FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

US Government Shutdown: Democrats Blink…Again

by

Photo by Senate Democrats | CC BY 2.0

Yesterday, the Republican and Democrats in Congress agreed to end the so-called ‘shutdown’ of the US government over the weekend. Not much really ‘shut down’. Government workers were not at work over the weekend. There were no plans to stop funding the military. Or halt social security checks. Or anything else that was economically meaningful. Using the word, ‘partial’, in relation to shutdown was probably also an overstatement. So what was involved? And what was agreed to?

Republicans wanted to eliminate left over taxes on the rich and business, that they were not able to achieve with their failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) last year. The ACA required $692 billion in taxes on businesses and investors. Republicans and Trump have been chipping away at the ACA ever since their failure to get a full repeal. The shutdown deal marks yet another milestone in the destruction of the health care act. In the agreement Republicans reportedly got to eliminate more of the tax funding base for the ACA, another cut of the $692 billion. (The ACA destruction will result in even more accelerating insurance premiums and even more enrolled dropping from the program).

To make sure they got their business tax cuts, Ryan and McConnell held the SCHIP program hostage. SCHIP is the insurance program for 9 million children whose parents otherwise can’t afford to buy them health coverage. The Democrats got the continuation of SCHIP for another six years. In other words, they ‘got’ what they ‘already had’, while the Republicans got something new–i.e. more tax cuts.

So what about DACA–the 800,000 ‘dreamer’ kids? Wasn’t the Democrats’ refusal to pass the spending bill to fund the government based upon getting the DACA issued resolved? Yes. But the Democratic party leadership dropped that demand in today’s agreement, and instead agreed to refund SCHIP in exchange for three more weeks of government funding, and the further ACA tax cuts. In other words, they got what they had and gave up on DACA. They say DACA is not dead, that they’ll return to it three weeks from now.

But in three weeks from now the Republicans will find another program they will hold hostage, and demand the Democrats fund the government further in exchange for keeping another program going–while the DACA demand will be left hanging once again.

What this all points to is the Democratic Party is continually being outmaneuvered by the Republicans. It’s a sad story that has been the case ever since 2008. Democrat party leaders are proving themselves not only strategically myopic since the 2016 election, but tactically inept as well.

What the recent ‘negotiations’ around the DACA-for-funding the border Wall trade off also reveal is the Republicans keep adding demands to the negotiations, keeping Democrats off balance and unable to hold firm to their initial principled demands.

Also revealing is that Trump was a non-entity in the entire negotiations process. He holds PR press conferences for the TV audience, making it look as if he’s in charge, and will play a positive role in getting the two parties to agree on DACA in exchange for his Wall funding. But he’s not in charge. Whoever gets to him last, he agrees with. Shumer goes down to the White House and thinks he has a deal. But the right wing and corporations walk in the swinging door and Trump changes his position before Shumer can even get back to his office on the hill.

Democrat party second-in-command in the Senate, Dick Durbin, went on TV to try to pick up the pieces. He asked the DACA kids ‘don’t give up hope’. We’ll deliver next time. But now that the Democrats caved in on their DACA demand, who will believe they’ll prove tougher the next time around three weeks from now? The Republicans will hold out even more confidently, knowing the Democrats will cave again. By giving up on DACA the Democratic party leadership ensures it will be even more difficult next time.

To use a metaphor, it’s like a union declaring its intent to go on strike for a non-negotiable demand, and when the deadline comes telling its union members they’ve changed their mind,they’ve given up the demand, and no one should go on strike…for now. The union leaders then declare publicly they’ll strike ‘next time’ three weeks later. Who among their rank and file are going to believe them? Nor will the Republicans (i.e. the management negotiators per our metaphor). And certainly not the workers (DACA kids). Drawing a line in the sand and then backing up and drawing another accomplishes nothing but demoralization.

More articles by:

Jack Rasmus is the author of  ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’, Clarity Press, 2015. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His website is www.kyklosproductions.com and twitter handle, @drjackrasmus.

February 21, 2018
Cecil Bothwell
Billy Graham and the Gospel of Fear
Ajamu Baraka
Venezuela: Revenge of the Mad-Dog Empire
Edward Hunt
Treating North Korea Rough
Binoy Kampmark
Meddling for Empire: the CIA Comes Clean
Ron Jacobs
Stamping Out Hunger
Ammar Kourany – Martha Myers
So, You Think You Are My Partner? International NGOs and National NGOs, Costs of Asymmetrical Relationships
Michael Welton
1980s: From Star Wars to the End of the Cold War
Judith Deutsch
Finkelstein on Gaza: Who or What Has a Right to Exist? 
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
War Preparations on Venezuela as Election Nears
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Military Realities
Steve Early
Refinery Safety Campaign Frays Blue-Green Alliance
Ali Mohsin
Muslims Face Increasing Discrimination, State Surveillance Under Trump
Julian Vigo
UK Mass Digital Surveillance Regime Ruled Illegal
Peter Crowley
Revisiting ‘Make America Great Again’
Andrew Stewart
Black Panther: Afrofuturism Gets a Superb Film, Marvel Grows Up and I Don’t Know How to Review It
CounterPunch News Service
A Call to Celebrate 2018 as the Year of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois by the Saturday Free School
February 20, 2018
Nick Pemberton
The Gun Violence the Media Shows Us and the State Violence They Don’t
John Eskow
Sympathy for the Drivel: On the Vocabulary of President Nitwit
John Steppling
Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk Into a Bar…
John W. Whitehead
America’s Cult of Violence Turns Deadly
Ishmael Reed
Charles F. Harris: He Popularized Black History
Will Podmore
Paying the Price: the TUC and Brexit
George Burchett
Plumpes Denken: Crude thinking
Binoy Kampmark
The Caring Profession: Peacekeeping, Blue Helmets and Sexual Abuse
Lawrence Wittner
The Trump Administration’s War on Workers
David Swanson
The Question of Sanctions: South Africa and Palestine
Walter Clemens
Murderers in High Places
Dean Baker
How Does the Washington Post Know that Trump’s Plan Really “Aims” to Pump $1.5 Trillion Into Infrastructure Projects?
February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OXFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail