The concept of a government shutdown pisses me off. Whatever your views on it, I invite you to consider, as I do, that it is simply wrong to use people's livelihoods as a political football. Maybe it's because I have relatives who are Federal employees, and I don't like seeing them have to wait for back pay while they work, or to be furloughed and have to work like hell to catch up after the furlough ends, even if they do get back pay.
Maybe it's because I've had my own livelihood threatened due to corporate politics, and I tend to go full-on Braveheart mode when somebody messes with my livelihood for their own gain.
Or maybe it's because I'm a states' rights advocate, and requiring people to work without pay violates the wage and hour laws of every state. Yeah, I get it - as Federal employees they're exempt in this instance. But, were I an attorney, that wouldn't stop me from filing a class action suit against every Federal agency, the Congress, and the administration in response to any shutdown that requires people in my state to work for no pay, and have to wait for back pay, assuming their union's negotiating skills are good enough to secure it. Let the courts sort it out.
So I have a solution for this ongoing shutdown issue (I don't mean just the current shutdown; I'm referring to the fact that it's been used as a pawn in the political game of chess across numerous administrations now, with both parties controlling the White House, Congress, or both).
First, we have to accept the irrefutable fact that the shutdown is not solely the fault of the President - Congress shares the blame. That's true now, it was true when Obama was President and the government shut down, it was true when Bush was President and the government shut down, ad nauseum. The problem is not one party or another, it's not Trump's fault or Schumer's fault or Obama's fault or McConnell's fault or Bush's fault or Pelosi's fault. Not in isolation.
The blame rests on the shoulders of all politicians who employ this gambit for political gain. At issue is that they're unwilling to do what they were elected to do: govern, which requires compromise. But compromise threatens the ability to get re-elected, which is the end game in Washington.
Second, we have to recognize that it's all too convenient for these politicians to employ this gambit, because they go unaffected. And that's what needs to change.
So, if they're going to allow a government shutdown, the following conditions apply:
- The salaries of all elected officials, and their aides, are likewise suspended, but there is no back pay. After all, they're Federal employees too. That includes cabinet members and diplomats.
- Air Force One is grounded. And travel to a Senator's or Representative's home state is on their own dime. No taxpayer-funded trips home. In fact, they're all required to continue working until the shutdown ends. No trips to Camp David. No recesses. And all fundraising activity is suspended until the shutdown is over. Any contributions received are forfeited, and will go to reduce the deficit.
- White House staff are furloughed, except for the Secret Service. Capitol Police will also work. Both groups will be guaranteed back pay. No cooks or maids at the White House. No Congressional cafeteria. And definitely no Congressional gym or golf course.
- If a member of Congress allows a shutdown to happen and then leaves office, pension payments are suspended, again with no back payments.
Now, as to what to do to fix the current crisis. I've written before on immigration policy so I won't go into great depth here. But let me remind readers that I'm in favor of legal immigration. I have family members and friends who are or were legal immigrants, including my forebears. I believe in immigration.
But we are a nation of laws, and nations have borders. I've traveled to more than 30 countries, and every time I crossed a border, I had to show a passport or at least a cruise ship card (which requires a passport to obtain) to verify my identity, the purpose of my stay, and the duration. I've also had to clear security. Every. Single. Time. All nations have borders, and those borders are enforced everywhere but on the southern border of the U.S.
Also, let's take fear out of the equation. The concern should not be that those crossing our southern border illegally are murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, drug dealers, human traffickers or terrorists, although any of those may be valid concerns.
The fact that one has crossed our border illegally makes one guilty of breaking the law. We have laws restricting entry into our country, and if those laws are broken, that individual should not be allowed to remain in our country illegally. Period.
Given that, my solution (and note that it does involve compromise, but that's the strange bedfellow of the political process; you may disagree, and that's fine - I disagree with some of these premises myself, but propose them in the interest of compromise, and getting something done):
- Build the damn wall already. Call it a slatted fence, call it a picket fence, call it a garden hedge, call it Fred for all I care. But build it. At various points in time, Obama (the revered King of the left), Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other Dems have called for a barrier on our southern border. So that's how they can save face in spinning why they compromised: it's not about denying a Trump campaign promise, it's the Obama/Clinton/Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi/Biden wall. It's the wall they wanted all along. They can spin that without recourse, because their followers will lap up any revisionist statement they make as though it were mother's milk - after all, those followers had no issue with a wall when their party's leaders proposed one. The border patrol wants a wall. The border cities where there is a wall have seen reductions in illegal border crossings. It's not the only solution, but it's a solution.
- As for who pays for it: if the new trade deal with Mexico results in just an 8% reduction in our trade deficit with Mexico, it will indeed pay for the wall, in one year's time. So it's easy to demonstrate that the trade deal will, in fact, result in Mexico paying for the wall. (If the deficit is only reduced by 4%, then Mexico pays for the wall over two years' time, etc.)
- Grant amnesty to the DACA population. That wouldn't be my preferred policy, but again, compromise is necessary. However, they have to pass a background check and maybe meet other criteria, like having valid government ID, etc. Heck, I have to meet those criteria to get a job, why shouldn't they?
- Include funding for other security measures. Pelosi says we need drones, not a wall. Well, drones won't do what a wall does to prevent illegal border crossings, but nor will a wall give us the intel that drones will. So include funding for drones, technology to scan vehicles for drugs, an increase in border patrol agents, whatever is needed. I'm not for more government spending, so let's cut spending in other areas that are unnecessary. It isn't hard to find the fat that needs to be cut in order to make border security comprehensive. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi aren't afraid to spend money - recall that Nancy supported spending more than $700 billion on the Obama-era stimulus package, and said "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it."
- Address reforms in TPS status for immigrants from Central American countries on the list. Make it easier for them to gain asylum - if they cross the border through legal ports of entry and can present a qualifying case. Wanting a job isn't a qualifying case.
- On the flip side, end chain migration. Make it a felony to cross the border illegally with a minor in tow. That felony being punishable by immediately providing transportation back to Mexico, with a felony charge on your record in case you try to come back in. If Mexico won't help solve the problem, Mexico can own the problem.
- End sanctuary policies. If a law enforcement officer in a sanctuary city, county or state interferes with ICE, that official can be arrested by ICE, and is banned from working in law enforcement for life, and is subject to federal fines and incarceration. End federal aid to sanctuary locations. California wildfires? Tragic, but if aid is cut off because California wants to pretend it's a sovereign nation by defying federal immigration laws, the crisis is on the shoulders of California lawmakers. Contrary to what some Californians believe, California is no better than Iowa.
There are probably more things I could come up with, but that's a start. It's a compromise, but it's a workable compromise, and it accomplishes what those on the left and the right say they support: increased border security. And either side can spin it to their advantage, so Congress: do your jobs, compromise, negotiate, then spin. It's what you do. Don't worry about the repercussions; your partisan constituents will love you no matter what you do.
Illegal immigration is a problem - no one on the left or right can deny that - and it is wanting for a solution. So I leave you with the problem-solving approach of my one-year-old grandson, who would probably do a better job running this country than anyone we've elected.
My daughter was working with my grandson, Aiden, on using a shape-sorting bucket. You know, those plastic buckets with different shaped cutouts in the lid, and plastic blocks matching those shapes. You put the shaped blocks through the shaped holes in the lid to get them into the bucket - the problem to be solved being getting the blocks in the bucket.
My daughter showed Aiden the round block, and put it in the round hole. Into the bucket it went. Then she did the same with the square block. Then, she handed Aiden the triangular block. He tried the round hole, but to no avail. Then he tried the square hole, again to no avail. He paused, looked at the bucket thoughtfully, and then ...
He lifted the lid off the bucket and dropped the triangular block into it.
The moral of the story? Don't worry about the hurdles in front of you, just solve the dad-gum problem.
