| Morning Jolt – January 29, 2013 By Jim Geraghty Good morning. Here's your Tuesday Morning Jolt. Enjoy! Jim Righty Bloggers Wish to Deport Latest Bipartisan Immigration-Reform Proposal So, what are the early reviews for that immigration-reform package introduced by the group of eight senators? Mark Krikorian: "I can at least respect the Democrat members of this cabal — Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennett — because the Left has never hidden its disdain for America's sovereignty. But the Republicans — McCain, Graham, Flake, and Rubio — want to achieve the Left's objectives while appearing tough." His debating partner from the weekend, Hugh Hewitt, wants to see details: Unfortunately the "framework" isn't legislative language and it was the language about "Z Visas" that sank the last attempt to deal with the issue. At first glance is there up-to-date-information about the border fence or its proposed extensions, no specifics on how many years --10, 15 20?-- a regularized resident would have to wait until becoming eligible for benefits and voting and whether that regularized resident would have to return home to wait for citizenship in line with other would-be immigrants as opposed to staying here as a permanent resident but without voting rights, and no details on how the broken visa system or the not-yet-mandatory E-Verify programs would work. It is a speech outline, and a not very good one at that. What is needed is a bill. An actual honest-to-goodness bill that free people can read and debate. Will the sharpies inside the Beltway ever figure out that those of us who can read don't have the highest opinions of their drafting ability or a great deal of trust that that which they say they will do they will do. Thoroughly opposed, Michelle Malkin: Hey, did someone set the clock back six years in Washington? Because today looks a hell of a lot like the dawn of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain 2007 illegal alien amnesty. Deja vu all over again. Starring in the role of John McCain this time around? Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio . . . Don't believe the hype from Rubio supporters that this warmed-over shamnesty proposal — another recipe for more illegal immigration, a bigger welfare state, and undermined sovereignty — is somehow new, improved and more enlightened. Neo-Neocon expresses what will be the core of the opposition to the path to citizenship: "There's a principle here, among other things, which is that coming here illegally should not be further rewarded. I write 'further' because it already is rewarded." Rick Moran also wonders how much of what's written in the law would ultimately get enforced: It also remains to be seen what kind of enhanced border security measures would be passed. We have seen immigration bureaucrats undermine or even ignore measures that have passed congress (like the virtual fence). It remains to be seen whether any immigration reform proposal can get through the GOP House. It might come down to how many Republican House members tie immigration reform to the improvement in relations with Hispanics. For the pro-open-borders perspective, there's Nick Gillespie over at Reason: The government doesn't want to admit it, but except in totalitarian countries, they don't run the border. People come and go based on large-scale dynamics that simply overwhelm most nations' ability to control in-flows and out-flows of people. E-verify systems are a nightmare filled either with error rates that will harass thousands of innocent people and businesses or else be so porous all they will do is add a drag on hiring legally. If the senators start really working the Sunday shows and their constituents about how immigration benefits our economy and is the right thing to do from a historical and moral perspective, that will be the sign that they're meaning to take this across the finish line. The thing is, I don't think a bunch of senators going on Sunday shows talking about the joys of immigration will actually change people's minds about this issue. The discussion about illegal immigrants is allegedly talking about the same 11 million people, but the two sides describe them in diametrically opposite terms. On one side, we have a bunch of lawbreakers who have come here and taken our jobs, driven down our wages, worsened the crime problem, who are sucking away at our public benefits, being treated in our emergency rooms, driving recklessly and traveling ten to a van, and facilitating the creation of a permanent underclass and black-market economy. Gangs and the drug trade have flourished in their impoverished, lawless shadow communities. The other side says we're dealing with aspiring Americans just like the ancestors of most of us, hardworking dreamers who are valedictorians and volunteers and folks who would come to epitomize the greatness of America, just like the Ellis Island-era immigrants, if we would just give them the chance. They point out that they're around us without us noticing, as we enjoy the services of our busboys, waiters, cooks, construction workers, and nannies. In our guts, most of us know that some of the 11 million are as bad as the critics say, and some are as good as their defenders say . . . and that our government has proven an absolute failure at sorting out the good ones from the bad ones. By the way, what does it say about Obama's well-proven ability to louse up bipartisan negotiations that this occurs? Some senior Democratic members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus used a private White House meeting Friday to urge President Obama not to unveil his own immigration legislation, for fear of blowing up delicate bipartisan talks, Democratic sources tell CNN . . . Sources familiar with the bipartisan Senate framework announced Monday tell CNN one of the main reasons they chose to unveil their framework one day before the president's planned Tuesday speech on the subject, was to start the national dialogue on their bipartisan terrain. Politically, CNN is told the senators felt it was crucial for it to be known that there has been a real bipartisan process ongoing that is independent from the president. "It would be a sabotage of the process," said one immigration reform advocate familiar with internal discussions but not able to speak freely on the record. "Everybody is fine with him announcing principles, using bully pulpit, etc. But what nobody who actually wants to see this passed wants, is an 'Obama White House' branded bill getting introduced," said the source. Well, there's the secret words there — "nobody who actually wants to see this passed" wants to see Obama grabbing the glory and having his staff determine the details of the legislation . . . but it's not so clear that the president actually wants to see this passed, when he thinks he could get another bite at the apple after the 2014 midterms. Demagoguing the Republicans as racist, xenophobic, and viscerally anti-immigrant has been a key part of their messaging — why would they want a bipartisan immigration-reform bill to mess up that convenient narrative? Gitmo Closes! Wait, No, It's Just the Office for Closing Gitmo That's Closing It's the end of an era of ending the preceding era: The State Department on Monday reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him, according to an internal personnel announcement. Mr. Fried's office is being closed, and his former responsibilities will be "assumed" by the office of the department's legal adviser, the notice said. The announcement that no senior official in President Obama's second term will succeed Mr. Fried in working primarily on diplomatic issues aimed at repatriating or resettling detainees appeared to signal that the administration does not currently see the closing of the Guantánamo Bay prison as a realistic priority, despite repeated statements that it still intends to do so. Patrick Brennan reminds us, "when asked at a White House press briefing about the president's first term promise to close Guantanamo Bay, Jay Carney reiterated the president's promise: 'As you know, the president remains committed to that. He agrees with military leaders as well as his immediate predecessor that we ought to do that. There are obviously obstacles in Congress to that, but we will continue to work towards that goal because he believes it's in the best interests of our national security.'" Obama remains committed to that . . . just not committed enough to keep that office open. Stealing from the Obama-Axelrod Narrative Management Playbook So, a few quick thoughts on the "reinvention of the GOP" topic . . . One of the things the Democrats do well is identify something that a wide swath of people think is a problem — some nut job shot up a kindergarten class! — and then quickly propose some legislation to "do something about it." Now, we're left to point out that the legislation in question won't really solve the problem it's supposed to, and it will create its own problems, but by that point we're following a familiar media playbook; they're the ones who care and who are trying to do something and we're the carping obstructionists who get all wrapped up in the details. The upside of our annoying focus on details and pesky wariness about unforeseen consequences is that we're much less likely to end up passing legislation that accidentally bans police officers from carrying guns with more than seven rounds, as Democrats in New York recently did. So, why can't we find something broadly recognized as a problem and offer our own this-must-pass-immediately-or-you-don't-care-about-the-problem ultimatum? Here's one of the first examples that comes to mind: What is the single least popular bit of federal spending? Whatever it is, introduce and vote on a bill to zero it out immediately. Alternatively, what is the federal agency with the single worst rate of waste and inefficiency? Introduce and pass a bill to cut its budget in half. Turn those into crusades, hold press conferences, get the lawmakers out on the Sunday shows to invoke it as a "basic first step to getting our fiscal house in order," and so on. It doesn't matter if the actual dollar amount involved is miniscule in comparison to the debt and this year's deficit; the point is to a) get Americans used to the idea that government spending can be cut; b) persuade Americans that cracking down on wasteful spending is worthwhile; and c) test the Democrats to see if they're dumb enough to go out and defend the worst offenders. The worst-case scenario is that the Democrats go along with it, like when they quickly capitulated over ACORN funding. But in that case, we've managed to actually cut a little government waste — not such a bad outcome. Let the Democrats dismiss this maneuver as a stunt; what exactly would we call Dianne Feinstein displaying 10 assault rifles during her press conference on the assault weapons ban? My nomination? All of the U.S. Department of Agriculture grants to various industries to promote American products. Looking at examples like this one… Leo Ray, owner of Fish Processors of Idaho, learned Friday that his business won a $300,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to promote his caviar nationwide. Ray received a Value-Added Producer Grant, designed to help farmers advertise new products and build economies in rural communities. Industries can promote their own darn products; there's no reason for U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab. Looking through Tom Coburn's catalog of wasteful spending . . . Okay, Democrats, we will raise taxes. Let's declare that professional sports leagues do not qualify as "nonprofits." That's $91 million in new tax revenue right there. Could you imagine if GOP lawmakers in Congress suddenly started pounding the table and insisting that NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NHL commissioner Gary Bettman pay their fair share? You would see the GOP suddenly the hero of the world of sports talk radio, that's for sure. Keep in mind, the Obama agenda for the coming year is to bring up issue after issue that either divides Republicans or leaves them defending an unpopular position: On all the spending fights, he's going to paint the opposition as misers who want to toss old people into the cold and cut off help for families with disabled children. On climate change, we're flat-earth types who defend polluters and don't want to stop natural disasters. On immigration, we'll be painted as xenophobic racists who fly into paranoid rages when Mexican restaurants don't immediately offer us the mild salsa with our chips. On every issue, the theme is the same: "We all agree that X is a problem [even though we don't], and we have a solution, and the GOP is being obstructionist." Wouldn't it be nice to interrupt this parade of Axelrod focus group-tested wedge issues with some issues of our own? Kurt Schlichter had the right approach: Obama is now talking about taxing the successful even more by eliminating deductions. Hand him another big goose egg. He got his tax increases – you need to be out of the revenue increase business. How about the House pass a payroll tax cut, paid for by slashing corporate welfare to Obama's Hollywood buddies and his green energy scam cronies? Spending cuts? Obama doesn't get a say. Sequestration is going to happen unless the GOP agrees to change it. That's a $1.2 trillion cut. Let it happen, and let Secretary Hagel deal with the defense cuts. Obama loses again unless you save him. And guns – talk about a golden opportunity to defeat Obama while also helping set the stage for a Democrat wipe-out in 2014! Obama and his progressive pals are giddy with the idea that Newtown will let them jam through a whole slew of Second Amendment-trashing measures before everyone starts thinking again. If Obama's actually foolish enough to proceed – and I am not sure he is – he's setting himself up for a huge loss. GOP, remember Napoleon's admonition to never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Let Obama try and force the red state Democrat senators to come out against guns. Let the Democrats tear themselves up while we watch and gobble popcorn. ADDENDUM: The New York Post reports, "We hear Anthony Weiner is testing the waters for another political run. Our headline writers couldn't be happier." To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for print-edition information. Click here for digital-edition information. And National Review makes a great gift. Click here to send a full-year gift to NR Digital, and here to send a full-year subscription to the print edition. Conservatives – stay healthy! Get plenty of Vitamin Sea on the next National Review cruise. Visit www.nrcruise.com for complete information about our next trip. National Review, Inc. | 
Comments
Post a Comment