Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Government Shutdown’

In this interview with Dana Loesch, I make several points about the Trump budget, including the need to reform means-tested entitlements and Obamacare (with a caveat from my Second Theorem of government), as well as some comments on foreign aid and fake budget cuts.

But those are arguments that I make all the time. Today, I want to call attention to the mid-point of the interview when I explain that President Trump is actually in a strong position to get a win, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about his budget being “dead on arrival.”

Simply stated, while he can’t force Congress to enact a bill that reforms entitlements, his veto power means he can stop Congress from appropriating more money that he wants to spend.

But if he wants to win that battle, he needs to be willing to allow a partial government shutdown.

Which he wasn’t willing to let happen when he approved a bad deal a few weeks ago to fund the government for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year.

But we have some good news. He may have learned from that mistake, at least if we take this tweet seriously.

Amen. Trump should be firm and explicitly warn Congress that he will veto any appropriations bill that spends one penny above what he requested in his budget.

And if Congress doesn’t comply, he should use his veto pen and we’ll have a partial shutdown, which basically effects the “non-essential” parts of the federal government that presumably shouldn’t be funded anyhow.

The only way Trump loses that fight is if enough Republicans join with Democrats to override his veto. But that’s unlikely since it is mostly Democrat constituencies (government bureaucrats and other recipients of taxpayer money) who feel the pinch if there’s a partial shutdown.

This is a big reason why, as we saw during the Clinton years, it’s Democrats who begin to cave so long as Republicans don’t preemptively surrender.

The bottom line is that being tough on the budget isn’t just good policy. As Ronald Reagan demonstrated, there are political rewards when you shrink the burden of government and enable faster growth.

P.S. I’m not convinced that Trump actually wants smaller government, but I hope I’m wrong. This upcoming battle will be very revealing about where he really stands.

P.P.S. And if we do have a shutdown fight, I hope it will generate some amusing political humor, such as what’s at the bottom of this post. Other examples of shutdown-related humor can be enjoyed by clicking here, hereherehere, and here.

Read Full Post »

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House.

In theory, that means a long-overdue opportunity to eliminate wasteful programs and cut pork-barrel spending.

In reality, it mostly means business as usual.

Politicians in Washington just reached a deal to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year. As reported by the Washington Post, it’s not exactly a victory for libertarians or small-government conservatives.

Democrats are surprised by just how many concessions they extracted in the trillion-dollar deal, considering that Republicans have unified control of government. …Non-defense domestic spending will go up, despite the Trump team’s insistence he wouldn’t let that happen. The president called for $18 billion in cuts. Instead, he’s going to sign a budget with lots of sweeteners that grow the size of government. …the NIH will get a $2 billion boost — on top of the huge increase it got last year. …Planned Parenthood…will continue to receive funding at current levels. …after the deal was reached…, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi quickly put out celebratory statements. …“Overall, the compromise resembles more of an Obama administration-era budget than a Trump one,” Bloomberg reports. …Reuters: “While Republicans control the House, Senate and White House, Democrats scored … significant victories in the deal.” …Vox: “Conservatives got almost nothing they wanted.”

I guess you could call this a triumph of “public choice” over campaign rhetoric. Politicians did what’s in the best interest of politicians rather than what would be best for the nation.

I’m disappointed, as you might expect. But as I say in this interview, there are far more important battles. I’ll gladly accept a bit of pork and profligacy in the 2017 budget if that clears the decks for much-needed repeal of Obamacare and long-overdue reform of the tax code.

But here’s the catch. I don’t expect that these reforms will actually happen. Yes, the deck has been cleared, but I don’t think Republicans will take advantage of the opportunity.

The fundamental problem, which I pointed out in a different interview, is that there’s not a governing majority for smaller government. And that has some very grim implications.

Even more depressing, I point out that only Trump has the power to turn things around. Yet I see very little evidence that he, a) believes in smaller government, or b) is willing to expend any political capital to achieve smaller government.

To make matters worse, Republicans have convinced themselves that they lose the spin battle whenever there is a shutdown or some other high-stakes fiscal fight with Democrats.

For what it’s worth, I’m trying to remind Republicans that it is in their long-run political interests to do the right thing (as Reagan demonstrated). That’s why, in the first interview, I said they need to gut Obamacare and lower taxes if they want to do well in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for the “stupid party” to behave intelligently.

