National Emergency? Why Some Republicans May Vote Against Trump

Plus, more infrastructure weeks ahead?

National Emergency? Why Some Republicans May Vote Against Trump

President Trump doesn’t have any good options for continuing his fight to secure funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, especially since Senate Republicans have little desire to take the political pounding that would come with another partial government shutdown — and some are already balking at the idea of declaring a national emergency.

Trump has limited options. He could sign off on whatever deal the conference committee comes up with, even if it doesn’t include any wall funding; he could try to keep the wall fight alive, with or without another shutdown; or he could declare an emergency — even if it would raise some thorny constitutional problems, set a precedent that Democrats could capitalize on in the future and force Republicans in Congress to take a difficult vote that would splinter the party. GOP aides have estimated that “between three and 10 Republicans” in the Senate would vote with Democrats on a resolution of disapproval looking to block Trump from diverting money for the wall, The New York Times reported. The battle would be politically costly — and the issue would wind up in the courts anyway.

Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein summarizes the president’s predicament:

“The blunt truth is that Trump lost his chance for a border wall during his first two years in office. The deals that were probably available then, when he had Republican majorities in both chambers, simply aren’t there now. Republicans don’t want the wall badly enough to give Democrats what it would take to get the deal done, and Trump himself hasn’t even proposed such a trade. It’s not going to happen. Trump’s remaining options are either to lose without a fuss or to draw the fight out as painfully as possible for himself, his party and the country. Incredibly, he might just do that. But this time, Senate Republicans might not go along.”

Bernstein makes a strong argument that Trump, rather than move ahead with a national emergency, as he appears likely to do, might be best off agreeing to whatever deal congressional negotiators work out:

“If Trump signed off, he could continue to falsely claim that his wall is in fact being built, or he could complain and move on. Either way, he’s unlikely to lose his core fans, as some have claimed the truth is that a politician’s strongest supporters are the most likely to make excuses for him and the least likely to turn against their favorite.”

If Trump Does Declare a National Emergency, Where Will He Get Money for His Wall?

In addition to the constitutional and political problems that would arise from President Trump declaring a national emergency at the southern border, lawmakers have other reasons to worry about such a move: it could divert money for military construction projects in their home states.

The Washington Post’s Erica Werner and Karoun Demirjian report that an emergency declaration would give Trump the authority to divert billions of dollars from various military construction projects that have been approved by Congress but yet started:

“Hundreds of projects could be at risk of losing their funding to Trump’s wall — including a $60 million aircraft maintenance hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina, a $105 million command and control facility at Fort Shafter in Hawaii, and a $32 million vehicle maintenance shop at Fort Campbell in Kentucky.”

The prospect of those projects being targeted has some lawmakers already “raising alarms,” Werner and Demirjian write: “Republican and Democratic lawmakers stressed that there is no gratuitous spending in the military construction budget — instead, there is a vast backlog of projects that do not make the list, meaning those that do are of the utmost, and most urgent, priority.”

Those lawmakers’ concerns, in turn, have “led to expectations among congressional aides in both parties that Trump could go after overseas construction projects first” — including some $800 million budgeted this year for projects that are “part of the European Deterrence Initiative, an effort to help U.S. allies in Europe shore up their defenses against Russia.”

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats led by Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico on Monday introduced legislation that would prevent Trump from using military construction and disaster relief funds to build his wall. The legislation isn’t likely to advance in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Why Trump’s New Infrastructure Push May Already Be Doomed

President Trump called for a big jump in infrastructure spending in last year’s State of the Union address, asking lawmakers “to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment that our country so desperately needs.” But the ensuing White House proposal provided only $200 billion in federal spending over 10 years, with the goal of somehow enticing the rest of the money — more than $1 trillion — from private investors and state and local governments. The plan quickly died, due in large part to the lack of funding.

Now, Trump is again set to tout infrastructure as one area where he and Democrats can work together. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday that, “infrastructure is one of the easiest ones for us to look at. Everybody in this country knows that we have crumbling bridges and roads that need to be fixed. We also need to have a technology infrastructure that needs to get better. … We’re hopeful that we can come together and can get something done.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also highlighted infrastructure as a potentially fruitful issue, saying in a letter to House Democrats Monday that she hopes Trump’s address commits to “rebuilding America’s infrastructure.” Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, expressed similar sentiment, writing in an op-ed at The Hill that, “one thing is clear as the president prepares to deliver his State of the Union address tonight: improving America’s roads, bridges, airports, and other infrastructure remains at the top of his and Washington’s agenda.”

The big problem remains the same, too: While everyone agrees on the need for infrastructure investment, no one agrees on how to pay for it.

Previewing Tuesday’s State of the Union address, CNN’s Stephen Collinson called infrastructure “the classic program that everyone favors but never gets done” – largely because of a lack of agreement on how to pay for it.

“Everybody agrees we should have better roads and bridges,” Brigham McCown, chairman of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure and a former adviser to the Trump administration’s Transportation Department, told Marketplace. “But when it comes down to who's going to pay for the bill, it's like everyone has shoved their hands in their pockets and looks around like they didn't hear the question."

The bottom line: There’s some hope for bipartisan cooperation on much-needed infrastructure investment, but Trump’s State of the Union isn’t likely to get lawmakers much closer to an agreement. The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Ballhaus reports that while the president will address the need for better infrastructure, one key component will be missing: “a mechanism, such as a tax increase, to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the projects.”

Cities and States Pick Up Some of the Infrastructure Slack

Although the federal government still has a lot of work to do with respect to planning and funding infrastructure investment, state and local governments are moving ahead with plans to “fix the damn roads,” Bloomberg’s Steve Matthews and Margaret Newkirk report. State and local tax receipts soared in 2018 and voters approved roughly $53 billion in state and local bond measures in November, providing funds for infrastructure projects that have long been on hold. The spending is so significant that it could help postpone a recession, economists say, and it’s a big part of state and local spending increases that could add as much as 0.3 percentage points to GDP growth this year and next.

Hospital Prices Rising Fast

Prescription drugs get much of the attention when it comes to soaring medical costs, but a new study published in Health Affairs finds that hospital prices have been rising quickly as well — more quickly than physician fees.

Reviewing the prices actually paid for various services between 2007 and 2014, the authors found that hospital prices rose 42 percent for inpatient care and 25 percent for hospital-based outpatient care, while physician fees rose 18 percent and 6 percent respectively.

One of the study authors, Zack Cooper of Yale University, told Modern Healthcare that hospital fees are the largest component of health care costs in the U.S., and that industry consolidation appears to explain some of the increase in prices. “What is most worrying to me is that there has been fairly profound consolidation among hospitals and when they gain market power they have the ability to raise prices," Cooper said. "They have the ability to gain more favorable contractual terms, which allows them to raise prices and resist the new, more sensible payment reforms."

Chart of the Day

With the U.S. facing $12 trillion in deficits over the next decade, the Treasury Department is exploring ways to maintain robust demand for American debt. One option being considered is the sale of “ultra-long-term bonds” with maturities of 40, 50 or even 100 years. Writing at Bloomberg, bond strategist David Ader says that the average maturity of U.S. debt — 5.75 years — is low compared to its peers, and with 30-year Treasury bonds below 3 percent, this looks like a good time to start issuing long-term debt.

News

Views and Analysis