The Homeland Security Impasse

 Minnesota's Mall of America was named this past weekend as a possible target of a terrorist attack in a one-hour video released by the militant Somali group al-Shabaab.   Concern about such an attack could not be higher, especially following on the heels of terrorist attacks in France and Denmark.  But that has not deterred congressional Republicans from playing games with America's security.

Republicans promised things would get better if they were put in charge of Congress.  Yet, due to a lack of leadership and seemingly irresolvable differences among their members, they are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is set to run out this Friday. 

What kind of game is this?  Well, House Republicans, unhappy with President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration, have attached an amendment to the DHS funding bill that would stop the president's immigration action, which they consider illegal.  The strategy was to have the DHS funding bill pass with the immigration amendment attached.  If the president subsequently vetoed the measure he would be attacked for failing to protect the nation. 

But the Republican measure has not been able to clear the Senate because Republicans do not have enough votes to avoid a filibuster.   Democrats in Congress want a "clean bill" to fund DHS, one without any amendments.  Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.  If DHS funding runs out thousands of its employees will be furloughed, while 170,000 essential personal will have to work without pay.  "We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Monday evening, "We cannot shut down the Department of Homeland Security." 

With Republicans facing increased criticism and blame for the impasse, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed an alternative strategy.  He would allow a clean vote on the DHS funding bill, which is for one year, and then have a separate vote on a bill that would stop President Obama's executive actions on immigration.  His goal would be to make Democrats, who did not favor the president's executive action, have to vote on the record.

But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was more concerned that House Republicans would not go along with the proposal.  This is because House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) cannot control his own caucus.  And, sure enough, with McConnell's proposal only hours old, conservative House members spoke out against the gambit.   Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) issued a statement saying, "The Senate Majority Leader’s plan to divorce the funding bill from the unlawful actions it is restricting is tantamount to surrender, and won’t meet with support in the People’s House."

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the man responsible for the 2013 government shutdown, issued a statement of his own.   "Leadership's current plan -- to pass clean DHS funding and separate legislation barring executive amnesty -- is a mistake," Cruz said. "Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama's lawlessness, and that includes both our confirmation authority over nominees and the power of the purse."

Last week a Texas federal judge halted implementation of the president's executive order on immigration.  The case is likely to take some time to work its way through the courts.  This has led many observers to wonder why Republicans just don't go ahead with a clean DHS funding bill and let the courts deal with the legality of the president's action on immigration.  

That would seem like common sense, especially considering the increased terrorist threats.  But common sense does not apply in Washington, least of all for congressional Republicans. 

The 2014 Midterm Elections

With less than 10 weeks to go before the midterm Congressional elections Americans in general are frustrated with Washington.  National polls show that about three quarters of all Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job.  By comparison, about half of those Americans polled disapprove of President Barack Obama's handling of his job. 

Sunday's New York Post reported that 163 laws have been passed and signed by the president since this two-year term of Congress began in January 2013.  That is far lower than the 284 laws that were passed by the 2011-2013 session, which is an all time record for fewest bills passed.  Congress passed 386 laws during the 2009-2011 session.   Former Representative Lee Hamilton (R-IN) told the Post, "I've never seen it any worse in terms of public esteem for the Congress.  I can't find anybody who says a good word about it."

Despite Congress's lack of productivity, and as outrageous as it may seem, it appears that most incumbents will be reelected in November.   Conventional wisdom is that while most Americans want to get rid of Congress, they nonetheless support their own representative.  This is especially true during midterm elections because voter turnout is often very low, which gives incumbents an advantage.  But both parties are leaving nothing to chance, as a record amount of campaign dollars will be poured into this election, surpassing the $3.6 billion spent in 2010.   

Republicans currently hold a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, 233-199; there are three vacant seats.  The GOP expects to expand its majority in the House.  Meanwhile, Democrats currently hold a majority in the Senate.  But of the 36 Senate seats in play, 21 of them held by Democrats, while 15 are held by Republicans.  If the GOP picks up six Senate seats this midterm they will be in the majority in both houses of Congress.  Most experts, including Nate Silver, of the election site FiveThirtyEight, give Republicans a slight edge to take those seats and become the majority party in the Senate.  

The Republicans are targeting the seven Democratic seats that are up in states where Mitt Romney beat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.  They are also going after four additional Democratic seats in states where the president remains unpopular.  Republicans will do all they can to make this election about President Obama's unpopularity. 

