I haven’t posted about the federal government shutdown and there’s a reason for that. I don’t want to criticize Democrats. Consider this post hortatory.
I think the Democratic leadership needs to get beyond opposing Trump. It’s not enough to hate him and everything he does.
They should propose their solutions for solving the country’s problems, how they’ll work, and why they’re better than the Republicans’ solutions. If it involves cutting federal spending, they should explain what they want to cut. If it involves increasing federal revenue, they should explain how they plan to increase revenue. Vague complaints about “the rich” are not enough. If the plan to increase corporate and personal income tax rates, they need to explain how that will increase revenue rather than, say, impelling companies with large profits and ultra-rich individuals to leave the United States for pastures with lower taxes.
If their solution is increasing economic growth, they need to explain how they’ll encourage that. Historically, that is how the Congress has preferred to operate, i.e. through “stimulus” whether by increasing federal spending or, on the part of Republicans, by cutting taxes. One of the things that was demonstrated rather pointedly during President Biden’s term of office (and continuing into President Trump’s) is that increased federal spending increases inflation and boosts prices.
How do they plan to control our borders and keep illegal immigration at a manageable level?
How do they plan to reduce crime in our cities? Month-to-date in October 18 people have been killed and 57 others shot in Chicago. If that is acceptable they should say so. If they think it is unacceptable, they should propose practical solutions for reducing that number. If they think it’s the best that can be expected, they should say that.
How do they plan to make healthcare more affordable? They have explained that they want to maintain the present level of healthcare subsidies. Increasing subsidies without increasing how much healthcare is provided will cause the price of healthcare to increase farther requiring higher subsidies, etc.
Frankly, I’m not optimistic about any of those solutions or, more specifically, I think that solving our present problems would have been a lot easier if the process had been started 30 years ago.
The standard Dem talking point is that illegals are precluded by law from receiving health care money. Let’s return to that falsity in a second.
The very point at issue in the shutdown is that illegals should receive health care money. To cite current law, while shutting down if you don’t repeal it is nonsense. I’ve seen various estimates of cost. We don’t have the money. We are going broke.
Returning to an earlier point. The states are supposed to administer funds for illegals at heir discretion. Almost never cited is that states access federal matching funds.
The Obamacare so-called “special rule” provides for illegals.
If you show up at an ER, and are illegal, you will get treated.
But better to say Republicans want to kill children, make grandma eat dog food, and then wheel her off a cliff, claim that children are zip tied, and Chicago high rises are closer to The Trump Hotel populated by future leaders of society than acknowledge Venezuelan gang control …………..or to do things Dave cites.
That’s a perplexing issue, Drew. To cite another example WIC by law does not inquire about the immigration status of recipients. Talk about plausible deniability!
Last night I finished watching Chris Williamson interview the CIO at the IRS (long video). After watching the video, I have almost no hope our our government can fix their problems. There are so many perverse incentives in the government structure (Congress is ultimately responsible for these), that I don’t think it can be fixed absent a true national emergency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4odAXoqRT8
The Democrats don’t hold any power in the political branches except the ability to filibuster “must pass bills” like appropriations; so normal political theory says they focus on “opposing” and not focus on “credible alternatives”.
A credible alternative is only required close to general elections (and only if the electorate is torn over the incumbent, vs a “throw the bums out”).
Anyway, what is happening is “hard bargaining” in the style Trump has popularized. I have my doubts it leads to better negotiated outcomes then traditional negotiations, but lets see.
I see things a little differently, Curious Onlooker. I think this is a very unusual circumstance. An extremely narrowly held Congress and a lame duck president. Furthermore, Biden’s term of office is not the distant past and it didn’t work out so well. “Just like Biden” has already been discredited.
Multiple LLMs say that the idea that the shutdown is about getting health care for illegals is false. The cuts are aimed at standard Medicaid which does not cover illegals (Medicare or ACA plans either). Hospitals go get some reimbursements from the Emergency Medicaid program but it must be truly life or death type care. Emergency Medicaid accounts for about 0.4% of Medicaid spending. AFAICT the GOP plan really doesnt eliminate or cut Emergency Medicaid. The House version doesnt even address it. To be clear, Drew is correct that illegals will get treated if they show up at the ED but the hospital wont get paid unless it’s a severe emergency.
Sounds like Drew wants to eliminate EMTALA. We should have to verify people’s immigration status before we treat them. Gonna be hard with the stroke and major trauma patients who cant even talk.
Steve
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2839711
For those interested in details and facts, you can skip this Drew, KFF has some at link.
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/tracking-the-medicaid-provisions-in-the-2025-budget-bill/
Steve
Drew: If you show up at an ER, and are illegal, you will get treated.
Of course. Have you ever been to an ER? Do you think they check the citizenship status of people arriving after a car crash? Regardless, Reagan signed a law requiring hospitals to treat anyone with a medical emergency.
The political dynamic is governed by Trump’s use of rescission. It takes 60 votes to pass a bill, but only 51 votes to uphold a rescission. Trump’s use of rescission has made Democrats rightly mistrust Republicans, as Trump may unilaterally decided not to spend appropriated funds. However, it’s not an issue that works in soundbites.
Americans are only now taking notice because they are slowly beginning to feel the effects of Trump’s policies. But when Democrats sometimes succeed in stymieing Trump’s efforts, it often helps Trump politically by mitigating the bad effects of those policies.
However, none of this is an issue in the shut down.
Just thinking through “this is a very unusual circumstance”; its not really.
For the first 2 years of Biden’s term, Democrats had an even narrower majority in Congress then Republicans now, and a commonly held view (I held it) Biden was a lame duck due to age and a common public line was that he was a ‘transitional’ President.
Its instructive what Republicans did and didn’t do while they were in the same situation Democrats were in; they didn’t shutdown or veto must pass bills of the government even through there were many casus belli if they had chosen them (“vaccine mandates”, “spending”, “immigration law (non-enforcement)”, “Ukraine assistance”). They did work with Democrats and Biden on bills with bipartisan interest (“infrastructure” and “CHIPS”). This continued even after Republicans won back the House.
The strategy in part was to seem reasonable to voters and shift pressure onto rifts within Democrats, which surfaced with Manchin and Sinema.
This did have the consequence of costing McConnell and McCarthy their positions; I would argue if McConnell and McCarthy focused on obstruction over pragmatism during Biden’s presidency, they would not won back the White House and Congress.
That maybe the difference between then and now. Schumer and Jeffries aren’t ready to sacrifice their positions; Schumer tried being practical back in March by allowing a clean CR, and party activists made it clear he would lose his job if that happened again.
CuriousOnlooker: Schumer tried being practical back in March by allowing a clean CR, and party activists made it clear he would lose his job if that happened again.
That’s because Trump’s use of rescission poisoned the well, by reneging on the spending agreement. Again, it takes 60 votes to pass a bill, but only 51 votes to uphold a rescission. Why should Democrats let the bill pass when it the spending might be rescinded anyway? How many times should Charlie Brown try to kick the football, Lucy?
There are always risks and benefits to any course of action.
If a clean CR had been passed, invariably the dynamics would switch to focus onto Republicans — strife between moderates and fiscal hawks on extending subsidies; how much to guard appropriations from recissions (plenty of Republicans have shown weariness over it).
As it is; Republicans have a unifying position of “we won’t do hostage politics”.
The risk is in Democrats daring Republicans to blow up the filibuster over it. They haven’t thought that through; Republicans won’t blow up the filibuster on legislation to pass a clean CR; they’ll blow it up to pass an appropriations bill that can muster partisan Republican majorities in the Senate and the House.
CuriousOnlooker: There are always risks and benefits to any course of action.
However, the filibuster is democratically anomalous. Perversely, the minority can be blamed for inaction, somehow absolving the majority.
Voting down a CR isn’t inaction. Inaction is voting present or not voting at all. Democrats are exercising a veto (which is their right).
I don’t have much else to say on the matter. It will take time (years) to find out the results of the strategy Congressional Democrats have pursued; it took 4 years to see the results of the strategy McConnell and McCarthy pursued.
CuriousOnlooker: Voting down a CR isn’t inaction. Inaction is voting present or not voting at all.
Abstention is just as much an action under that strained definition, and can also have a strategic purpose. Our reference was to Congress with regards to being able to manage the country’s budget, the minority being blamed for inaction. It’s a perverse incentive structure.
We understand your position concerns the strategic utility of the Democratic strategy, the long-term effects of which may only be clear over time.