« The Weeds

The six-hour shutdown, explained

2018-02-09

Matt, Dara, and Tara Golshan, all weary from lack of sleep, try to make sense of the few hours on Thursday night/Friday morning when the government was shut down. Referenced Works Republicans laughing in Tara's face about addressing immigration: Immigration anxiety got Trump elected. Congress isn’t touching it. Further Reading House Democrats’ confusing, high-risk DACA government shutdown gamble, explained Congress just funded CHIP for a full decade

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Why can't wear heels is that I was wearing flats in the hill running after John Corn in and somehow my flat went flying and John Corn and had to pick it up and hand it back to me. While I was like, if I was wearing heels, I would have just died. I think you're just like they wouldn't have even been like a shoe to give back, and welcomes the weeds on the box media. Upon has network. I underlined I'm here with first met Oh yes, yes, you didn't get any sleep last night and a box congressional. Tar goes on, who didn't get me sleep last night, either, because Congress didn't get any sleep last night and had a several hours shut down we would like to personally would like people to explain to me what the heck happened last night, and maybe you you are
I guess audience would be interested in hearing that as well, so we get what we were shut down and now we are not shut down. Here we had like a brief from two a m to five a m overnight. Down, it all started because, as you remember about three ish weeks ago, two and a half weeks ago there was a three government shut down and the end of that was this too weak spending girl that carried us two February? Eighth within, that time. The Congress was negotiate. Some kind of budget steel and some kind of immigration deal and then they would come together and fund the government again on February eighth, and then some some time in the last week that all seem to to fall apart, and that's what that's one way, let alone the lot chivalric lives getting worse was there I was. I was in an hour
ass night cause that might make me my son is SEC. Is he's got the flu? That's the main reason I was up, but but dipped into the news, and so they had the parameters of a deal they had by partisan support and that had it passed ad four p m yesterday, like a civilised out rather than the deal, was already written as if just like regular business hours on Thursday, and who deal as announced on Wednesday as soon as that which is practised for caught in an they and the votes were there. This was not the kind of thing where there was massive suspense, and this wasn't even leg- you know I can again on the road again deal if they had the parameters of lake, an indefinite budget deal right yeah. So what so? What they came to an agreement? over is that they would they established budget caps for the next two years. That would have increased investments in domestic programmes and military spending, roughly two around three hundred billion dollars over the next two years, which was perceived
However, it was a win for both her hub Likud's, aunt, em or cuts, because people becomes got that defence spending they ve been dying. Foreign Democrats got that domestic programme, spinning increase that they were angling for, in addition to that, they would fund the government. another month to give appropriate authors who write these individual spending bills. Timed actually write the legislation, They extend, did funding for mainly health centres. They extended funding for the child health insurance programme for even longer to ten years. There was a disease really funding in that it was like this, but they increase a debt ceiling for another year. There was a lot of kind of goodies in this in the Sierra, but you didn't like technically what hat look look? Why is it that you other congressional borders and members of Congress were up all night like given that the deal was struck on Wednesday and that it wound a passing, pretty comfortably right
like. Why was there a meaningless five hours shut? So there is their rent, Thou RT. To the reason there is it is actually there were actually was a meaningless shutdown was because of Sentner Rampart. This deal this budget deal breaks. Ye sequestered that were established in eleven and ran Paul, who is fighting fur his deficit hawkish ass, the saying we should not increase the budget caps that were established and that this is the fiscal irresponsible and he decided to filibuster a bill that no and would change and had the votes to pass fur from slick six p dot m to one thousand one hundred and thirty, and then at one thousand one hundred and thirty they're like okay, you know what we need to just because of Senate procedure. They couldn't actually vote without Rand Paul until one a dot m eleven thirty there, like you know it just resent it Senate, so that ran Paul and might get off the floor will technically
down the government a twelve hour. One am and then come back and then round one thirty one, forty, the Senate past it. So this is letting laying out by this, isn't even like the? U know twenty thirteen shut down where, like TED crews in theory, had something he wanted to get. This isn't like three weeks ago are Democrats has only they wanna get that literally, like ran pulsating. I dont have solution here, but I would like to make my objections known at great, did a great lengthened annoyance. I mean he had here an amendment that would have stopped them from increased the sequester cats. I mean his solution was less, does not do this like everybody else was like no, we want to do that, so we just have to wait. You out, and then We want to wait until the waiting amount just happen do have pushed it pay right the deadline, but even so it's it's worth saying a point here: because that this item moving pieces to the steel and most I don't know. Media narratives tend to like
