Homeland Security Funding Battle

 

I am still struggling to understand the Congressional funding rules.  It appears that the House passed the final four bills, agreeing to vote on Homeland Security separately from the others, but then stitched all together and sent to the Senate to approve or reject.  In other words, they are not about to give up their hostages.  Since the Alex Pretti shooting, Democrats have vowed not to vote for the Homeland Security bill.  There has been talk of passing the other bills and allowing only Homeland Security to close, although I cannot see why Republicans would agree to that.

But even if they do agree, Democrats are in a difficult spot.  First of all, refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security would not just defund La Migra.  The Coast Guard and FEMA are also included.  Furthermore, the proposed ICE budget is $10 billion.  Funds given to ICE in the One Bad Bloated Boondoggle -- $75 billion.  In other words, even if Democrats were to cut off all funding for ICE, they would have a war chest large enough to last to the end of the Trump Administration and the first term of a hypothetical future Democratis Administration!  

All of which means that we have to face facts.  Sooner or later Democrats will climb down and agree to some sort of deal to fund DHS in order to restore funding to the Coast Guard, FEMA, etc.  Not funding ICE at all will not so much as crimp its operations.  At best, Democrats can seek to impose some restrictions on La Migra.  I have made some suggestions and can think of more.  Possibilities include:

• Outlaw arrest quotas and incentives.  This has the advantage that it would probably appeal even to ICE agents themselves and the disadvantage that it might be seen as unconstitutional micro-managing of the executive by the legislature.  But it is the wholly unrealistic arrest quotas that are driving everything else.
• Ban Border Patrol from internal enforcement.
• Strengthen Congress's authority to inspect immigration detention facilities.
• Mandate that La Migra follow the pattern of any other law enforcement agency -- any officer who discharges a firearm is to be suspended during (mandatory) investigation.
• Limit the President's power to fire immigration judges for making decisions he doesn't like.
• Require release on bond for anyone with a plausible claim to legal status who has strong ties to the community and is not a flight risk.
• Clearly define what is deemed to be proof of citizenship and require immigration agents to release anyone who can show it.
• Affirm the right of citizens to film and protest, perhaps setting more clearly defined limits of how close they can get and what constitutes "interference."
• Require a judicial warrant to enter a private space.
• Make clear that murder and mayhem on the job are prosecutable under state law.
• Create individual civil liability.
• And possibly, as a sop to Republicans, make it easier for La Migra to access arrest records and put a hold on people in custody.

Of course, I doubt that most of these would get past Republicans in Congress, let along Trump's signature.  But that it is where we, the people, come in.  Our job is to create political pressure.

What the Fresh Hell?!

 So let me get this right.  Donald Trump, after huffing and puffing and threatening war over Greenland has now backed off and agreed to basically indefinite negotiations that will probably end in expanded military bases that were his for the asking.  

I can see any number of possibilities of what happened.

• The bond market cracked its whip and Trump jumped into line.
• European leaders stood up firmly and he backed down.
• The European leaders flattered and cajoled him into a deal.
• Trump thinks that a deal gotten through threats and coercion is much better than the identical deal given voluntarily.
• Trump thinks that his base is more likely to applaud the deal if it seems to have been gotten by force.
• Trump likes stirring up crises so he can get credit for resolving them.
• It was an attempt to distract attention from his flagging approval at home.
• Trump was getting bored and wanted to stir up a little excitement.  After a while, he got bored with the crisis and decided to move on to something new.

I suspect there is some truth in many of these things.  But my guess is that the first explanation is primary.  The bond market cracked its whip and Trump jumped into line.  

I never thought I would say this, but let's all be grateful for the bond market.

Donald Trump at One Year

 

So, here we are at the one-year mark.  The good news is that civil society continues to flourish and democracy, though wounded, is far from dead.  The bad news is that we have three more years of this and whether democracy can take three more years is anybody's guess.

