Why didn’t the GOP-held Congress fund the wall?
A lot of people on the right would answer that question this way: because the GOP really doesn’t want to.
I wouldn’t answer that way, though. This is how I’d answer—
The GOP is hardly a unitary group. There are plenty of GOP members of Congress who would vote to fund the wall. But the GOP had to go it alone; almost no Democrats were going to agree. That’s where the numbers game comes in.
The House had the votes to do it—in fact, they did vote the funds—but the House can’t do much without the Senate. The GOP only held a single-vote majority there, which effectively meant that if only one GOP senator defected it would be a tie, and Mike Pence could break the tie, but if two defected on a bill that bill would fail.
There was more than one GOP senator who was going to defect on this. And there was little to nothing the others could do about it except exert whatever pressure senators (and particularly Senate leadership) can exert.
But did they try to exert that pressure? That’s the big question, and I don’t know the answer. I know that, if the situation had been reversed, the Democrats would have made that person vote with the group. Exactly what forces they would bring to bear in order to accomplish that I don’t know, but they would be fierce forces if necessary.
Now the GOP has a slightly larger margin in the Senate than before, although far from huge (the grand GOP total is 53). But it’s lost the House. So the situation now is similar but reversed. Trump needs some Democrats in the House to go along in order to get funding for the wall. I predict that he won’t get them. The real question is what he’ll do next.
The vast majority of GOP politicians are dependent on their donors. Why do you think that Democrats have swerved from the party of the working man to the party of the tech billionaire ? Sutton’s Law. Why is Nancy Pelosi still in power at age 78? She is from San Francisco where tech billionaires fund the Democrats.
Why do tech billionaires fund Democrats ? Eric Schmidt once explained that his wife was pro-abortion (I think he might have said pro-choice but you know what he means) and that was why he was a Democrat.
Also, the tech industry has shifted left for several reasons. One is H1B visas which allow them to pay low wages for code writers and low level IT workers instead of Americans.
Two is guilt. They became very rich almost by accident. They don’t make anything. Facebook was cooked up in a dorm room at Harvard. The Google guys worked at it, but in grad school, which is not exactly digging ditches.
Three, they mostly know very little outside their narrow field, a lot like engineers.
Not too many are scholars of Philosophy or Classics.
GOP donors want cheap labor. They plan to have manufacturing done in third world hell holes, if possible. The Koch Brothers are not interested in border security.
I know that, if the situation had been reversed, the Democrats would have made that person vote with the group. –neo
I read the left and talk to some on the left. A repeated claim they make is that it’s Republicans who vote rock-solid in pursuit of party agenda, while everyone knows Democrats are a herd of cats resistant to party discipline.
I’ve never pressed them for examples, so I’m not sure what they are thinking of. I don’t think that because both sides make the same claim the situations are equivalent.
… if the situation had been reversed, the Democrats would have made that person vote with the group. Exactly what forces they would bring to bear in order to accomplish that I don’t know, but they would be fierce forces if necessary.
The classic example was Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. She was the last vote to get the Clinton tax increase through the House, and the CSpan cameras caught a rather severe verbal beatdown of her before she changed her vote. She was certain to lose her House seat as a result, and she did. Wouldn’t you love to know what the promises and threats were?
Her husband is a convicted felon pol from Iowa, and her son is married to Chelsea. Her son purported engaged in unprovable fraud as a hedge fund manager and made millions in the deal.
______
Mike K accurately states that the Koch bros. are open boarders guys. Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a huge GOP factor, and their position is made semi-clear by their recent public announcement.
They suggest a compromise to re-open the gov. They suggest that the GOP should offer complete amnesty for the 3.5M enrolled in DACA, and in return? Some more funding for “increased boarder security,” i.e. no wall.
This is what we are dealing with.
The Senate didn’t bother because Trump had already given up on the wall, at least as originally conceived. General Kelly said as much about a year ago and recently reiterated it on his way out:
Trump’s strategy was to falsely claim success again;
…but his own supporters upended his con.
Two is guilt. They became very rich almost by accident. They don’t make anything.
Mike K, I agree with the guilt thing, but I think it is a little unfair to say they don’t make anything.