zoom in just a couple aspects of it, but like a big thing here, is that the overall structure of this is that, like Republicans in stylized sense like want the increased military spending, and so the fact that there is a huge and- the military spending as a big win for them, and then some of the other stuff is like things from their perspective that they did to get democrats votes. Rim Paul is a Republican, but like rainfall does not favour a giant increase in military spending and so therefore, from the inside he ran Paul perspective. This is a bill in which there are concessions to Democrats. Domestic spending and there's a windfall republicans that he doesn't care about right now. Ain't it made sense while for ran Paul ran withheld I mean it was in the spirit of ran portal little, but it may there right. Let us wait the the irony about be sequester caps being there
line here. Is that the sequester was. You know, congresses attempt at eight mechanism to get itself to like engage in some actual proactive budgeting by say by imposing cuts in the future that we're going to be p full two republicans on the military and Democrats under at expanding, like that was an attempt. Nino Congress is attempted. We responsible by making itself hurt in the future that failed me. Happily, the inner resulted in a lot of pain on both sides, and so this is something of a return to the status quo. Of several years ago, where neither party is willing to say that there are not going to increase spending period. There are just going to trade off military for domestic if and when Paul is go is coming out of a period in which he kind of de facto got what he
because no one else in Congress Scarlet they wanted. By saying that I, like that, let's go back to that close it. I mean you know if you go back whatever was eight years ago to do before the sequestered went. Leave these structural situation at that time was that spending on health care in retirement programmes with just set to grow slowly and steadily over time, because the population is aging and be as healthcare costs grow over time and the tax level which at that time was the Bush era, baseline, was too low to support that over the long term. So you had this big stand off in which, at that time, Republicans were saying. We need to resolve this exclusively by cuts in the retirement healthcare. rams. An Obama was saying: no. We need to do both. We need to do the long term cuts in retirement health programmes and in exchange also do some tax increases and the rich
They couldn't reach an agreement around that they came to the sequester with the idea, like these painful cuts to domestic spending in the military will force Congress to make a deal along those lines. They didn't make a deal along those lines. Then taxes went up because Obama won the election Bush tax cuts partially partially expired trump. One taxes went back down again Trump, his promise not to cut social Security or Medicare Trump tried to cut Medicaid very steeply it in the Obamacare appeal bills, but basically failed. So all those long term that drivers were just like still there and then what they I did you last night- was essentially call it off the gardener mechanism right that, like is it like they're, not gonna, I mean congressional opponents, I was in other ways taxes do not seriously trying to cut such as guardian Medicare Ray, and they don't have the political capability to cut
medicated railway and in a sense I mean one thing: I've heard from professional budget hawks are like steamed about this, because now spending zero, not better tanks, were just cut but to give Congress its to write like this question in the budget caps were never going to address the long term debt issue which is driven by taxes and retirement programmes. The point of this a cluster was, as dare was hanging as a commitment device to force them to do those things, but is it isn't forcing them to do those things this? Actually no point in having it is like if we reach an agreement to say like what we're gonna do stabbing ourselves in the arm until we come up with like a better way to explain. This then, was like seven years later, would just like all stabbing ourselves. You don't like it at some point like girl, but my not just stop, but they also like for the past. Since the sequester caps were put into effect, every two years have been like: let's passive measures just stops
they are recently they have, but they mean they implemented for a couple Uganda that you ve yet and they live their views. Having themselves in the arm is the alternative to cutting the limb off entirely right if they keeping this lake keeping existing fun levels is the easy way to go and you can't negotiate negotiating actual deal in your face and government shut down three months. But the question that I have yours like worrying the beginning of the sequester debate its. This was one of the respect in which it seemed like the members of Congress who came in and the twenty ten wave, the kind of, not in over godless of how you think about the tea party as a conservative movement. It certainly seems at the first elected officials coming into Congress as part of that tea party wave maybe were going to break from the republican consensus on increased military spending. And we're going to be a little bit more concerned with the bottom line of budgeting and spending, and it's interesting.
Sorry, you definitely been like among the best reporters on talking about the role of the house. Freedom caucus envy current in a republican Party in the House, Republican Kok has in particular bet I haven't, had a sense of you. It seems that there are just as hawkish, if not we're so as anybody else, and that this is something where you, ve just gone from being a distinct strain of conservatism, to just being where you hang out in the house of your super duper concern of the army, and this this comes to kind of the second road block that we we had last night and we shall get too and a bed. The conservatives in the house, It seemed to have shifted on increasing spending for defence era,
Amber gosh it, and it was early last year when they were first starting to talk about budget caps, and I was, I spent a lot of time waiting outside of freedom caucus meetings and they would bring in the chair of the Armed Services Committee to talk about why they should increase defence spending and mark meadows who's. The chair of the Freedom caucus was likewise actually surprised. How open my Members were to this kind of increase, because that's not I mean they're, usually dont want the kind of increase in spending Sure there are some purists among them. Largely we have seen the committee swimming ok with massive increases defence spending to the point that two weeks so when they were negotiating a way to get two. Yes, on the last short term spending bill in January, they actually struck a deal that Paul Ryan would push
short term spending bill that only increased funding to the military and didn't increased funding to domestic programmes. So now, but we reached to last night was that this budget cab steel, sock, like many conservative revolt in the house and there are like we do not want to increase money to defer domestic programmes by this much, and we will not vote for this budget cap. Steel, which force Paul Ryan too, then seek support from democratic ass. He could with enough votes in the house. Among Republicans alone, she's living in Andalusia, endearing have the street. They insisted three weeks ago on a deal that increased military spending and then voted against it this week, because it so increase domestic spending. Having already contributed in began there about budget the lake deficits. We must demonstrate that they don't care about it when it comes to tax cuts or increasing military Psmith right, so they don't care about the democratic. If it's it's an interesting
It was interesting, but these the evolution is that the people aren't replay stride that now there was clearly a view at some point that they knew to party issue. Political grouping was libertarian in nature right, so, like freedom, caucus was a good name by, they didn't call themselves the relentless authority. Marion costs. This right, there's also a liberty carcass of the little red very mean but put in, and there are, I mean, ran, pause and assembly. Does not nobody who came out of that cohort who is from a libertarian orientation Yet just a marsh well and but on his massey was also, I think, but they mean stream. Evolution of freedom. Caucus politics relative to the overall GNP centre of gravity has been the day are more anti immigration, more defence hawkish You know they are just like more right wing in in a broad sense. Like
across the board on everything. It's like all. Republicans love the military, but the Freedom caucus double loves the military, you now alike. They're a Emily, and this is Trump himself right. That, like Trump, is the least libertarian figure in republican Party politics, probably ever, and the Freedom caucus is the group of house conservative who are maximally Trump aligned ride like there's? No there's no actual, like freedom in in the Freedom Party What I mean is consistent with the normal. You know. The Austrian Freedom Party is like their far right party that things like that, but it's it's a really striking because, like there were a lot of takes in whom Hama era about
a libertarian moment in american politics and and various things like that, but it's the like most of the people involved in that are the trumpery slick. There isn't like at like tension between the freedom wing, Republicans and the authoritarian wing of repair dance. Like it's the same wings and they have my very favourite and a massive use, this anecdote on a past me. It's panic has because it is to me the best quote from an elected official on the current state of american politics is from Representative Tom Massey, who, like Grandpa, comes out of Kentucky, I think, was all elected in twenty ten- and you know it is one of the more ideologically consistent members of this wave and he told a local media. Let in twenty fifteen, when it was clear that brand Paul's campaign for president was struggling. He was talking how when he first ran for office,
he saw these constituents who are super infused about. You know what the tea party stood for and about reining in spending and about the debt is really excited that he was in a representing this new wave of public opinion. And then he saw that these worthy exactly the same people who are gravitating toward Trump and other in a figures that representative very different. Conservative politics needs that. I realised that they didn't actually lake where people like me and ran stood for. They were just running the craziest son of a bitch in the room, that's a very pejorative wade, put it in Massey his kind of come around on tromp by theirs Finally, a dynamic of you go for the people who represent the most counter cultural or like hashtag, resistance to the existing regime and during the Obama era that looked like the tea party, and currently it looks like a president who and if all players not to kneel during the national anthem, it's kind of some of these, politicians in Freedom Caucus my
I've seen that same shift and realise that they need to represent a different polity and some of them, actually, you believe, that themselves that its there's no significant contradiction between having been deficit, hawks under Obama and not being deficit. Fox now, because the point is that you're sticking it to the liberals, yeah, I mean I think, that's why the position of Freedom caucus has been in under Trump has been particularly interesting, because they developed under the Obama administration, the where they had a lot more leeway to stick to their guns, and now they their base has been activated by the president, so they have to hand of side with the president. and a both gives them an opportunity to actually govern and to be a part of legislation in a way. That was never the he's, even when Republicans were in charge of the house and debate or any better, do not pay attention to the house. Freedom caucus ass, much ass. He could but it also limits them and actually seeking to their principles, because trumped doesn't always structure their core
conservative principles on spending, or so let us what's actually in this deal, so it's three hundred billion dollars in extra spending over two years. A hundred sixty billion of that three hundred billion is for the military side. I spent about a day and a half, not understanding what exactly the hundred sixty billion military spending was going to it turns out. The answer is that this is a budget caps deal which simply sets the t all for the appropriation, so it is now up to the armed Services subcommittee of the appropriations committees to decide what a hundred sixty billion dollars are. If you look at these social media from republican leaders like Paul Ryan, is that they are acting as if there's some really specific acute military need that is addressing, but that's not
