There’s been a lot of speculation that President Trump’s heart wasn’t really committed to repealing Obamacare. He agreed to go along with the strategy of tackling the issue first, perhaps because he didn’t realize the odds against success, but his passion supposedly lies elsewhere. It’s a plausible argument, I guess, but he did talk rather relentlessly about repealing Obama’s signature law on the campaign trail.
The only thing I can think of that he talked about more was building a wall on our border with Mexico and making the Mexicans pay for it. Regardless of where his true passion lies, a failure on both of these top themes of his run for the presidency would put a boulder-size dent in his reputation as a dealmaker.
Of course, just as there was a plan to repeal Obamacare, there has been a plan to fund the wall, too. But there are problems.
One problem is that that plan doesn’t entail the Mexicans signing the checks. Another problem is just emerging now. It doesn’t look like Congress wants to stick to the plan.
The White House made an initial request earlier this month for $1.4 billion in border wall funding as part of a package that boosts defense spending by $30 billion, with the thought that it would hitch a ride to the broader government funding bill due next month.
When lawmakers talk about having a piece of legislation “hitch a ride,” it means that they want to attach it to something that absolutely must pass so that opponents feel more pressure to go along with it. The most obvious place to put a piece of legislation like that is on a bill that will prevent the government from closing down or defaulting on its debts. That was the plan here, but it’s falling apart:
With the GOP consumed by its own divisions, the White House and Hill Republicans will have to rely on Democratic votes to avoid a government shutdown next month in what would be another disaster for Trump’s fledgling presidency.
Republican leaders, wary of this, are considering a plan that would not directly tie the border wall money to the April 28 government funding deadline.
I’m going to start sounding like a broken record, but everything Trump has done since election day has indicated that he never contemplated the need to “rely on Democratic votes” for anything. The fact is, he can’t rely on Democratic votes, and he can rely on them the least when he’s trying to get them to pass part of his agenda because his own party will not.
Chuck Schumer spelled it out for him, not that he’s a quick learner:
Republicans began the year thinking that they could get moderate Democrats and perhaps even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to fund construction of a wall that some Democrats have supported in the past. But Schumer has warned McConnell that his party will not support any “riders” in the funding bill intended to jam Democrats with conservative policies.
“The wall is a poison-pill rider,” Schumer said in an interview. “They’ll do it at their peril.”
To be honest, it’s a small miracle that Schumer is offering any votes at all to keep the government open or to (later) raise the debt ceiling. His only demand is that Trump not hitch these kind of “riders” to the bills. In my opinion, he should be making demands of his own, considering that the Republicans tried to jam President Obama every single time these funding and funding authorization bills came up during his two terms in office.
But Schumer is offering to do what the Republicans were asked to do and never would. If it’s a sign of weakness, it’s also a nod to consistency and responsible governance, so I can’t be too critical.
In any case, the Republicans are figuring out that if they attach border wall funding to a must pass spending bill that they can’t pass with their own votes, they’re not going to win the political battle over who to blame if the government shuts down as a result.
But acknowledging that problem is not the same as figuring out how to solve it. Consider this gentleman’s opinion:
A senior Republican source suggested Trump could conceivably win a shutdown fight if he went to the mat to defend it: “This is his signature issue. I cannot imagine a scenario where the Trump administration loses on the border wall funding. If I were them, I’d dare the Democrats to shut down the government over this.”
Of course, this man is not very bright and his imagination isn’t very strong. More intelligent Republicans have better forecasting skills:
Another senior House Republican source disagreed completely: “The Trump administration can’t have another disaster on its hands. I think right now they have to show some level of competence and that they can govern.”
The next step is to come up with some face-saving, ass-covering gambit to deflect blame and pretend that Trump had a winning plan to fund that wall that was sabotaged. It looks like this: the House Republicans pass the must-pass funding with an amendment on the wall funding attached. The Senate strips out the wall amendment and sends the House back a clean funding bill. The House then has the choice to allow a government shutdown or to close the government and challenge the Democrats and the Senate to cave.
The Democrats and the Senate won’t cave, of course, so the House will eventually reopen the government without Trump’s wall funding, and with the prospects for getting the funding as far off as the Andromeda Galaxy.
At least some in the White House are coming to grips with reality, which is why “Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney in recent weeks has suggested the administration will focus more on the wall in the future, perhaps as late as fiscal 2019.”
One thing that isn’t addressed but should be is the question of how important it is that Trump keep the promise entailed in both parts of his greatest applause line. Did his fans clap harder for the wall or for the idea that Trump would force the Mexican government to pay for it?
Right now, we’re only talking about the first part of the formula. If Trump had said that he was going to build the wall and give the estimated final $21.6 billion invoice to the American people, I don’t think his fans would have been so rapturous about the idea.
So, the Republicans are looking for a way out. They’ll need permission from Trump to concoct the Kabuki Theater in which they’ll put on a show of trying to build his wall. How he responds will determine whether the next failure has a hard or a soft landing.
As far as I can see, very few people actually think the wall will help in preventing unsanctioned immigration. That isn’t to say there aren’t a bunch of people who want the wall built. It is, was and will be about making the Mesikins hurt.
Agree. It’s a symbol of shoving it in the Mexican’s faces. You know, all those horrible Mexicans who’ve stolen working class white men’s jobs of working in fields under a hot sun all day long.
Lately farmers in CA’s central valley have been increasing their pay and benefits to no avail.
Where are all those conservatives who love to lecture about how citizens need to stop being such lazy lousy moochers and get off their azzes and MOVE to where the jobs are?? Well apparently there’s jobs a-plenty picking produce in the fields of CA. So where are all these disaffected white working class men who want to work so badly?
Ryan and crew met this morning and are pledging renewed unity to repeal and replace. The health care business isn’t finished yet. Vigilance is required. And with all the undoing of Obama policies, the border wall seems like one of the least of our problems. Methane, coal, public lands, etc. all seem more urgent.
I definitely think they will take another run at Obamacare. On the wall I don’t really care much what he does there. I don’t want it but I refuse to get worked up about it.
the Rs in congress are already talking it up b/c it’s a big fund raising item for them. doubt, however, that T will be on board with it, – isn’t his MO bankruptcy and get out while stiffing everyone?
Now that fantasyland is over and Congress is admitting Mexico will not be paying for the wall, they plan to justify the cutting of social welfare programs and government regulations by saying that budget cuts are needed to finance the building of the wall. One will be tied to the other.
in previous post you wrote that repealing Obamacare was supposed to pay for budget cuts – figured that was the reason T addressed repeal and replace first.
– as far as your last paragraph goes – doesn’t seem to be any discussion any more even of Mexico paying for the wall. seems to me that’s a problem for T
one of the T admin’s problems:
Preferred Stockholders.
Everybody’s a customer in the world of Neoliberalism. There is no other concept of citizenship, because every value is monetized.
Noam Chomsky:
“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.
In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future.”
MS Haque – 2008, Global Rise Of Neoliberal State And Its Impact On Citizenship
profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/polhaque/Haque.pdf
“… following the recent examples of customer-centered governance in advanced capitalist nations, the citizens are being redefined as the customers of the state in many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Haque, 1999a).”
Ha ha ha ha haaaaa – What is this “Constitution” thing to which you refer?
Signed,
Jared Kushner
Trump’s a conman so he’ll go along with the “Kabuki Theatre” thing if he doesn’t trip over himself in doing so.
Again, Too Much Credit To Trump (TMCTT): He never goes along with Kabuki schemes because he doesn’t understand them. Everything said to him in confidence gets tweeted.
Eh, didn’t Trump supporters view the wall as signaling? No one seriously thought he was going to build a wall they just wanted someone to kick dark foreigners in the teeth. That they are getting. Going to make the GOP congress hate him more though, they certainly are going to become more difficult.
Very nice of Schumer to telegraph that Dems will save the day for Der Trumper and the Repubs-in-Disarray on the debt ceiling or keepin’ Trump’s doors open for nothing. Very gentlemanly.
I’d prefer to see a Dem party that goes on the early offensive and tells Trumper something like, “no votes to save your ass on any funding unless you drop this insane rollback of the Obama Clean Power Plant order. And throw in the immediate firing of Pruitt. Then you’ll get your debt ceiling. Otherwise, you clowns own the gub’mint since you haven’t noticed. Good night and good luck”. Climate is a wonderful issue to highlight because the abyss between the parties is so enormous. Also the young care about it.
But no, too “impractical”. Wouldn’t want to kick Reichsfuhrer Bannon in the kidneys when he’s down.
Nothing prevents them from adding that in as we get closer … Need to see how it plays out.
“[A] failure on both of these top themes of his run for the presidency would put a boulder-size dent in his reputation as a dealmaker.”
No, it wouldn’t. We’ve already seen this in action: his reputation is always intact because his supporters turn right around and blame Washington backstabbers and start whining about “how can a businessman be expected to understand the complex give-and-take nuances of legislative government” (never mind, as I wrote here last week, that this was the entire fucking premise of his candidacy).
Trump supporters are very adept at blaming any issues with what Trump does on someone else. If they can’t pick their favorite whipping boy – the Democrats – then it’s Washington “insiders,” or the media, or take your pick.
I hold out next to no expectation that the average Trump fan will every see that what they voted for was a con-man, who is woefully inadequate (to put it nicely) for this particular job… and what’s more, who has no interest in attempting to learn and improve his knowledge and skills in order to do better.
We had a mini pro-Trump rally in my town this weekend. No really big deal, but they were mainly carrying signs that said “Let Trump Do His Job.” Someone even said that to me last night. I don’t get how they don’t see that THIS is Trump “doing his job.” He’s inept, he’s incurious, he’s incompetent, and it’s unlikely to get any better.
I’ve said all along, all Trump’s interested in is grifting as much as feasible for himself. I’m sure he’s already made a bundle for himself.
Exactly. Who’s preventing him?
I’m surprised to be taking issue with Mr. Longman for pusillanimity, but in this case doing so seems justified.
He mildly suggests that Sen. Schumer ought to be using the threats of government shutdown and debt default on Trump’s watch as a means to achieve Democratic goals. But he then lets Schumer off the hook by allowing that refusing to do so is a “nod to consistency and good governance,” so he “can’t be too critical.”
Now I’m normally all in favor of “consistency and good governance,” but at this point it’s not clear what such upholding of political Marquess of Queensbury rules by the Democrats alone is doing for them or for the country. Beginning with a relatively weak position in 2009 (only 40 Republican Senators), McConnell and his henchmen parlayed consistent bad faith and violation of procedural norms into the 2016 Republican “trifecta.” Even before then, their behavior regularly warped government action toward Republican positions, as in the 2011 Budget Act. Whatever scolding they received from “good government” folks did not faze them, nor is their any sign that they would not behave in exactly the same way in a similar future situation.
Under these conditions, what the Democrats are doing is effectively unilateral disarmament, which is justifiable only if their substantive goals are less important than maintaining the procedural standards Longman mentions. Is that idea tenable when the issues in front of us are climate change, health care, and Russian election subversion? The planet does not have years to wait for the United States to get reasonable on climate issues; the sick cannot wait for a new and less hostile administration to be elected, and none of us can wait any longer at all to get our country back from Vladimir Putin. What is the justification for the Democrats to abandon issues such as these to play nice, especially when doing so is likely to be neither rewarded nor reciprocated?
This brought to mind another analogy–the chances of the Jupiter 2 spaceship of Lost in Space ever returning to earth. As long as
Dr. Zachary SmithTrump is aboard, it was doomed from the outset and there will be no conclusion. Falling ratings eventually will spell its demise.A high profile fight over wall funding makes it undeniable that Mexico is not paying for it. The Trumpers listen to their own sources, and this word will not get to them, at least not in a form they will believe, unless it is a screaming issue throughout the media for a time. If funding for the Wall is the issue in a government shutdown debate, Rush won’t be able to pretend the Mexicans are paying for it – otherwise, he will, facts be damned.