Ronald Reagan’s OMB Director, David Stockman, talks about his new book, Peak Trump. In a wide-ranging discussion, Mr. Stockman presents a sobering, data-driven assessment of the serious challenges the American economy faces. While he voted Trump, Mr. Stockman warns that Mr. Trump’s economic agenda now threatens disaster. But first, Tyler and Taylor grade President Trump’s State of the Union address.
David Stockman is the ultimate Washington insider turned iconoclast. Mr. Stockman won a seat in Congress at just 31 years old and quickly rose through the ranks of Washington. Just four years later, President Ronald Reagan appointed him to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget in 1981. After leaving the White House, Mr. Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street.
The State of the Union, with all its pomp and pageantry, is largely a 20th Century invention. Until 1947, what we now call the State of the Union Address was officially known as the Annual Message. And, it wasn’t always a speech either.
The U.S. Constitution dictates that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” (U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3) The form that this takes has varied throughout the nation’s history.
The President’s ‘Annual Message’
The first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, delivered their annual message as a speech to Congress. However, President Thomas Jefferson found the monarchical trappings of a grand address distasteful. When Jefferson took office in 1801, he delivered his annual presidential messages as a written report. (Jefferson was also a notoriously poor orator, which might have had something to do with it.)
Throughout the 19th Century, Presidents followed Jefferson’s model of delivering their annual message as written reports. These were often lengthy bureaucratic documents that bear little resemblance to the grand rhetorical performances of the modern State of the Union address.
The Modern State of the Union
President Woodrow Wilson, seeking to refashion the Presidency into a less impersonal institution, revived the tradition of the president’s annual message as a speech before a joint session of Congress in 1913. Truman’s 1947 address was the first to be called a “State of the Union” and also the first to be broadcast on television.
Dwight Eisenhower’s 1959 address was the first to use the familiar “my fellow Americans” opening line. “Prior to that,” says Anne Pluta, a professor at Rowan College, President’s addressed the speech “to ‘Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives,’ ‘Members of Congress,’ or some variation thereof.” Later, Lyndon Johnson began the tradition of delivering the State of the Union as a prime time address in 1965.
The State of the Union has been shaped by the forces of history and technology as well as the personalities of the men who occupied the Presidential office. “There is no law on the subject,” Senator George G. Vest said in an 1895 speech to the Jefferson Club of St. Louis. “It is a matter of taste and convenience, a question which every President can settle for himself.”
The Democratic Party is riding high. They took the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. They bested President Donald Trump in the most recent round of the shutdown fight. Judging by Mr. Trump’s poll numbers, Democrats have a real shot at the White House in 2020. And yet, the party’s left wing is busily planting the seeds of its own demise.An ascendant Democratic left, galvanized by President Trump’s chaotic two years in office, is pushing the Democrats’ agenda out of the mainstream.
An ascendant Democratic left, galvanized by President Trump’s chaotic two years in office, is pushing the Democrats’ agenda out of the mainstream.
The Left Field
The early entrants in the Democratic primary race all come from the far left. Kamala Harris, the California Senator who was first to throw her hat in the ring, wants to eliminate private health insurance. Ms. Harris’ opponent, Senator Elizabeth Warren, is calling for more IRS audits and punitive taxes on the wealthy. Not to be outdone, Sen. Bernie Sanders thinks a 90% top marginal tax rate wouldn’t be such a crazy idea.
Yet, even the most aggressive soak the rich schemes will not come close to paying for the array of massive new government programs the Democratic Presidential contenders promise. For example, all of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have embraced Medicare for All. Yet, none can explain how they will pay the massive price tag of free government health care for everyone. Ms. Warren’s wealth tax, for instance, is estimated to raise $2.75 trillion over ten years. But, that will cover only a fraction of the programs $32 billion cost.
Mashing the Hot Buttons
Meanwhile, Democratic-controlled legislatures are mashing hard on hot button issues that are sure to alienate moderate voters. A bill moving through Virginia’s Democrat-controlled state legislature would permit late-term abortions, even after the mother was in labor. Virginia’s Democratic Governor Ralph Northam said that in such cases the baby would be delivered and “kept comfortable” while the doctor and mother would have a conversation about whether the child is permitted to live. For even many pro-choice advocates, this seems barbaric. Under the law, it’s arguably murder.
Some will argue that this is no more crazy than Mr. Trump’s promise of a 2,000 mile border wall paid for by Mexico. But, the swing voters Democrats need to take back the White House are fed up with outlandish promises. Democrats will need to convince these voters that they offer a more sober, competent alternative to Mr. Trump. At the moment, they are leaving precisely the opposite impression.
Putting the 2018 Midterms in Perspective
Many on the left interpret Democrats’ midterm electoral success as not only a backlash against President Trump, but a ringing endorsement from the voting public of a progressive agenda. They are getting ahead of their skis. While Democrats have plenty of reason for cheer, their midterm win wasn’t quite as resounding as it first appears.
Republicans were defending far more House seats in districts Hillary Clinton won than Democrats were defending in districts Donald Trump carried. Among the reasons incumbent parties tend to lose seats in a new President’s first midterm election is that as parties are on the rise, they gain seats in opposing party territory that are especially vulnerable to being retaken by the party that more naturally represents them. While this isn’t the only reason Democrats regained the House, it played a bigger role than many Democrats would care to admit. Dissatisfaction with President Trump, rather than a new-found embrace of progressive policy fantasies, accounts for most of the rest.
The Bottom Line
The fantastical fictions on offer from the Democratic left are hardly an improvement on the current state of affairs.
Voters are frustrated with government dysfunction and incompetence. The fantastical fictions on offer from the Democratic left are hardly an improvement on the current state of affairs. The shift in 2018, such that it was, is less a shift in ideology than a shift in which party voters are willing to entrust with competently running the government. Democrats ignore this reality at their own peril.
As Democrats race each other to the left, they are leaving the public who might vote for them further behind. The ominous caricature of Democrats drawn by the far right and the reality of what Democrats actually stand for are beginning to converge. The further they go, the less outrageous Mr. Trump appears in comparison.
Correction
An earlier version of this article referred to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a Representative from California. She is, of course, a Representative from New York. We regret the error.
President Trump has offered a proposal to end the government shutdown, but it probably won’t be enough to satisfy Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement, based on news reports of what he would propose, dismissing Mr. Trump’s offer as a non-starter before he even formally made it. Ms. Pelosi’s rejection likely was met with little surprise at the White House. Mr. Trump’s proposal seems mostly intended to strengthen his hand in negotiating a final deal. Still, it is a modest step in moving towards resolving the longest government shutdown in history and a signal of willingness to compromise on the part of the White House.
Mr. Trump’s proposed deal includes the $5.7 billion in funding for a border wall he has been asking for, and in exchange offers Democrats a three-year extension of the DACA program, which allows so-called “Dreamers” — undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children — to stay. It also extends Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for three years. This would shield immigrants covered under the program — mostly victims of natural disasters from Central and Latin America — from deportation. In addition, Mr. Trump’s proposal would increase the number of border agents and provide funding for humanitarian relief and drug detection technology at border crossings.
Why Democrats Rejected Trump’s Offer
On its face, this appears similar to a deal Democrats offered, and Mr. Trump rejected, last year. However, there are some key differences. Last year, the Democrats offered $25 billion in wall funding in exchange for a permanent DACA fix, including a pathway to citizenship. Mr. Trump’s proposal is temporary and does not include a mechanism for DACA recipients to become citizens. Democrats judge a temporary DACA fix insufficient. A legislative solution for the DACA program, an Obama-era initiative implemented by executive order that Mr. Trump has sought to end because he says it overstepped Presidential authority, has been a key sticking-point between Democrats and the White House for more than a year.
It’s likely that Mr. Trump is offering a temporary DACA fix to retain negotiating leverage for additional wall funding down the road. This is not lost on Democrats. But, Mr. Trump is betting that while Democrats will make the distinction between a permanent and temporary DACA fix, the public at-large will not. Mr. Trump reckons that if Democrats accept his compromise, great. But if they don’t, at worst it helps turn the tables, making Democrats look like the ones who are intransigent.
But, Democratic activists are having none of it. “Americans overwhelmingly voted for Democratic control of the House to put a check on Trump on exactly this kind of reckless behavior,” said Charles Chamberlain, chairman of liberal activist group Democracy for America.
Why Trump is Seeking a Way Out
The government shutdown, already the longest in history, is now nearing the one-month mark. Thus far, Mr. Trump has shouldered much of the political blame. Polls show Americans blame Mr. Trump for the shutdown and his approval ratings have slipped since it began. By wide margins, voters just want the shutdown to end.
SOURCE: FIveThirtyEight.com
But, perhaps a stronger incentive for Mr. Trump is the potential that the shutdown will become a drag on the economy and imperil his clearest argument for the success of his Presidency.
Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that the shutdown is shaving 0.13 percent off of quarterly economic growth for each week it goes on. That means that the economy has already lost 0.5 % in growth over the four weeks the government has been shut down.
While this may not be enough to tip the economy into recession, it certainly doesn’t help. It is another drag on an economy already facing headwinds from Mr. Trump’s trade war with China, Federal Reserve rate hikes, and a sagging stock market.
“The longer it goes on, the bigger the risk is of broader damage,” Ian Shepherdson, an economist at research firm Pantheon Economics, told Vox News. “If the shutdown lasts for the whole quarter, it won’t be trivial.”
Little Room to Maneuver
Still, hemmed in by uncompromising base supporters, neither Republicans nor Democrats have much room to maneuver. Even this modest proposal faced blowback from immigration hawks. Ann Coulter, a conservative commentator influential among Mr. Trump’s base, ridiculed the proposal as “amnesty” on Twitter.
Trump proposes amnesty. We voted for Trump and got Jeb!
It was also Ms. Coulter’s criticism that prompted the White House soften its demand for wall funding in a bid to avert a shutdown last month.
Democratic leaders face similar pressure from a left-wing already discontented by Ms. Pelosi’s re-elevation as House speaker. For them, opposition to the wall is a proxy for opposition to Mr. Trump. For Democratic leaders to cave to Mr. Trump on his signature initiative as their first act after winning control of the house would be read by Democratic Party activists as a betrayal.
Endgame Remains Elusive
For now, Democrats will likely continue to try to saw off the limb Mr. Trump walked out on when the shutdown started. Still, by rejecting Mr. Trump’s proposal, it becomes easier for the White House to argue that the Democrats are the ones being unreasonable. While this compromise may not end the shutdown immediately, Mr. Trump likely hopes that it will turn up the political pressure on the Democrats and increase the chances of their accepting a compromise more to his liking.
There remains no easy solution to this mess. The shutdown fight is emblematic of an era of governing in which the affairs of state are in direct conflict with the political forces shaping both parties. Until the politicians find a way to strike a balance between the two, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers going without a paycheck will continue to be caught in the middle.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2019/01/the-government-shutdown-fight-explained-2/
Nancy Pelosi suggested that the State of the Union address be delayed until after the government shutdown is resolved. Has the annual address, with all its pomp and pageantry, become an overwrought symbol of the imperial modern presidency?
Then, we discuss a pair of back-to-back bombshell news stories. First, the NY Times reports that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump after he fired James Comey. But, did the FBI step over the line? Second, the Washington Post revealed that President Trump concealed records of his one-on-one conversations with Vladimir Putin. Why this might not be as bad as it first appears.
If the government shutdown continues, Mr. Trump may have to deliver the State of the Union on paper. Nancy Pelosi suggested that President Trump cancel the annual prime time address until the shutdown is over. Roughly Explained Editor Taylor Griffin discusses what this all means with the BBC’s Clare McDonnell.
President Donald Trump has suggested that he has the power to declare a national emergency and build a border wall with or without Congress — and he might be right.
Democrats’ opposition to President Trump’s request for $5 billion to construct a wall on the southern border has resulted in a government shutdown that is now stretching into its third week. Declaring a national emergency and building it anyway could allow Trump a way out of the impasse.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2019/01/the-government-shutdown-fight-explained-2/
Presidential Emergency Powers and the Wall
There’s a non-trivial legal argument that under emergency authorities granted to the President by Congress President Trump could unilaterally order the construction of a wall, even in the absence of an explicit appropriation from Congress. Still, the President’s ability to invoke these laws is not clear-cut and would surely face legal challenges.
There are at least two relevant statutes on which the Trump Administration could rest a case for his authority to use emergency powers to build a wall:
Under a law passed by Congress in 1986, in the event of a Presidential declaration of a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA), the Administration is permitted to reallocate resources from the Army Corps of Engineers to “construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”
Another law gives the President, after declaring a national emergency that requires the use of the armed forces, broad latitude to reassign funds appropriated by Congress for military construction projects to other projects “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”
Both of these statutes require that the President declare a national emergency under the 1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA). But, the bar for doing so is not all that high according to Bobby Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas. “If President Trump wishes to state that the border is in a state of disarray or exposure such that it constitutes a national emergency under the NEA, he is pretty much free to do so,” Chesney wrote in a post on Lawfare.
Not a Slam Dunk
While the Administration can certainly make a plausible case for the President’s legal authority to use emergency powers to build the wall, it’s not a slam dunk.
The President’s authority to reassign Army Corps of Engineers resources is limited to civil works projects that Congress has previously authorized. Congress has not explicitly approved a barrier covering the entire border. Still, Congress has authorized the military to construct “roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” The Trump administration could argue that the border wall falls under the military’s authority to build fencing for the purposes of drug interdiction.
The statute permitting reassignment of military construction funds applies only to a declaration of a national emergency “that requires use of the armed forces.” The statute allowing the use of Army Corps of Engineers resources is a bit broader, allowing emergencies that “may require” the armed forces. President Trump did order troops to the border last year in a support role, so there’s precedent for this.
Some argue that border security mission runs afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which places limits on the extent to which the military can be used for domestic law enforcement. For example, the President could not deploy the Army to round up drug dealers. But, he clearly could deploy the Army to stop an invading military force.
Can President Trump use the military to stop migrants from crossing into the country illegally? Securing the border falls into a sort of gray area, which is why the military was confined to a support role when it was deployed to the border last year. Stil, Presidents have pushed the envelope of what the military is allowed to do further than this in the past. Even if the armed forces are only “required” in a support role it’s fair to argue that this is enough to satisfy the statute. When Congress passed these laws, it likely had things other than border walls in mind. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration can reasonably argue that they apply here.
Courts are generally reluctant to second guess the President’s national security judgements. Recent court battles over other Trump initiatives give little reason to believe this will change. In the case of President Trump’s travel ban, after the administration made some revisions to address due process and other concerns, the Supreme Court upheld it in the end, specifically citing the Judiciary’s general deference to Presidential authority over national security matters. “The Executive’s evaluation of the underlying facts is entitled to appropriate weight, particularly in the context of litigation involving ‘sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/06/why-the-supreme-court-upheld-president-trumps-travel-ban/
The Bottom Line
There’s no guarantee that declaring an emergency resolves the shutdown. For example, Democrats might insist on a provision in any funding package that explicitly prohibits him from using appropriated funds for a border wall. Setting that aside, declaring a national emergency to build a wall is not explicitly within the scope of the President’s powers; but, it’s not clearly outside of them either. Although there are legal obstacles, they are not necessarily insurmountable. Whatever happens, if President Trump choses to go this route, it will be up to the courts to sort it out.
Roughly Explained Editor Taylor Griffin talks with Foreign policy expert Danielle Pletka about the implications of President Trump’s surprise decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and why she thinks he is repeating the same mistakes President Barack Obama made when he pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011. Plus, what the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis means for U.S. national security policy.
Danielle Pletka is Senior Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. You can find her on Twitter at @dpletka, or read her very astute analysis of the middle east and other foreign policy issues at AEI’s website.
A stalemate between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over funding for a border wall threatens a partial government shutdown. As of Friday afternoon, there was little optimism that a deal to keep the government open could be struck before a midnight deadline.
Here’s what’s going on:
Mr. Trump has threatened to veto any spending package that doesn’t include at least $5 billion in funding for the wall. Democrats, whose support in the Senate is necessary to muster the 60 votes needed to pass any funding bill, are equally determined not to give it to him.
Democrats say they will agree to a continuation of last year’s $1.6 billion border security funding level, which includes $1.3 billion for pedestrian fencing, but not a penny more.
For the third time this year, Mr. Trump and Congressional Democrats find themselves hemmed in by political bases that reject any concessions to the other side as unacceptable.
A Tumultuous Week
Over the course of a tumultuous week, Mr. Trump has lurched between veto threats to signaling willingness to compromise, and back again. By Friday afternoon, both sides seemed to have dug in their heels.
“Shutdown today if Democrats do not vote for Border Security!” Mr. Trump tweeted Friday morning.
“President Trump: you will not get your wall,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer shot back on the Senate floor later in the day. “Abandon your shutdown strategy. You’re not getting the wall today, next week or on January 3rd, when Democrats take control of the House.”
Last week, President Trump said he was unmovable in his resolve to veto any bill to keep the government open that did not include at least $5 billion to fund the wall. Perhaps recognizing the futility of securing even one Democratic votes in the Senate, much less nine, by Tuesday, the White House shifted course. In a Fox News interview Tuesday, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that they might not need the full $5 billion after all. “We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion (for a border wall),” she said.
Senate Republicans saw an opening and rushed to pass a short-term spending measure that would extend existing funding until early February, essentially punting the fight to next year. Lawmakers were optimistic that Mr. Trump would sign it. But, after a fierce backlash among the President’s abase — conservative commentator Ann Coulter, one of Mr. Trump’s earliest supporters, denounced him as “gutless” — the White House reversed tact.
“This utterly unlikely and, at least for president, in many ways, a not particularly attractive presidential candidate beat the most qualified woman ever to run for the office, basically on one promise: the promise to build a wall and never backing down on that,” Ann Coulter said on the Daily Caller’s podcast.
Thursday morning, Mr. Trump summoned key House Republicans to the White House and renewed his vow to veto the Senate bill or anything else that fell short of the full $5 billion in wall funding. At Mr. Trump’s insistence, House Republicans passed a largely symbolic funding bill that included $5 billion in wall funding. It landed in the Senate with a thud.
Mr. Trump spent early Friday morning on Twitter goading Democrats. “If the Dems vote no, there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time. People don’t want Open Borders and Crime!” he wrote.
The Democrats Aren’t Going to Budge
Democrats have little political incentive to acquiesce to Mr. Trump’s demands. Fresh off a midterm election victory, Democrats are in no mood to cave:
For the left, opposing the wall is a proxy for opposing Mr. Trump. Any concession on the wall is unacceptable to the Democratic base. Ms. Pelosi has only recently put down an insurgency from members of her party’s left wing, which revolted against her election as speaker. There’s no interest in pouring salt in those wounds.
If a shutdown happens, Mr. Trump will shoulder much of the blame. Last week, in a wild televised Oval Office negotiating session with Democratic Party leaders Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker of the house, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, Mr. Trump said he was perfectly willing to accept responsibility for a shutdown. “If we don’t get what we want … I will shut down the government. Absolutely,” Mr. Trump said. “I am proud to shutdown the government for border security.” In a USA Today/Suffolk University poll out this week, 43% said they’d blame Mr. Trump and the Republicans for a shutdown while just 24% would blame Democrats.
Regardless of whose fault the shutdown is, political memory is short. We’re on our third shutdown this year. Few remember who was at fault. In February, Democrats took heat for forcing a shutdown over a legislative fix for DACA. Yet, they nevertheless went in to score big victories in the midterms. “Few people feel an impact from it in their own lives,” Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster, told Vox News. “They think it reflects Washington’s dysfunction, which they loathe, but it is still too distant from what hits home.”
What Will, and Won’t, Shut Down
If a shutdown happens, some, but not all of the government will shutdown. Congress has passed appropriations bills funding about three quarters of the government, including the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services. But, funding bills for nine other agencies remains mired in the impasse over wall funding.
The Defense Department and Department of Health and Human Services, which have already been funded will be largely unaffected.
At agencies that must shut down, non-essential workers will be furloughed. In the past Congress has usually paid them in arrears.
Employees designated as essential personnel will continue to come to work. Air Traffic Controllers, border patrol agents, and TSA agents are all considered essential personnel.
National Parks will probably close, and the IRS will furlough a large portion of their workforce.
Mandatory spending programs do not require annual appropriations. So, Social Security and Medicaid checks will arrive as usual.
Federal courts have independent sources of funding that should allow them to stay open for at least three weeks or so.
The Bottom Line
On Capitol Hill at least, neither side really wants a shutdown. Even if Mr. Trump is spoiling for a fight, war-weary Congressional Republicans mostly just want to go home. After a bruising midterm, there’s little appetite for a big showdown over the Christmas Holiday. Yet, the divide between the two sides seems wider than any mutually agreeable compromise can bridge. And neither side is ready to cave.
With hours to go before the stroke of midnight, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers gamely continued to search for a last minute way out. In a darkened West Wing, there was little sign of activity other than the whir of the cleaning staff’s vacuum cleaners. A reporter, stumbling upon Kevin Hassett, one of the President’s economic advisers, on the White House driveway asked what would happen next. “It’s up to the president,” Hassett replied.
Buy the book on Amazon.
David Stockman is the ultimate Washington insider turned iconoclast. Mr. Stockman won a seat in Congress at just 31 years old and quickly rose through the ranks of Washington. Just four years later, President Ronald Reagan appointed him to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget in 1981. After leaving the White House, Mr. Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. 