The obvious thing to do now is a retrospective, sort of like the 100 day retrospective.  How has Trump compared to my worst fears?  A lot has happened since May, but in terms of my fears, less than one might think.

Things that were not as bad as I feared:

Attempts to shut down the opposition:  That was what I feared most -- not so much that he would prosecute political opponents (the independent judiciary would thwart that), but that he would use federal money, tax exempt status, and other regulatory actions I did not know enough about to predict to cut off all funding for the opposition and establish a de facto one party state.  That hasn't happened.  It shows no signs of happening.  I got nervous again after the Charlie Kirk assassination, especially when Steve Miller pledged an "all of government" approach to shut down the opposition in all forms.  That hasn't happened, and so far as I can tell they really aren't planning to shut the entire opposition -- just anyone who opposes ICE.

Schedule F: Again, I considered this very dangerous because it could fly under people's radar screens.  The entire federal bureaucracy could become a patronage organization and an instrument for enforcing ideology and punishing enemies.  In this I underestimated just how much Republicans in general and Trump in particular hate the federal bureaucracy.  Instead, he sent Elon Musk in to wreck general havoc until the entire Cabinet revolted and demanded that he go.  This seriously undercut any plan to weaponize the federal bureaucracy by keeping it from functioning altogether.  Even Republicans are quietly trying to pick up the pieces.

Right wing militias: What was the biggest difference between Trump and Hitler when they both came into power?  Hitler had a large private army and Trump did not.  I feared that after Trump pardoned the Proud Boys for their attempt to overturn the election, they would become the new Storm Troopers and terrorize Trump's opponents into submission.  Yes, we do have a serious online Brown Shirt mob, menacing opponents with threats, SWATting, and unwanted pizza deliveries.  But online Brown Shirts are still not as bad a the real thing, which has not emerged.  And strong-willed opponents have defied them.  The real question is, have the Proud Boys just joined ICE?

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: No, seriously!  I'm not saying these guys are good, obviously.  Patel seems unduly fond of the privileges of the office and runs the FBI like an internet troll, tweeting out possible developments before they are confirmed.  But Kash Patel's FBI has not been fabricating evidence or infiltrating opposition groups (so far as we know). When an arrest turns out to be a mistake, they release the suspect.  Patel appears to have acknowledged that agents fired for being involved in the January 6 investigation were being treated unfairly, blamed his superiors for their being fired, and even encouraged them to sue.  And the FBI did genuinely good work in catching the Capitol Hill bomber and did not cut him a break for being a Trump supporter.  When confronted about this, Bongino answered, "I was paid in the past for my opinions. One day I will be back in that space but that's not what I'm paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts."  And, no, it is not great that Bongino thinks podcasters have no reason to show fidelity to the facts.  But at least he thinks law enforcement does have that obligation.  Yes, I know it is a low bar to clear, but just watch what ICE is up to and recognize that the FBI is not that.

Media control: My fears were somewhat outdated, focusing on attempts to control media by threatening advertisers. I did not understand the degree to which people get their news on social media and how much control of algorithms controls what people see.  I also feared attempts by Trump supporters to buy up media outlets, making mergers contingent on coverage, and perhaps censorship by the FCC.  The buying of out of outlets and politicization of mergers has certainly happened.  Bari Weiss is attempting to subvert CBS.  Many of us feared that big money owners of media like Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon Shiong of the LA Times would fall into line.  Well, the LA Times has been absolutely unsparing in reporting ICE outrages.  The Washington Post continues to say "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and to do fearless exposes.  (See below).  And the Administration continues to leak like a sieve.

The federal district and appellate level judiciary:  I think most of us feared what sort of judges Trump would appoint.  "Most of us" appears to include Federal judges, who have fearlessly and consistently ruled against Trump regardless of which President appointed them.  Very few have retired, presumably fearing just that, and most have apparently vowed to leave the bench only under a different Administration or in a coffin.  Of course, sooner or later one of those has to happen. . . 