Not that I know Eric Schmidt’s motives, but … I’d say he’s connected to the Dems because he is a crony capitalist. Google representatives made 427 visits to the Obama Whitehouse according to the DailyMail. Way back when Schmidt was running Novell corp. and Microsoft was killing it, Schmidt and his lawyers were able to sic the Clinton anti-trust team on Microsoft to its detriment. Not that it helped Novell much.
But silicon valley generally hates Microsoft with some justification. MS needlessly killed 3Com corp. founded by Internet creator great Robert Metcalf. What better way to wield massive power than to have the USDOJ in your back pocket?
I think Trump wanted the Rep-majority house to give him the border Wall money without much drama. Then the first Continuing Resolution without the money, he said he didn’t like it, but signed off. Then the second CR he signed, which DID include a big increase for the military, where he said he wouldn’t sign the next one (now!) without Wall money.
First he got cash for the military.
Money for the military was a higher priority for Trump. Strategically true, tho it might have cost him the Rep House (maybe that was lost in either case, shutdown then or now).
Now he’s “strong” enough to accept a long long shutdown — the only “new cash” he really needs is for the Wall, so he can wait until the Dems cave. All the time blaming the Dems for: “failing to protect and love those on the inside”.
I suspect most folks were NOT fooled into thinking the Dems were actually “patriotic”, just because of 4? 8? 10? flags. I hope most thought it was a clear “Fake Patriotism”.
Trump loves making a deal, so while he’ll win, it’s likely the Dems will get something they can claim as a win, too. Maybe DREAMers, or something they and Rubio want.
I think it is a little unfair to say they don’t make anything.
What do they make ? IBM PC was a useful device. Even Microsoft made a useful tool in Windows and even DOS. What is the use of Google or Facebook ?
I used search engines years ago like Archie and Veronica in the days when the internet was text. Yahoo was a useful search engine. Google has become a data machine for advertisers and Chinese spies that harvests users’ data for purposes the users don’t approve.
I quit using Google months ago and, aside from their maps app. I don’t miss them. Facebook is for family photos.
huxley on January 9, 2019 at 1:51 pm said:
“I read the left and talk to some on the left. A repeated claim they make is that it’s Republicans who vote rock-solid in pursuit of party agenda, while everyone knows Democrats are a herd of cats resistant to party discipline.”
I remember back in the days of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, I was told repeatedly how those d#mn Republicans were going to be voting as a mindless bloc. But when the dust settled and the votes were counted in the Senate, it was the Republican side that experienced slippage*, whereas the Democrat side voted firmly and unanimously to acquit on both charges.
* (five voted not guilty on one charge, and those five plus an additional five voted not guilty on the other charge)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Impeachment_by_House_of_Representatives
Because Mike K is such a sharp guy, I’m not going to ignore him, and instead force myself to defend the corp. I hate the most, Google. Oops, Alphabet.
Yeah, Alphabet is into a hundred different things, hence the name. Most of them are bets on the future and money sinks so far. Their cash cow is advertising.
Microsoft used to fight toe-to-toe with Google over online advertising, and MS lost. There are many reasons, but I think there were instances where MS had hundreds of lackeys typing away and the Goog had completely automated those tasks. I think it was a fair fight, and Google won, and they pretty much own online advertising. (I’ll ignore the monopoly question.)
Now I hate online advertising, but it does allow me to go to the WSJ and read their stuff. While I pay a significant but not huge subscription fee, that doesn’t cover their costs. Similarly, I can go to American Thinker and read a bunch of interesting material purely because they have advertising, and their writers/editors get paid. By Alphabet. Hence, this intangible “thing” they have created has real value.
(I used to use the Alta Vista search engine. Then people said, Ooo! Google is so fast. No it wasn’t. The searches are so much better. They weren’t. But some company was losing money on Alta Vista and it was unsustainable. Google made it work financially.)
I used to have this type of argument with a friend over banks making tons of money by “doing nothing.” Now one can argue that many banks/bankers are overpaid, but you can’t argue that they’re doing nothing or that it has no value.
Now I gotta overcome my tightwad tendencies and pay Neo some money.
