search
top

Averting a DHS Shutdown

Off topic, because gun news is a bit thin right now. Instapundit notes that Republicans have agreed to run a clean DHS funding bill, whereas previously they decided to use this to make a point on Obama’s immigration power grab. A 92-2 vote means that even some of the hardest core tea party types voted to drop the immigration issue. Why?

I tried to argue unsuccessfully in Instapundit’s comments that shutdowns almost never work out in favor of the GOP. They nearly always take a hit in the polls, and take the blame. Given the countries current vulnerability to attack, and our ascendent enemies, I can’t really get all that worked up that the GOP didn’t want to get near the cliff, less some jihadist decide to push them off it with an attack during or near the shutdown, for which the GOP will nearly certainly be blamed in the media. I think one of the other commenters had the right idea:

Never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Attach the amnesty prohibition to EPA funding. Nobody cares if EPA shuts down. Let the greens and la raza fight it out among themselves.

Now that’s just crazy enough to work!

7 Responses to “Averting a DHS Shutdown”

  1. Alpheus says:

    I am sympathetic with the idea that by the time the next election comes around, the electorate will have forgotten the shutdown. At the same time, the concern you raise–that a terrorist attack might happen in the interim–is a valid one.

    (It doesn’t matter that, to me at least, the Federal Government probably shouldn’t have a special “Homeland Security” agency; this is something that I can’t help but wonder if it could be handled just fine by the States. Most LIVs, however, aren’t going to look at it that way!)

    (Oh, and the idea of holding the EPA or OSHA hostage is *very* appealing.)

    • Sebastian says:

      I never favored creating DHS, and I’d like to see it dismantled entirely. But as it is, we’re stuck with it. Reason? No politician will want to risk being blamed for any subsequent terror attack after voting for its elimination.

      It doesn’t matter whether it would have happened anyway, the media will blame them for it, and low information voters will go right along.

  2. GMC70 says:

    I’m prepared to shoot this hostage. Tomorrow.

    DHS is a political monstrosity created entirely as a response to a need to “do something” following 9/11. Whether that something made any sense, aside from creating more expensive and never-ending fiefdoms is another matter.

    It’s a massive waste of money, simply reshuffling the deck chairs on the Leviathan.

    Of course, a great deal of the Federal government could be categorized the same way . . . .

    • Sebastian says:

      I’d like to be rid of DHS too, but I’m not optimistic that will ever happen. The time to stop it was during the Bush Administration, but too many people were clamoring for “something to be done,” and that was something, so therefore it had to be done.

  3. HSR47 says:

    I think the key thing to keep in mind on this issue is that the courts are unlikely to contest any executive over-reach that the legislative branch is complicit in.

  4. SDN says:

    We can’t hold EPA “hostage”; our surrender monkeys tok that off the table with the CRomnibus funding bill in December.

    Boehner and McConnell want amnesty and will not fight.

    Vote straight Democrat and Let It Burn.

  5. Harsh reality: until conservatives with big money decide to go into the news/entertainment business where theywould make some money as well as influence the LIVs, Republicans will be in terror of the media, and this terror of shutdown will continue.

top