Foreign policy:  Democratic backsliding is taking place the world over.  If democracy fell in the US, what chance did it have anywhere?  Instead, we are seeing some degree of a thermostatic reaction across Europe -- far right political parties losing popularity because of their association with Trump.  I feared Trump would withdraw from NATO and halt all aid to Ukraine.  That may yet happen, but it is happening in slow motion, which allows other countries to adapt.  I do think he did the right thing in recognizing the new government in Syria and seems to work better with Arab governments than any other President.

Things that are about what I feared:

Pardons:  Trump pardoned the January 6 defendants.  He said he would.  He is prepared to pardon anyone who supports him, bribes him, or claims to be persecuted by the Deep State.  Is anyone surprised?

Immigration:

I said at the 100 day mark:

I was afraid of ICE teaming up with local law enforcement and possibly informal militias, of Trump calling up the National Guard where the local authorities would not cooperate, of large-scale workplace raids, of makeshift outdoor facilities, of house-to-house searches. . . 

Most of this had not happened at the time, but there had been a group of men deported without trial to a torture prison in El Salvador, with the threat of many, many more to come.  That was thwarted, but, well, the rest of it is very much with us.  What we are seeing now is very much what I most feared.

Prosecution of political opponents:  I believed this would be constrained by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  There have been a few attempts to prosecute high level political opponents, and more numerous (but still not very numerous) attempts to prosecute First Amendment protected activity surrounding La Migara.  So far the independent judiciary has shot down all attempt to prosecute high-level opponents and most attempt to prosecute First Amendment protected activity.

Abortion;  I did not expect much action on this.  Trump does not care much about it and learned from the 2022 midterms that it was toxic.  So he has wisely stayed away from it.

Things that are worse than I feared:

Tariffs:  I was not afraid of tariffs.  I thought of them as something that could hurt the economy, but not a threat to democracy or the rule of law.  I was wrong.  First of all, thus far tariffs have not hurt the economy and especially have not increased prices as much as I expected.  But more importantly, wildly arbitrary tariffs have been a mechanism for bullying and coercing other countries.  They have also been a source of unaccountable money that can evade Congress's power of the purse strings.  Tariffs are much more dangerous than I realized and must be stopped.

DOGE:  Words fail me.  It certainly never occurred to me that Elon Musk would make a serious attempt to seize control of the government and institute a dictatorship of money and tech.  Nor did I anticipate how much completely random damage he would cause before moving on, or the extent to which he would truly stage a tech coup by shutting federal employees out of their computers and even out of their offices.  The attempt failed.  There may very well come a time when computer programs are good enough to let 89 tech bros take over the entire federal government.  But we are not there.  We are not anywhere close.  I think the government shutdown was one last attempt to create a dictatorship of money and tech, this time by Russ Vought.  It failed.  But the danger was very real, and so is the damage.  The damage is still very much with us.

Attacks on universities and law firms:  On the one hand, yes, I fully expected Trump to attack the independence of universities.  It was what Orban did, after all.  It would be harder than in Hungary, obviously, because we have so many more universities, but I did expect it.  I think I expected the attack to take the form of attacks on college endowments and threats to their tax-exempt status.  It did not occur to me how much universities depend on federal grants and I had no idea how much the depend on foreign students.  And attacks on law firms never even occurred to me.

The Supreme Court:  I did not have much confidence in the Supreme Court ever since they ruled that Republican Presidents have an unrestricted license to crime but left a little wiggle room just in case a Democrat is ever able to be President again.  But I at least expected them to set forth their reasoning when upholding blatantly illegal actions instead of issuing emergency rulings that would allow the illegal acts to continue until full briefing and argument.

Health and science: Insane.  I honestly did not expect much movement on this.  RFK, Jr. is hard at work seeking to ruin our healthcare system and undermine science.

The budget;  I did not expect any serious cuts.  I expected the Republicans to follow their usual playbook of making a huge fuss about deficits so long as Democrats were in power and losing all interests as soon as they took power.  I did not take impoundment too seriously because it would be obviously unpopular.  I was wrong.  Republicans have not gone as far as they would like, but they have gone a lot farther than I expected.

