Trump Sees DACA Deal As Win-Win

Chaos broke out last night after a dinner between President Trump and Democrat congressional leaders Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.). In the wake of Trump’s deal with Democrats on the debt ceiling, there were late-breaking reports that the three had reached an agreement to extend President Obama’s DACA program.

Fast forward a few hours to this morning and President Trump is denying almost everything. In a tweet, the president said, “No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote.”

The president continued, “The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.”

Then, in a third tweet, President Trump changes tacks. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?” he asks. “Really!” He continued in that vein in a fourth tweet, “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security”

Taken together, the tweets indicate that President Trump may not have a final agreement on an extension of DACA, but he wants one. Even though Trump ran his campaign as a hardliner on immigration, he gave several indications that he was not firmly committed to the issue.

In August 2016, three months before the election, there were reports that Trump was flip-flopping on immigration. He denied the charge, telling Fox News at the time, “We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm."

In December 2016, the president-elect directly addressed the “Dreamers” in his “Person of the Year” interview with Time magazine. “We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” he said. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”

The signs were there all along that President Trump would cut a deal. And there are benefits for the president if he does. Its unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, most Americans like DACA and don’t want to deport the Dreamers. For many people, how President Obama created the DACA program, usurping congressional legislative authority, is more of a problem that the program itself. And let’s be honest, many people don’t even care if Obama exceeded his executive authority to create the program. Recent polling shows that most Americans approve of DACA by double-digit margins. Even a third to a half of Republicans support continuing the program.

Not just any illegal immigrant is eligible for DACA. Candidates must have come to the country illegally or overstayed a visa when they were younger than 16 and have continuously resided in the United States since 2007. The must be in school, have a GED or high school diploma or have been honorably discharged from the US military. A felony or more than three misdemeanors is not allowed. Participants also had to pay $980 in initial fees and $465 for renewals, all for a program that did not give official legal status. Whatever DACA was, it was not amnesty. The prospect of prosecution and deportation was still there.

Most voters also approve of President Trump’s first deal with the Democrats. Rasmussen found that two-thirds of voters think it’s good for the country if Trump and the Democrats work together.

President Trump likely sees a DACA deal as a win-win. He can become more popular by reaching across the aisle to enact a policy that he likes anyway. From a pragmatic perspective, the Republicans have been unable to get anything done, so a pivot to the left makes sense.

Could Republicans block collaboration between Trump and the Democrats? Assuming the Democrats all vote together, in the Senate, a deal would need 13 Republican votes for cloture and three votes for passage. In the House, 23 Republican votes would be needed for a simple majority. Between Republican moderates who support DACA and Trump supporters who will follow the president’s lead, a Trump-Democrat deal would be hard to stop.

The problem with a nonideological president is that his principles and platform are not firmly grounded. If he wants to accomplish things – anything – and be popular, he won’t necessarily continue to dance with the voters who brought him to the Washington.

And what of the Trump base that voted for the Wall and deportation?

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,” Trump famously said of his base during the campaign.

His pivot on DACA may be about to put that theory to the test.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump flips on immigration

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Rumors are swirling that Donald Trump is prepared to reverse his stance on illegal immigration, the cornerstone of his campaign. The Trump campaign began last summer with rhetoric that focused heavily on Mexico and illegal immigration. Trump made his promise of a wall on the Mexican border the centerpiece of his campaign.

The rumors that Trump is flip-flopping on immigration began Saturday night with a Buzzfeed article. Buzzfeed cited three sources who confirmed that Trump signaled his willingness to soften his immigration stance in a secret meeting in the Trump Tower with the newly formed National Hispanic Advisory Council For Trump. The article stated that Trump did not use the term “legalization,” but had indicated that he was open to a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants “that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner.”

Univision also cited three sources, some of which were also named by Buzzfeed. One source cited by both outlets was Jacob Monty, a Texas immigration lawyer. Monty said, “I really liked that Trump acknowledged that there is a big problem with the 11 million [undocumented] people who are here, and that deporting them is neither possible nor humane.” Monty claimed that the new Trump plan “wouldn't be citizenship but would allow them to be here without fear of deportation.”

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus confirmed to Univision that the meeting took place and that it was part of “our expansive effort to engage the Hispanic community.”

The reports sparked a quick denial from Mr. Trump. I'm not flip flopping," he told Fox News on the issue Monday. "We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm.”

Trump and new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway were noncommittal on the specifics of the current version of the Trump immigration plan. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Conway replied “to be determined” when asked if Trump still advocated for “a deportation force removing the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants” in the US. Throughout the campaign Trump has been an immigration hardliner who called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Univision also cited Helen Aguirre, an RNC spokeswoman who was present at the meeting. Aguirre confirmed that the Trump campaign was working on a new plan. “Trump was very categorical in saying that he's seeking a fair immigration reform," she said. "He wants to listen to everyone and announce his conclusions in the coming days."

By Sunday, Aguirre was reversing herself in a Breitbart piece. “Some folks talked about legalization, not citizenship, for the undocumented,” she said. “Mr. Trump did not say he was in favor of legalization. Some folks may have felt that he was open to it–and he gave zero indication of that.”

Aguirre told the Washington Post, “He listened to the comments and suggestions made by the various board members, but he never indicated what his immigration policy would be.”

Nevertheless, the comments by Aguirre and Conway confirmed that Trump’s immigration policy is changing. Conway said that “as the weeks unfold” Trump will reveal his new immigration plan. He is expected to address the topic this Thursday in Colorado.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Marco Rubio: The most conservative candidate who can win

MarcoRubio.com

I entered the 2016 election season without a favorite candidate. I kept an open mind and examined all the potential nominees, but as the first round of primaries draws near, the best nominee for the Republican Party has become clear.

I like many of the Republicans running this year. In fact, that has been a big problem. There are too many. One of my initial favorites, Scott Walker, never caught on. In part this was due to the overcrowded field. In part, the Wisconsin governor just wasn’t ready for the national stage and foreign policy questions.

Even though candidates like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are appealing, I am leery of untested candidates in such an important election. Running for president is immensely challenging and candidates who have never run a campaign (or, in Ms. Fiorina’s case, won a campaign) would be at a large disadvantage against the Clinton political machine. Two candidates that I liked from previous elections, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, simply did not catch on this cycle.

The man who defunded Obamacare

In the end, one of my early favorites became a strong contender and is one of the top three candidates as the primaries begin. I believe that Marco Rubio is the candidate that, as William F. Buckley put it, is the most conservative candidate who can win.

Many conservatives and Tea Party members have objections to Rubio. He has been charged with being a RINO and a squish. These charges are not supported by fact. The Heritage Foundation scorecard rates Rubio at 94 percent, well above the Republican average of 60 percent. The American Conservative Union rates Rubio at 96 percent. Investor’s Business Daily notes that this is identical to Rand Paul’s score and only four points behind Ted Cruz. Other scorecards compiled by various interest groups show Rubio to be strong conservative on fiscal, social and national security issues.

Even though he has only been in the Senate for six years, Rubio has an impressive list of accomplishments. He has become a strong voice for freedom and human rights. He coauthored a tax reform plan with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that would lower tax rates and simplify taxes by replacing the current system with only two tax brackets.

Rubio’s most important accomplishment was pushing through the legislation that may ultimately kill Obamacare. In December 2015, Rubio was successful in including a measure to defund Obamacare’s risk corridors, i.e. insurance company bailouts, in the omnibus spending bill. The measure passed and the results can be seen as insurance companies withdraw from Obamacare amid huge losses.

In moving this measure forward, Rubio showed an understanding of how to accomplish a conservative agenda in a divided government. Grandstanding, ultimatums and brinksmanship are counterproductive. Reaching across the aisle to build a coalition to get a majority of votes can yield large victories.

Further, Rubio has already been the subject of millions of dollars of attack ads by PACs supporting Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Rubio has absorbed the attacks and emerged as a strong contender in spite of the onslaught.

Rubio’s imperfections

This is not to say that Rubio is perfect. Most conservative criticisms of Rubio center around two issues. First, Rubio was part of the “Gang of Eight” senators who attempted to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013. For his participation, Rubio has been labeled as a supporter of amnesty. This charge also does not stand up to scrutiny.

To make this charge, opponents of the bill must literally redefine the word “amnesty” to mean any immigration reform that does not deport all illegal aliens. In reality, Merriam-Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Amnesty is a pardon, which is “an act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished” or “forgiveness for something.”

The Gang of Eight bill did punish illegals, therefore, by definition, it cannot be amnesty. A Washington Post article explained that the Gang of Eight bill required illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine and back taxes in order to become legal. This was predicated on triggers for the border security portions of the bill. Since the bill contained punishment for illegals, it cannot be an amnesty.

Second and more troubling is Senator Rubio’s support for the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA). This is a bipartisan bill that addresses sexual violence on campus. CASA has been criticized by many conservatives as eliminating due process for people accused of rape on college campuses. My examination of the bill doesn’t turn up any evidence that it eliminates due process. It would be unconstitutional if it did. Nevertheless, it doesn’t solve the very real problem of presumption of guilt on many college campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education provides a summary of the bill. CASA has not been passed nor should it be in its current form. Nevertheless, nothing in it should be disqualifying for Rubio.

A unity candidate

On the plus side of the ledger, Rubio is the candidate most likely to unite both the Republican Party and the country. A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found that Rubio had higher acceptability among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents than either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Rubio also had the smallest number of Republicans who viewed him as unacceptable.

Polling has also shown Rubio as the only Republican candidate who consistently beats Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, but, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, national polling is meaningless in a presidential election. Presidential elections are a series of 50 state elections and one election in the Electoral College. To win, any Republican must win four states that President Obama won twice. These states are Florida, Ohio and Virginia plus another state such as Colorado or Iowa. In addition, the Republicans must hold on to North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Of the three leading Republican candidates, Rubio is most likely to shift these swing states to the GOP.

His advantage in Florida is most obvious. Rubio would have a home field advantage in this swing state, but his position on immigration also gives him an important advantage over both Cruz and Trump. Rubio’s experience as majority leader and speaker of the Florida House of Representatives gives him a connection to Florida voters and experience in leadership and government that the other candidates lack.

Demographics and immigration

Pew Research points out that Hispanic voters will likely make up a historically large percentage of the electorate in 2016. In Florida, more than 18 percent of voters will be Hispanic. In Colorado, the number is more than 14 percent. This matters because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have alienated themselves to many Hispanic and minority voters with their hard line on immigration.

In Virginia, more than 10 percent of the population is made up of immigrants according to The Commonwealth Institute. In Ohio, four percent of the population is foreign born and about half of these are naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote according to The American Immigration Council. Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric on immigration and anchor babies will hurt them in these must-win states where vote margins will be razor thin.

Last August, Gallup found that Donald Trump had a net disapproval rating of 51 percent among Hispanics. This means that the difference between the disapproval and approval was 51 points. Ted Cruz scored better, but still had a net disapproval of seven points. Neither candidate has moderated their view on immigration in the heated primary so both are likely to be even less popular among Hispanic voters now than they were five months ago.

The candidate who scored best was Jeb Bush with an 11 point approval margin. Marco Rubio was second with five points. For reference, Hillary Clinton had a net approval of 40 points.

Some conservatives say that Republicans cannot win Hispanics. This has also been proven false. In his 2013 reelection campaign, Chris Christie won 51 percent of Hispanics according to Pew’s exit polls. Even in a national election, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics in 2004 according to CNN exit polling. A Republican doesn’t have to win Hispanics outright, but they have to do better than John McCain’s 31 percent or Mitt Romney’s 27 percent.

In 2012, the Hispanics made up 10 percent of voters. In 2016, that number is likely to increase. Republicans cannot afford to nominate candidates who are alienating 10 percent of voters. This is especially true since black voters, 13 percent of the electorate in 2012, already flock to the Democrats almost unanimously.

Leaving demographics aside, Trump and Cruz would still have problems in the swing states because their harsh stance against legalization for illegal immigrants is at odds with public opinion. In August 2015, Gallup found that 66 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship while only 14 percent want all illegals deported. Fifty percent of Republicans support a path citizenship as do 77 percent of Hispanics. These numbers are consistent with other polls and long-term trends.

Opposition to deportation is likely to be significant in swing states, making it even more difficult for Republican candidates like Trump and Cruz to win there. Supporting deportation might win the Republican nomination, but it will lose the general election and possibly poison the well with Hispanics for decades to come.

The flawed frontrunners

Finally, Trump and Cruz have other negatives that Rubio does not. The two frontrunners share several similar traits. They both tend to make enemies rather than build coalitions, which will make victory in the general election difficult. Both have a strategy of dividing the Republican Party and hoping to lead the larger faction. Both demagogue other members of their party for their own benefit. Both have squared off against immigration reform and put themselves against the clear majority of voters in doing so. Finally, both Cruz and Trump are essentially showmen. They engage in political theater for the benefit of their supporters, but have little in the way of actual accomplishments.

Trump, in particular, is problematic for conservatives. He has a long record of supporting liberal causes and candidates and has admitted to using his money and influence to gain favorable treatment from politicians of both parties. While Trump claims to have converted to a conservative mindset, there is little evidence other than his own words that he has done so. Like Obama in 2008, Trump is a blank slate on most issues. He allows supporters to project on him their belief of what he is for while rarely taking a firm stand on any issue.

Gallup polling shows that people are familiar with Trump, but that they do not like him. He is not only the most disliked Republican, he is less favored that Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points. Such an approval deficit would be very difficult to overcome.

With Cruz, the case is more difficult. He is also not well liked by most voters outside the GOP, but has more room for improvement. I have trouble supporting Cruz for several reasons in addition to his support for deportation and his unpopularity with general election voters.

First, Cruz has reputation as being a principled conservative, but, in reality, has a long record of flip-flopping on important issues. Cruz has changed his mind on several areas of immigration including legalization, legal immigration visas, and deportation of nonviolent illegals. On all these issues, he has moved in the wrong direction for the general election. Cruz has also moved from nonintervention in Syria to supporting “carpet bombing” of ISIS (although it isn’t clear that he understood what the term meant), supporting other anti-Jihadist factions and possibly using ground troops. Cruz reversed himself on both Trade Promotion Authority (fast track negotiating authority) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Cruz has also been inconsistent on national security issues such as NSA surveillance.

Second, Cruz’s time in the Senate has been replete with strategic errors and shows little actual accomplishment. He is most known for his spectacular failure with the government shutdown in 2013 in which his strategy caused approval of the Republican Party to plummet to a record low, but his antics also allowed lame duck majority leader Senator Harry Reid to approve a number of filibustered Obama judicial appointees in December 2014. His 2013 filibuster was all for show. He had arranged the speech with Harry Reid in advance and surrendered the floor so that the vote went along as scheduled. Cruz has returned to his shutdown strategy time and again while trying to prevent an increase to the debt ceiling or to prevent passage of the omnibus spending bill in 2015. Cruz seems not to realize or care that Republicans do not have the votes to force their will on President Obama and the Democrats.

Cruz’s problems have made him one of the most unpopular Republicans in the caucus. At this point, Ted Cruz does not have a single endorsement from a sitting senator, the people he works with every day. It seems that the people who know his work best do not think that he is presidential material. The lack of endorsements from Washington politicians is deemed a good thing by some, but in reality it says a lot about Cruz’s inability to build coalitions and turn his platform into law. Either Cruz is wrong or every other Republican senator is wrong.

Contrast Cruz’s endorsements with Rubio’s. Marco Rubio is endorsed by a long list of conservative elected officials. This includes four sitting senators as well as Joni Ernst, the freshman senator from Iowa, who stumped for Rubio without making an official endorsement. Rubio is also endorsed by such stalwart conservative congressmen as Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The conservative solution

Emerging from a crowded field, Marco Rubio is the most qualified candidate who can unite the Republican Party in the primary and then win the general election by a large enough margin to create an unquestionable conservative mandate. In 2016, as Republicans attempt to undo the damage of eight years of Obama, eking out a victory by a slim margin is not enough. Democrat liberalism must be thoroughly and soundly rejected.

After eight years of Barack Obama, Republicans have one chance to get it right. If we nominate a conservative candidate who can win then we will have an opportunity to roll back Obama’s policies and begin to repair the damage of the last decade. If we nominate a candidate who cannot win, not only will Obama’s legacy be locked in by a Democratic president but we may lose congressional majorities and the ability to block the next Democratic agenda that may well include nominating Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.

Choose wisely, America.

Ted Cruz is not ready for prime-time

Ted Cruz was elected as senator from Texas in 2012. Yesterday, after serving two years in the Senate he declared his candidacy for president. After serving only one-third of his Senate term, what has Ted Cruz accomplished to win the support of so many conservatives?

Prior to entering the Senate, Cruz worked on the presidential campaign of George W. Bush and served in the Bush Administration as an associate deputy attorney general and director of policy planning at the Federal Trade Commission. From 2003 through 2008, Cruz served as the solicitor general for the state of Texas. In that role, he argued nine cases before the Supreme Court, winning five and losing four. From 2009 through 2012, Cruz worked at Houston law firm as a corporate lawyer.

Cruz first achieved national notoriety with a September 2013 filibuster as Senate Democrats prepared to strip language defunding Obamacare from a budget bill. Cruz’s 21 hour speech was technically not a filibuster at all. As The Guardian explained, Cruz was not delaying a vote because then-Majority Leader had already scheduled the vote for the following day. Under Senate rules, Cruz was required to yield the floor when the time for the vote arrived. Reid told Politico, “This is not a filibuster. This is an agreement that he and I made that he could talk.” In one exchange with Democrat Dick Durbin during his soliloquy, Cruz tacitly admitted that he understood that Republicans did not have the votes to stop Obamacare.

A few weeks later, Cruz got a second shot of fame as the Republicans adopted the strategy of defunding Obamacare developed by Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). History will record this strategy as a spectacular failure which resulted in the partial shutdown of the federal government for 16 days in October 2013. Obamacare was implemented on schedule, even as nonessential parts of the government were closed and workers were furloughed. When an agreement was finally reached to reopen the government amid plummeting Republican approval ratings, the Affordable Care Act was unchanged, not as a result of inadequate Republican resolve as Cruz alleged, but as a consequence of 55 Democratic senators outnumbering 45 Republicans.

In February 2014, as Congress faced the decision of whether to raise the federal debt ceiling or allow the government to default, once again it was his Republican colleagues that Cruz singled out for criticism. Once again, even though the outcome was preordained, Cruz took a stand that changed nothing, but hurt his party.

In the debt ceiling negotiations, Cruz insisted on invoking cloture, a real filibuster, that required 60 votes for the bill to pass to avoid a default. Because the Democrats only had 55 votes and because most Republicans did not want the country to default, several Republicans had to make a politically embarrassing and damaging vote to end the Cruz filibuster.

In December 2014, Cruz was at it again. The duo of Cruz and Lee held up a 2015 spending bill to protest President Obama’s executive amnesty. In the end, the spending bill passed and the Obama amnesty stood. The pair only managed to make congressmen come to work for a rare Saturday session and, in the process, allowed Democrats to confirm 23 Obama nominees, including 12 judges, that Republicans had previously blocked.

Cruz’s antics have been popular with the conservative base but have alienated him from other Republicans. He was forced to apologize for his December 2014 strategic error, but persisted in pushing his brinksmanship with the attempt to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty in early 2015, a gambit that failed due to a Democratic filibuster.

In contrast to his high profile battles which were full of sound and fury, but actually signified nothing, Cruz’s one notable senatorial success was achieved with bipartisanship and was largely off the national radar. Govtrack notes that Cruz sponsored two bills that became law. One renamed a post office, but the other, S.2195, denied admission to the United States to any UN representatives who had engaged in espionage or terror against the US. The bill’s support was so broad that it passed without opposition and was signed into law by President Obama in 2014. Sadly, Cruz seems not to have learned from this success and returned to attacking Republicans for not having the votes to impose their will on Democrats.

Cruz is an excellent speaker and much of his support stems from his uncompromising attitude. The problem is that, when the results of his actions are examined, he has hurt his own party far more than he has hurt President Obama and the Democrats. His repeated failed attempts to use the budget to get around the Democratic majority and the Obama veto have detracted from the ability of Republicans to find a strategy that might actually work. It is surprising that Cruz, the constitutional lawyer, continues to pursue the same failed strategy over and over.

A majority of Republican voters seem to realize the damage that Cruz has done. Cruz typically hovers at about three to five percent approval according to Politico. A CBS News poll found Republicans almost evenly split on whether they would support Cruz. The poor showing put Cruz in 10^th place, ahead of only Bobby Jindal. The Real Clear Politics roundup of polls confirms the shallowness of Cruz’s support with an eighth place showing among Republicans and an average of 4.6 percent support. Cruz also does the worst of any Republican polled in head-to-head matchups against Hillary Clinton, losing by double digit margins in every poll according to Real Clear Politics.

In fact, Senator Cruz has united a broad spectrum of conservatives against his candidacy. Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post writes “Either Cruz is not as smart as some people say, or he has decided to give up on being a serious national Republican in favor of becoming the next Sarah Palin.” Thomas Sowell wrote, “Senator Ted Cruz has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble. But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Ted Cruz — even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving.” Even Anne Coulter called Cruz “a disaster on illegal immigration.”

Ted Cruz is an inspiring speaker and is very popular among a small contingent of Tea Party Republicans. His tactics are excellent for ginning up his own support among this Tea Party base, but makes it almost impossible for him to gain traction within the party at large. To have a future beyond the Senate, Cruz must find a way to promote himself without further dividing Republicans.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Winning Republican strategies for 2015

Since the recent failure of the Republican attempt to defund President Obama’s executive immigration amnesty, much has been written, most of if it unflattering, about the future of the Republican Party. Many on the Tea Party right doubt the “backbone” of the Republican leadership and question their commitment to opposing President Obama’s policies.

What these critics do not provide is an answer to how the Republicans can overcome the Democratic filibuster that derailed the attempt to defund the amnesty. The problem was not “lack of backbone” on the part of the Republican leadership. The problem was mathematics. The Republicans lacked the 60 votes required by Senate procedural rules to end a filibuster.

The Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress, but the majority is only meaningful if conservatives understand that it is a limited majority. Voters vested control of the Senate and House of Representatives with the Republicans, but they did not issue them a carte blanche to impose a conservative agenda.

The Republican majority is limited in two important ways. First, Senate rules require 60 votes for cloture to end debate on a bill. The Republicans have only 54 votes so it is axiomatic that a cloture vote will require at least six Democrats. Second, the Republicans are limited by President Obama’s veto. Even if a bill passes both houses of Congress, the president can veto it. Congress can override a presidential veto, but this requires 67 votes in the Senate and 288 in the House. Democratic votes (13 in the Senate and 41 in the House) would be required. To avoid wasting two years of a majority, Republicans need to take these limitations to heart and adapt a strategy to defeat them.

The first step is in casting aside unworkable strategies of the past. Defunding is a dead idea that should not be considered in the future. As with any other legislation, the idea is unworkable without a bipartisan majority. If Republicans have the votes to defund something, it would be better to simply repeal it outright.

Shutting the government down as a consequence of the House’s “power of the purse” has also proved unsuccessful in the past. A government shutdown is useful only as leverage if Democrats want to keep the government open. With a president who relishes the idea of using a shutdown to pummel Republicans, the strategy of a shutdown is pointless masochism. Republican leaders have quite sensibly rejected this course.

A successful Republican strategy will require one thing above all: a bipartisan majority. No conservative legislation can become law without Democratic votes. Republicans must peel off at least six Democratic senators for cloture and 13 to override Obama’s veto. This is a mathematical and constitutional fact. The question is how to do so.

The answer is to learn from the Democrats themselves. The Democrats in Congress have been successful because they stay united and split the Republicans over divisive issues like immigration. Republicans should ask themselves what issues can be used to divide the Democrats.

One such issue is the medical device tax imposed by Obamacare. This very unpopular tax is imposed on the manufacturers of such items as prosthetic limbs and pacemakers. It threatens thousands of American jobs as well as hurting the sick and disabled. There is bipartisan support for a repeal of the medical device tax, if not for Obamacare in its entirety.

If Republicans bring a repeal of the medical device tax to vote in Congress, Democrats would be forced to choose between voting to tax the sick or deserting to the Republican side. If the vote passes, Obama must allow it or publicly defend a veto. In either case, a vote to sustain the tax would be fodder for campaign ads by Republican challengers.

A second method for creating a bipartisan majority is to sweeten the pot with a compromise. Bill Clinton famously said that the Constitution could be subtitled “let’s make a deal.” If Republicans want to pass their agenda, they must induce the Democrats to vote with them, rather than simply expecting them to bow down before superior numbers.

One area where such a concession could be made is on the minimum wage. The minimum wage is an issue where the public supports the Democratic position. Recent polling has found strong support for raising the minimum wage, even in red states. In the 2014 elections, voters in four states that sent Republicans to the Senate enacted increases to their state minimum wages.

Trading a modest increase in the federal minimum wage for Democratic votes on Republican bills is a compromise that would defuse a popular Democratic issue while, at the same time, helping to advance conservative policies. The Republicans should not give in to a sharp increase in the minimum wage to $10 or $15 per hour, but a modest increase to the $8 to $9 range could be phased in over time.
Numerous studies, including one that looks at unemployment during the Great Recession, have shown that raising the minimum wage hurts low-skilled workers, but the economic effects of a modest increase to the minimum wage would be negligible. Thirty states already have minimum wages that are higher than the federal minimum wage according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. At least 14 states have already enacted or scheduled minimum wages that are $9.00 per hour or higher. Further, a 2013 study of minimum wage earners by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that only 4.3 percent of workers earn the minimum wage. An increase to the minimum wage would affect few workers in a small number of states.

Negative effects on the economy could be further minimized by incorporating a separate minimum wage for teenagers. The BLS study reports that only three percent of workers over age 25 earn the minimum wage, compared with 20 percent of teenagers. Instituting a lower minimum wage for teens would protect their ability to find entry-level, part-time jobs.

For Obama’s executive immigration amnesty, the contentious issue that led to the almost-shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, there is the low-yield nuclear option. In the Wall St. Journal, Curt Levey, a constitutional attorney with the Committee for Justice, called on Republicans to block Mr. Obama’s judicial nominees until he reneges on his executive action.

Blocking Obama’s appointees has many advantages that defunding lacked. First, it is possible. The Democrats cannot block the Republicans from blocking confirmations. There is no cloture or veto of a blocked confirmation. This strategy negates the two weapons that the Democrats hold.

Second, blocking confirmations is a win-win for Republicans. The optimal outcome would be that Obama reverses his executive action, which would be tantamount to surrender. If he stands firm, however, his nominees will never be seated as judges. This means that there will be more judicial openings for the next president, hopefully a Republican, to fill.

Finally, the potential for blowback is small. With a government shutdown, Republicans always take a hit in public opinion and lose support. That’s why Democrats try to goad them into that course of action. Blocking nominees is much lower profile and would not be noticed by most Americans. There would be no closed offices or parks and no furloughed workers to show on television. Lawyers who cannot get appointed to cushy jobs in federal courts are not sympathetic figures.

Many critics of the Republicans ask, “What was the point of winning the election?” if the Republicans can’t enact their agenda. The election gave the Republicans an advantage; it did not give them the ability to dictate terms to the Democrats.

The Republicans can use their majority over the next two years to further the conservative agenda and roll back pieces of Obama’s legacy, but to do so they must adopt realistic strategies that play to their strengths and work around those of the Democrats. Winning Republican strategies divide the Democrats, not themselves.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Why the Republicans couldn’t defund DHS

It’s not lack of principles, stupid!

The failure of the Republican majority in Congress to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty this week has once again engendered bitterness among some conservatives toward the party’s leadership. Accusations that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell caved to Obama’s pressure are widespread, but the true cause of the failure to can be found within Senate traditions and the Constitution itself. The Constitution may also provide the ultimate solution to Obama’s executive overreach.

Because the authors of the Constitution distrusted a strong central government, they made it difficult to enact new laws. Because the framers worried that the majority might tyrannize a minority, they gave the president veto power over laws passed by Congress and the courts the right to strike down laws judged to be unconstitutional. Democratic filibusters must also be considered by Republican leaders, but it is the presidential veto that holds the greatest threat to the Republican agenda.

Cloture, filibusters, and vetoes! Oh, my!

Under the Constitution, the House and Senate pass bills with a simple majority vote, but the Senate has traditionally allowed unlimited debate before a vote. The strategy of a filibuster, a prolonged speech to prevent a vote, has long been used by minority senators to prevent those in the majority from passing legislation. Filibusters no longer require longwinded speechmaking. Under current Senate rules, to end debate on a bill, senators must first vote for cloture. According to the Senate website, the cloture rule was intended to give senators a means to overcome filibusters and dates back to the Woodrow Wilson Administration. Originally, the rule required a two-thirds vote to end debate on bill, but this was changed to three-fifths, 60 votes, in 1975. A filibuster is now merely the inability of the majority party to get enough votes for cloture.

What the cloture rule means to conservatives now is that, since Republicans hold 54 Senate seats, they will need at least six Democratic votes to invoke cloture and bring bills to a vote. If the Democrats remain united, they can deny the Republicans the ability to bring their agenda to a Senate vote, in which case it can never become law. This was the case with the attempt to defund DHS.

Bills that are passed by both the House and Senate face another constitutional hurdle before becoming law. According to the Constitution, bills passed by Congress then go to the president where they can become law in one of two ways. First, the president can sign the bill and it immediately becomes law. Second, the president can do nothing and the bill will become law in 10 days as long as Congress remains in session.

The president can also reject, or veto, the bill. For a regular veto, the president sends the bill back to Congress with a message describing why the bill was vetoed, as in President Obama’s veto of the Keystone pipeline. More rare is the pocket veto. If Congress adjourns before the 10 days is up and the president fails to sign the bill, the bill never becomes law.

The drive to override

Congress can override a presidential veto. When the president returns the bill to Congress, the bill can still be passed without the president’s approval. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds vote of the members present. A bill that is subject to a pocket veto simply dies and cannot be overridden. It must be debated and passed again by the next Congress.

In the current Congress, overriding a veto would be difficult in spite of the historic Republican majority. Assuming all congressmen were present, a two-thirds majority would require 67 Senate votes and 288 House votes. This means that 13 Democratic senators and 41 Democratic representatives would have to vote against the president even if all Republicans were united. The Congressional Research Service reports that between 1789 and 2004 only 106 of 1,484 regular vetoes were successfully overridden, a seven percent success rate.

Most of President Obama’s signature pieces of legislation were passed in his first two years when the Democrats held control of both houses of Congress, but Democrats in 2009 through 2010 also had an important advantage that today’s Republicans lack: a president who would sign their legislation into law. As Republicans try to roll back Obamacare and other Obama-era legislation, they have the opposite situation, a president who will viciously wield the veto pen to preserve his legacy. Barring a major break between the Democrats in Congress and President Obama, it is unlikely that any presidential vetoes will be overridden.

Flank attacks

Two strategies have been floated by Republicans to outflank the Democratic obstruction. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently called on Republican leaders to invoke the “nuclear option” and totally eliminate the filibuster. In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster for the confirmation of presidential appointments. According to the Washington Post, the filibuster still stands for bills, but not for votes on presidential nominees.

Eliminating the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass the bill in the Senate, but the plan has two major flaws. First, the larger hurdle, President Obama’s veto, would remain so any successes would be short-lived. Second, the Republicans will one day need the filibuster themselves since it is unlikely that any Senate majority will ever be permanent.

A second strategy would be to use a budget reconciliation, the tool used by Harry Reid to pass Obamacare, to pass conservative legislation. As former New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg explained in the Wall St. Journal, a budget reconciliation requires only 51 votes but the circumstances where it can be used are extremely limited. Additionally, the final budget bill would still be subject to a presidential veto.

The Keystone model for success

Sheer numbers and constitutional processes make it unlikely that a direct frontal assault against President Obama will work. A more likely strategy is for the Republicans in Congress to seek areas where they can find common ground with moderate Democrats as they did with the Keystone pipeline. Winning even a few Democratic votes would force Obama to either use his veto or allow the bill to become law, putting pressure squarely on the president.

While it is possible – or even likely – that President Obama will veto a bipartisan bill, doing so would change the dynamic in Washington. Since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, the Democrats have derided them as obstructionists who do nothing more than say “no.” When President Obama uses his veto power or Senate Democrats use the filibuster, it will be the president who is obstructing the will of the people.

The Republicans made a massive strategic blunder in the battle over DHS funding when House Republicans chose not to focus solely on President Obama’s illegal amnesty, a tactic that might have won some Democratic allies. Instead, the Wall St. Journal notes that the bill included several amendments to repeal Mr. Obama’s less controversial moves on immigration going all the way back to 2011. As a result, the Democrats were united and a few Republicans even voted against the bill.

The last line of defense

Further, as Karl Rove notes, the decision of a Texas federal court judge blocking Obama’s amnesty removed the need to defund the DHS in the first place. The courts have at least temporarily stopped Obama’s executive action where Congress could not. The possibility remains that the injunction will be made permanent and the president will suffer an embarrassing legal defeat.

Although the courts have been weakened by the appointment of judicial activists to the bench, including four to the Supreme Court, the judicial power to declare Obama’s actions unconstitutional is the best hope. The potential threat to Obama’s agenda may be why a Rasmussen poll recently found that 43 percent of Democrats feel that Obama should be able to ignore the courts.

While the election has not given Republicans a carte blanche to impose their policies and reverse Obama’s, it has given them a far stronger hand than they previously held. Republicans must decide whether to squander this advantage on a pointless and unwinnable fight or whether to build a bipartisan majority that can actually accomplish the work of the people.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Poll: Democrats ready to jettison courts

A stunning new poll released today by Rasmussen found that a relative majority of Democrats believe that President Obama should be able to ignore federal courts. The February 20 poll comes as the Obama Administration faces a host of legal obstacles which include a federal judge’s injunction against the president’s executive immigration amnesty and a high-profile challenge to the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” in the Supreme Court.

Rasmussen reports that nearly half of Democrats, 43 percent, “believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts.” This was a plurality, also called a relative majority, since only 35 percent of Democrats opposed having President Obama ignore the courts.

Democrats were starkly out of step with the rest of the country on the issue. Among likely U.S. voters, only 26 percent wanted the president to ignore the courts. Sixty percent felt that the president should listen to and abide by court rulings. Not surprisingly, 81 percent of Republicans felt that Mr. Obama should listen to the courts.

The poll further found that 52 percent believe that legal challenges and judicial review of laws help to protect the rights of U.S. citizens. By an almost two-to-one margin (59 to 31 percent), voters believe that preserving the Constitution’s checks-and-balances is more important than having the government operate more efficiently.

In recent years, President Obama has been rebuked by the courts for executive overreach on several occasions. Two of the highest profile cases decided against the president include a court’s rejection of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the decision that the Obamacare mandate that private employers provide contraceptive and abortifacient drugs was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com

Cromnibus compromise shows GOP is ready for primetime

Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Cromnibus

While some conservatives have denounced the passage of the “cromnibus,” a combination of the abbreviation for “continuing resolution” and omnibus, the passage of the annual appropriations bill is a good thing for the Republican Party and the country. It shows that most Republicans are serious about governing, and that they can work with Democrats to find common ground for the good of the country. Since the new Republican congressional class has not yet taken office, the cromnibus compromise should be viewed as the last hurrah of Harry Reid’s (D-NV) Democratic Senate rather than a bill that sets the tone on policy for the incoming Republican majority.

Déjà vu all over again

Many conservatives opposed the cromnibus because they saw it as an opportunity to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty. Others wanted to begin the process of cutting government spending after the huge success in this year’s elections. The problem with these strategies is the same problem that led to the defeat of the Obamacare defunding attempt; Harry Reid’s Senate will not pass such a bill.

A showdown over the cromnibus would have had the same result as the disastrous attempt to defund Obamacare last year. The government shutdown that resulted from the defunding attempt was overwhelmingly blamed on Republicans and it cost the party dearly in terms of approval ratings. The Republican success in November was not due to their role in the shutdown; it was in spite of it. The Democratic collapse on issues ranging from Obamacare to the economy to foreign policy was the driver for the midterm elections.

The fact that another government shutdown would have been a bad idea for Republicans is underscored by two facts. First, the combative Republican candidates who challenged GOP incumbents in primaries lost. In several cases, they lost by slim margins, but Republican voters clearly rejected the shut-it-down, take-no-prisoners mentality of the Senate Conservatives Fund. Second, a Gallup poll from just before the election confirms that American voters want their congressional representatives to get things done, not stand in the way. A McClatchy-Marist poll released December 16 found that 70 percent of voters want the parties to compromise. Only 26 percent favor a stand that might lead to a government shutdown.

Bitter pills for Democrats

The cromnibus may not have been popular with conservatives, but that doesn’t mean that the Republicans didn’t gain from it. The American Spectator noted that “Republicans came out on top” in the negotiations. Provisions in the bill that conservatives should applaud include:

· Higher limits on political donations, a roll back of campaign finance reform laws

· Repeal of some Dodd-Frank restrictions on banks

· Exemption of farm ponds and irrigation ditches from EPA regulation under the Clean Water Act

· Repeal of EPA regulations that count cattle farts as greenhouse gases

· Extension of the federal moratorium on internet taxes

· Delay of enforcement of federal light bulb restrictions

· Ban on use of tax money to bail out insurance companies for Obamacare losses

· A $346 million dollar cut to the IRS budget

· Relaxation of the school lunch standards favored by Michelle Obama

Laying groundwork for the amnesty battle

Some conservatives have complained about the fact that the cromnibus extends most of the government funding through the end of the fiscal year in September, but this criticism is misplaced as well. Federal budgets, normally an annual matter, have rarely been passed in the Obama era. Funding the government through the end of the year will give lawmakers time to properly address and negotiate the 2016 budget, rather than spending their first few months dealing with matters that should have been handled last year.
The budget for the Department of Homeland Security is the exception. The budget for the DHS, the agency tasked with implementing President Obama’s executive amnesty, is only funded through February according to Forbes’ analysis of the bill. The DHS budget will be where the battle over Obama’s actions takes place early next year. Republicans will have the advantage of a majority in both houses of Congress at that point.

No Cruz control

The cromnibus vote gives an indication of the ability of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to assemble a working bipartisan majority on at least some issues. This will allow some of the more independent Republicans to defect on certain issues - perhaps immigration, for instance – without killing the entire bill.

Cobbling together a majority will be even easier in the next term because the incoming GOP freshmen are unlikely to join the rogue faction led by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT). The Washington Examiner reported in November that the new senators had broad support from the various factions of the Republican Party and called them “political hybrids,” while Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the incoming majority leader, said, “The vast majority of them don’t feel they were sent to Washington to just fight all the time.” The Tea Party conservatives, most of who lost in the primaries, would have been much more likely to follow Cruz’s lead.

The cromnibus has also shown that when Cruz and company split from the rest of the Republicans, Democrats may be willing to cross the aisle. As Obama’s agenda becomes less popular, more and more Democrats may be willing to go their separate ways from the president. This was evident in the cromnibus votes as Elizabeth Warren, the progressive left’s new standard bearer, led a faction to oppose the compromise supported by President Obama.

Meeting in the middle

Even if Cruz and his allies stand with the rest of the GOP, it will be necessary to court disaffected and vulnerable Democrats. As the Republicans advance their agenda, it is likely that President Obama will veto much of their legislation. The new Republican caucus can pass bills, but falls short of the 67 votes needed to override a presidential veto. Compromise with Democrats will be necessary to enact many major reforms, including but not limited to repealing and replacing Obamacare.

The biggest boon to the Republican Party may be that the cromnibus shows that the party is mature enough to build a bipartisan majority that can get things done. In the House, a majority of Democrats opposed the bill although a many voted in favor. In the Senate, the bill passed with a majority of both parties. This was in spite of strong opposition from both the Cruz and Warren wings of their respective parties. In essence, the two parties met in the middle to form a workable consensus.

As long as the Republicans are able to work with moderate Democrats to find a consensus, they will be able to advance at least part of their agenda. While repealing Obamacare is probably not in the cards, repealing particularly odious part of it, such as the medical device tax and the individual mandate, might be. There are many examples of such low-hanging fruit where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground for the good of the country. Showing that Congress can function again will, in turn, help Republicans in 2016.

