Washington is coming up to another of those government shutdown deadlines. The spending authority for the federal government ends on December 8th unless Congress passes another spending bill. As a result, the whole performance of the Democrats and Republicans on spending is beginning once again to play out. The show began today with the Democrats' leaders boycotting a meeting they were supposed to hold with President Trump and the Republican leaders at the White House. The stated reason for the boycott is that the President tweeted this morning that he couldn't see a deal with the Democrats because they are soft on crime, want unlimited immigration, and want to raise taxes. Oh, the horror! Nothing Trump said was new. Indeed, all that the President said was the opposite of what the Democrats say on a non-stop basis. We've all heard Democrats shout that the GOP is against all immigrants, won't act to stop gun crimes, and want to raise taxes on the poor to give the money to the rich. These political positions on both sides have been stated and restated for months if not years. They really cannot be the reason that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi decided to boycott the White House meeting. In fact, the political positions are just an excuse.
So is this a good move by Schumer and Pelosi? Will they be able to get their agenda enacted by threatening a government shutdown? Strangely, I don't think it will work this time. The Democrats have made a career of blaming the GOP for any government shutdown, but they are in a difficult position this time. Indeed, they may not realize just how difficult a position they face.
First of all, President Trump has already started to position the Republicans so that the Democrats will get the blame they deserve if the government shuts down. Trump announced that with the firing of the North Korean ICBM, America has to have full funding for its military. Will the Democrats really want to shut down the government and leave the armed forces unfunded? I doubt it. Moreover, there even the issue of not showing up for the meeting today. It's hard to make yourself seem reasonable when you boycott meetings designed to arrange for funding the government.
Second and more important, the President has the ability to use a shutdown to truly slam the priorities of the Democrats. If the government funding is not passed, federal law provides that the President decides which government programs are "critical" and need to continue in operation. In essence, President Trump decides what gets funded and what does not. Imagine a government shutdown where the EPA, the Consumer Finance agency, and all the favorites of the liberals get shut down completely. On the other hand, Trump can fund the military for the most part as well as ICE and Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies. The funding for Planned Parenthood would be stopped. So too would the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as well as most of the grants to various academics across America who are studying things like the sex lives of women at college. All those groups that support the Democrats would see their funding shut off. I doubt that the Democrats would want to see this cut off continue for very long.
Third, in the current environment, the Democrats will not be able to control the narrative of the shut down. When Obama was in office, he pushed the line of blaming the GOP and got major coverage. With Trump in the White House, that platform for generating news will push against the Democrats instead.
My prediction is that there will be no shut down. Still, if I am incorrect and there is one, I don't think it will end very well for the Democrats.
So is this a good move by Schumer and Pelosi? Will they be able to get their agenda enacted by threatening a government shutdown? Strangely, I don't think it will work this time. The Democrats have made a career of blaming the GOP for any government shutdown, but they are in a difficult position this time. Indeed, they may not realize just how difficult a position they face.
First of all, President Trump has already started to position the Republicans so that the Democrats will get the blame they deserve if the government shuts down. Trump announced that with the firing of the North Korean ICBM, America has to have full funding for its military. Will the Democrats really want to shut down the government and leave the armed forces unfunded? I doubt it. Moreover, there even the issue of not showing up for the meeting today. It's hard to make yourself seem reasonable when you boycott meetings designed to arrange for funding the government.
Second and more important, the President has the ability to use a shutdown to truly slam the priorities of the Democrats. If the government funding is not passed, federal law provides that the President decides which government programs are "critical" and need to continue in operation. In essence, President Trump decides what gets funded and what does not. Imagine a government shutdown where the EPA, the Consumer Finance agency, and all the favorites of the liberals get shut down completely. On the other hand, Trump can fund the military for the most part as well as ICE and Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies. The funding for Planned Parenthood would be stopped. So too would the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as well as most of the grants to various academics across America who are studying things like the sex lives of women at college. All those groups that support the Democrats would see their funding shut off. I doubt that the Democrats would want to see this cut off continue for very long.
Third, in the current environment, the Democrats will not be able to control the narrative of the shut down. When Obama was in office, he pushed the line of blaming the GOP and got major coverage. With Trump in the White House, that platform for generating news will push against the Democrats instead.
My prediction is that there will be no shut down. Still, if I am incorrect and there is one, I don't think it will end very well for the Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment