Tag: senate democrats
I Was Wrong: Democrats Won A Dunkirk Victory In Shutdown Defeat

I Was Wrong: Democrats Won A Dunkirk Victory In Shutdown Defeat

In 1940, Winston Churchill ordered the evacuation of 338,000 troops facing annihilation on the beaches of Dunkirk. Churchill called the successful operation "a miracle of deliverance." Historians portray it as a perfect example of victory in defeat.

Democrats raging at eight members of their caucus for ending the government shutdown might take a few lessons from the master of morale and strategy. What some hotheads framed as "capitulation" is, in the long run, the wisest plan.

Right after Dunkirk, Churchill famously said, "Wars are not won by evacuations." That is so, but stopping a potential disaster lets your side fight another day. Ending the shutdown prevented negative outcomes that had begun chugging the Democrats' way.

Shutdowns almost always bite the party that starts them. The record for this is so strong that I thought Democrats had erred from Day One.

I was wrong. Democrats effectively used the headlines to highlight the issue sure to haunt Republicans come the midterms: the soaring cost of health care.

Democrats prevailed in the recent elections, partly on threats to their health coverage, partly on rising food prices, tariff chaos and in-your-face corruption. But at a certain point, the news started turning from the fight to extend the Obamacare subsidies to flights being canceled and the poor losing food assistance.

With Thanksgiving approaching, the sight of family members sitting on suitcases in airports is not optimal. As many more Americans feel shutdown pain at the personal level, Democrats are harder pressed to avoid blame, even if the public liked certain items they were fighting for.

Now some firebrands just want a fight. But their contention that reopening the government caused a loss of leverage is based on illusion. Democrats never held meaningful leverage because they don't have the votes. Republicans control the White House, the House, and the Senate.

To quote Barack Obama, "Elections have consequences."

The election of Trump and a mostly pliant Republican Congress created such consequences as attacks on Obamacare and, more ominously, our democratic institutions. Democrats can offer a prettier set of consequences, but they can only deliver them if they retake control.

The Democrats' winning message should be, elect us and we will restore health care security. Even the temporary loss of it will hit home. As another great American, Joni Mitchell, sang, "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone?"

Now, if the shutdown worked in avoiding even some pain, that would be an argument in favor. But it wasn't.

Speaking for Democrats who voted to reopen the government, Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent, posed the right question: "Does the shutdown further the goal of achieving some needed support for the extension of the tax credits?" (He's referring to credits that were temporarily increased during the pandemic, making coverage cheaper for millions.)

These senators come from the swing states of Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Maine. They are key to Democrats obtaining and keeping a majority in Congress. Without them, Democrats have no hope of obtaining real power. And without real power, their politics are just performance.

As noted, the shutdown did succeed in putting the specter of lost health coverage front and center. That mission has been accomplished. Trump's now railing that Obamacare is a "scam" to get the insurance companies filthy rich. Democrats should thank him for calling this revered benefit a "scam."

Assessing the dire situation at Dunkirk, Churchill chose not to make a heroic yet suicidal stand. But he followed closely with his immortal "We shall fight on the beaches" speech — a rally to the nation for continued resistance.

The midterms are the beaches that Democrats should be storming.

Top Senate Republican Blows Up Over Democratic Bill To Fund SNAP, Then Blocks It

Top Senate Republican Blows Up Over Democratic Bill To Fund SNAP, Then Blocks It

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) launched into a diatribe attacking Democrats when one — Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico — asked unanimous consent to pass legislation to pay the 42 million Americans who use SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Later, Thune apologized — to reporters, not Sen. Luján, for his remarks.

Despite having about $5 to $6 billion in emergency funds for SNAP, the Trump administration decided to reverse its previous policy to pay recipients during a shutdown. That policy, which was removed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website, had stated the “Congressional intent” was to make the funds available.

Experts have said there is a legal requirement to fund SNAP via its contingency reserves during the shutdown.

“Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Wednesday that would help low-income households afford groceries during the government shutdown, despite bipartisan support for providing nutrition aid to tens of millions of Americans,” Bloomberg News reported.

Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio described Thune’s remarks as a “blowup,” and said he went “nuclear.”

“The senator from New Mexico was absolutely right,” Thune said on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon. “SNAP recipients shouldn’t go without food.”

Republicans’ position is that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown, now in its 29th day. But polling shows that more Americans blame Republicans and President Trump for the shutdown than Democrats, whom they believe are trying to reopen the government more than Republicans.“People should be getting paid in this country. And we’ve tried to do that 13 times. And you voted no, 13 times,” he said, pointing to Democrats who have refused to vote to reopen the federal government until Republicans agree to reinstate the Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Obamacare premiums are expected to skyrocket without the subsidies.

“This isn’t a political game,” Thune said, angrily. “These are real people’s lives that we’re talking about. And you all just figured that out?”

“Twenty-nine days and, ‘Oh, there might be some consequences.’ There are people who are running out of money. Yeah, we’re 29 days in.”

“Thirteen times, people over here voted to fund SNAP, thirteen times, they voted to fund WIC,” he said of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

“My aching back,” Thune said, expressing frustration.

The Majority Leader then went on to charge that Democrats want the shutdown to continue, long term.“So are they making plans to end the shutdown and reopen the government?” he asked. “Nope. They’re gonna propose a bill to fund food stamps during their shutdown.”

“This bill is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Democrats to allow them to carry on their government shutdown for the long term.”

After his remarks, and after leaving the floor, Politico reported that Thune told reporters, “Sorry I channeled a little bit of anger there.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

How Do Democrats Negotiate With A President Who Says He Can Negate Any Deal?

How Do Democrats Negotiate With A President Who Says He Can Negate Any Deal?

I’ll confess to just being an economist and not a lawyer or a political consultant, but my mother did raise me to have some common sense. In this shutdown, and actually before, Donald Trump is claiming that he could choose not to spend any funds he doesn’t feel like spending. He has carried it further with the shutdown, canceling major infrastructure projects in states and congressional districts represented by Democrats, but the point is that Trump claims discretion to do whatever he wants with federal spending.

The Republicans in Congress, and possibly the Republican Supreme Court, also say this is okay. If Trump wants to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress, even if the only reason is to punish his political opponents, this is apparently fine with Republican politicians.

In fact, Trump has gone so far as to pronounce himself generous for having given money allocated by Congress to blue states. This is like the bank teller calling themselves generous for giving you the $200 you withdrew from your checking account. But that is where our politics is right now.

In this context, what possible reason could the Democrats have for making a deal? Trump and the Republicans are openly telling them it means nothing. It would be like negotiating the price of a renovation project with a building owner, when the owner openly tells you that they will pay you only what they feel like, regardless of the negotiated price. (Yeah, I know that’s what Trump did in his business.)

Anyhow, maybe I’m missing something, but this seems an important part of the current impasse which is not getting anywhere near the attention it deserves. With prior presidents this would not have been an issue. It had long been the understanding, upheld by the courts, that the president must spend funds appropriated by Congress.

But with Trump and the Calvin Ball Republicans making up whatever rules they want, and the Roberts Supreme Court finding the justification in the Constitution, a deal doesn’t mean what it used to mean. It’s true that you can’t run a country this way, but there is no reason for the Democratic Party to give cover to a crazy charade.

There can be no deal without some real rules that Trump is bound by. Even a Republican politician should be able to understand that.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World