Was Ice Barbie a grownup in the room?

The grownups in the room:  Like many people, I was much relieved when Trump named Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Scott Bessent as Secretary of the Treasury, Doug Burgum as Secretary of the Interior, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, and Suzie Wiles as White House Chief of Staff.  A President Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or even Chris Christie might have made the same appointments.  Pam Bondi as Attorney General?  Not great, but preferable to either Matt Gaetz or, say, Ken Paxton.  As Attorney General of Florida, she was presumably reasonably qualified and, though somewhat corrupt, did not seem insane.  As for Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, she met my two most important criteria for the job -- she was not Steve Bannon or Steve Miller.  Well, if Kash Patel was not as bad as I feared, the grownups in the room have proven completely useless.*  

Violence against protesters:  I was actually not too worried about this.  Apparently Project 2025 mentions use of the National Guard, which many have taken to mean shooting peaceful protesters.  I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this referred to actual violent riots.  And I was reasonably confident that the 2020 riots were an aberration, born of frustration with COVID lockdowns and would not recur.  And, indeed, there have been many large-scale protests in the first year of Trump with (almost) no riots.**  And the protests have not been met with violence except where La Migra is involved.  Here the violence has been serious -- teargas, pepper spray, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and even live ammunition.  It seems to be the firm and settled position of the Administration that where La Migra goes, the First and Fourth Amendments are suspended. And, indeed, while there does not appear to be a systematic attempt to shut down the opposition in general, there does appear to by a systematic and violent attempt to outlaw any championship of immigrants.

Corruption:  Honestly, I didn't give this subject much thought, assuming we would have other things to think about.  And in one sense, at least, corruption to enrich one man is less dangerous than a systematic attempt to turn the federal government into a patronage instrument for one party.  Parties are a lot more enduring than individuals, after all.  But the extent to which Trump is basing pardons and policy on bribes is truly alarming.  I think I need to back and read articles about systematic corruption to see if we are there yet.

Foreign policy: Seriously, this has gotten alarming lately.  Trump appears to be hijacking Venezuela's oil to create is own private slush fund, and now a "Board of Peace," which appears to be a multi-billion dollar private slush fund to do who knows what.  And threats to start a war with NATO over Greenland?!?!?!  The man appears to be losing his mind!  This is one area that is both not as bad and worse than my fears.  And the worst part -- the not as bad part seems to have passed.  The worse part has just begun.

_______________________________________________
*Actually, I suspect that some day we will learn that some of them have actually been reigning him in, just not as well as the grownups from Trump 1.0.
**There were some significant riots in Los Angeles in June with cars burning and people waving the Mexican flag, but only within about two blocks of the federal building.  Bad, but not on a 2020 scale.

Shutdown Over ICE: The Policy

 

With that being said, here is the problem.  I am all for a government shutdown of Homeland Security.  Less clear -- the ask.  Is there anything at all Democrats in Congress can do that will make a difference?  

I have heard a wide range of proposals offered for how to reign in La Migra.  But that is not the problem.  There are already all sort of laws on the books constraining La Migra.  La Migra is simply ignoring the laws, confident that there will be no consequences. So sure, there is no harm in passing more laws to reign La Migra in, but I don't see what good can come of it.  There have to be some sort of consequences.

The usual form of consequences is to use to power of the purse strings -- threaten their budget.  But that won't work in this case.  The One Bloated Barbaric Bonanza gave $170 billion for border enforcement, including $75 billion to ICE to be spent over the next four years.  By contrast, proposed budget for the entire Department of Homeland Security $65 billion.  Indeed, one article I saw (can no longer find) suggested that Republicans gave such an excessive amount precisely because they expected Democrats to cut off funding and wanted to prevent such an outcome.

Kristi "ICE Barbie" Noem

Others have proposed to impeach Kristi Noem.  Again, I see no particular harm in impeaching Ice Barbie, but no benefit to it, either.  ICE Barbie is nothing but a (purportedly) pretty face on an ugly reality.  The real power behind the throne is Stephen Miller and is wholly unrealistic quota of 3,000 arrests a day, which cannot be met without blatant illegality.  And Miller is not going anywhere.  He is the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, a position not requiring Senate confirmation. (Possibly Trump feared that even this Senate might not confirm him).  Presumably White House personnel who serve at the complete discretion of the President without the need for Senate confirmation are not subject to impeachment.  And the Atlantic ran an article pouring cold water on any hopes that Miller might be fired. Not only is he a supremely competent manager (a rare thing for this team and therefore important to keep), but his colleagues generally like him and find him easy to work with.  Miller will not be facing the sort of revolt that ousted Elon Musk.

The only other way I can think of imposing consequences is to create individual civil liability for any agent violating people's rights, or, if the agent cannot be identified, the commanding officer in the field.

PS: Actually, I can think of one thing that could possibly make a difference, although I don't know if we can ever get Republicans to agree to it.  And that is to attack La Migra from the other end -- the court and prison end.  Make it much harder for the President to replace immigration judges for not following his wishes, a blatant violation of separation of powers anyhow.  And require bond so long as the detainee does not have a criminal record, has significant ties to the community, and has any plausible claim to be allowed to stay.  It won't stop ICE outrages.  But it will soften the damage they cause, if most of the people arrested can be released relatively soon.  And it will mean more witnesses running around with a story to tell. And that will create at least some degree.

PPS:  At least one of the things that is driving this is Steve Miller's quota of 3000 arrests a day, which cannot be done without complete thuggery.  Even worse, ICE agents are rewarded for their number of arrests, even if the arrestee is later cleared and released.  Maybe find some way to disallow this.  I had some thought of introducing some sort of disincentive for wrongful arrests, but that would probably just lead to more cover ups.  But at least find a way to disallow rewarding number of arrests regardless.

PPPS:  Other suggestions:  An express statement that Migra officers are subject to prosecution under state law for murder, mayhem, and perhaps a few other very serious offenses.  A ban on the Border Patrol taking part in internal enforcement.  An express statement that La Migra may not enter private areas without a judicial warrant and that an administrative warrant is not sufficient.  Hard guidelines on the use of force.  An affirmation that the public has the right to file Migra actions and protests outside of Migra facilities, perhaps with sone sort of rule about the distance they must keep and an acknowledgement that getting too close can be obstruction.

Of course, good luck getting this past the Republicans.

PPPPS: Maybe a requirement that a "Kavanaugh stop" actually follow the rules the Justice Kavanaugh suggested.  In the absence of even an administrative warrant, if a Migra officer makes a stop based solely on "reasonable suspicion," the officer must give the person being stopped a reasonable opportunity to present proof of citizenship or legal residence, and allow anyone producing such proof to leave.  Then give a list of what must be deemed proof of citizenship or legal residence.  It won't stop "papers, please," but at least it can limit that to an annoyance for actual citizens or legal residents.

Shutdown Over ICE: The Politics

 

This shutdown is different.  With the last shutdown, I thought the Democrats should cave because they were better off politically losing than winning.  While I agree with JV Last that the real issue is power, not policy, I also think the Democrats did pretty well on power in an understated sort of way. 

Trump (backed by Russ Vought) intended the shutdown as a major power grab to enact major firings of federal employees and funding of projects in a manner calculated to be punitive to Democrats.  The power grab failed and appears to have soured Republicans in general and Trump in particular on shutdowns.  Senate Republicans preserved the filibuster, against Trump's wishes, giving Democrats the opportunity to use this weapon again.  And the politics of the shutdown were good.  It brought the issue of health insurance subsidies to the public's attention and made clear that Republicans were to blame for spiking premiums.  Granted, the wins on matters of power were purely defensive, i.e., they thwarted power grabs rather than grabbing any power back.  But I do not think public opinion would have backed Democrats using shutdown to leverage a power grab.

This time is different.

This time is clearly, unambiguously about power -- specifically, the power of La Migra to terrorize blue cities into submission.  It is understood that way on all sides.  It is also something that is clear as videos of violence in the city, and not a mere abstraction.  And it is one where Democrats have no choice but to take a stand.  Their base demands it.  Their own cities could be next if ICE is not stopped.  And public opinion is generally in their favor.  Some left-leaning pollesters have even claimed that this is a 70-30 issue in the Democrats' favor.  Actually, it looks more like 50-30 against ICE, with about 20% of the population undecided.  Democrats have the opportunity to sway more people in their favor by going all out publicizing ICE outrages.  Of course, Republicans are also seeking to sway public opinion.  This is something that could to 50-50, 70-30, or maybe 60-40.  Which way it goes will be immensely important.

Timid-minded advisors warn not to go all-in on immigration or we will lose.  I suppose I have two answers to that.  One is that Congressional Democrats have an obvious response.  They can say that immigration is a side issue.  The real issue is whether masked thugs should be allowed to terrorize US cities.  

The other is that the timid-minded said much the same thing when Kilmar Abrego-Garcia and the others were sent to a torture prison in El Salvador. Don't take on Trump on immigration, they warned, voters have lost all trust of the voters on the issue.  But you know what?  Some Democrats did stand up for Abrego Garcia.  Public opinion turned hard against shipping men off to a torture prison without trial for their tattoos.  The Supreme Court ruled against it.  Trump called for the expansion of the prison (capacity, about 40,000) and discussed the possibility of sending US citizens there.  But in the end he backed down.  The plan to routinely send deportees to CECOT prison was quietly dropped and eventually the detainees were released.

And the pushback is not limited to public opinion.  Many ICE agents are reluctant to go to Minneapolis in light of the outraged reaction they are facing there.  (Weather conditions probably aren't too appealing either).  A disgruntled insider is leaking damaging documents.  Even some White House insiders are concerned about the optics.

So the politics are well aligned to do a partial government shutdown over La Migra.  The question is what to demand.

In Which I Struggle to Understand the Federal Budget Process

 

So, if the time to reign in La Migra is now, the obvious procedure is through the budget.  So now I am struggling to understand how the Federal budget works, and it is really strange.

Last year, when there was a huge fight over the government shutdown, the obvious question was, given all the fuss over passing Trump's One Badly Bungled Budget, why was Congress now having to pass more legislation to keep the government open?  

This is my best understanding.  The OBBB was a budget reconciliation bill.  Supposedly, a budget reconciliation bill can only address taxes and mandatory spending (such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc).  Discretionary spending is controlled through appropriations.  So isn't spending on immigration enforcement discretionary?  The nearest I can understand this is an article from the American Immigration Council.  The bill gave La Migra $170.7 that it must spend by the end of fiscal 2029 (September 30, 2029).  Very little guidance was given as to the details.  The breakdown was as follows:

Spending Category	Funding Amount
Construction and maintenance of border wall, CBP checkpoints, and CBP facilities	$51.6 billion
Border Patrol agents and vehicles, and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center improvements.	$7.8 billion
Border technology and vetting	$6.2 billion
Operation Stonegarden (funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to support border enforcement)	$450 million
Border processing, including for unaccompanied children, Remain in Mexico, and expedited removal	$2.1 billion
Prosecutions of noncitizens, compensating local governments for incarcerating noncitizens, combatting drug trafficking, immigration judges	$3.3 billion
Detention capacity expansion	$45 billion
Enforcement and removal, including hiring ICE agents, transportation costs, and detaining families	$29.9 billion
State immigration and border enforcement cost-reimbursement funds	$13.5 billion
DHS cost-reimbursement fund for border enforcement	$10.0 billion
DOD support for immigration and border enforcement	$1.0 billion
Total	$170.7 billion