Read Full Post »

I’m normally a big fan of shutting down the government and I’ve tried to convince timid lawmakers that shutdown fights can be worthwhile.

The bottom line is that nothing really bad happens when there’s a shutdown (notwithstanding petty efforts by bureaucrats) for the simple reasons that only “non-essential” parts of the bureaucracy actually get closed. In other words, a government shutdown in all cases is simply a partial shutdown.

And since I don’t favor any funding of non-essential functions, I view a partial shutdown as a good start. Indeed, while the various interest groups in DC hyperventilate about supposed disaster, I experience a feeling of joy and serenity (as illustrated by this modified cartoon, which originally was altered to show my reaction to sequestration).

As far as I’m concerned, the key lesson from shutdown fights is that our nation will be better off if bureaucracies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development or Department of Education are permanently shuttered. And let’s add the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and Department of Agriculture just for the fun of it.

These entities shouldn’t get short-run funding or long-run funding.

That’s the point I made in the second half of this recent interview on Fox Business.

I’m not the only person who likes the idea of a partial shutdown.

Writing for the Resurgent, Erick Erickson explains how a shutdown fight would be valuable.

Americans need to be reminded that the world will not end if the government shuts down. They need to be reminded to take care of themselves instead of relying on Uncle Sam’s teet. A government shutdown with the GOP in charge would be a far different thing from a government shutdown run by Democrats. President Obama tried to inflict maximum pain on the American people to force the GOP to reopen government. President Trump, instead, could take a different approach and use the experience to show Americans how out of control government has really gotten.

And Larry Kudlow had a similar message in a column for National Review back in 2015.

…sometimes you have to make a point. Send a message. Show voters what you really believe. Take a stand. …Most of the Beltway media will blame Republicans. Democrats will blame Republicans. And GOP pundits will blame Republicans. Political death, they will say. Really? …during the Reagan-O’Neill era, most of the shutdowns were budget focused. Reagan wanted less spending; the Democrats wanted more. …The Reagan-O’Neill-era shutdowns were short, and in most of them Reagan prevailed. Meanwhile, the Reagan recovery flourished, the Republicans held the Senate (until 1986), and the Gipper was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Going back to the Obamacare-related shutdown of 2013, a bit more than a year later the Republicans swept the Senate and gained an even larger majority in the House. …shutdowns are a cumbersome way to make a point. …But perhaps Republican leadership in both Houses might think of this: There are too many deals and not enough principles, beliefs, and clear messaging.

Having now provided all this evidence in favor of government shutdowns, you would think I’m excited about the possibility that there will be a partial shutdown this Saturday when a temporary funding bill expires.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I view shutdown as a means to an end. I want those fights to occur in hopes that there will be reforms that shrink the overall burden of government spending.

In this case, though, the shutdown fight largely revolves around President Trump’s request for money to build part of a wall between Mexico and the United States. Some people think that’s a good idea and others think it’s a bad idea, but the one thing I can say with certainty is that it’s not a money-saving idea. Even if Trump wanted to finance the wall by reducing outlays in other parts of the budget, the net result would not be smaller government.

The bottom line is that even though I almost always cheer for a government shutdown, I’ll be sitting on the sidelines for this fight.

But if Trump and congressional Republicans at some point decide to fight for much-needed spending restraint (a naive hope, I realize), then I’ll be the first to cheer if that battle leads to a shutdown.

P.S. My favorite bit of shutdown humor is at the bottom of this post, and other examples of shutdown-related humor can be enjoyed by clicking here, hereherehere, and here.

Read Full Post »

Does Donald Trump have a consistent and coherent set of economic policies?

He sometimes says things indicating that he understands Washington is a cesspool of waste. But on other occasions, he seems to be singing off the same song sheet as Bernie Sanders.

Which is why, when I recently tried to dissect Trumponomics, I admitted to being clueless.

The honest answer is that I don’t know. He has put forth a giant tax cut that is reasonably well designed, so that implies more prosperity, but is he serious about the plan? And does he have a plan for the concomitant spending reforms needed to make his tax proposal viable? He also has lots of protectionist rhetoric, including a proposal for a 45 percent tax on Chinese products, which implies harmful dislocation to the American economy. Is he actually serious about risking a global trade war, or is his saber rattling just a negotiating tool, as some of his defenders claim?

For what it’s worth, I’m getting more skeptical that Trump would try to restrain and limit the federal government if he got elected.

And I have three recent news reports to underscore my concern.

Here’s a very disturbing example. Trump actually criticized Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin for not raising taxes. Here’s an excerpt from a report in the U.K.-based Guardian.

Donald Trump attacked Wisconsin governor Scott Walker for failing to raise taxes in order to properly fund schools and roads on Tuesday, in a startling new break from rightwing orthodoxy… “There’s a $2.2bn deficit and the schools were going begging and everything was going begging because he didn’t want to raise taxes ’cause he was going to run for president,” said Trump. “So instead of raising taxes, he cut back on schools, he cut back on highways, he cut back on a lot of things.”

To dig deeper into the issue, Governor Walker had just endorsed Ted Cruz, so I can understand why Trump would try to take a few shots at someone who is supporting a rival for the GOP nomination.

But attacking the Wisconsin governor for successfully balancing his state’s budget without a tax hike? Sounds more like something Hillary would say. Maybe it’s time to induct Trump into the Charlie Brown Club.

Trump also doesn’t like federalism. Assuming he even knows what it is. In his column for the Washington Post, Professor Jonathan Adler shares some Q&A from a recent CNN interview with Trump.

QUESTION:  In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?

TRUMP:  Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation.  I would also say health care, I would also say education.

This doesn’t sound like a candidate who wants to reduce the federal government’s footprint.

Here’s more of the interview.

COOPER:  So in terms of federal government role, you’re saying security, but you also say health care and education should be provided by the federal government?

TRUMP:  Well, those are two of the things.  Yes, sure.  I mean, there are obviously many things, housing, providing great neighborhoods…

Huh, providing “great neighborhoods” is now a legitimate function of the federal government?!? I guess if Washington gets to be involved with underwear, neighborhood policy is just fine.

And why is he talking about education when the goal should be to eliminate the Department of Education?

To be fair, Trump also said in the interview that he wants to get rid of Common Core.  So it’s unclear what he actually envisions.

His answer on healthcare is similarly hazy.

COOPER:  And federal health care run by the federal government?

TRUMP:  Health care – we need health care for our people.  We need a good – Obamacare is a disaster.  It’s proven to be…

COOPER:  But is that something the federal government should be doing?

TRUMP:  The government can lead it.

So he wants the federal government involved, but he also thinks Obamacare is a “disaster.” I certainly agree about the Obamacare part, but once again we’re left with no idea whether a President Trump would make good reforms of bad reforms (i.e., would he move the “health care freedom meter” in the right direction or wrong direction?).

One thing that is clear, however, is that Trump doesn’t seem to have any core principles about the size and scope of the federal government.

He may not even realize that federalism is a key issue for advocates of limited and constitutional government.

Last but not least, Trump criticized Senator Cruz for the partial government shutdown fight that occurred in 2013. Here are some passages from a report by Byron York in the Washington Examiner.

When Trump did get around to Cruz, his critique focused…on the 2013 partial government shutdown. …He goes and he stands on the floor of the Senate for a day and a half and he filibusters …. To stand there and to rant and rave for two days and to show people you can filibuster — and in the meantime, nothing was accomplished.

I guess this isn’t an issue of underlying principles, but it does give us some idea of whether a President Trump would be willing to fight the Washington establishment.

Moreover, his assessment of the shutdown fight is completely wrong. By reminding voters that Republicans were opposed to Obamacare, the GOP won a landslide victory in 2014.

But you don’t have to believe me. Even an ultra-establishment, anti-Cruz figure like Trent Lott (former senator and now lobbyist) grudgingly admits that the shutdown was a success.

Cruz views the shutdown as a victory because the Affordable Care Act remains unpopular and Republicans swept to victory in 2014. Lott said…“That was their strategy, and it worked, so maybe they’re right and I’m wrong.”

The bottom line is that America is heading in the wrong direction, with Washington projected to consume ever-larger amounts of the economy’s output. This is a recipe for continued economic weakness in the short run and economic crisis in the long run.

Turning policy in the right direction requires a principled President who is fully committed to overcoming resistance from the special interests that dominate Washington’s culture.

I still don’t pretend to know where Donald Trump is on the big issues, but I’m not holding my breath for good results if he somehow gets elected.