TommyJay on January 9, 2019 at 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm said:
Way back when Schmidt was running Novell corp. and Microsoft was killing it, Schmidt and his lawyers were able to sic the Clinton anti-trust team on Microsoft to its detriment. Not that it helped Novell much.
* * *
Wow – talk about the Way-Back Machine!
I was among the first programmers hired by Novell as a start-up.
Loved working there, and did some good stuff, but they branched out into too many side-issues, retrenched, fired the VP I was under and all his team, forced out the founders who hired us, and re-invented their core business — without my illustrious presence (but under the direction of a guy who was actually a neighbor and friend).
I didn’t get any stock options either, drat it.
TommyJay on January 9, 2019 at 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm said:
… Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a huge GOP factor, and their position is made semi-clear by their recent public announcement.
* * *
Gee, I never thought I would have to call the CoC un-American.
“Corporate interests and the big business lobby have the most to gain from granting an amensty to DACA illegal aliens, as legalizing millions of low-skilled foreign workers would drag down wages for Americans, drive up profit margins for corporations, and leave U.S. taxpayers with the costs.
…
A DACA amnesty would put more U.S.-born children of illegal aliens — commonly known as “anchor babies” — on federal welfare, as Breitbart News reported, while American taxpayers would be left with a $26 billion bill.
Additionally, about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid.
Any plan to give amnesty to DACA illegal aliens that does not also include provisions to halve legal immigration levels would give amnestied illegal aliens the opportunity to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration.”
The chain migration inflow from a DACA amnesty has the potential to reach nine million foreign nationals arriving in the country, as every two newly naturalized citizens bring about seven foreign relatives to the U.S. with them.
Despite major opposition from Trump’s base of supporters to for an amnesty-for-wall funding deal, the plan has been touted in White House discussions, as it is favored by the billionaire donor class.”
I’m not totally averse to legalizing really-truly-brought-here-as-a-baby people (with the usual good-character caveats), but doing it without FIRST securing the border and ending the chain migration, anchor babies, and visa-equals-lifetime-visitor travesties is a firm “no” for me.
Some perspective on the Democrats’ border theater act:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/09/pence-nancy-pelosi-a-no-on-border-security-even-if-trump-opens-government/
“Pence detailed a moment during Wednesday’s White House shutdown meeting with Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. President Donald Trump asked Speaker Pelosi if she would negotiate border security and wall funding if he opened up the government quickly. “The Speaker of the House said ‘no,’” Pence recounted.
…
Security Kirstjen Nielsen also offered details of the meeting.
“I think the president was very calm in trying to continue to put different options on the table to solve this serious crisis at our border,” Scalise told reporters outside the White House. “Last night [the president] laid out some of the problems and challenges we’re facing as a country and how we can get a solution.”
“Today what he did was start to offer some more ideas,” Scalise recounted. He said their teams worked over the weekend, “but at some point the other side has to put a counter offer on the table. ‘No’ is not a valid answer if you’re serious about solving this problem.”
Experts tasked with securing the nation have put the cost of moving toward securing the border at $5.7 billion, a number Scalise referenced. He then rebuked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for jokingly offering just one dollar to address the problem of border security. He said her reaction and refusal to propose a counteroffer is not fair to those Americans missing a paycheck under the shutdown.”
Nancy’s not going to like this:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/09/voice-of-hispanic-america-salinas-many-latinos-buying-trumps-arguments-against-illegal-immigration/
“Former longtime Univision anchor María Elena Salinas revealed on Tuesday evening that many Latinos are buying the arguments President Donald Trump is making about illegal immigration.
Salinas, whom the New York Times once described as the “voice of Hispanic America,” told CNN host Don Lemon after Trump’s Tuesday evening Oval Office address that she is saddened that Latinos “are buying some of these arguments against undocumented immigrants” that Trump has been making.
“And it’s very sad to see that our own people, who are immigrants themselves, are attacking these immigrants that are trying to come in, knowing themselves how difficult the situation is in a lot of these Latin American countries,” she continued. “And, you know, they’re buying it, and some people, just like some other Trump supporters, are saying, well, you know, so what if he tells lies, as long as we have lower unemployment among the Latino community.”
In his Oval Office address, Trump specifically mentioned that illegal immigration hurts African-Americans and Hispanic Americans.
“It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages,” Trump said of illegal immigration. “Among those hardest hit are African-Americans and Hispanic Americans.”
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump, in addition to making the economic case for fewer illegal immigrants, also explicitly pointed out that the media often ignore Latino families who have been victimized by illegal immigrant crimes.
Trump ended up shocking the political and media establishments by doing better among Hispanic voters than Mitt Romney did four years before. And though the media have tried to vilify Trump as a “racist” who hates brown people, Trump’s support among Latinos has remained steady.”
On the real security question about the infiltration of terrorists among the economic migrants, the problem is that we have no way to even find out how many get across the border.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/01/08/why-chris-wallace-is-as-wrong-as-the-trump-administration-about-threat-border-crossings/
By J.E. Dyer January 8, 2019
“Do you know how many people tried to cross the U.S. southern border illegally last year? Do you know how many succeeded? Do you know how many were either special-interest aliens or on a terror watch list?
No, you don’t.
No one knows those numbers. We don’t have them. We don’t know.
…
I hate to have to point it out, to people who are being honest and well-meaning, but the fact that we apprehend almost all of the special-interest aliens and known/suspected terrorists at airports is first of all a statistical artifact of the mode of travel. Commercial air travel funnels everyone down physically into convenient counting chutes.
Crossing a 1,300-mile border doesn’t do that. We don’t have the comprehensive information we’d need to proclaim that most terror suspects are trying to enter the United States via scheduled commercial air travel. We only know that that’s how we catch most of the ones we catch.
…
But it’s possible the Trump administration is trying to advance a valid point (if doing so with really counterproductive ineptness). The valid point would be that if we’re catching more than 3,000 potential threats a year coming in through airports, where they’re pretty much bound to be caught if we’ve already flagged them by category or identity, how many are we not catching at the border – where they are NOT bound to be caught, because they’re not bound to be seen and processed?
Until everyone acknowledges that we do not know the extent to which almost all potential threat individuals try to enter the U.S through airports, there’s no point in continuing to yammer at each other.”
I think Trump can win this battle, but he will need the Republicans in the Senate to hold strong. My suspicion is that they will stab him in the back and and pass the House bill at some point in the next two weeks. Trump will then face the real choice- veto it, or sign it and declare the emergency. A veto might not be sustained at that point.
“he will need the Republicans in the Senate to hold strong. My suspicion is that they will stab him in the back ”
Sadly, I think you are correct.
It only takes a few back-stabbers with the majority as thin as it is.
Look at O’BaMcCain on the PPACA repeals.
I think the current situation and conflict is what Trump wanted. Not that he is playing some super clever game of multi-dimensional chess – I won’t give him credit for that – rather that he knew, perhaps McConnell told him, that they didn’t have the votes in the Senate and so he decided to allow this “crisis” of the government shutdown to occur which he now uses to highlight the disingenuous, and changing, arguments against funding the wall from the Democrats and the Republicans that agree with them. It’s too early to tell how this will end, but public support for securing the border is very high, and as noted above garnering support from some previously unlikely groups.
I hope Trump videotapes more negotiations with the Dems. Showing that they refuse to “compromise” — because of Dem principle.
The principle of Open Borders.
Trump focusing on how Open Borders hurts black workers and Latino workers is also excellent. Too bad more conservative groups aren’t out polling blacks in WI about their support for more illegal aliens coming to work in America.
But the longer the shutdown goes on, the more the Dems look bad — and the employees “most hurt” will far more likely to be Dems. It would be fine for Trump to NOT allow them to get paid, nor any back-pay, but I assume the Dems will require this as part of a deal. Still, Trump could say “no” at first.
Remains interesting, and The Art of the Deal doesn’t help much in forecasting / speculating how it is resolved. But my 90% guess says Trump gets enough to say “he won”.
The problem in the Senate was not the potential for a Republican defection but, rather, a Democratic filibuster. For this kind of bill, the filibuster still exists. That means Trump needed 9 democrats.