GOP Fractured by DHS funding issue

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
With just two hours ago, the House narrowly avoided shutting down the agency and forcing 85 percent of its employees to work without pay and managed to kick the can down the road for one week.

This was several hours after an effort to grant a three-week extension blew up as Congressional Democrats and hard-nosed Republicans voted against the bill. Democrats because they want a full-year funding bill and Republicans who were unwilling to compromise in their aim of defunding the President's executive actions on immigration.

As Politico explains, this was a battle without a plan and its shows an increasing schism inside the GOP-led House.

...Immigration was not part of the plan. But it has become the party’s fixation and potentially its undoing as it struggles for a way out of a crisis of its own making.
In multiple interviews in recent days with party leaders and senior aides, it’s clear the GOP had no real strategy to successfully end the party’s first major standoff with Obama since taking power in January.

Republicans had hoped pressure would build on recalcitrant Senate Democrats to ultimately rebel against Obama and force him to capitulate — or at least prompt them to negotiate a compromise. That didn’t happen. They had hoped more public attention to the issue might be spawned by a new outside event, such as more migrant children appearing at the southern border. That didn’t happen. And they had hoped that more time would give their party a fresh opportunity to settle on a coordinated and coherent legislative response to the president. But that certainly didn’t happen.

“Never go into these things without a plan,” said one senior GOP senator.
...Boehner thought that McConnell and his leadership team would be able to get a DHS funding bill with immigration restrictions to Obama’s desk, where it would be met by a veto pen. Then Congress would be able to pass something more moderate, according to multiple sources. Even Cornyn thought that Senate Democrats would let debate begin on the House-passed DHS bill, paving the way for a compromise. But instead, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) caucus filibustered the House plan on four separate occasions.
...On Friday, the dysfunction reached a climax, when 52 Republicans revolted and joined 172 House Democrats to kill a three-week stop-gap resolution backed by Boehner and House leaders. The breakaway group within Boehner’s party was double the number who had voted against him for speaker in early January.

As grim-faced House GOP leaders walked off the floor Friday evening, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) answered with a terse “Yeah” to a question about whether the defeat was a humiliation for the party’s leadership. Meanwhile, over in the Cannon Office building, a band of conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus were celebrating over alcoholic beverages, sushi and cheese pizza.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,544
7,802
CT
Am I the only one that thinks the DHS should be shut down. Just more government bloat that really serves no real purpose.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
The DHS is nothing but a gigantic, ponderous bureaucracy. I'd like to see a single example of DHS preventing a terrorist attack on the homeland.

All the functions of the DHS could be performed better (and cheaper) by independent agencies.
 

Robisan

macrumors 6502
Jan 19, 2014
337
2,035
I think this about sums it up:
Republicans suddenly don't care about homeland security

After years of screaming about Democrats wanting to let terrorists destroy America, it's amazing how blasé they've suddenly become about those dangers. And all because they've decided that the even bigger threat to America is the immigrant parents of American children.