P.S. Though I do expect more examples of clever political humor the longer he’s in the public eye.

Read Full Post »

A new fiscal year starts October 1, and this is terrifying news for Republicans in Washington. They’re scared that if they don’t give Obama everything he wants, they’ll get “blamed” when the President vetoes annual spending bills and shuts down the government.

If this sounds like déjà vu all over again, that’s for a good reason. There were big shutdown fights during the Clinton years, a near-shutdown fight in 2011, and then another major shutdown fight in 2013 (as well as rumors of possible shutdown fights in 2012 and 2014). And Republicans ostensibly were at fault in every case.

Now, thanks to big disagreements about whether to renege on the Budget Control Act and/or whether to subsidize Planned Parenthood, it could happen again.

At least if Republicans don’t preemptively surrender.

I realize I’m a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but there’s a strong case to be made that GOPers should exhibit some backbone and fight for spending restraint even if President Obama decides to pick a shutdown fight.

First, fighting can lead to better policy.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, a multi-year period of spending restraint starting in 1995 and ending in the late 1990s paid big dividends. The burden of federal spending dropped from more than 20 percent of GDP to less than 18 percent of economic output, and a big budget deficit became a big budget surplus.

The fiscal fights in recent years (involving not just a shutdown and shutdown threats, but also sequester battles and debt limit conflicts) also led to better fiscal outcomes. There was a de facto spending freeze starting in 2010 and ending in 2014, and the burden of government spending fell during those years, dropping from more than 24 percent of GDP to 20.3 percent of economic output.

Second, it’s unclear whether shutdowns actually lead to political blowback. Yes, the polling data seems to show that the GOP gets blamed when there’s an actual shutdown in Washington, and they obviously face unified hostility from the media and various interest groups whenever they hold firm.

That being said, there’s precious little evidence that they suffer on election day.

Republicans retained control of the House and Senate after their shutdown fight with Bill Clinton, and even picked up two Senate seats in 1996.

The 2013 shutdown fight over Obamacare was followed by a massive GOP landslide in 2014, which rewarded Republicans for opposing Obamacare.

So maybe the lesson is that voters don’t really care about shutdowns, particularly if they don’t take place close to an election. And I’ll pat myself on the back for predicting  – both at the start and the end of the 2013 shutdown – that there wouldn’t be any negative political consequences.

That being said, these policy and political arguments apparently aren’t very convincing to GOPers on Capitol Hill.

As reported by The Hill, Republican leaders think the possibility of a shutdown fight is a “crisis” to be avoided.

House Republicans will huddle in a pivotal closed-door meeting Wednesday morning as they face mounting pressure to defund Planned Parenthood — including threats to shut down the government. …Boehner and his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), are in no mood to reprise the shutdown of 2013. They believe another headline-grabbing crisis would severely damage the party at a time when they’re trying to show that Republicans can govern and take back the White House.

By the way, this isn’t just a fight about Planned Parenthood getting subsidies while selling parts of aborted babies.

Obama also says he’ll shut down the government if Republicans don’t give him more spending.

Here are some excerpts from a story in the Washington Examiner.

President Obama…called on Republicans to pass his budget when Congress reconvenes next month. He also threatened to veto any budget that did not increase spending. …”And if they don’t, they’ll shut down the government for the second time in two years,” said Obama.

Wow, let’s think about what’s actually going on. First, the President is reneging on the deal he agreed to back in 2011, which says something about ethics, character, and honesty. Second, his threatened veto, should it occur, is the only reason there would be a shutdown.

So why would that be the fault of Republicans?

Even more remarkable, President Obama even claims a shutdown would harm the economy.

President Obama on Thursday warned Congress not to “kill” the growing economy by risking a government shutdown this fall.

He must have a short memory (or no shame) because he made the same Keynesian-based argument that a sequester would hurt the economy. And he was wrong.

And he made the same claim about the 2013 shutdown and how it supposedly would hurt the economy. And was wrong then as well.

So what’s the bottom line?

At a minimum, advocates of fiscal responsibility should fight to protect the spending caps. There also should be a natural alliance between libertarians and social conservatives to end Planned Parenthood’s handouts.

Simply stated, some fights are worth having.

Though it’s important to understand this doesn’t guarantee victory.

The Wall Street Journal has a sober assessment of the challenge facing the GOP.

…the real GOP problem isn’t John Boehner or Mitch McConnell. It’s James Madison, who designed a government of checks and balances that is hard to overcome without the White House. …the party simply doesn’t have the votes to pass most of its preferred policy outcomes, much less to override a Democratic President.

The editors at the WSJ still think Republicans should fight, but the battlefield should be a separate piece of legislation rather than annual spending bills.

They should still fight and frame the issues to educate the public. They can even use budget reconciliation to send a budget to Mr. Obama’s desk with only GOP votes. But the project for the next 14 months should be to achieve what they can within divided government… Another failed government shutdown will make that harder.

I agree and disagree. Yes, not all fights need to be part of the annual appropriations legislation.

But unilaterally ceding the fight on the yearly spending bills would be wrong since Obama could successfully impose a higher burden of government spending.

I can understand why Obama wants to gut the spending caps. After all, they led to his biggest-ever defeat on fiscal policy.

That doesn’t mean, though, that the GOP leadership should hand him a victory without a fight.

P.S. There’s a humorous fringe benefit to government shutdowns, as you can see by clicking here, here, here, here, and here.

Read Full Post »

Let’s celebrate some good news.

When politicians can be convinced (or pressured) to exercise even a modest bit of spending restraint, it’s remarkably simple to get positive results.

Here’s some of what I wrote earlier this year.

…one of the few recent victories for fiscal responsibility was the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), which only was implemented because of a fight that year over the debt limit. At the time, the establishment was screaming and yelling about risky brinksmanship. But the net result is that the BCA ultimately resulted in the sequester, which was a huge victory that contributed to much better fiscal numbers between 2009-2014.

And “much better fiscal numbers” really are much better.

Here’s a chart I put together showing how the burden of federal spending declined between 2009 and 2014. And this happened for the simple reason that spending was flat and the economy had a bit of growth.

But now let’s look at some bad news.

It won’t surprise anyone to learn that the big spenders in Washington don’t like fiscal discipline.

They don’t like the modest restraint required by the Budget Control Act and they want to repeal or eviscerate the law. And they’ve already enjoyed some success, replacing spending restraint with tax hikes and budget gimmicks back in 2013.

And now there’s pressure for a similar capitulation this year, led by the Committee (gee, what a shocker) that’s in charge of spending money.

An article in Politico captures some of the internal dynamics.

…what should have been a dream job for House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) has instead become an exercise in frustration. Despite his plum position, Rogers finds himself at odds with GOP leadership… He’s calling for his party to raise strict spending caps he says are choking off necessary funding… But Rogers’ calls for a budget deal have fallen flat.

By the way, it’s not the main point of today’s column, but the article also shows why it was so important to eliminate “earmarks.”

Lawmakers no longer can be bribed to support more spending in exchange for pork-barrel projects.

It’s a reminder of the sway lost by the once powerful appropriations panel, in an age when earmarks are outlawed… The committee, once an aspiration for every lawmaker, is struggling to make its voice heard… appropriator Steve Womack (R-Ark.)…cheered Rogers for “pushing our leaders to the extent that he can” toward a budget accord. “Appropriators are in a tough spot … We just don’t have the grease that we formerly possessed.”

Good. I don’t want big spenders to have “grease” that facilitates a bigger burden of government.

But getting rid of earmarks didn’t win the war. Washington is still filled with lobbyists, bureaucrats, cronies, special interests, and other insiders who want more spending.

They want to bust the spending caps so they can line their pockets at the expense of the American people. Which is why maintaining the BCA caps are a critical test of whether Republicans are sincere about controlling Leviathan.

To understand the importance of the spending caps, here’s a chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-wing group that supports bigger government. I won’t vouch for their specific numbers since they have an incentive to exaggerate and overstate the amount of fiscal discipline that’s been imposed, but there’s no question that the big spenders have been handcuffed in recent years.

Now that we’ve reviewed why it’s important to have spending caps, let’s talk about the elephant in the room.

There are two reasons why Republicans may sell out. First, as already discussed, some of them are spendaholics. They like bribing voters with other people’s money.

The second reason the GOP may capitulate is that the President and congressional Democrats may force a “government shutdown” fight.

To be more specific, the annual spending (or “appropriations”) bills are supposed to be completed by October 1, which is the start of the new fiscal year.

If President Obama uses his veto pen, which is what most observers expect, there will be a shutdown. And even though previous shutdowns have yielded positive policy changes, Republicans are afraid that they will suffer political blowback.

Given that they won a landslide election in 2014 after the 2013 shutdown (and also prevailed after the 1995 shutdown fight), this skittishness is a bit of a mystery, but the conventional wisdom is that GOPers will capitulate to Obama and agree to a deal that busts the spending caps.

Which would be very unfortunate for the cause of good fiscal policy.

On the issue of big government and spending discipline, I recently appeared on John Stossel’s show, along with my colleague Chris Edwards, while participating in FreedomFest. Here’s what we said about the importance of shrinking Washington to promote freedom and prosperity.

P.S. In this video, Chris and I pontificate at greater length on fiscal policy issues.

P.P.S. While I’m critical of the politicians on the Appropriations Committee, I don’t think they’re necessarily any worse than other lawmakers. As I explained last month when analyzing the bad behavior of politicians who are on the committees that deal with transportation, the system creates a perverse incentive structure to expand government.

P.P.P.S. Here’s some government shutdown humor. And some more at the bottom of this post.

Read Full Post »

A couple of days ago, I wrote that Republicans should not be intimidated if the White House threatens a government shutdown.

Simply stated, prior shutdowns have yielded meaningful policy victories without causing measurable political damage.

This isn’t to say that the goal of any fiscal fight is a shutdown. Instead, my point is simply that Republicans shouldn’t strengthen the bargaining position of the White House by announcing that they will do whatever it takes to avoid a government shutdown.

This shouldn’t be a controversial assertion.

For instance, Obama could threaten that he won’t sign a spending bill unless Republicans agree to a top tax rate of 90 percent.* Do Republicans acquiesce to that demand?

Or what if the President says he will veto spending legislation if it doesn’t include nationalization of the oil industry. Or expanded Obamacare. Should the GOP say yes?

Based on the no-shutdown-for-any-reason rule, Republicans would have to surrender to these hypothetical demands. I’ve called this the “French Army” approach to budget policy since Obama always wins.

But that won’t happen. I’m guessing 90 percent-plus of GOP politicians and GOP-friendly pundits would agree that a line should be drawn in the sand based on the extreme examples I provided, even if it means a shutdown of the government because Obama vetoes a spending bill that doesn’t include those provisions.

In other words, Republicans presumably don’t actually believe in the no-shutdown-for-any-reason rule. Instead, they are simply signalling that they don’t think it makes sense to have a shutdown fight based on the fights that are likely to occur in the near future.

But that creates a problem for the GOP. In the short run, it means the White House gets to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens. More important (at least from my perspective as a fiscal policy wonk), it gives Obama the upper hand in battles that may take place next year over issues such as spending caps and Obamacare funding.

To their credit, Republican leaders recognize the problem, so they’re searching for a strategy that would achieve their objectives without a government-wide shutdown.**

A story in Politico lays out their most recent maneuvering.

Republican leaders have intensified their planning to prevent a government funding showdown, weighing legislative options that would redirect GOP anger at Barack Obama’s expected action on immigration and stave off a political disaster, according to sources involved with the sessions. …Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and their top aides and deputies are mulling several options that would give Capitol Hill Republicans the opportunity to vent their frustration with what they view as an unconstitutional power grab by the White House — without jeopardizing the government financing bill. The options include…passing two separate funding bills — a short-term bill with tight restrictions on immigration enforcement agencies, and another that would fund the rest of the government until the fall.

I’m tempted to grouse about the reporter’s bizarre claim of “political disaster” for the GOP. After all, the recent mid-term elections were a huge victory for Republicans.

But let’s instead focus on the idea of having two spending bills, one that funds 99 percent of the government, presumably without controversy, and one that funds – with controversial restrictions – the relatively tiny parts of government that deal with immigration enforcement.

The story continues, pointing out that some sort of fight is inevitable.

…what exactly Republicans can do outside of the funding process to stop Obama remains an open question. Even if they had enough votes to pass a stand-alone bill, it would almost certainly be vetoed by Obama — and the GOP would likely lack the votes to overturn it.

So does this mean part of the immigration bureaucracy would be shut down for the rest of the fiscal year?

Presumably not, though it’s unclear whether Obama or Congress would have any incentive to compromise and strike a deal.

