Posted by Curt on 1 December, 2014 at 6:38 pm. 13 comments already!



Via the Daily Caller, there’s a caveat here but I’m not sure why. First Jon Karl asks whether Obama would veto a single bill that funds the entire government for 12 months but specifically blocks him from carrying out executive amnesty. Yup, sure would, says Josh Earnest. Okay, says Karl, but what if Republicans pass a bill that funds the entire government for 12 monthsexcept for Homeland Security, the agency tasked with implementing amnesty, which would be funded on a short-term basis only until O rescinds his executive order? Earnest is noncommittal about that one. That idea, the so-called “CROmnibus,” is indeed being kicked around by GOP leaders. Which makes sense: Republicans want to play hardball with amnesty funding but without defunding the entire government, lest they be blamed for a new shutdown. The obvious solution is to fund most of it and instead play hardball with just DHS, on the assumption that most of the public won’t care about that. Perfectly logical for the GOP to consider that approach.

Is it logical for Obama to consider it, though? His goal is to pressure the GOP into funding his amnesty; his leverage is public perceptions that if government can’t function because it’s not getting the money it needs, it must be the damned Republicans’ fault. If he agrees to the CROmnibus plan, which would require him to sign a bill funding all of the government except DHS for 12 months, he reduces his leverage. Logically, it seems, if he’s willing to veto a single omnibus funding bill on grounds that it hurts his amnesty, he should be willing to veto two separate bills (one short-term bill for DHS and a longer-term bill for everything else) that seek to achieve the same purpose. If Earnest is hedging here, and he is, it must be that even Democrats are nervous about the politics of this.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x