In a showdown reminiscent of the fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, government shutdown, etc. of the past few years, the clock is rapidly ticking on funding for the Department of Homeland Security. However, with the Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, the conflict has shifted to one between the two parties to a split within the GOP itself.
The DHS is set to run out of funding this Friday, something which shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all the Republicans. Upon gaining control of Congress, the party deliberately chose not to extend funding for the Department, which is responsible for executing President Obama's controversial executive action shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported. Thus, the current stand-off was planned and engineered months in advance as a tool for blocking the president's program.
As things stand, there is a divide between House and Senate Republicans over how to handle the funding deadline. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell surprised and angered many in his party by expressing his willingness to consider a clean resolution providing funding without touching immigration, a bill Senate Democrats have voiced support for. The proposed legislation passed a procedural vote 98 to 2 on Wednesday, and could go up for a vote as early as Thursday.
This legislative struggle is important on many fronts for the Republican Party. On the most basic level, DHS funding can be an effective proxy for defeating Obama's immigration plan. Additionally, the effort will demonstrate the organization and coordination of the party.
So far, however, it has proved the opposite. The Republican push has been uncoordinated and chaotic. On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner admitted to not having spoken to McConnell for two week, a baffling communication gap considering the importance of the upcoming bill. Furthermore, Boehner has yet to take a public position on the Senate's proposal, and has chosen a “wait and see” approach regarding a funding bill.
The Republicans are clearly divided over the best course to take. McConnell, who promised no new shutdowns in October 2013 [1], seems interested in securing DHS funding at nearly any cost. He has even offered two votes: one on a clean bill, and a second on a bill halting Obama's executive action. House Republicans, however, appear characteristically unwilling to compromise, and were upset by McConnell's cooperation with Democratic lawmakers. Iowa Representative Steve Kind criticized McConnell for having “tipped over his king,” or surrendered.
Alternative solutions have included a short-term funding measure, a joint committee between the two houses, and a bill rolling back certain portions of Obama's immigration policy. One interesting proposal has been funding the DHS, but on the condition that all funding will be pulled if Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen's recent injunction on Obama's executive action is overturned. It is unclear whether such an ultimatum would be enforceable or threaten the independent judiciary.
Thus, the Republicans appear to be at a stalemate. The party is split between moderates who want the DHS funded at all costs, and conservatives who want to see Obama's action on immigration blocked, and are willing to withhold the department's funding to do so. Now that they hold the Senate, the GOP establishment fears being blamed by the American people if a shutdown of the agency were to occur; on the other hand, compromise may elicit a backlash from House Republicans, many of whom have defied Boehner and the party mainstream. The Democrats, although a minority in both houses, are another wrench in the proceedings. Their support remains important in the Senate, where they have already filibustered opening debate on a funding bill four times.
Personally, I think that the Republicans are playing with fire when it comes to toying with DHS funding. At a time when groups like ISIS are becoming increasingly active and we are seeing a rise in home-grown terror attacks, it is reckless and dangerous to cut funding for an agency responsible for the national security. I think New York Republican Rep. Peter T. King said it best:
“We can’t allow D.H.S. not be funded. People think we’re crazy. There’re terrorist attacks all over the world, and we’re talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in the world of the crazy people.”
What are your thoughts? Are the Republicans right or wrong to demand concessions from Obama to fund the DHS? As the majority party, should they compromise, or stick to their demands? What agreement will House and Senate Republicans reach, and how will the Democrats and the president react?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/us/congress-republicans-homeland-security.html?_r=0
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-government-shutdown-98943.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/25/texas-federal-judge-wont-comply-with-administration-request-to-lift-halt-on/
2 comments:
Politics is a game at which neither Democrats nor Republicans have any skill. Both parties are so concerned about staying in power—about thwarting the success of the opposition—that passing legislation to provide for the nation as a whole comes second. Congressmen are elected not to play games with money, but to lead with intelligence. They are in DC to defend our interests, to protect our welfare, and to provide for our needs. Yet what do they actually do?
Well, when they don’t get their way, they throw a tantrum. They filibuster, they point fingers, and they refuse to admit their own faults. They deny funding to crucial departments. They subvert necessary legislation and undermine bipartisanship. They shut down the government. They act like children.
Now, yes, I know that many people disagree with Obama’s executive action. I also understand that there are valid reasons behind their demands that the order not be put into motion. In fact, although I support the action myself, I realize that there are real constitutional concerns surrounding its implementation; even as a supporter of the order, I’m not entirely certain that it is constitutional. However, at this point, I don’t trust Congress to get things done, and really, that’s all I care about. I want to see action, progress, and steps towards something—just a sign that our government isn’t as dysfunctional as it seems. So if the President must bend the rules a little to get something done, then that’s fine with me. Maybe I would feel differently if Congress showed signs of progress.
Even a Republican controlled Congress fails to agree on crucial legislation, however: the DHS funding. This issue should not be divisive; one of the few things that most Americans agree on is that anti-terrorism programs ought to be funded, supported, and even expanded. In fact, even I, someone who hates many aspects of our security policies, understand that you cannot allow the DHS to go unfunded.
So it is pathetic that Republicans are so caught up on overcoming Obama’s executive order that they are willing to undermine funding to one of the most crucial departments in the American government. Much to my surprise, I agree with McConnell; if Republicans want to thwart Obama’s order, then they should do so with a second bill. They have the numbers and the control to get a second bill passed. So why thwart this one? To fight this bill—to shut down the DHS—can only create distrust and distaste for current Republican congressmen.
Republicans may be playing the game of politics, but if they continue with this strategy, they’re going to lose.
David and Sam,
Both of you bring up interesting points about the current framework of our government; its clear that both parties are unwilling to bend. Personally, this is quite embarrassing, knowing that our once great democracy is faltering due to head strong politicians. With all of the acts that ISIS has committed within the past few weeks, one would think that DHS would be a major priority. Just last week, there was a terrorist threat on The Mall of America. If anything had happened, the results would have been catastrophic. I remember watching the 60 minutes interview with Boehner and McConnell. During their interview, both men expressed their deep concerns for the government and taking on ISIS. McConnell himself noted that he was less conservative than his counterparts would like to admit. He also stated that he would be willing in every way to help the President with his decisions and laws. However,the Republicans are putting all of their will power into preventing legislation from Obama to be passed. But this is proving to be more difficult than they anticipated. Much like Sam has stated, both parties need to realize that what they want might not benefit everyone. Instead, they need to focus on the people, not themselves. In order to do so, they must acknowledge the fact that they might lose at some point. Politics should not be a game. Politics should be meant to serve the people, not the secular interests of the few.
Post a Comment