 

Read it on Examiner.com

Conservative immigration reform is best answer to Obama

When President Obama announced his unilateral version of immigration reform last week, he had several goals. The most obvious goal was to divide and demoralize the Republican Party in the wake of its overwhelming victory in the midterm elections. Just as important and ambitious, Obama hoped to strike a stake through the heart of a burgeoning movement among minorities to vote for Republicans.

The effect of Obama’s first goal is plain to see. Republicans are angry, but split over how to respond to Obama’s amnesty. Some conservatives are calling for a repeat of the disastrous government shutdowns of the past while others are once again calling for the president’s impeachment. The Republican leadership will have a difficult time reigning in the various factions of the party and presenting a coordinated and effective response.

President Obama’s second goal is an attempt to shore up minority voting blocs, in particular Hispanics, which have traditionally supported Democrats. More than a third of Hispanic voters cast their ballots for Republicans according to an Examiner analysis of exit polls from the 2014 midterms. In an era where the country is evenly divided, such a defection makes it almost impossible for Democrats to win. The president hopes that the Latinos will be sufficiently grateful for the amnesty to vote Democrat in the future. An over-the-top Republican reaction that could be portrayed as racist would also benefit future Democratic candidates as well as put Republicans on the defensive before the new Congress is even seated.

The Republican response to the president’s gambit should be in two phases. First, the Republicans should take a strong, principled stand against Obama’s executive action and explain to the country why his action is unconstitutional. Second, rather than just saying no, Republicans must present the country with a viable alternative.

The first phase, Republican resistance, should point out that the president does not have the authority to legislate his own immigration laws. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is already doing this by publicizing the 22 times that President Obama denied that he had the authority take unilateral action on immigration.

A Fact Check analysis of polls, points out that most Americans support immigration reform, but oppose the president’s unilateral version of it. Unfortunately, during the current lame duck session of Congress in which Democrats still hold a Senate majority, there is little that they can do to resist. With another funding crisis for the federal government looming in December, President Obama’s obvious and transparent plan is to goad Republicans into a repeat of last year’s disastrous government shutdown. Rather than walking into the president’s trap, the GOP should wait until January when they will have the upper hand.

When the Republicans take control of the Senate in January, there will be many more tools at their disposal to combat President Obama’s executive overreach. First and most obvious, Republicans will control the budgeting process. The Republican House can pass a budget that does not fund the president’s amnesty programs, but which keeps other parts of the federal government operating. This would put President Obama in the position of having to veto the budget and risk a government shutdown or accepting a defeat. While the 2013 shutdown was blamed on Republicans, the blame in this case would rest solely with the president, who would also be defending an unpopular position.

Second, the Republicans could refuse to confirm any of President Obama’s appointees until the president backs down. Unlike a government shutdown, few Americans would feel any effects of a halt to Senate confirmations. There would be no stories of closed parks, halts to government checks, or layoffs of federal employees. The Obama Administration itself would bear the brunt of the confirmation boycott.

Third, the GOP can file another lawsuit against President Obama. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws while the president is tasked with enforcing the laws Congress passes. While the president does have some limited discretion in enforcing laws, he does not have the authority to “adopt a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities” according to a Justice Department memo cited by The Volokh Conspiracy. Congress could sue to have the president enforce the laws as they are written. The downside to this strategy is that unless the Supreme Court agrees to expedited handling of the case, President Obama might be out of office before it is resolved.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Republicans have to come up with an alternative to the president’s action. There is an old saying that the best revenge is living well, but, in this case, the best revenge may be passing a conservative immigration reform bill. This is especially true if the bill can garner enough Democratic support to override an Obama veto.

A majority of Americans realize that the current immigration system is broken and in need of overhaul. In addition to unprotected borders, there is no system to track immigrants or visitors who enter the country but overstay visas. There is also no reliable way for employers to verify immigration status of their employees, even though Pew Research estimates that more than five percent of American workers are illegal immigrants. The legal process can take decades for immigrants who follow the law. Highly skilled workers who could benefit the U.S. economy are turned away to work for foreign competitors while unskilled laborers stream across the border.

It will not be enough to simply roll back President Obama’s executive action. The immigration problem and Democratic attempts to use it to divide the country will persist until there is meaningful reform. The Republicans must put forth a reform of their own to fill the vacuum. In addition to the border security measures favored by conservatives, reform must include a fair method of dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. Most polls indicate that a majority of Americans favor a path to legality, although not necessarily a path to citizenship or amnesty.

A major problem for Republican leaders is convincing the anti-immigration members of their own party to support reform ideas that are popular with the rest of the country. The far-right members of the GOP scuttled immigration reform under President Bush and last year under President Obama. In so doing, they set the stage for the president’s unilateral amnesty. To these Republicans, any immigration reform is seen as amnesty and any Republican advocates for such reforms are denounced as RINOs. Republican leaders will have to work with leaders of the anti-reform caucus, notably Ted Cruz, in order to pass such a bill. President Obama is undoubtedly counting on such opposition from the right to put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.

To pacify the right, immigration reform should definitely include strong border security provisions, but it must address the other problems with the current system as well. The carrot for illegals should be a tough but fair way of handling those already in the country if they come out of the shadows. The stick would be strong workplace enforcement and stiffer penalties for future illegal aliens. The legal immigration system should be streamlined to encourage prospective Americans to follow the law.

President Obama’s executive strategy is a desperate attempt to divide Republicans while raising the morale of the Democratic base after a humiliating defeat. If Republicans can wait until January and rein in their anti-immigration reform faction, they have a good chance of beating the president at his own game. The stakes are high. President Obama’s actions are an unprecedented attempt to circumvent Congress and the democratic progress that do not bode well for the future of the United States if left unchecked.

Read the full article on Examiner.com