Most issues, though
sometimes controversial, are fairly simple, and this is true of the
two I am forced to discuss in unfortunate combination, making them
complicated.
It’s important for
everyone to understand why Republicans are being attacked for having
resisted the federal budget item that contains this combination:
Homeland Security. As
titled, this issue isn’t controversial, except for the usual safe
assumptions that waste and inefficiency can be found in any
government agency. We all want our homeland to be secure.
It’s important to know
that homeland security did not go unfunded, even as this week’s
debate continued: The country uses prior levels of expenditure and
money moved around in the operating budget to fund essential
services. Regardless, it doesn’t need more of the second issue:
Illegal immigration. Much
of the media insists on calling it merely “immigration,” though the
issue is only illegal entry into the country. President Obama wants
to shield millions of illegal immigrants from the threat of
deportation. Very controversial, though I’m still asking the simple
question: What part of illegal don’t you understand?
What possible sense does
it make to combine these two issues in one budget item? It has
always been understood that any country, to be secure, must have
secure borders: therefore illegal immigration is a threat to
homeland security.
So this week’s “big deal”
political situation began when President Obama created what
constitutionalists consider an illegal executive order to reward
some illegal immigrants with permission to stay here and be given
taxpayer-funded benefits, without a direct vote of Congress. Funding
for his executive order resides in the Homeland Security section of
his budget, a common political ploy to get something controversial
by combining it with something that’s not.
Republicans, who now have
a majority in both the House and the Senate, resisted funding this
until the president removed the offending section. The president,
Democrats and liberal media attacked, saying Republicans want to
“shut down the government” again.
Many Republican leaders
fear this accusation because of an October 2013 budget debate for
which they were criticized. Tea party Republicans were keeping their
campaign promise to defund ObamaCare before it could fully kick in,
but because Republicans had a majority in only the House, they
couldn’t get support from the Democrat-controlled Senate. During the
debate, the government “shut down” (operated without a new budget),
though most of us didn’t notice. Nevertheless, until the Democrats
got their way, the Republicans were blamed for whatever went wrong
in the universe.
As it turned out, this
didn’t hurt them in the next election, when they attained a majority
in the Senate, with 54 of the 100 members. Keep in mind, though,
that a Senate majority isn’t the same as a House majority, because
of the Senate rule that requires 60, not 51, votes for some
procedures.
Also keep in mind that
winning in 2014 was much easier for Republicans than winning will be
in 2016, as presidential elections bring out more voters who aren’t
paying close attention to issues and their unintended consequences.
So Republicans this week
are divided into two camps: those terrified of being accused of
“shutting down the government,” which polls show is an unpopular
concept, and those who figure they’re going to be accused of this
anytime they try to fix said government, so might as well do the
right thing and hope for the best politically.
The latter group includes
tea party members, who ran on fixing things; the 50 or so in the
House make it hard for Speaker Boehner, who seems more concerned
about the possibly bad electoral consequences of holding out for the
right thing.
Last fall, the Republicans
claimed a strategy to fund the new federal budget except Homeland
Security with its illegal immigrant amnesty: They decided to hold
that section for later (February 2015), then have a debate about
these two issues separate from the rest of the budget. They thought
that when voters saw the wrongness of combining security with
illegality, they would support Republican attempts to remove the
illegal immigrant sections.
Instead, Obama, other
Democrats (and much media commentary) have defined the terms of the
debate with a new phrase: “a clean bill.” Now, you’d think a “clean
bill” would deal with just the main issue, homeland security; but
what you hear everywhere during this debate is a “clean bill” is one
that combines the two issues: a not-clean (dirty?) bill has
amendments to remove the illegal immigrant language.
So, Republicans who vote
against Obama’s “clean bill” are accused of voting to “shut down the
government,” or at least the part that defends us from terrorists
blowing up a local mall, while Democrats who vote for the “clean
bill” adopt Homeland Security funding with language that rewards
illegal entrance into the country. Following this?
Republicans remain divided
between responsible tea party members and those who want them to
just give in, allow Obamacare and illegal immigration to be funded
now, hoping to fix them later when Obama is gone and a fiscally
responsible Republican president has taken his place.
Only problem with this is
that in two years, it might be too late to reverse the effects of
Obamacare and millions more illegal immigrants getting government
benefits and therefore, Democrats hope, voting Democrat as soon as
they become citizens, for the rest of their grateful needy lives.
Well, the Republicans
caved and Congress just voted for a “clean bill” that encourages
illegal immigration as well as probably illegal presidential
actions. Some Republicans argue that a recent decision by a Texas
judge to stop Obama’s order ending deportation of illegal immigrants
(he wants us to call them “citizens in waiting”) already solved the
problem. Others say we can’t depend on winning the Obama
administration’s appeal of this ruling and should have done the
right thing, no matter what the electoral cost. I’ve also heard a
persuasive argument that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
could have simply changed the rules to allow only 51 votes to pass
the Republican position, the way the Democrats changed the rules to
pass Obamacare with no help from Republicans.
I think all Republicans
need to understand that they all want the same thing: the right
thing. They should stop attacking each other while they work out a
strategy that will help voters understand that they are trying to
save America, for us and for those potential American citizens who
wait to come here legally.
Barbara Anderson of
Marblehead is president of Citizens for Limited Taxation and a Salem
News columnist.
