall without an appropriation from Congress. He will have to learn to negotiate in good faith and to compromise if he wants more end this shutdown.
Monday, April 2, 2018
DACA tantrum is typical of Trump
President Trump has announced in a tweet (of course) that "DACA is dead." Only a few months ago, Trump was virtually commanding Congress to send him a bill that makes the Obama administration's DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) policy a permanent program, allowing immigrants who came here as small children with their illegal-immigrant parents to remain. But a short while later, Trump was demanding that a DACA fix must include billions of dollars for a border wall (an idea that obsesses him). The dysfunctional Congress could not find the votes to put a DACA fix in the same bill with border wall appropriations, so both DACA and the border wall went unfixed.
This episode is typical of many elements of the Trump presidency. Trump says something extraordinary, then he changes his mind just days later and reneges on the entire promise. We saw it in his reaction to the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, negotiations with North Korea and tariffs. Swept up in sympathy for the surviving Parkland students, Trump seemed to endorse long-sought restrictions on gun purchases, including universal background checks of gun buyers. Then he backed away. He tried bullying North Korea and its dynastic leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him "Little Rocket Man," but then he declared his willingness to negotiate directly with Kim with no limits on discussion topics. He has also announced tariffs on international trade and then backed off the tariffs for select countries.
The president's reversals must be leaving America's allies' heads spinning.
DACA would seem to be an easy compromise. Large majorities of Americans support legislation allowing persons who came here illegally in the custody of their parents to remain in this country, where they have grown up and attended school. These children were too young to form a criminal intent to violate immigration law and should, essentially, receive forgiveness under these circumstances.
You can agree with Republicans' criticism of Obama's executive order creating DACA, that it over-stretched a president's authority to change immigration policy through an executive order, and still be willing to give the million or fewer DACA applicants forgiveness for their parents' actions. You can also agree with Trump that Mexico should have done more and should do more to prevent illegal entry into the United States from Mexico but also agree that punishing DACA recipients is the wrong way to get Mexico's help.
Trump seems to believe that international diplomacy is just like a business negotiation. It's not. International disputes can lead to war. A wrong turn in trade negotiations can lead to a collapse of carefully structured trade agreements with catastrophic worldwide economic consequences.
The president is right about one thing: DACA is dead, and he's the one who killed it.
This episode is typical of many elements of the Trump presidency. Trump says something extraordinary, then he changes his mind just days later and reneges on the entire promise. We saw it in his reaction to the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, negotiations with North Korea and tariffs. Swept up in sympathy for the surviving Parkland students, Trump seemed to endorse long-sought restrictions on gun purchases, including universal background checks of gun buyers. Then he backed away. He tried bullying North Korea and its dynastic leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him "Little Rocket Man," but then he declared his willingness to negotiate directly with Kim with no limits on discussion topics. He has also announced tariffs on international trade and then backed off the tariffs for select countries.
The president's reversals must be leaving America's allies' heads spinning.
DACA would seem to be an easy compromise. Large majorities of Americans support legislation allowing persons who came here illegally in the custody of their parents to remain in this country, where they have grown up and attended school. These children were too young to form a criminal intent to violate immigration law and should, essentially, receive forgiveness under these circumstances.
You can agree with Republicans' criticism of Obama's executive order creating DACA, that it over-stretched a president's authority to change immigration policy through an executive order, and still be willing to give the million or fewer DACA applicants forgiveness for their parents' actions. You can also agree with Trump that Mexico should have done more and should do more to prevent illegal entry into the United States from Mexico but also agree that punishing DACA recipients is the wrong way to get Mexico's help.
Trump seems to believe that international diplomacy is just like a business negotiation. It's not. International disputes can lead to war. A wrong turn in trade negotiations can lead to a collapse of carefully structured trade agreements with catastrophic worldwide economic consequences.
The president is right about one thing: DACA is dead, and he's the one who killed it.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Travel ban and border wall are aimed at Trump support
President Trump's temporary ban on travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries has filled the news space today. There have been suggestions that Trump is in retreat under a barrage of criticism from Democrats, civil libertarians, refugee advocates, employers of foreign-born workers, protesters and others. Don't believe it.
Trump is not losing much, if any, support with his executive order. Trump's base, the people who gave him his victory three months ago, are not crying over travel bans that target Muslims or Muslim countries, any more than they are crying over the border fence Trump says will be under construction soon.
The question is why all the critics who are filing lawsuits and staging protests are surprised by this action. As someone in another Muslim country said 70-odd years ago, "I am shocked! Shocked!" at gambling in Casablanca. Keeping Islamic terrorists out of this country and building a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants were two of Trump's most frequently repeated campaign promises. Why is anyone shocked that he is doing what he said he'd do?
Opponents may complain, but Trump's supporters will cheer. Their man has carried out two of his key promises. That means their support for him is stronger than ever.
The ban on persons from seven predominantly Muslim countries may be un-American, ill-conceived, offensive to European allies and Middle Eastern governments, and it may condemn former U.S. government employees to remaining in their native countries at great danger to their lives and their families. But the Trump supporters don't care about the tears shed by separated family members or the betrayal of interpreters for the U.S. military or the condemnation of other governments. They won't even notice that Islamic countries that were not included in the order included countries where Trump had business interests. After all, Trump said he was going to put America First, and by golly, he's doing it. So the rest of you can go to hell.
Besides the facts that the travel ban is totally lacking in compassion and will likely encourage radical Islamists to attack U.S. interests, its issuance reveals a more surprising fact about the Trump administration. News reports show that the executive order was issued after being drafted by a small cadre of Trump's close advisers without input from the agency heads and cabinet members who are in charge of homeland security, immigration and international diplomacy.
Furthermore, Trump seems to be drawing the leash around his inner circle tighter and tighter so that he is getting advice from fewer and fewer people. Unlike Abraham Lincoln, who famously appointed a "Team of Rivals" (Doris Kearns Goodwin's book) composed of former opponents and antagonists, Trump is building a Team of lackeys who will not disagree with the president on anything. He has banished the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Security from a key advisory committee to make room for his political adviser, Steve Bannon. Trump, it appears, is incapable of leading a team of rivals, only a team of sycophants who will hail whatever the Great Man does.
And that is more worrisome than either the travel ban or the border wall.
Trump is not losing much, if any, support with his executive order. Trump's base, the people who gave him his victory three months ago, are not crying over travel bans that target Muslims or Muslim countries, any more than they are crying over the border fence Trump says will be under construction soon.
The question is why all the critics who are filing lawsuits and staging protests are surprised by this action. As someone in another Muslim country said 70-odd years ago, "I am shocked! Shocked!" at gambling in Casablanca. Keeping Islamic terrorists out of this country and building a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants were two of Trump's most frequently repeated campaign promises. Why is anyone shocked that he is doing what he said he'd do?
Opponents may complain, but Trump's supporters will cheer. Their man has carried out two of his key promises. That means their support for him is stronger than ever.
The ban on persons from seven predominantly Muslim countries may be un-American, ill-conceived, offensive to European allies and Middle Eastern governments, and it may condemn former U.S. government employees to remaining in their native countries at great danger to their lives and their families. But the Trump supporters don't care about the tears shed by separated family members or the betrayal of interpreters for the U.S. military or the condemnation of other governments. They won't even notice that Islamic countries that were not included in the order included countries where Trump had business interests. After all, Trump said he was going to put America First, and by golly, he's doing it. So the rest of you can go to hell.
Besides the facts that the travel ban is totally lacking in compassion and will likely encourage radical Islamists to attack U.S. interests, its issuance reveals a more surprising fact about the Trump administration. News reports show that the executive order was issued after being drafted by a small cadre of Trump's close advisers without input from the agency heads and cabinet members who are in charge of homeland security, immigration and international diplomacy.
Furthermore, Trump seems to be drawing the leash around his inner circle tighter and tighter so that he is getting advice from fewer and fewer people. Unlike Abraham Lincoln, who famously appointed a "Team of Rivals" (Doris Kearns Goodwin's book) composed of former opponents and antagonists, Trump is building a Team of lackeys who will not disagree with the president on anything. He has banished the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Security from a key advisory committee to make room for his political adviser, Steve Bannon. Trump, it appears, is incapable of leading a team of rivals, only a team of sycophants who will hail whatever the Great Man does.
And that is more worrisome than either the travel ban or the border wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