I don't like that that somehow Congress works is is the answer to my riddle. There is no answer to the question. What is this money roar the domestic side, right, it's what it's like it. It's a hundred. Thirty hundred forty, I think ethics, I'm shimmers office, saying one thirty, one think more accurate. like one twenty eight and it's a real, it's a smorgasbord right of policy right the disaster relief is an important part as a huge chunk of it. So it's eighty eighty billion dollars of it and is this per late for particular disaster as always, is any of this going to print Erika, I e I ate like Porter Eco Taxes, Florida California can alone it like a like replenishing females counts right, and so then what specifically happens is is another question and road. It extends the chip funding were extra years. It delivers the community health centres
one day I saw something that alive darkening members seem excited about. Is the child care development black grants, which I don't know it helps it, helps poor people, allegedly there's an age money which I think has been one of the big sequester victims Was- was the age. Whilst there is twenty billion for infrastructure Oh had we, so this is infrastructure weak it like snuck right by us every week as infrastructure. We it was a secret and recycling. twenty billion is a lot less than the one trillion that is, It is another I'll have to like that that we now get to go into details about what this twenty billion is. What do we know what the twenty billion as we too, I mean that this is a cap with utter out part of the yes, and so so so we get to see infrastructure weaken the next like Firefox. Yet Yeah know it's interesting. Gazettes are normally how infrastructure is hand. Now
hungry so that you can work with the defends its normal right. It's, like you, said a budget target and the appropriate work it out at transportation. Researchers not normally done that way, so it sort of remains to be seen. But while what will come of that, I was I was a puzzled, but there's like a line does like a bullet point on their lists about college affordability for firemen yeah police officers. teachers yeah. I don't really know more about this other than that, but I do ask some higher education experts about those like is their big issue with like to fire fighters. Need college degree. Is peopled people don't seem to have really great answers as to what that's about I mean it will not surprise me like. I think that something that we have seen that we ve talked about a little bit on here, but the really saw on the Superbowl is that there is there. Is this idea that it should be non controversial to treat police officers and as heroes, so it would
surprise me if something that was a liberal priority, because college, affordability or because teachers became bipartisan by saying well, we think the really important people are police officers environment. I completely understand I just media. Now I don't know is a policy that we are linked. We ve classically had certain loan forgiveness programmes for teachers, because teachers all have to go to college right to get jobs as teachers, I'm a little confused, at the firefighters, but we will see eye to eye van about autumn line. Here appears to be that you know everything after a several months or several years, depending on higher thinking about it of Congress being absolutely unwilling to deal with must pass legislation any more than lake in two hours before a deadline. It see
like this is a pretty broad effort to get some stuff off of Congress has played right, like the Dalai Lama. Limit was supposed to be. The next must pass bill there, dealing with that their lake taking action on ship, which they already had extended for six years late. This is, there's a lot of ends in oh, certainly as Congress looks toward the mid term elections in November and, like you, expect the pace of legislating to slow down some. This does seem like a relatively pro active effort, which is interesting, of course, because the one thing that isn't in this deal that was supposed to be an urgent must pass item, is anything on immigration fray, and so I gather that this is something that House Democrats have been very much in our torn over and that this was something of a problems. I was wondering if you could kind of talk through like white. You know why that didn't end
you're a causing another shot down and late. Why Democrats think is going to happen now because they ve been saying for weeks that this needs to attach too must pass Bell, and there are no must pass bills left while there. Well there is. There is the actual appropriate here on earth for that, but there are certainly aren't you before March Fifth, which is the inflammatory went for when I start losing worthy down. Only did they did try to clean there their plate as much as they could this time around so what your that was. The ii too kind of figures for roadblock last night after Rand Paul's filibuster, was that nobody knew what was going to happen with the final House vote for the entire night until the run up to that final housework than we sought pass, and that was largely because so Nancy Paul, Ryan, Chuck, Schumer and Mitch. Mcconnell negotiated this budget deal, but then this week and see plus he came out and said, look I support everything that is in this budget deal as I helped negotiate it
however, because it does not it set aside the issue of Dhaka, an immigration. I cannot vote for this this capital and she said it personally. This escalated over next couple of days on wednesdays, she went on eight hour floor speech. She was reading stories of dreamers. She was that it was an ad in the I think, when the longest for speeches in history in the house in foreign shield, in jails and analyse movie about dark, and it was a sign for doc and she said that a lot of other Democrats will come behind me then by. This morning there was a lot of kind of wishy washy rhetoric coming and of democratic leadership worthy whipping against this budget cap steel, where they just telling people no vote, your conscience, Pope S, leaders are not voting for it and by the afternoon the democratic Kok has had a meeting the hassle
accepted meeting and essentially principles, he told everyone for your conscience. I am not voting for it, which a lot of people ok the meeting. Saying luck. Nancy policy is very persuasive and all we will say is that she's not voting for it and she is very persuasive and took it starting to kind of build a lot of tension of- and this comes back, the conservative revolt that we saw so Para and did not have enough votes with just republicans, even though he has a big enough majority to pass legislation, we just Republican, so he needed Democrats to sign on to this and Democrats have not not to any of the spending bills in the past that have not included Doc effects and an interpose. It was based saying gal do it again, and so there is the question by the end of the night. It became clear that there are enough Democrats who actually did want this capsules passing. I think anti policy also one of the Castro to pass, but that's that
the big tension of the night, I'm there's a lot to go like strategy wise, there's a lot to go and behind that that we're? I don't know if there was a lot of forethought. I talk to a lot of democratic staffers. Yesterday, though, just like, we have no idea. What's going on, it's very confusing, so very frustrating, because we thought we had the steel dislike, jeopardize the Senate immigration negotiations next week. If we shut down the government, but also they recognise that the house is a really huge obstacle for emigration. Immigration fight had become Is the conservatives in the house keep getting assurances from Paul Ryan that he well whip. This good lad bill which took a very conservative immigration, but it has no bipartisan support and has no chance of going anywhere in the Senate, and pouring has also said he won't. He won't vote on immigration legislation doesn't have. The support
The majority of the republican caucus in the house. So those two are extremely limiting factor as fur for House Democrats who, who want to see some kind of immigration or form on foot soldiers. I mean the basic story here seems to be that democratic leaders, somehow over the period of months, talk themselves into a stand on doc. that they didn't actually believe in Russia. Timing. I remember there. I don't even want to say to shut down the government over, because I think that, like cast set in an excessively aspersions e way, but that, like the the order of operations here, was that once upon a time, conservatives wanted their wall and democratic leaders were keeping the wall out,
of various appropriations to go? She Asians budget deal CR deals. Read they kept saying. I was possible because congressional Republicans went to trumpet said. None of us is particularly jazzed about this either. That is another. we are willing to die absolutely, but I'm just saying that was that this stance, the like symbolically, and that immigration. The democratic leaders would recognise the democratic leaders do not have like a lot of objective leverage in the minority rights but like that was what they were doing was like. They were going to block the wall and then Trump Cancel Doc and because he's tromp he does everything in a very confusing way you know and like the message out of the administration, was not clear but like one thing that some people thought that they were here was that trust was making a power move right to get wall funding so that Democrats, it seemed to me started backing themselves into
opposition of offering a concession to trap, which was we will back off our opposition to Wall funding to like put Dhaka back in but people. I don't like to portray themselves as being weak in politics, so they tried to take this offer of a concession to trump and spin it as like an aggressive power, and that was like we're gonna insist on including Dhaka in a government appropriations bell right. and there was actually their way of saying, like we're. Gonna make concessions on Wall funding, not their way of saying. We're gonna have a government shut down, but then in the In the tumbler of like media and activists, and like different statements from people who want to run for president, it can't flipped around over the winter to like now, the progressive demand is like no government, being bill without a dark, a solution.
And meanwhile the administration is having its like parallel figuring out. What's happening process in which they end up landing on we're, not swapping a wall that serious immigration, hawks dont think accomplishes anything for the dream act. We want like these big, really meaningful substantive concessions on legal immigration, asylum, potluck stuff we ve been talking, out, another million Friday episodes. So you wound up with like a totally different dynamic from the one that that had initially begun and democratic there's never wanted to like come out before the microphone
and just like, say, look like we favour the dream act, but like appropriations, negotiations are about appropriations, not about immigration, and if we can strike a deal that gets money for programmes that we think are important like we like that and want to pass it. So you get this weird thing: we're like NIT Nit Nancy because he basically spent the whole week like tanks, her position right. We're like she keeps saying, like I'm, not could vote for this bill Babo MA but like making it clear to everybody the lack of half a dozen it didn't like full activists, be clear, I know who I was full Ella Nilsen, the our congressional reporter who covers Democrats ran into some some dreamers on the hell yesterday, and they're. Like luck, we know that she is standing on the floor for eight hours. Reading
stories and behind closed doors negotiating for at least enough people to vote for this Bell rang sayin. I think I think that this is part of the story. I think that there are two other kind of stuff going on here. One is the activists like it is known and not controversial that there is no immigration bill that Republicans care enough about that. They would like that they are interested in bringing it to the floor of both chambers and passing as late on its own. Like even the good luck bill, wasn't something that they were pushing before doc. I became a thing it you know my if Paul Ryan is whipping it maybe it'll pass the house, but like it's not just that it wouldn't pass a sixty vote threshold in the Senate, but that lake report and leadership in the Senate isn't particularly in did in the things that the good let boil focuses on this policy like there are not interested in making it mandatory all employers to use the verifies system like that's, not what their priorities are and because different factions and the Republican Party have different immigration priorities. There isn't anything
Now that you know- and this this makes it a problem for Democrats. Essentially, there is nothing that Democrats can offer. The Republicans will say all of us consider this a fair trade, which is how you get into the problem of the wall, because the wall has always been a priority for Donald Trump, more than it's been a priority for anyone else, and his administration at the Republican Party, but being aware of all of that immigration activists new pretty early on that, the only way you were going to get Congress to actually act, even though they were saying that everybody wanted to address this in the next six months was to attach something to us pass Bell and they were making the calculus that a certain number of republican members would want to get the issue of Dhaka off their plates badly enough that they would be willing to swallow, a vote in a one hard vote attached to a must pass bill. They wouldn't have anything that they wanted to that like they could agree on wanting in exchange that NATO. That was kind of the the argument that
led to know Dhaka without Nope must pass bills without Dhaka becoming an immigration activists demand in December and then from Mary progressive activists at the demand, more broadly January so like at the same time, it's happening, though there still are there. There is still an ongoing debate within the Democratic Party about the extent to which immigration it should be, and the issue that they are willing to take a stand on going the twenty eight in mid term is because, on the one hand it something where you note, Donald Trump is extreme the unpopular including among be democratic base. This is she, where he's taken a stand. That is contrary to most public opinion and is very aggressive and is really rallying based. On the other hand, there are a lot of Democrats, especially House Democrats, who are worried their abandoning white voters that there,
You know going all on an issue that is very divisive, that it would be better to stand for bread and butter issues so with the budget caps deal when you're, not just talking about being looking like the responsible party in keeping the government open, which I think has been part of the democratic calculus in the past that lake they want to be the adults in the room. But actual a deal that includes domestic spending for things that democratic, considered priorities. You were here some noise for House Democrats, lake, We ve been saying that we care about more than immigration and now we're making it sound like all we care about is immigration again, and that was a big problem for them. Because of this ongoing debate about you know, is the Democratic Party going to be able to both galvanise a progressive and ethically too space and retain or went over enough in a white vote. Is too to be able to like wind.