Regardless, some pundits like this potential strategy for the GOP. Ramesh Ponnuru, writing for Bloomberg, thinks it puts pressure on the Democrats.

Why not try to pass a funding bill that pays for all of the operations of the federal government except for Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency in the Homeland Security Department that would carry out Obama’s order? They could then try to pass another bill that just funds that agency — but with a restriction saying no money can be used for the president’s amnesty. What would the Democrats do then? If they block a big funding bill that has nothing to do with immigration over the issue, it becomes hard to deny that they’re the ones shutting down the government to get their way. If they don’t block it, they’ll have no government shutdown to complain about — and the parties could move on to a more narrowly focused fight about the immigration budget.

And in a column for the Washington Examiner, Byron York also seems favorable toward the strategy.

…in January, with the GOP in control — and, presumably, Obama’s edict in hand — Republicans will work on crafting a new spending measure that funds the entire government, with the exception of the particular federal offices that will do the specific work of enforcing Obama’s order.

Byron assumes that Obama will sign the big bill that funds almost everything and then fight about the mini-bill funding the small part of the Department of Homeland Security that deals with immigration enforcement.

…the president will veto it. At that point, a shutdown battle could occur — but it would be a battle over shutting down the small part of the federal government tasked with enforcing the immigration order. Everything else would remain up and running.

So is this a successful approach, one that not only can derail Obama’s executive amnesty but also could be used for next year’s fiscal battles?

I’m not as confident as Ramesh and Byron for the simple reason that (if he asked me) I would tell Obama to veto the bill that funds 99 percent of the government and justify his actions by stating that he “won’t be blackmailed” by Congress.

Ramesh correctly points out in his column that the resulting shutdown won’t be the fault of Republicans, but will that be apparent to voters? Particularly in the midst of a battle when the establishment press will be acting as an echo chamber for White House talking points?

Maybe I’m wrong, but a government-wide shutdown seems like the most effective strategy for Obama. He won’t be asking my opinion, of course, but I’m sure he has plenty of advisers who would reach the same conclusion about how to proceed.

Which means that Republicans ultimately will have to decide whether they have any policy preferences that are sufficiently important that they’re willing to fight for them even if Obama forces a shutdown.

It’s a judgement call, and here are two examples to illustrate why you shouldn’t tilt at windmills and launch suicide missions, but also why you shouldn’t unilaterally disarm.

Example #1: The Department of Education should be abolished, a goal that theoretically could be largely achieved by not appropriating any funds when spending bills are put together in 2016, though it certainly would lead to a shutdown fight beginning about one month before the presidential election.

Example #2: The debt limit fight of 2011 produced some much-needed spending caps and sequester enforcement, but the White House is very opposed and may be so committed to undoing those policies and expanding the size of government that it forces a shutdown fight next year.

Looking at these options, even a curmudgeonly libertarian such as myself won’t be urging lawmakers to have the shutdown fight in Example #1.

However, I’m hoping that establishment GOPers will show a similar blend of principle and pragmatism by being willing to have the fight with Obama outlined in Example #2.

*Spending bills (known as appropriations bills inside the beltway) technically are not supposed to include the types of policy changes used in my examples, but Obama could say he won’t sign a spending bill if there isn’t accompanying legislation to accomplish one of more of the listed objectives. Or he could even demand that a spending bill include language stating that a certain amount of money should be dedicated to a particular bureaucracy for purposes of achieving a specific policy.

**One surreal part of this debate is that “shutdown” is a somewhat misleading term since most of the government (the military, air traffic control, etc) actually continues to operate.

P.S. I’ve already shared some amusing video, commentary, and cartoons about “Grubergate.”

Well the folks at American Commitment have put together a highlight video for your enjoyment.

And here are some Grubergate cartoons. We’ll start with one from Robert Gorrell.

Michael Ramirez is in fine form as usual.

Here’s one from Dana Summers.

Eric Allie has an amusing addition to our collection.

Henry Payne also gets in a good jab.

Last but not least, Chip Bok nicely captures the attitude of Washington DC.

These are all funny cartoons, but you know who’s laughing the hardest right now?

The answer is Jonathan Gruber, because he got about $6 million of our money as part of insider contracts from government.

In other words, I wasn’t kidding when I wrote that Obamacare is a get-rich-quick scheme for the political elite.

Just another example of how big government enables sleazy corruption.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: