GOP Fractured by DHS funding issue

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by hulugu, Mar 1, 2015.

  1. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #1
    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.

     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    Am I the only one that thinks the DHS should be shut down. Just more government bloat that really serves no real purpose.
     
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #4
    I think this about sums it up:
     
  5. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    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.
     
  6. sodapop1, Mar 3, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015

    sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #6
    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
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    Trying to tie the two issues together (funding with executive actions) is just more GOP stupidity. Stupid is as stupid does, right Forrest? :)
     
  9. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    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.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    If he would actually stand up to the 50 Tea Baggers, we could get some **** done, bipartisanly. (I think I made up that word)
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    At least that word would have meaning.. "misunderestimated", on the other hand... :rolleyes:

    BL.
     
  12. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #12
    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.
     
  13. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #13
    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.
     
  14. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #14
    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.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    Washington has been broken for a long time and it doesn't matter who is in charge nothing is fixing the old junked car.
     
  16. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #16
    DHS can't get funded...Yeah, not shedding any tears over this...
     
  17. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    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.


    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.

    I agree. But, the GOP can't really defund the President's actions. Instead, they should submit an actual immigration bill.

    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

    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 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.
     
  18. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #18
    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
     
  19. hulugu thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    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?
     
  21. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #21
    Oops. I meant midterms, not primaries.

    P-Worm
     

Share This Page