x and swing districts, but I wouldn't you say, white voters. I mean the the congressional hispanic caucus took like an official caucus position against this bell on the grounds that it doesn't have dreamer provisions, but about a half dozen latino Democrats voted for the Bell and that's because they mostly represent districts intact. Afraid that were impacted by the flood relieve their constituents are mostly Latinos. The difficulty in all these things right is like
the way it Democrats got. People of color as their key electoral base is that people of color very disproportionately depended on things like community health centres chip you, no child development bought grants. It happens to be the case that the geography of this flooding hit a lot of heavily minority districts in Texas, but it's the keys, I think, like distant. Act in like like that. The discourse around this issue versus the reality of the issue is that, even when, when people, whether they are like generic progressive groups or their democratic members of Congress, relaxed, leaning on for the stock in demand Nobody was signing on for DE prioritizing other progressive priorities in the budget negotiations. Right now, if Chuck humor had gone into this room, you know some months ago today
she ate and had said like. I know you guys want a big increase in military spending, and my number one priority in the steel is deportation protections for Dhaka recipients. I think maybe he could have but that would have meant not making republic swallow a bunch of domestic spending. Wait! It's like you can get some stuff in a negotiation but like it has to balance, and in the case of negotiation, when republicans have the majority in the house and the majority in the Senate and the majority in the White House, like the balance is gonna tilt toward republican priority is end, I think that one one way of construing this is like all Democrats, totally sold out and aka or like Democrats, got nothing when they do nothing with their leverage and they didn't get nothing they just like. They got a bunch of stuff that wasn't about
we should in, and there was never a frank discussion like in the community as to like what are we seeing, but the rank ordering of these different priorities. Knowing I personally am not as enthusiastic about this domestic discretionary spending. As a lot of house Democrats are and a lot of house Democrats sort of like the sequestered dynamic where they get to count military spent as a concession to Republicans when actually they favour it and I'm more risk, you know so it like. I look at this and I feel that this is not that great deal. We're like given the military tunnel money. They don't really need were spending money, domestic programmes, but some of those programmes are not that valuable, we're not doing anything for immigrants which, like I'm really jazzed up about. but I also see it the other way like given the spending priorities as Democrats have they like got a lot of their spending priorities done while having like almost no like they lost all the
next Evans and there's still getting to fund a lot of the stuff that they care about. An trump wins. deporting dreamers is. This kind of weird policy booby prize wide like Is it really matters was out yesterday making promises? He cannot keep saying like two we're not going to support the like. Several hundred dreamers were currently severing the military and are to be clear. Nobody should the promise seriously, but defiantly one seek nothing that the trumpet ministrations right about what is happening to Dhaka seriously, because no one is being asked about. It has any idea what good the fat That he's saying it it's telling it. I mean, I think, a subtle element that dynamic hears it for a lot of house Democrats whose constituents are progressive but aren't necessarily latino immigrants are have white skin. name. Unless its kind alike,
the more the merrier man, like you, go dragging people off aircraft carriers into chains, we'll just run against that right. Right like we're, Democrats dont want to run against funding. The military targets are thrilled to run against deporting dreamers. Now, actually, staging government shut down Dreamers is a different thing, and this has always been the kind of the thought that eventually you can get to a majority on some on passing some, if Bill right, because the logic has always been that moderate republican specially matter Republicans living in late. No heavy districts liking. California, I dont want to neither what to be the office getting protested against. If a dreamer gets lake, you know fired from their jobs from their job in their district and taken away and Jane Nor do they want to be running. This fall against someone who saying you know representative Jeff dinner, like the reason that this dreamer and our district got deported, you know they don't they
stand, that dynamic, coming and fear radically. That should be enough to light a fire in the Erika was this was of- and this was the first shot down threat from Democrats that directly impacted the political headwinds going against them. On immigration, I mean we ve seen the Senate Democrats because they have a slim, but they have more leverage on spending fights in the past. Six months in the Senate have really been taking the charge on. We will vote against these.
In Belgium will shut down the government, but its Nancy policy, who is facing the real political challenge of getting a vote on immigration, and she did not have the leverage to to make that case and make that demand until now, and so she dead but well, she did and she did it. But I think that's kind of the the the politics of the Republican Party in the house are something that are going to come to real focus in the next few weeks, because if you talk to House Republicans last January and ask them how they work, if there are going to start working on Immigration Donald Trump, like main campaign promise, they would laugh in your face because it is the most divisive issue in the house. I live on a peaceful of ratings. Laughing horrors does not want to take you to someone touch immigration, it would completely destroy. Is God s anything they put up for a vote? Will will even the conservative bill even if they whip it, like, I think the whip husband
it's slow, probably because it is facing serious divisions within the Republican Party, and so This was a real moment. I think for Democrats where now that they have reached the point where they keep saying. Oh we're gonna attached to spending in Dhaka fight together we will shut down the government over that of can finally coalescence that position so the first time where it was addressing the issue had on, but they had this catch you so much we get in fury next week. We get to start an immigration debate in the Senate, or at least we have been told that rich colonel is going to start and immigration debate in the Senate and fur being to start on the floor of the Senate anywhere people who have no asked either of us What is going on have usually been met with drugs, people who have no, it's not,
for obvious reasons involving the government on the government shutting down for a few hours last night. It's not like this has been top of anyone's agenda in the last few days and yet somehow there going to be discussing dislike massive harry, complicated issue, what Mcdonald's doing this it we're saying as I am here, I I think I can a ladder, normie sphere that like this is how Congress ought to operate. right right, which is like the leader, will say: ok like we can have total anarchy here. So I get my copy City is leader, I'm going to say we're gonna, set aside some time to address the topic of immigration, and then there is going to be an open debate on immigration in which members can produce their amendments and say what they want. A libyan. I think, if you, if you pull away from all ones knowledge of how Washington works, this kind of sound sounds like a story buck right. Mrs Ruth goes to Washington Vision now, but the real, quality. Is that that's not how you legislate right, and I'm not
how Mcconnell or hurried for that matter ran quantum could open debates This is what it is it would eat. It smells like I don't want to see it seems suspect sweetie grant its it seems like this is a way of creating a situation in which everybody out there or whatever their politics are gets too if they, if you're republican- and you feel like you have to say you want to help dreamers. This will create. A lot of opportunity is to go on the record as having sponsored a bill that will do that as having voted for a bill that will do that without produce
in any legislation that actually affect you. It's that- and this is something we ve seen on, but even in the two thousand six thousand seven immigration era, where, in contrast to twenty thirteen, like the bill, didn't pass, and yet it was an entirely clear on the record, like who had killed it or why? Because, when you have a chaotic debate like this, it creates a love opportunity for people to insert poison pills to eat. It's it's it's, it's not how you legislate right. So there are there. will of ways. The legislative you actually want to pass about right. One is that you like in isabel, send it through committee, put it through the committee amendment process. Put it on the floor, have amendments on the floor and like the broader process here is kind of a snowball effect right. You like get enough votes to get it out of committee sometimes by giving concessions to people who need particular things, you get enough votes on Laura to get it eventually passed and the reason that this has been possible
immigration bills and twenty six and twenty seven and twenty thirteen is that it's a complicated enough you, if you're addressing the entire immigration system as a whole, that lake or in hat really is about high skilled work, visas you can give or and hatch something he wants. Our high skilled work visas and be willing to vote for something that, like includes a lot of stuff, that or enhance, doesn't care about. You can you know, throw lake several billion dollars at the border as the Corporal Woven Florimond maiden, twenty thirteen and you'll get a block of Republicans who say: okay, our major Political liability on this issue has been assuage, were now willing to vote, for it been the argument of people who have pushed for a broad and comprehensive immigration approach and they ve been met with people who have said well. Congress doesnt work passing big bills, because there are forever reason to vote for bill. There's a reason to vote against it. Why don't you try? steady, piecemeal approach. We're dealing with discreet aspects of the immigration system, you know distinctly and that's been Usually the republican position for the last decade now
What Mcconnell is doing is he's not endorsing any kind of comprehensive or piecemeal approach. There is an assumption that, whenever bill gets passed will include some thing related to dock recipients, whether its ape minute. I will ina whether it's an indefinite. Legalization programme for doktor recipients, whether its broader than just doc recipients and includes other dreamers, whether it's just stay. our three year quote Unquote Extension and how on earth that works like there isn't anything Mitch, Mcconnell ASEAN has to be in this bill and furthermore, instead of using any of the multiple bills that have already been proposed and saying we're gonna start here and then people can fight. You know to pull it to the left or right his in his cards? Close was chest just saying we're going to start with a shell bill, we're not going to start with an immigration bill at some point
