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
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.
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?