National emergency? Not so much.

https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/nation/article_61e87936-313a-11e9-b66a-7bd4065e6159.html

Let’s look at what is being ignored while Trump tends to his personal ego emergency.

We have a crumbling infrastructure that hasn’t even gotten a nod from Trump despite his grandiose promise of one trillion.

We still have millions of Americans who don’t have access to affordable healthcare. No effort at all by him or “his” Congress other than a failed effort to dump ACA.

We are facing a student loan bubble that could eclipse the housing bubble.

The federal deficit is approaching a trillion. The debt just hit 22 trillion. It was a panic “emergency” among the Republicans during Obama’s era. And he drastically cut the deficit by the end of his term.

Any one of these issues is or can be a genuine national emergency.

So what gets the most attention from our president?

Rants from Hannity, Ingraham and Coulter. They challenge his manhood and thereby become the next shiny object for the Oval Office.

And therein lies another national emergency.

IMHO

11 thoughts on “National emergency? Not so much.

  1. So you think that Mexico will pay for the wall?

    Besides, you ignored the infrastructure and healthcare promises. The same determination on those as on a wall would have helped a lot more Americans.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep a campaign promise. That is not the “horror” as you surely know but it doesn’t fit your preferred spin. The “horror” is the use of a fake national emergency in order to subvert the Constitutional role of the Congress which has the Constitutional authority over spending. And to add to the horror we were treated to the spectacle of the President both lying through his teeth as he announced the “emergency” and admitting the “emergency” is not really an emergency.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/15/fact-checking-trumps-announcement-national-emergency/?utm_term=.86aacd554dca

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90308329/trump-admits-i-didnt-need-to-do-this-during-national-emergency-speech

    I must add that your frequent hair-on-fire accusations of Presidential overreach by President Obama stand in sharp contrast to your apparent approval of behavior an order of magnitude more egregious by Chump.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There are more than a few Republicans that are not in favor of Trump’s overreach. Sadly it seems as if the reason is not that actual usurpation of Congressional power as much as fear that a Democratic President would continue the precedence.

    I suppose that is the political reality rearing it’s less than good looking head. Any port in a tempest.

    Because of court challenges to this phony “emergency”, Trump May get nowhere during his reign. But to his hard core he can say he tried but liberal or Mexican (or both) judges blocked his best efforts.

    Maybe then we might see infrastructure funding? We do have much more tax revenue from the tax cuts don’t we?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is no “usurrpation of Congressional power.” The presiden’t emergency declaration is based on powers specifically granted to his office by Congress, which Congress is entitled to do.

      Like

      1. Yes, the President has been given some extra authorities to deal with real emergencies. The situation at the border is NOT a real emergency. The fact that Trump admitted as much while defending his declaration with lies and exaggerations just reconfirms the data – illegal border crossings have been decreasing for decades.

        If it is a real emergency why has Trump and the GOP waited two years to act on it? Anything to do with the 2018 election? Clearly, he tried to pick a political fight based on the out-of-touch views of people like Miller and embarrassed himself badly. The “emergency” is purely to save face with Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh.

        Imagine if President Obama had declared a climate “national emergency” and then took billions from the DOD to spend on solar research programs that Congress had explicitly refused to authorize. You would be singing a different tune. Admit it.

        Like

  4. It is debatable whether he can shift funding in this case. That is why it is being challenged in the courts by at least 6 lawsuits as of yesterday.

    True the “emergency powers” are a bit vague because over the years Congress has been lazy.

    Trump may win the legal battles on technicalities. However, it seems that everything Trump has ranted about regarding a crisis at the border have been lies or gross exaggerations.

    Crossings are way down. Drugs come through ports of entry. Asylum seekers are actually turning back on their own or staying in Mexico. El Paso’s crime rate was way down long before even the fencing went up and is still one of the safest cities of its size in the US. MS-13 crimes are often committed by members who are already US citizens.

    Trump declaring a national emergency is not on the merits of any kind of recognizable emergency. Except if the “emergency” if for Trump to save face.

    Plague, actual armed invasion on a grand scale, massive terrorist attacks, multiple natural disasters, economic collapse: these are emergency and national crises. A few extra miles of wall not so much.

    IMHO

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If Congress fails to block the emergency declaration as allowed by the statute, I think the Supreme Court will find it difficult to make any decision adverse to the president. Because the relevant issues are all capable of resolution in the political process, the court will likely leave them in the political realm.

      Other than that, our opinions of the nature of the emergency itself are irrelevant, since there is no legislative language defining the term “national emergency.”

      Trump told the Democrats he would go his own way if they didn’t bargain in good faith. He gave them the chance to be participants in solving the border security problem. Too bad for them that they didn’t take it.

      Like

      1. Bargain in good faith? Bull. The Democrats DID bargain in good faith and a deal was reached in Congress that Trump signaled he would accept. End of story? Nope. Crumbling under criticism from Ann Coulter, Trump totally reneged on what was agreed. THAT is a perfect example of not bargaining in good faith.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s