Mcconnell will introduce like whatever bill he wants, but we have no idea what filaments ricotta lots. You said nothing about it, so there's this extreme, we brought and Harry and complicated issue the economy has made no effort to focus and meanwhile, he's kind of reserving the right to just try to ram something through without giving any one any sense of what that might look like a lot of that comes back to the reluctance from republican leaders too, address immigration, the first, but I mean they know it's device, it be the eye we hear is that I think of your thinking about what, like the typical Republican, wants out of a policy approach to dreamers right. The answer is actually Dhaka
right like a in a universe in which there are ten or eleven million undocumented immigrants, in which only a couple hundred thousand can be feasibly deport in any given year, in which people with extremely deep roots in the United States are incredibly unlikely to self deport, no matter what you do and in which the politics of immigration have pros and cons, depending on how its framed and the dreamers are, the most immigrant friendly possible, framing a measure that protects dreamers from being put into deportation proceedings, while preventing them from coming. U S: citizens who can vote and who can sponsor visas for family members is a really includes a mechanism where you now the government is Anna, is forcing them to every two years. Pay five hundred dollars to prove they can still weren't have unlimited. Any crimes is like it's. You know it. It keeps
from any allegations of any indefinite amnesty. Is it? What is a really good? Actually, like Republicans solution to the issue allows the ice deportation machinery to keep role, laying in less contentious way, is working on a much bigger trunk of the population must segmenting off the most sympathetic cases in it like principled and organise kind of way, and this is why, when Obama World this programme out, Republicans did not suit. They didn't shut down the gun like they didn't feel about over this, like they had block the dreamer, because they had. You know I don't agree with their position, but I understand why Republicans did not want to create a million plus new. U S, citizens who would be doing their own. You know family visa sponsorships it and other things like that. This was a good solution that, like achieve their core equities in this area,
The term administration, which has this weird hollowness at its centre with the present. The United States is not well informed about politics or policy and is subject to the different machinations of different factions. As destabilize the situation and you can see in these repeated calls for what may be the extended for air and stuff and then in the dark here screaming like no. You can't do that, but this is emphasising that, like this, the thing that would achieve what Republicans would have wanted would have been for trumped, who have just not cancel this in the first place that, like would not have turned Donald Trump into like an immigration. Amnesty super hawk any would let them just keep saying like no Congress is not going to debate new immigration legislation, we're going to keep doing these sweeps we're gonna get, who we get we're going to deport, who we depart,
than a push for more funding and like keep on keeping on, and instead they ve, like they live, shut themselves in the foot in in a weird way. Would they don't have a path forward that that they support within no I mean it's a tragedy, because you know what people are going to suffer enormously for it, but if they could wave, a magic wand and just take this back. It would put them in a much better position. So, everything you have said is true, but I think that there's it's even It is even more interesting and tragic because it's not just the Republicans Words super Gung HO about fighting Dhaka when Obama first rolled out in twenty twelve. It's that in the weeks and months before that marker Rubio had been saying. We need to do something for the dreamers I'm going to introduce a bill to help the dreamers I'm going to be a leader on the dreamers and note ever introduced and then Obama
darker and there was just knew no no indication from Rubio. There was nothing in it I would have prevented congressional in a bill to actually offer any kind of legislative protection, Margaret Rubio could have very easily said the executive was the wrong they go about this. But it's the right solution I and public and leaders in Congress should make sure were reining in Obama. Vi passing exactly this, but legislatively didn't do that now you know it's. It is absolutely true that every time everyone says that Donald Trump can extend doc. If he wanted to, I lose my shit, but while it's complicated and policy. sense for Congress to do some kind of like temporary, three or visa, like. I think that, as policy, that would be an absolute disaster and would probably result in a lot of the bad press of people losing their jobs and getting departed. The Republicans want to avoid, but it is legally possible. Congress to do something like that. The problem is
if they essentially that the closer whatever they would pass, is too All the more they're saying we are ex ending dhaka, bypassing the spill, the more screws up, sessions in the d o J were currently trying to get the Supreme Court to take up. The universe he's of them, ending Dhaka, keeping the appellate court and treating it this massively urgent issue that the Supreme Court needs to address and if Congress turns around and says well actually there, supposedly unconstitutional program that supposedly unconstitutional, because it didn't involve the legislature, the legacy you're is endorsing by name by extending it. Norville is a complication that I think publicans right now are moving towards seeing that is there as there he'll marry that they're going, or at least that there are like going to say themselves, probably by either, not doing anything and just letting Dhaka stay open, while the court case plays out to renewals or
by passing some kind of temporary in a fix and they don't realize, I heard they don't appear to realise that that's gonna cause and problems with it. the strain and force the administration to have the conversation about what it wants to do with dreamers in Dhaka recipients did. It hasn't yet been forced to have, and that's not actually a good situation for a publicans to put the White House in and with that maybe we can get some sleep. So thanks thanks so much sharper for for joining us. I explained this ray. I know it's been a brutally long, weak less that last couple days, especially Pixar engineer at Peter Leonard thanks to all of you out there. Listening that we are going to be back next week, Tuesday we're going to have Dylan Matthews on extra special guest star talk about disability insurance, and we will see whether by
Transcript generated on 2021-09-13.