The Shutdown Is Over – For Three Weeks
White House and Congress have reached an agreement to end the #govermentshutdown today. Government will re-open for 3 weeks.
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 25, 2019
White House and Congress have reached an agreement to end the #govermentshutdown today. Government will re-open for 3 weeks.
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 25, 2019
Hopefully the Congress will be willing to compromise and work out a permanent deal so there is no future shutdown.
And we’ll see if Mr. Trump is wiling to compromise. Didn’t sound like it, but that may be just for show.
We will see if the Democrats are willing to compromise as President Trump has already shown his willingness to do so.
There does seem to be traction within both parties to defer to some DHS that the DHS experts say they need for national security. Neither party is releasing the detail of the plan publically. The sau Alinsky rules the dems religiously adhere too are tough to work any deal – especislly when
Pelosi controls campaign money pots as a leverage stick if anyone doesn’t play ball. Pelosi called for PTrumps Head re the Stone raid indicates she effectively called for his resignation else impeachment. Hence, the Dems aren’t in any mood to compromise.
Yep, enjoy the break as it will be much worst if no agreement in made. As the old saying goes it will be interesting times in the beltway given their blood feud. I don’t expect to see anything important happen in terms of space policy in the interim.
We’ve already seen over the two years prior that the completely Republican controlled Congress didn’t give Trump his wall. Again, I’d ask the agencies in charge of border security what they need to do their job instead of blindly putting up a wall that stems from a campaign promise.
Maybe the underlying issue is not a wall (that is the cover excuse) as
you suggested two years prior could have easily provided $5B as easy as
us writing a check for $100.
Yes. That’s the ingle issue most difficult to understand – why the wall wasn’t previously built.
On the other hand, the Democrats similarly have in the past controlled Congress and the White House and similarly failed to effect policy.Politics is a damned funny business.
As I posted to your earlier reply, the need to get 2/3 of the Senate to agree to a budget.
60%, and that’s procedural. Two thirds is the supermajority mandated by the constitution for things like overturning a veto or amending the constitution. But that’s a detail.
And even that is not a possibility for Senate reconciliation with House budget bills, which are (by the Senate rules) limited to 20 hours of debate.
Read my reply above…
I read it. I even read the web pages you included. I still disagree. With a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, there will be even less incentive to rubber stamp a campaign promise that has little to no justification based on actual data. Let’s get the actual leaders of the agencies involved in front of Congress for hearings and ask them specifically what they need, not what their president promised in the campaign in order to get elected.
And no, I don’t consider a union’s political position, by itself, to be a sound justification. And in the whole, I doubt you do either (how often to labor unions influence your vote?). You just cherry picked this one because it supports the wall.
I picked this Union since it is the one that actually speaks for the CBP agents that have to deal with the problem. Since they are doing the actual work they have a much different view than Washington political appointees or bureacrats looking for promotion or some politician who only shows up in their district when they need to run for re-election and then forgets the voters to curry favors with the party leadership. Tell me, how many CBP agents have you talked to about the border? How many years have you lived on the border?
It no different than what has been going on with the SLS/Orion/Gateway. The Congress critters will invite those who support their position and ignore those who actually know the technology well enough to show they are a huge waste of resources.
Apparently during his 1st two years in office Mr. Trump already has received $1.7B funding for building 124 miles of new and replacement wall (https://www.bbc.com/news/wo…. So he’s already got some of what he wanted. Seems like the folks from the Democratic Party must have compromised on that… or at least didn’t think it was worth trying to filibuster. It’s not clear to me why he thinks he’ll get a better deal when his party no longer controls the house, especially after this shutdown.
Compromise is required by all parties, including Congress AND the President.
And so far it has all been by the President with Congress offering nothing in return. He had already stated he will accept 200 miles using the existing bollard fence wall design instead of the 300 miles of the more secure ones he wanted. What has Congress offered?
A similar amount of money for improved border security which does not involve a wall or other, physical barrier. I think that means the necessary compromise will have to consider solutions which do not involve a wall. President Trump does not seem to be open to that.
The last three Administrations were able to get their walls, why not President Trump?
Well, going back three administrations, some current options were not possible. Times change.
For example, a fleet of drones to patrol the border would not have been viable during the Clinton administration. Today, it is conceivable. So would spacecraft giving realtime imagery at sub-meter resolution of the entire border, once every ten minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
A physical border may have been the best option decades ago. That doesn’t mean it is the best one today. The current debate, compromises and consensus should be about the best current solutions. So Clinton may have gotten a wall, but Trump’s stated and similar goals may be better achieved with 21st century solutions.
That possibility should be part of the discussion. That means an uncompromising insistence on some sort of wall isn’t helpful, and that compromising on the nature of that wall isn’t such a big compromise.
Yes, a wall is too effective. Drone fleets only video the invasion without interfering with it, plus can be shut down quickly without people knowing.
The problem is that the drones and sensors systems won’t stop smugglers from just driving into the U.S.A., they will just generate more dangerous high speed pursuits and dangerous arrests as we are able to track them better. They also won’t stop the bullets fired at CBP or the rock throwing from the other side of the border. A physical barrier like a wall may not stop everyone crossing, but it will make the numbers more manageable just as the existing sections do now, and it will make patrolling the border safer.
If you do not want anyone trampling over your lawn or garden you don’t use drones or signs, you build a fence. The same applies to national boundaries. The high tech is good, and is already being used, but it will work even better if there is a physical barrier to anchor it to versus just open land.
Walls don’t stop people who are determined. Drug cartels send in their product through both legal ports of entry and through tunnels under the walls. Also, walls won’t help in remote areas where response times are an hour or more. In those areas, even if an intrusion is detected (e.g. someone going over the wall using a high tech piece of equipment called a ladder), border patrol agents can’t get there in time.
I would recommend that Congress directly ask the agencies in charge of border security what they need (i.e. public hearings). To me that makes a lot more sense than supporting a campaign promise that even the last Republican controlled House and Senate couldn’t agree on in the two years prior.
Yes I agree, Congress should take time to listen to what the CBP agents who are actually working on the border want, just as President Trump has. Since I teach classes at locations that are actually on the border (Eagle Pass, Del Rio) I have had a number of CBP agents in my classes and its no mystery what their opinions are. If you are interested in finding out what the law enforcement officers who actually put their lives on the line each day dealing with the border issues think just go to the website for the union that represents CBP agents.
https://bpunion.org/
But fair warning, the union has always supported President Trump 100% on better border security even before he was elected so I would guess you would say they are partisan. But then it is hard to be netural when you have folks throwing rocks or shooting at you on a regular basis. And yes, the rocks do kill at times…
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroo…
“Rogelio was 36-years old, and was assigned to the Van Horn, Texas, Station. He entered on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol on August 12, 2013, as a member of Academy Class 1018. The death of Rogelio marks the 125th U.S. Border Patrol Agent to have died in the line of duty.”
Perhaps we should also pay attention to (chapter and verse) the folks who actually LIVE on that southern border, a significant number of whom say “we have no crisis on the border”. It’s interesting – support for the Wall seems to grow in proportion to the distance from the border. Go figure.
I think the problem is that you’re doing a better job of this than the President.
I could be convinced that some sort of physical barrier greatly enhances patrolling. I suspect you would agree that a physical barrier without any patrolling would be ineffective. Some sort of sensors (or drones or orbital surveillance) would also enhance patrolling. We could discuss the appropriate balance and what sort of barrier would be optimal. Why we’d do that on NASA Watch is beyond me, other than the orbital surveillance idea I tossed out.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like President Trump is interested in those conversations. At least as reported by the press (including sources like Fox News) he seems to be saying “wall”, and possibly “steel barrier” and very little else. He isn’t, as far as I can tell, explaining why that’s the optimal solution. He isn’t, as far as I can tell, saying he’s consulted with the experts and that they’ve told him that’s the optimal solution.
Negotiation isn’t just about making compromises. It’s about explaining what you want will accomplish common goals, and convincing the other side of that. And, at the same time, explaining why alternatives aren’t as good, and again, convincing people of that. Of course, we have no idea what’s been said behind closed doors (everyone present, even if they report what was said, would be a biased source.) But I just don’t see evidence of that sort of negotiation.
Its simple, President Trump is a New Yorker and so in many ways it is still an abstract issue to him. I have lived along the border on and off since the late 1970’s. I have actually been to the New Mexico bootheel (Hildago County) you posted about with fellow rock hounds, but it was years ago when it was still safe. Even so we were armed, since my two friends worked in law enforcement in NM as I did. I paid for my undergraduate degree working for a local police department in New Mexico so I am familar with that side of the issue, although this was in 1980’s. Still to me its not some abstract issue involving some remote area of the nation. Its like Keith discussing the issues involved with getting around the Beltway.
While at NMSU I did an economic analysis on the labor agreement that was suppose to be part of NAFTA, allowing free movement of labor across the border. Overal it would have greatly benefitted both nations, but the politicians killed any hope for a good labor agreement when their donors complained it would raise their cost of labor too much by having to paid migrant labor a honest wage and treat them with respect. That is why I am not hopeful that a compromise will be reached as there is too much campiagn money pushing for the continued flow of illegal imigrants.
In my economics class I cover the economics and social issues of migrante labor, along with the history of efforts to restrict the flow of labor into the U.S. starting with the Union movement during WWI. The communities I teach in (Eagle Pass & Del Rio) are economically dependent on border trade so its a subject, like the wall, that students have a personal interest in.
But bringing this back around to the topic, I expect Washington, and the federal government, to be in shutdown yo-yo mode until the next election. Expect the SLS/Orion flights to be delayed, along with other NASA work including RFPs. And it will be a gamble as to if any NASA employees will be presenting as conferences. I hope I am wrong, but this has evolved into a personal grudge match that is going to get nasty.
I was actually thinking people do tend to gravitate to approaches they are familiar with. Mr. Trump’s background is in high-end real estate development. He probably understands projects involving the construction of something large and impressive more than other approaches.
But if it’s simply not being familiar with the border, why not point to the experts? Even if you don’t think Congress would invite people to testify if they are in favor of the wall, what about the talk shows? Get people like the Commissioner of CBP on a bunch of them (both ones with liberal and conservative biases) and have them explain the need for a wall. Mr. Trump could just point to that and say he knows a wall is what we need because the experts say so.
Yes, it would be good if the talk shows invited them on. Pity that their producers haven’t taken that step. In the days of Walter Cronkite that is what the media did, look at Vietnam. But the media today, both liberal and conservative, seems to be more interested in sound bites and ratings than really exploring an issue.
But then just look at how they cover space. Look how SLS/Orion have been covered in the media. It’s why I prefer sites like this one to watching the news about NASA. Here you learn what is actually going on.
For how many years did republicans SCREAM about President Obama not getting anything done in congress and when democrats would talk about Mitch McConnell and the constant filibusters and blocking legislation the republicans would ALWAYS throw out their “Obama controlled the house and senate his first two years” Of course that was BS but it was the CONSTANT drumbeat for the right .. he controled congress he controlled congess..
well guess what .. trump controlled congress.. ANY and I do mean ANY bullshit that the right tries to pin on the democrats is BS and I will never change my opinion on this point.
TRUMP OWNED the Congress and they REFUSED to fund the wall
ROFLOL – No one ever owns the Congress and without a super majority in the Senate, which the GOP does not and never had you still need to get the Democrats to go along..
However, the Democrats didn’t have such a supermajority during the Obama administration, with the exception of a few months in 2009. And even that was mostly due to temporary vacancies. They were close, but 59.6% doesn’t get you cloture. So if (since) Mr. Obama was criticized for not getting his agenda through with a majority in Congress, it’s not unfair to criticize Mr. Trump for the same thing. If the standard should be the 60% supermajority for cloture, then the past criticism of Mr. Obama was unfair.
I Agree. As you noted before, both sides must find common ground to avoid gridlock. That is why I am not hopeful of things moving forward for space or any other area, until the next election, unless the “children” in Washington learn how to play together and share 🙂
Well, good luck on the playing together and sharing.
I spent about 16 years working on Cassini observation planning, and that was a spacecraft where just about every observation required sharing or taking turns. That was due to hard, physical constraints (no, a right angle really is 90 degrees, and no, we can’t give you what you want by making it 87 degrees) and the scientists involved were all people who you’d expect to understand that sort of thing. The whole process eventually settled down and the squabbling eventually stopped (mostly), but it took a while.
Based on that, I’m not optimistic about politicians learning to work and play well together, especially over issues which are far more ambiguous that the engineering capabilities of a spacecraft.
Why didn’t Mr. Trump get his wall from a Republican Congress? That’s a worthy and central question.
The discussion that follows is intended as a dispassionate observation, not a judgement.
So, please stay with me on this:
One reason he didn’t get the wall is simple, though not defensible: he’s seen by 70% of the country as a divisive, hideous bully, a guy who will, with the smallest victory, smear the other side.
This single fact does the President a disservice, hobbling him in avoidable ways.
Much more central, though:
Mr. Trump came to the office woefully ill-prepared; some claim he didn’t expect to win and didn’t prepare to win.
This fact means that his knowledge of public policy and policy alternatives is equal to that of any other American, including this one; and this makes proposals quite appealing indeed to similarly informed Americans.
So, whether or not the charges made against immigrants by Mr. Trump during the election and after are factual, he has created an apparently-credible case: namely, that immigrants bring the very worst to the country (drugs, et.al.). In this environment, offering a solid wall makes a hell of a lot of sense to those entirely unacquainted with the nuances of border control, like me.
As to why he didn’t get a wall when the Republicans are in charge:
Many Republican Congressmen and Senators are sober, thoughtful, knowledgable public servants. These folks have the deep understanding of the immigration issue that is lacking in the WH. That’s why he didn’t get his wall. They know better.
And, I hope, these are the reasons that some sort of border control that responds to local conditions will become public policy.
Because the Senate needs a 2/3 majority to approve a budget and the Democrat Senators have blocked it repeatedly. From 2017.
https://www.cbsnews.com/new…
House passes spending bill with $1.6B border wall money wrapped in
and most recently in the action that created the current mess of the shutdown.
https://www.cnsnews.com/new…
House Republicans Pass C.R. with $5.7 Billion in Border Wall Funding; Schumer Cries, ‘Trump Shutdown!’
“House Democrats united against the move, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted the bill will not pass the Senate. If no agreement is reached, a partial government shutdown will happen at
midnight.”
Why should the Democrats offer anything? If Trump is doing something that is damaging the GOP, why should they stop him? As the translated quote attributed to Napoleon goes: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Pushing the wall was a political mistake. Shutting down the government over it was an even bigger political mistake. Inflexible opposition to the wall is not a political mistake.
This intransigence is helped by Trump himself. He has come off as so off kilter and dangerous that intransigence is seen as a perfectly valid position to take opposing him. He gave no quarter to his opponents, he broke rules of convention, and turnabout is fair play.
The end game for this that the Democrats are aiming for is a GOP that has so damaged itself, that has so permanently repelled enough previously sympathetic voters, that the Democrats sweep back to full, fillibuster-immune control of the federal government. A president that dashes himself, and his party, in tantrums against a wall of opposition would serve this purpose.
We in this country have strayed so for from what the Founding Fathers intended, and it is those who call themselves ‘Republicans’ — the supposed protectors of “Original Intent’ — who have strayed the most.
The following is from the Federalist Papers, #58, written by James Madison:
“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse”
In other words, spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and it is NOT the president’s place to demand that a spending bill be passed by Congress or hold the government hostage if it isn’t passed. James Madison would have a stroke at the whole idea, were he alive today.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/…
Yep, and it was the same James Madison who changed his mind when neogiating the Louisana Purchase before Congress approved the funding for it.
First, “propose” in this context almost certainly means propose a spending bill for Congress to vote on. Anyone can make suggestions. Newspaper editors can, as can a bunch of random people at a rally in front of the Capitol Building. So can the President. That doesn’t put those suggestions on the agenda for a vote. I’m sure Mr. Madison (or whoever wrote #58) was quite aware of that.
Second, you need to be very careful with the Federalist Papers. They are often regarded as a source on what the Constitution was supposed to mean and how the government is supposed to work. But, in fact, they are a collection of anonymously published editorials, lobbying in favor of ratification. The ratification of the constitution was heavily debated for about nine months, and the Federalist papers give one side of the debate. Some of them are disingenuous (e.g. one, probably by Hamilton, claiming the “necessary and proper clause” wasn’t a loophole to give the national government unlimited power.) Some have been proven wrong (e.g. one, I think attributed to Madison, arguing that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and could even be harmful.) The other side, which helps give a balanced view, can be found in the various “anti-federalist” essays, which were the editorials and declarations pointing out flaws in the unamended constitution.
Two things that my side – the Democrats – must now do:
1. Do not gloat. A preening triumph at this point would be very unhelpful.
2. Be willing to make obvious and measurable compromises from previously stated positions.
Can we do it? Remains to be seen.