| | | | | What did we learn from infrastructure week about the Republican party’s priorities on spending and deficits during the Trump administration? In the new issue of the magazine, my colleague Haley Byrd and I write on this question. Here’s an excerpt: The administration’s rollout of its infrastructure plan was a good indication of where the party of cutting spending has moved in the Trump era. The White House calls the spending an “investment,” which would, Keynesian-style, create jobs for Americans. And while the official goal is to spark more than $1 trillion in additional state, local, and private infrastructure spending, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao said the federal government’s $200 billion was a “minimum.” White House officials confirmed to us that the president is willing to negotiate on that number.
Congressional Republicans don’t sound particularly eager to put Trump’s proposal into law. “Oh, you know I don’t know the answer to that,” Texas’s John Cornyn, the number two Republican in the Senate, said when asked which house of Congress will be taking the lead on infrastructure. “I guess we’ll both do our thing and try to meet in the middle.” Some GOP lawmakers are concerned about the plan’s price tag. “The challenge is always the pay-fors, trying to find it,” Jason Lewis of Minnesota, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, says of Trump’s proposal. “But I’m focused on infrastructure that spawns productivity, not just a stimulus plan. And that’s a crucial difference.”
House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, however, was effusive in his praise of the plan, saying “we must invest in America” in a statement. “The president’s bold plan would improve American safety, make our economy more efficient, and restore and create pieces of civic engineering that our country can be proud of.” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell simply ignored the spending component of the plan in a vague statement of support, as did Paul Ryan.
|
|
| | Immigration Watch—The Trump-endorsed bill on immigration failed in the Senate Thursday after days of debate. The bill, co-sponsored by Republicans Chuck Grassley, David Perdue, and Tom Cotton, was the only one of multiple proposals the White House said satisfied its expectations for a deal on protecting so-called Dreamers. The Grassley bill provided funding for a border wall in addition to restrictions on chain migration and a scrapping of the diversity visa lottery. But just 39 senators voted in favor of the Grassley bill, the only one of four immigration bills that emerged from the Senate’s debate to not earn support from a majority. None of the bills received the 60-vote supermajority required to avert a filibuster. Read more about Thursday’s immigration dealings from Haley Byrd here. Meanwhile, my other colleague John McCormack has a longer view in the new issue on what unites—and what divides—Washington on the issue on immigration. | |
|
| | The defeat of one of those bills, the bipartisan immigration legislation from Mike Rounds, Susan Collins, and Angus King, didn’t seem certain to the White House. Shortly before voting began, two administration officials held a conference call pronouncing the Rounds bill “dead on arrival.” That call followed a veto threat from President Trump, through his press office, of the bill. And all this came after the Department of Homeland Security issued a press release just before 1:00 a.m. Thursday morning denouncing the Rounds bill as “the end of immigration enforcement in America.” and said it would “only serve to draw millions more illegal aliens with no way to remove them.” The White House official on the call also, curiously, declared “We are officially asking the sponsors of the bill to withdraw their support,” encouraging the reporters listening to call the eight Republicans sponsoring the Rounds legislation to request comment. | |
|
| | President Trump addressed the nation Thursday morning, a day after the deadly school shooting in Broward County, Florida. “Our entire nation with one heavy heart is praying for the victims and their families,” Trump said. “To every parent, teacher, and child who is hurting so badly: We are here for you, whatever you need, whatever we can do to ease your pain. We are all joined together as one American family, and your suffering is our burden also.” The president also had a message for the young people of America. “I want to speak now directly to America’s children, especially those who feel lost, alone, confused or even scared: I want you to know that you are never alone and you never will be,” he said. “You have people who care about you, who love you, and who will do anything at all to protect you. If you need help, turn to a teacher, a family member, a local police officer, or a faith leader. Answer hate with love. Answer cruelty with kindness.” | |
|
| | Mueller Watch—Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon refused to answer questions posed by the House Intelligence committee Thursday, citing executive privilege to avoid discussing matters pertaining to the Russia investigation. Committee members said Bannon declined to answer questions beyond a list of 25 provided by the White House, the answer to which was a terse “no.” Discussions are ongoing about whether to hold Bannon in contempt, they said. Meanwhile, NBC reported Thursday that Bannon has met several times with special counsel Robert Mueller this week, spending approximately 20 hours in conversations with investigators looking into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election. | |
|
| | Veterans Affairs secretary David Shulkin apologized Thursday for the “optics” of his publicly-funded trip to Europe last year, pledging to repay part of the bill for the 10-day, $122,000 jaunt. Shulkin’s comments came one day after an inspector general report censured him for spending a large portion of the trip sightseeing with his wife on the taxpayer's dime. The report also accused Shulkin’s chief of staff, Vivieca Simpson, of fabricating emails to justify the expense. On Wednesday, Shulkin blasted the report as “not accurate and not objective.” But he reversed course in Thursday testimony before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, pledging to “do whatever I have to do to make things right.” “I do accept the optics of this are not good,” Shulkin said. “I accept responsibility.” Read more... | |
|
| | Must-Read of the Day—Matthew Continetti, writing in Commentary, does an autopsy on the fawning coverage in Western media of Kim Yo Jong during the North Korean dictator’s sister’s visit to the Winter Olympics in South Korea. “What we got,” Continetti writes, “was a combination of celebrity puffery and partisan cheap shots at the Trump administration.” | |
|
|
|