Domestically the president has been attacked for executive actions he has taken to bypass the blockade that Congress has become.  For example, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who himself has presidential aspirations, has regularly attacked the president, telling Fox News "He believes somehow that he's become a monarch or an emperor that can basically ignore the law and do whatever he wants."  On the other hand, Republicans have attacked President Obama for being disengaged and "leading from behind" on foreign policy.  The president's recent comment the he does not have a strategy on dealing with ISIS in Syria was seized upon by Republicans.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), said on CBS Sunday,  "What I want to hear from the president is that he has a strategy to finish ISIS off, to defeat ISIS."

Congressional and Senate Democratic candidates have tried to localize their elections, but Republicans are focusing on President Obama in an effort to energize their base.  So Democrats are trying to mobilize minority voters,  especially African-Americans, who generally don't vote in midterms.  Party activists are using the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., and conservative calls to impeach the president, to mobilize Blacks.  An increase in the number of Southern Blacks helped Democrats during the 1998 midterm election, when President Bill Clinton was under heavy fire from the right.

Ironically, the one Republican Senator who is in the toughest fight to be reelected is the man who has the most to gain if Republicans win majority control.  Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate minority leader, has done all he can to obstruct and block the agenda of President Obama since the day he was sworn in to office in 2009.  McConnell is facing a vigorous challenge from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.  McConnell is not popular in Kentucky, but a recent state poll shows he has the edge.  Lundergan Grimes is making McConnell's failings in Congress the issue.  But McConnell is tying his opponent to President Obama.  

Should Republicans take control of both houses the legislative process will grind to a halt.  Anything the Republicans pass, like efforts to defund Obamacare, will be vetoed by the president.  Meanwhile, congressional investigations into the so-called scandals surrounding the IRS and Benghazi will intensify.  The partisan divide will widen as Republicans try to score points before the 2016 Presidential Elections.   

Because so much is at stake, this coming election day is not a time for eligible voters to stay home.

Republican Deaf Ears

Much of the country kicked off the New Year with heavy snowstorms followed by a blast of frigid cold temperatures.   But for 1.3 million Americans, whose unemployment checks have been cut off, this may be the coldest winter of all.

Congress returns on Monday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he will schedule a vote on extending unemployment benefits.  But the outcome is uncertain.  Many Republicans in both houses of Congress are opposed to extending benefits; especially those in the GOP controlled House of Representatives.   One administration official predicted Wednesday that failure to extend emergency unemployment insurance through 2014 will have a negative impact on 14 million Americans.   It will also have an adverse effect on the nation's slowly recovering economy because those affected will not be able to buy food and supplies.

Republicans, led by their Tea Party wing, have staked out a series of positions that, when viewed on whole, may leave them vulnerable in future elections.  The president has proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, which one recent study says will lift 5 million people out of poverty.  Republicans argue against such a move because they believe it is inflationary and it will end up costing jobs.

Congressional Republicans are also sparring with Democrats over their desire to reign in food stamps, citing cost, fraud and abuse.  But a recent statistical report released by the Department of Agriculture shows that the amount of food stamps given out in error is at an all time low, about 3%.  In 2000 the error rate was nearly 9%.

On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down a Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug testing.  Republican Governor Rick Scott campaigned on the issue, and got the law enacted, arguing that it would ensure tax money was not going to illegal drugs.  A subsequent state study found that only 108 out of 4,086 people tested, 2.6%, were using narcotics.  The state records show that the program was costing more than it was saving.  Yet several other Republican dominated states have enacted a similar law, and Governor Scott has said the state will appeal the ruling.

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, has been under attack from Republicans since it before it became law.  House Republicans have voted nearly 50 times to repeal the law.  The ACA, which got off to a terrible start due to problems with the federal website, provides many benefits.  It requires insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions, it ends lifetime or yearly caps on coverage, it makes it illegal for insurers to drop someone because they get sick, and it extends coverage to children under 26.   Most importantly, it gives 40 million uninsured Americans access to health care coverage, and it has already reduced the soaring growth of health care costs.  Yet Republicans do not have a plan to replace any of these benefits should their repeal efforts actually become successful.

Conservative Republicans are opposed to meaningful immigration reform.   There are now more than 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.  Hispanics and other minorities, who largely vote for Democrats, have been pushing for legislation to no avail.  Meanwhile, many Republican controlled states have enacted tough voter identification laws, citing massive voter fraud.   But the reported incidents of voter fraud in these states are actually minuscule.  Yet these laws fall disproportionately hard on minorities and the elderly, groups that vote for Democrats.

Following President Barack Obama's reelection and important Republican Congressional loses in the 2012 national elections, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus released an autopsy report assessing the reasons for the party's poor performance.  The findings were blunt.  At one point the report says the voters believe that "the GOP does not care about them and is doing great harm."  

It appears that the report has fallen on deaf ears.

 

Obama's Syrian Decision

As President Obama tries to rally support for a strike against Syria, he finds himself in a high stakes diplomatic chess match with no good outcome in sight.  Mr. Obama's stand on principle for the prohibition of chemical weapons use and the maintenance of international norms puts at risk the future of his presidency and his legacy.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless dictator determined to destroy his opposition using every weapon in his arsenal.  On Wednesday the New York Times said of Assad, "behind the veneer of normality, Mr. Assad has grown increasingly aggressive, declaring his determination to wipe out the opposition, insisting that he is standing against an imperialist enemy."

Syria's civil war has left more than 100 thousand civilians dead in that country.  Two million war refugees have fled to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and about five million Syrians have had to flee their homes.  Meanwhile, Assad has been able to turn the tide of momentum to his favor.  His opposition is made up of a myriad of groups with differing ideologies and competing goals, which has made it difficult for America to provide military support.  So rebel fighters are inadequately trained and poorly armed. 

Perhaps emboldened by his improving position, Assad has resorted to chemical weapons to kill and demoralize his opponents.  The United States has overwhelming and convincing evidence that he is behind the attack two weeks ago, which killed more than a thousand civilians, including several hundred children. 

One year ago President Obama told a news conference, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."  He concluded, “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”  He did not specify any consequences at that news conference.

This past Saturday, the president announced he had decided on the consequences.  “After careful deliberation I have decided the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Mr. Obama said.  But he added that he would seek Congress's approval, even though he did not need to do so. 

The president and key members of his administration have "flooded the zone" in search of congressional support, as well as the support of key allies.  In a series of hearings, Secretary of Sate John Kerry has stressed that military action would not be directed a regime change, it would not be an open-ended intervention, nor would America put "boots on the ground" in Syria. 

But the administration has to overcome great skepticism for its case from a congress that was burned ten years earlier by false evidence of weapons of mass destruction from President George W. Bush's administration as justification for invading Iraq.  Meanwhile, according to recent polls, a war-weary American public is opposed to any military action against Syria.

There are no good options for the president.  Failure to attack Syria will only further embolden Assad who will continue to massacre his own civilians, and it will spur Iran to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons.  Worse, it will weaken America's standing in the world, at a time that Russia and China are expanding their ambitions.

On the other hand, a "limited" attack, which the president proposes, is unlikely to be effective in significantly degrading and deterring Syria's weapon's stockpile, much of which is hidden among civilians, or deter Assad from using them again and again if he becomes desperate.  An American attack is certain to result in civilian casualties, set off a wave of terrorist strikes against Western nations and Syria's neighbors, and further demonize the U.S. among some people in the region.
 
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved, by a 10-to-7 bipartisan vote, a resolution that would limit military strikes against the Syrian government to a 60-day window, with the possibility of a 30-day extension, and it would specifically block the use of ground troops.  The full Senate is expected to take up the measure early next week.  The prospects for success in the House of Representatives are uncertain.  If Congress fails to pass the measure it would be seen as a huge international embarrassment for the president.  

So momentum appears to be slowly building on Capitol Hill for support of military action against Assad's government, in part because it is the best choice from several bad options.  If an attack is approved and carried out by American forces, many nations may not like it.  But they will recognize that America, led by President Obama, has stood on a fundamental principle for the good of humanity. 

Growing Republican Irrelevance

The Republican Party's refusal to accept the fact that the United States is evolving socially and demographically will drive the party to irrelevance on the national political scene.    

The debate over immigration reform is the latest example of how the party is seems to be out of step with the nation.  Hispanics make up the largest minority in America.  They voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, by a margin of 71% to 27% for Governor Mitt Romney.  In 2012, Asians became the fastest growing minority population in the U.S., edging out Hispanics.   President Obama also got 71% of the Asian vote last November.

While only 39% of the white vote went for President Obama in 2012, the white population is declining as a share of the country's total population.  The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that whites will become the minority by 2043.    

There are currently more than 50 million Hispanics in the United States.  According to the Census Bureau, that number will grow to 132 million by 2050, or about 30% of the projected U.S. population.  

Faced with the stark reality of these numbers, many leading Republicans have spoken out in favor of immigration reform.  Earlier this week, former President George W. Bush said, “I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate.”  He added, "At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation.”  Bush's relatively strong showing among Hispanic voters in 2004, about 44%, helped him win reelection.  

But many Republicans in the House of Representatives don't care; especially those who occupy gerrymandered districts with small minority populations.  None has been more outspoken that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).  Speaking of the Senate's comprehensive immigration plan, he said, “It would hurt Republicans, and I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise.”  Why?  “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats,” he said.  

King's candid reasoning is exactly why House Republicans are trying to kill immigration reform. Instead, they are proposing a piecemeal approach to immigration that will leave out a pathway to citizenship.  Their first priority is securing the border because there has been a recent increase in illegal immigration in some Southwestern states.

There are 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.   The Senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes a "border surge" to secure the Southwest border with Mexico, would decrease illegal immigration by up to 50% according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The CBO further projected that the bill would cut federal deficits by $158 billion over the first ten years after enactment.

It would seem that the Senate bill would at least be worthy of consideration by the House.  But House Speaker John Boehner refuses to do so citing the Hastert rule, which means a majority of the majority House Republicans must agree.  So the Senate bill appears dead.

Following the Republican's disappointing results in the 2012 elections, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, "When Republicans lost in November, it was a wakeup call."  He issued a report that included the following recommendation: "We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only." 

Apparently House Republicans didn't get the message.  

Stalemate Standoff

President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner held dueling prime time addresses to the nation and even disagreed on whether there was a stalemate over the debt ceiling. That is the problem in a nutshell.

President Obama, for the most part, was cordial while speaking from the White House East Room. He laid out the debt ceiling crisis facing our nation's economy and called for compromise and a balanced approach. His position is to take on government deficit spending through budget cuts and some increased revenues.

But Republicans have adamantly refused to raise revenues. "Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach," President Obama said. He pointed out that there is a lot at stake, "If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses."

For his part, Speaker Boehner was partisan and forceful in his remarks from his ceremonial Capitol Hill office. "The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today," Boehner said. "That is just not going to happen."

Six months ago the president wanted a clean extension of the debt ceiling. But Republicans and some conservative critics refused saying that passage must be linked to cuts in future government spending. The debt ceiling is now $14.3 billion dollars, so 40 cents of every tax dollar collected goes to service the debt.

Just a decade ago the U.S. government had a surplus. But President George W. Bush enacted huge tax cuts, including for wealthy Americans, initiated two costly wars, and passed a huge prescription drug program that were all unfunded. The recession, which increased costs and decreased revenues due to high unemployment, added to the red ink.

In the face of GOP resistance to pass a clean debt ceiling bill, the president then shifted his position by agreeing to consider cuts, including in entitlement programs, as long as some revenues were included. Revenues would come from closing tax loopholes and placing more of a burden on the nation's wealthiest income earners. Progressive Democrats howled over possible cuts in entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But Tea Party Republicans howled over any possible revenue increases.

At one point last week the two sides were close to a deal, with Speaker Boehner apparently agreeing to $800 billion in revenues. But when the president asked for $400 billion more in revenues Speaker Boehner broke off talks with the White House. Instead, House Republicans worked over the weekend to craft their own proposal, which calls for a two-step plan for $2.5 trillion in budget cuts with another debt ceiling vote in six months contingent on Congress agreeing to further deep budget cuts. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats crafted their own proposal which calls for $4 trillion in cuts over the next ten years, no revenue increases and extension of the debt ceiling until after the 2012 presidential election.

Of course, President Obama opposes the latest Republican proposal because it has no revenues and would mean the government would face another budget crisis early next year--before the 2012 presidential election. And there is a report that the Boehner proposal would lead to a downgrade in America's credit. Meanwhile, Republicans oppose Reid's proposal because they say it relies heavily on gimmicks. Stalemate anyone?

In his speech Monday night the president decried the "partisan three-ring circus" in the nation's capital. He said, "The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government." He even cited the fact that Republican icon President Ronald raised the debt limit eighteen times during his presidency, and President George W. Bush did so seven times.

President Barack Obama has made major concessions throughout the negotiations. And Senate Leader Reid has now made a major concession on revenues in his latest proposal, which the president today indicated he will support. But Republicans are likely to hold their ground against the Reid bill, even though failure to past the debt ceiling may have devastating consequences on the already struggling U.S. economy.

President Obama called the crisis a stalemate. Speaker Boehner said there is no stalemate because Republicans have a plan. Perhaps Republicans are counting on failure to pass the debt ceiling as the best way to assure President Barack Obama will be a one-term president.