Tag Archives: political parties

A Question

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Funding DHS

Posted on by
Reply

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

Wobbly

Posted on by
2

The Senate Democrats succeeded Monday night again in filibustering a House-passed bill that fully funds the DHS because those Democrats support President Barack Obama’s “executive actions” and want small provisions that would block them removed from the bill (yet they won’t permit debates and votes on amendments designed to achieve exactly that; they’d rather just defund the entire Department).

The vote was 47-46 for cloture, which means that 7 Republican Senators folded on this.

Instead of pressuring fellow Republicans to fold, as for instance Lindsey Graham (R, SC) so readily and often does, those gentlemen should be spending that energy pointing out the Democrats’ failure to support DHS in an era of large and increasing threat to our homeland.

Remember this in the primaries leading into the 2016 elections.

Jeh Johnson and Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said allowing the agency to lose its federal funding after Friday could jeopardize the US efforts to thwart a domestic terror attack by the Islamic State and will result in 30,000 employees being furloughed.

“It[‘s] including people I depend on every day to stay one step ahead of” the Islamic State, he told NBC’s Meet the Press.

Johnson carefully elided the small detail that 200,000 DHS employees—including all of his security forces—would remain on the job. More importantly, he would do well to direct his concern to his fellow Democrats in the Senate. Those worthies are busily filibustering a bill that fully funds Johnson’s DHS.

Separately, but relatedly, Johnson, in the course of making his Sunday talk show rounds, said this on Fox News Sunday:

The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion[.]

So he says. The only leaders in the Muslim community that are getting any press are from CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood in President Barack Obama’s “Conference on Violent Extremism” coffee klatch a week or so ago. Where are the serious Muslim leaders? I actually agree with the thrust of Johnson’s claim, but if these guys really are upset, they need to speak up. At least as loudly and publicly as are these religion hijackers.

And this on the same show:

Whether it’s referred to as Islamic extremism or violent extremism, what it comes down to is ISIL is a terrorist organization that represents a serious potential threat to our homeland, which has to be addressed. I’m more concerned about that frankly than I am about what two words we use to refer to them.

If that’s the case, if “two words” are such a trivial matter, then why are you so absolutely resistant to using them out loud? Why not just do so and rid yourself of this turbulent distraction?

“Must Pass” Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

Alan Blinder, he of Princeton University, has a piece on this subject in The Wall Street Journal. Among other things, he wrote

The resolution funding the Department of Homeland Security expires at the end of this month. Both parties want DHS to remain fully operational, but the bills passed so far include provisions that would roll back the president’s executive actions on immigration. Mr Obama has threatened a veto. If neither side blinks, members of the Coast Guard, the TSA, and the border patrol might soon see their paychecks suspended, though they would be required to continue working.

His entire piece went on in this vein, castigating Republicans for attaching such “extraneous” provisions to a number of bills, past and future in this Congress. He did so while ignoring the fact that the Democrats have done this in the past; both parties have. Good, bad, or indifferent, it’s a hoary old way of getting lesser matters enacted: on the backs of larger ones.

He also ignored an underlying critical item. If the thing truly is “must pass,” then Senate Democrats must stop their filibuster, allow debate (on, for instance, the DHS funding bill), offer amendments, and then allow an up or down vote in the Senate. Following which the thing would go to conference (since it would then differ from the House-passed version) and an agreed compromise voted on in each house of Congress. Filibustering is the very sort of thing the Harry Reid Faction decried Republicans for doing the prior six years (and which both parties have done for the last century or so), and the very sort of thing that provided the excuse for the Harry Reid Faction to cancel the filibuster where it was inconvenient to the then-majority Democrats.

No. If the Democrats continue to block debate on must pass legislation, if they insist on their filibuster, the consequences are entirely on them. In the present case, if the DHS goes unfunded, then those Senate Democrats will owe their own paychecks to the members of the Coast Guard, the TSA, and the border patrol for whom Blinder shed his copious crocodile tears.