Trump: ‘Good Chance’ I’ll Declare National Emergency

Plus, Medicare at 55?

Trump: ‘Good Chance’ I’ll Declare National Emergency at the Border

It sure sounds like President Trump plans to declare a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and divert billions of dollars for construction of his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I think there’s a good chance that we’ll have to do that,” Trump told White House reporters on Friday.

Trump’s latest comments come a day after he dismissed negotiations by a bipartisan group of 17 lawmakers working against a February 15 deadline to strike a deal on government funding and border security. Trump called those talks “a waste of time” if they did not deliver funding for his wall. And in an interview with The New York Times, Trump reiterated that he thinks the talks are a waste of time, but said he’ll wait until February 15 before taking action. “I’ve set the table. I’ve set the stage for doing what I’m going to do,” he said.

Slate’s Jim Newell offers a clear distillation of the options and outcomes — “all bad” — that Trump now has in the border wall fight given Democrats unyielding insistence that they won’t provide money for a wall:

1. Accept a Deal: Trump could agree to sign whatever deal the congressional committee reaches, if they reach one — and then spin it as a win. “This would allow him to at least argue that by holding out and shutting down the government, he secured a modest increase in border security funding,” Newell says. Trump, and the rest of us, could move on. But the president would surely face criticism and mockery for such an abrupt turn after months of insisting that real border security demands nothing less than a wall. Pelosi essentially presented Trump that option on Thursday, suggesting he could call additional fencing on the border a wall if he wants. Trump seemed to shoot that down, insisting that a deal won’t work without a wall.

2. Shut It Down: Trump could threaten to veto any compromise that doesn’t include wall funding, potentially forcing another government shutdown. “At first, this option would seem to be prohibitively stupid,” Newell suggests. “But if the stupidity of the position is felt just strongly enough in Washington, it could allow him to get out of the situation without caving—by forcing congressional Republicans to override his veto.” Republican lawmakers would be in a difficult position, stuck between the rage of Trump’s loyal base and the political disaster of another shutdown. Overriding Trump’s veto would keep the government open — and let Trump brand them as “weak” for not sticking with him.

3. Go to Court: The politics of a national emergency declaration would be ugly. “The polling on declaring a national emergency to build the wall is lightning-hot garbage, and that’s reflected in the hesitancy among many congressional Republicans to endorse the move,” Newell adds. But it still might be Trump’s best way to escape the corner he’s backed himself into with his wall demands. And while some Republicans have cautioned that an emergency declaration would set a dangerous precedent that could be used by Democratic presidents in the future, party leaders probably wouldn’t mind moving on from the standoff over the wall and the threat of another shutdown.

An emergency declaration would inevitably be met with immediate legal challenges that could tie up any wall construction for years. Trump on Friday said he had the legal authority to make an emergency declaration. "We have very, very strong legal standing,” he claimed. Some legal experts disagree.

Either way, a court battle would allow Trump to move on from the prolonged impasse while keeping the politically potent wall issue alive for the 2020 campaign cycle. That might make it the most palatable option for Trump, who’s been mulling it over for weeks — and had top White House officials reportedly making preparations for a declaration as a fallback option early this week, even before the bipartisan border security committee had even held its first official meeting.

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown: ‘Medicare at 55’ Is a More Realistic Goal Than 'Medicare for All'

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown said Friday that his fellow Democrats were being impractical in their demands for universal Medicare coverage. “I know most of the Democratic primary candidates are all talking about Medicare for all,” Brown said at a meeting at the Chamber of Commerce in Clear Lake, Iowa. “I think instead we should do Medicare at 55.”

Widely expected to run for president in 2020, Brown is one of the sponsors of the “Medicare at 55 Act” introduced in 2017. The bill would create the option for those 55 and older to buy into Medicare. “If someone has lost her job at [age] 58 or his plant closes at 62, he should be able to buy into Medicare early. It will cost a little bit more, but to me that’s about helping people now … it’s something we might be able to get through Congress,” Brown said Friday.

The senator said the he was simply being realistic about what Democrats can accomplish politically: “I’m not going to come and make a lot of promises like President Trump did ... I’m going to talk about what’s practical and what we can make happen.”

Have the GOP Tax Cuts Boosted Workers’ Wages?

Bloomberg’s Mark Whitehouse looks at whether the 2017 tax cuts have boosted wages. His conclusion: “the most desired effect of Trump’s corporate tax cuts is very hard to find in the available data. So far, what we’re seeing is probably a sugar high driven by deficit spending. That’s not terrible, and could even undo some of the damage done by the last recession. But it’s not what the tax cuts are really supposed to achieve.” Read his full piece here.

Chart of the Week

This chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation speaks for itself:

Navy Orders Two New Aircraft Carriers, Claiming Billions in Savings

The first in a new class of supercarriers, the USS Gerald R. Ford was delivered to the Navy years behind schedule and billions over budget. The $13 billion ship‘s aircraft launching and retrieval systems are still works in progress, and only one of the carrier’s 11 weapons elevators is currently operating. Despite those serious ongoing technical issues, the Navy is moving forward with an order for two more of the 1,106-foot-long ships, at a cost of $24 billion.

The Navy says that ordering two ships — the Enterprise (CVN-80) and the as-yet-unnamed CVN-81, the third and fourth members of the Ford class — at the same time will save about $4 billion. Defense News reports that the projected savings come from buying materials and equipment in greater quantities and the ability of the shipbuilder, Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding, to maintain a steady and predictable workforce.

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition James “Hondo” Geurts said that the dual order was also influenced by the new National Defense Strategy, which focuses on great-power competition with Russia and China.

Your Prize for Making It Through the Week

The freezing temperatures delivered by the polar vortex this week took our breath away, but so did some of these images.

Oh, and the Super Bowl is on Sunday. If watching Tom Brady (who’s either the GOAT or a known cheater, depending on how you look at it) doesn’t excite you, maybe some of the ads will. Get an early look at the ones that have been released over at Yahoo Sports.

As always, send your feedback to yrosenberg@thefiscaltimes.com. Or connect with us on Twitter: @yuvalrosenberg, @mdrainey and @TheFiscalTimes. And please tell your friends they can sign up here to get their own copy of this newsletter.

News

Views and Analysis