Discretionary spending is supposed to be financed by twelve appropriations bills -- agriculture, commerce, defense, energy and water, finance (treasury), homeland security, interior and environment, social services (education, health, labor), legislative functions, VA and military construction, foreign affairs, and housing and transportation.  These bills are often lumped together in varying combinations to limit the number of votes.  The bill that ended the government shutdown gave funding for the fiscal year for three of these bills.  Those bills were agriculture, meaning that SNAP benefits will not be endangered in case of another government shutdown (hurray!); VA and military construction, meaning that in case of another shutdown VA employees will be paid and housing can be built for military families (hurray!) and legislative services, meaning that in case of another shutdown Congress will be fully funded (doesn't that figure!).  I was so ill-informed as to have thought that the defense appropriation was also paid, but I was wrong.

Five more of the appropriations bills have passed the House by wide margins and are expected to be approved by the Senate.  On January 8, the House passed combined bills funding commerce, energy and water, and interior and environment by a vote of 397-28.  On January 14, the House passed the bills funding the State Department and the Treasury Department by a slightly less overwhelming but still strong vote of 341-79.  It seems a safe assumption that both bills will overwhelmingly pass the Senate and be signed into law.

That leaves defense, social services, transportation/HUD, and Homeland Security.  Theoretically, these could be passed as a combined bill or separately.  Of these four bills, transportation and HUD sounds wholly uncontroversial.  The defense appropriations bills is clearly a must-pass in the sense that everyone agrees our military obligations have to be met and our troops have to be paid.  On the other hand, Donald Trump has created a controversy by calling for a 50% increase.  And some people want to use the bill to block funding for any invasion of Greenland.  Continuing resolution, maybe, to fund defense at current levels for a few months while we talk about it?  I really don't understand the social services bill.  The House passed a three-year extension of the Obamacare subsidies, but this is apparently separate from the one-year appropriation bill.  I don't know of any other controversies here, but obviously there is a lot that I don't know.  But what is undisputed is that the biggest controversy is over funding Homeland Security.

Look, let's state the obvious here.  I am sure that Democrats would very much like to pass suitable bills to fund transportation, defense (possibly by continuing resolution), and social services (leaving Obamacare subsidies to be decided separately) and cut off funding solely for Homeland Security.  But let's be serious.  What are the chances the Republicans would agree?  If there is going to be a partial government shutdown, they are going to want it to be as painful as possible to put pressure on Democrats to cave.  Why would they give up valuable hostages?

But suppose the Republicans are so crazy as to give up their hostages.  Instead of facing of air traffic controllers and troops not being paid, we are facing solely a cutoff in funding for Homeland Security.  That can be sustained for a long time.  But not forever.  Why?  Because Homeland Security is not limited to ICE and Border Patrol.  It also includes uncontroversial agencies, such as the Coast Guard and FEMA.  How long can the Coast Guard go unpaid before there is serious pressure to fund them?  And if a shutdown were to extend all the way into summer, FEMA would be unable to pay for disaster relief.  Sooner or later, even Homeland Security will have to be paid.  The question is, on what conditions?

Trump and Greenland

OK, so I know I am not saying anything original here, but we have a military base on Greenland.  If Trump thinks it is not big enough, he just has to ask and he can expand it.  Or if he thinks we need more bases, that can readily be negotiated with the Danes, who are a treaty ally and share our interest in keeping out the Russians and Chinese.  Or if he is interested in the rare earth minerals in Greenland, again, the Danes are happy to negotiate an agreement.

Trump is basically a man who visits a friend, sees a piece of art the friend has, and covets it.  The friend, seeing that he likes the work, offers to sell it.  But regardless of the price, he his sure the friend is ripping him off because why would the friend part with the piece of art unless he was getting the better end of the bargain.  Friend could even offer the piece of art for free out of friendship and Trump would just wonder what his angle was.  The only way Trump can be sure his friend isn't taking advantage of him is to push him aside and take the piece of art by force.

When you are a powerful enough, you can do without friends.