It really is that simple...

~~~

Nice turnaround, from the party that once morphed Democratic Sen. Max Cleland into Osama Bin Laden. The party that pretends to be obsessed with defending our country has decided that [expletive deleted] it, it's more important to tear immigrant families apart, even those of United States citizen children.

Because hatred toward certain families now trumps supposed hatred against terrorism.

Yup, that's your modern GOP at work.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
The DHS is nothing but a gigantic, ponderous bureaucracy. I'd like to see a single example of DHS preventing a terrorist attack on the homeland.

All the functions of the DHS could be performed better (and cheaper) by independent agencies.
I'm not sure this is true. The agencies under the DHS umbrella are largely independent still—Border Patrol demanded their independence before the department was created and retained it down to the color of their uniforms.

The department's HQ is not that large and while it's A&O center is redundant since HSI, USCG, and BP have their own, it's also rather small.

I'm also a little worried that the NPPD and a few small agencies would get short shift without being held under a larger umbrella.

And, DHS spends a lot of time talking about terrorism because that's where all the big sexy money is, but the agency also deals with disasters with FEMA, drug interdiction with USCG and CBP, and immigration: USCIS, CBP, ICE.

To some extent, separating DHS into a couple of smaller, more directed agencies would make sense but it also creates the kind of operational schisms that DHS was supposed to solve.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
Looks like Boehner is finally coming to terms with reality and plans to call the House to vote on a clean DHS funding bill. Now, let's hope we have more sane reps than crazy ones. :D
 
Last edited:

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I guess this was the 'Republican will show you how they govern' when they take control of Congress posts we were treated to last November.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,066
16,583
The Misty Mountains
Looks like Boehner is finally coming to terms with reality and plans to call the House to vote on a clean DHS funding bill. Now, let's hope we have more sane reps than crazy ones. :D
I guess this was the 'Republican will show you how they govern' when they take control of Congress posts we were treated to last November.
Trying to tie the two issues together (funding with executive actions) is just more GOP stupidity. Stupid is as stupid does, right Forrest? :)
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
I guess this was the 'Republican will show you how they govern' when they take control of Congress posts we were treated to last November.
Totally, what a disaster for the GOP.

The House Republicans have shown that given the opportunity they will not hesitate to create another crisis.

Boehner has shown he can't control the rabble and whip votes. I wonder what Johnson will say this evening.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Totally, what a disaster for the GOP.

The House Republicans have shown that given the opportunity they will not hesitate to create another crisis.

Boehner has shown he can't control the rabble and whip votes. I wonder what Johnson will say this evening.

If he would actually stand up to the 50 Tea Baggers, we could get some **** done, bipartisanly. (I think I made up that word)
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
If he would actually stand up to the 50 Tea Baggers, we could get some **** done, bipartisanly. (I think I made up that word)
At least that word would have meaning.. "misunderestimated", on the other hand... :rolleyes:

BL.
 

dsnort

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2006
1,904
68
In persona non grata
Looks like Boehner is finally coming to terms with reality and plans to call the House to vote on a clean DHS funding bill. Now, let's hope we have more sane reps than crazy ones. :D
I object to the characterization of this as a "clean bill". A bill that funds what you said you believe to be an unconstitutional action is not "clean", it's dirty. Used in this context "clean bill" is just a democratic dog whistle for a bill that contains everything they want, and nothing they don't.

I guess this was the 'Republican will show you how they govern' when they take control of Congress posts we were treated to last November.
If you look at the results of this, it's obvious that Boehner and McConnell aren't in control, they're the Dems bitches. There is now no force except the courts to check executive power, congress is irrelevant . Right now this is pleasing to Lib types, as the current president wants to do things they support, but that may not always be the case. ( Three phrases: prosecutorial discretion, marriage equality, President Rick Santorum. Scared yet?)

Trying to tie the two issues together (funding with executive actions) is just more GOP stupidity. Stupid is as stupid does, right Forrest? :)
The power of the purse is congresses most important tool to curb executive branch excesses. It's called checks and balances. I think Forrest would have known that.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
I object to the characterization of this as a "clean bill". A bill that funds what you said you believe to be an unconstitutional action is not "clean", it's dirty. Used in this context "clean bill" is just a democratic dog whistle for a bill that contains everything they want, and nothing they don't.



If you look at the results of this, it's obvious that Boehner and McConnell aren't in control, they're the Dems bitches. There is now no force except the courts to check executive power, congress is irrelevant . Right now this is pleasing to Lib types, as the current president wants to do things they support, but that may not always be the case. ( Three phrases: prosecutorial discretion, marriage equality, President Rick Santorum. Scared yet?)



The power of the purse is congresses most important tool to curb executive branch excesses. It's called checks and balances. I think Forrest would have known that.
What is unconstitutional are the continuous voter suppression efforts of the Republican party. Enough of these stupid government shutdowns games. Republicans are acting like a bunch of whiny kids throwing a tantrum. If you want to have influence over policy, you will need to win the presidency and that means you need to stop trying to nominate clowns like Rick Santorum.
 

dsnort

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2006
1,904
68
In persona non grata
What is unconstitutional are the continuous voter suppression efforts of the Republican party.
Thats a straw man. Voter suppression is not the topic here. If you would like to start a thread on voter suppression, and list what you think is compelling evidence of such, I will post there if I think I have anything to add.

Enough of these stupid government shutdowns games. Republicans are acting like a bunch of whiny kids throwing a tantrum.
A bill was passed in the house to fund DHS. Senate Democrats blocked efforts to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate because it contained things they didn't like, ( and as political cover for President Obama to prevent him from having to veto a bill that reversed an action he said 22 times he didn't have the authority to take).

It takes both parties being intransigent to shut down the government. The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to shut it down if they think they will gain politically by seeing the Republicans blamed for it. Thats playing games with our country for political gain. Thats childish.

If you want to have influence over policy, you will need to win the presidency and that means you need to stop trying to nominate clowns like Rick Santorum.
If you are correct, and the only way to effect policy is to win the presidency, then you have proved one of my points; congress is now irrelevant. (Think of all the money we can save on salaries, elections, etc.).

It's not the way its supposed to work, and completely subverts the institutions of our government, but hey, as long as no one who disagrees with you ever gets elected president, you might be okay.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,544
7,802
CT
Thats a straw man. Voter suppression is not the topic here. If you would like to start a thread on voter suppression, and list what you think is compelling evidence of such, I will post there if I think I have anything to add.



A bill was passed in the house to fund DHS. Senate Democrats blocked efforts to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate because it contained things they didn't like, ( and as political cover for President Obama to prevent him from having to veto a bill that reversed an action he said 22 times he didn't have the authority to take).

It takes both parties being intransigent to shut down the government. The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to shut it down if they think they will gain politically by seeing the Republicans blamed for it. Thats playing games with our country for political gain. Thats childish.



If you are correct, and the only way to effect policy is to win the presidency, then you have proved one of my points; congress is now irrelevant. (Think of all the money we can save on salaries, elections, etc.).

It's not the way its supposed to work, and completely subverts the institutions of our government, but hey, as long as no one who disagrees with you ever gets elected president, you might be okay.
Washington has been broken for a long time and it doesn't matter who is in charge nothing is fixing the old junked car.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
I object to the characterization of this as a "clean bill". A bill that funds what you said you believe to be an unconstitutional action is not "clean", it's dirty. Used in this context "clean bill" is just a democratic dog whistle for a bill that contains everything they want, and nothing they don't.
This is a weird subtextual argument. The bill is considered "clean" because it's a funding bill that just deals with funding and not a rider attacking the President's executive actions.

You could call it "smooth" or "unadorned" if you want, but clean makes a certain sense.

Moreover, it's important to note that defunding DHS wouldn't do anything to the President's actions because those are done by the fee-driven USCIS.


...If you look at the results of this, it's obvious that Boehner and McConnell aren't in control, they're the Dems bitches. There is now no force except the courts to check executive power, congress is irrelevant . Right now this is pleasing to Lib types, as the current president wants to do things they support, but that may not always be the case. ( Three phrases: prosecutorial discretion, marriage equality, President Rick Santorum. Scared yet?)
There's a tough argument here, but the reason that the GOP lost this is because of a fractious House. They can't keep it together.

As for the Santorum question, can you explain how prosecutorial discretion could be used in regard to marriage equality.

...The power of the purse is congresses most important tool to curb executive branch excesses. It's called checks and balances. I think Forrest would have known that.
I agree. But, the GOP can't really defund the President's actions. Instead, they should submit an actual immigration bill.

...
A bill was passed in the house to fund DHS. Senate Democrats blocked efforts to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate because it contained things they didn't like, ( and as political cover for President Obama to prevent him from having to veto a bill that reversed an action he said 22 times he didn't have the authority to take).
Well, they're allowed to do that. Keep in mind that the GOP sent up a bill with a "poison pill" that they knew couldn't pass either the Senate or the President's desk, so they're just as culpable for playing games with DHS funding

...It's not the way its supposed to work, and completely subverts the institutions of our government, but hey, as long as no one who disagrees with you ever gets elected president, you might be okay.
Again, Congress just has to pass actual immigration reform. They could have solved this issue nearly a year ago.

I disagree that this subverts the rule of law. Instead, the President used his power to exercise prosecutorial discretion to create deferred action—something already done and even encourage by earlier Congressionally-mandated laws. The President didn't create law out of whole cloth.

Ultimately, I think the President's structure is lousy. It's lousy for immigrants who are still dependent on what mood the local ICE officer is. It's lousy for ICE officers because they'll get blamed for every criminal who gets a bond and hammered for every father they send home. It's lousy for the President because it's temporary and it's lousy for Congress because it just shows, if you leave a rake in the yard, they will run right out and step on it.

DHS can't get funded...Yeah, not shedding any tears over this...
DHS was fully-funded until Sept. after Boehner caved and sent a "clean" bill to the Senate while Bibi got everyone excited. The President has signed it.
 

P-Worm

macrumors 68020
Jul 16, 2002
2,045
0
Salt Lake City, UT
I was actually very surprised when the bill ultimately passed and the DHS was not shut down. After the last shutdown, Republicans (rightly) took all the blame, but it didn't hurt them in the primaries one bit. I was afraid the new tactic would be to 'shutdown everything until we get our way' and I am glad to say I was mistaken.

P-Worm
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
I was actually very surprised when the bill ultimately passed and the DHS was not shut down. After the last shutdown, Republicans (rightly) took all the blame, but it didn't hurt them in the primaries one bit. I was afraid the new tactic would be to 'shutdown everything until we get our way' and I am glad to say I was mistaken.

P-Worm
Well, the bill passed in the House 257-167 and all of the nay votes were from Republicans.

Arizona Reps. broke almost entirely by party with the exception of freshman Rep. McSally who desperately wants to be seen as a moderate—which explains her earlier tap-dancing around the subject of DACA and funding for DHS.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
... After the last shutdown, Republicans (rightly) took all the blame, but it didn't hurt them in the primaries one bit....
That sounds pretty silly on the face of it. Why would actions by Republicans affect Republicans in primaries where Republicans run against other Republicans? Are you saying most of the incumbents did not get Tea-boned? Like, oh, Cantor?
 

P-Worm

macrumors 68020
Jul 16, 2002
2,045
0
Salt Lake City, UT
That sounds pretty silly on the face of it. Why would actions by Republicans affect Republicans in primaries where Republicans run against other Republicans? Are you saying most of the incumbents did not get Tea-boned? Like, oh, Cantor?
Oops. I meant midterms, not primaries.

P-Worm