The Senate passed, yesterday, by 98-2, a bill that funds DHS fully and sent it to the House.
If (House) Republicans are smart, they’ll accept the trap the Senate Democrats have given them, take up the Senate bill, and amend it to include the original measures to block President Barack Obama’s immigration “executive actions.” That will force the bill to a House-Senate Conference Committee, and the result of that goes to each house of Congress for reconciliation vote—no filibuster.
Taking the current kerfuffle over funding DHS as an example, debates over this sort of thing generally center on the foolishness/stubbornness/futility of Republicans for demanding things unacceptable to the Democrats in Congress be included in the bills needing passage. Such debates include Republicans decrying their party’s foolishness/stubbornness/futility.
Yet these debates never discuss Democrat foolishness/stubbornness/futility for demanding things unacceptable to Republicans be included.
This brings me to my question: on what basis is the Democrat position taken ipso facto to be the correct/default position, and the Republican position taken ipso facto to be wrong?
Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) had some thoughts on the Senate floor Tuesday following the Senate Democrats’ refusal to allow funding for DHS on Monday.
A number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. There’s been a lot of spin about that and that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word “obfuscation,” I suppose, or “disingenuousness.” The truth is, the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It’s provided the level of funding the President asked for. It’s kept all the accounts at Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says, but, Mr President, we considered your bill, this amnesty bill that will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits. You can’t do that. We considered that and rejected it. So we’re not going to fund that.
And
…the bill comes to the Senate and what spectacle do we have? We have the Democratic members in lockstep unity blocking even proceeding to this bill. And they contend that we’re not funding Homeland Security. Can you imagine that?
And
Now, there are some even on the Republican side that say, “Oh, gosh,” you know, “The President will blame us even if it’s not our fault and we might as well cave in and give him what he wants.” But what he wants is something he can’t be given. What he wants is for Congress to capitulate and erode its powers and responsibility. He wants Congress to violate its duty, to fund something that is illegal and contrary to Congress’s wishes. He can’t demand that. He has no right to demand that.
And
I think that Senate Democrats and the President must answer why they believe funding executive amnesty and unlawful immigration policies would make this country safer.
What he said.
H/t Power Line