politics

The Senate Budget Committee Wants to Hear From You on Federal Budget Priorities

/ The Old Crank

This morning I took a look at a new section on the Senate Budget Committee’s Web site, called “MyBudget,” which they describe as an “online platform for members of the public to weigh in as our nation works to tackle our budget and economic challenges.”

I have no idea how influential this kind of thing is, but it’s an easy way to do some federal budget advocacy. I particularly like the “share your stories” section, where people are asked to write about “about how federal budget decisions have impacted your family, your community, and your job.”

Another page asks for you to let the Committee know “what issues we should be focused on.”

A Lot Riding on the Border Security Issue in Senate Immigration Reform Proposal

/ The Old Crank

(Updated below)

While both the Senate “gang of eight” and the President seem to agree on the key components of immigration reform, the border security component, at least in the Senate proposal, looks a little bit more key than the others. From today’s Washington Post:

Under the Senate’s new blueprint for reform, the legalization of undocumented immigrants would only happen if the government “finally commit[s] the resources needed to secure the border,” as well as strict visa enforcement for legal immigrants. It’s a provision that’s similar to Bush’s 2007 immigration bill, which also made legalization contingent on beefed-up border security. (my emphasis)

In other words, if I understand this correctly, the part of the legislation that many of us in the adult education community are most interested in—a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—will be entirely contingent on an agreement over whether sufficient resources are being provided for border security. And that’s troubling because the language in the Senate document implies we’re not doing enough right now, even though there is evidence that, in fact, we are. Again, quoting that same story in the Post:

The Senate’s language suggests that the government has held back from devoting money, equipment and personnel to border security. In fact, we’ve hit nearly all of the targets that the 2007 bill established for increased border security—except for achieving absolute “operational control” of the border and mandatory detention of all border-crossers who’ve been apprehended.

This raises the possibility that, despite the evidence that we’ve actually beefed up border security over the last five years quite a bit, and achieved most of the targets that were in the 2007 bill, there are members of Congress who are going to push for more no matter what. If so, then I think the debate on border security is not going to be so much a policy debate over whether sufficient resources are truly being committed or not, but more of a political negotiation. That is, it may boil down to those in Congress representing border states pushing as hard as they can to get as much money for border security out of this bill as possible, whatever the need actually is. The higher their price, the higher the hurdle will be for the legalization provision to go forward (and the less likely, perhaps,  that Congress will be willing to invest in other things, like additional English classes).

Even if I’m wrong in my specific analysis, there’s no question in my mind that the negotiations around the border security issue are going to be critical. I’ll be looking closely at the draft legislation that emerges from the Senate to see how they define the level of commitment to border security that will be sufficient to trigger the legalization provisions.

UPDATE: More on the border security “trigger,” from TPM:

Responding to challenges from [Rush] Limbaugh that Obama would demand reforms with fewer border security measures, [Senator] Rubio emphasized his willingness to walk away from a bill if he didn’t get what he wanted on that front. In particular, he said including enforcement measures as a “trigger” for undocumented immigrants to seek permanent residency was key. (my emphasis)

UPDATE 1/30/13: More from Reuters, yesterday:

…[D]ifferences quickly emerged between what Obama would like and the proposals by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators, whose plan is heavy on border security.

Obama pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that is faster than the one the Senate group proposed.

Rather than emphasize border security first, he would let undocumented immigrants get on a path to citizenship if they first undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally.

“We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship,” he said.

For Republicans, this is a sticking point. The Gang of Eight plan envisions first taking steps to toughen security along the U.S.-Mexican border before setting in motion the steps illegal immigrants must take to gain legal status. (my emphasis)

Two Points About the Debt Ceiling and Spending Cuts

/ The Old Crank

I don’t know why some people claim that Republicans won’t get specific about the things they would cut from the federal budget. I was glad to see Robert Greenstein address this in the commentary I referenced earlier today:

Some Democrats dismiss the threat that the Boehner rule poses, saying that Republicans ultimately will back off of it because they won’t publicly identify the specific program cuts they would make to produce the savings that would raise the debt ceiling for a reasonable period of time. That view, alas, is mistaken.

To be sure, Republican congressional leaders seem unwilling to propose specific cuts in the two main, popular middle-class entitlement programs — Medicare and Social Security — that would produce large savings over the next ten years. They want Democrats to propose such cuts, or at a minimum, they want to find a way to put some Democratic fingerprints on them.

But, Republican leaders appear more than willing to specify deep cuts in two other parts of the budget — core entitlements for low-income Americans, like Medicaid and SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), and the annual caps on funding for non-defense discretionary programs. The Ryan budget featured trillions of dollars of cuts in these two areas. House Republicans may well try to pass legislation in February to raise the debt limit for a year or so, accompanied by cuts primarily in low-income assistance programs and in the caps on non-defense discretionary programs. They will likely re-pass, in the new Congress, the legislation that they passed twice in the last Congress (most recently on December 20) to cancel the first year of sequestration and replace it with spending cuts that hit low-income programs disproportionately.

I would add that Republicans have supported a specific proposal to cut social security as well, by proposing to switch to chained CPI.  They almost got this during the last round of negotiations with the President, in fact, and I don’t know why it might not be proposed again.

Second point: Republicans thinks the public overwhelmingly has their back on the so-called “Boehner Rule”—that any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by massive spending cuts.

Report: Immigration Reform Push To Begin This Month

/ The Old Crank

An Obama administration official has told the Huffington Post that despite the likelihood of another time-consuming fiscal confrontation with Republicans later this winter, President Obama still plans to push for immigration reform in January:

An Obama administration official said the president plans to push for immigration reform this January. The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well.

Bu the story goes on to say that the path to an approved bill could be a long one:

Aides expect it will take about two months to write a bipartisan bill, then another few months before it goes up for a vote, possibly in June. A bipartisan group of senators are already working on a deal, although they are still in the early stages. Rep. Zoe Lofgren D-Calif. will likely lead on the Democratic side in the House. While many Republicans have expressed interest in piecemeal reform, its still unclear which of them plan to join the push.