If we vote to overturn it, he will veto it. If we cannot overturn the veto, we will go to court. And if we lose in court, we will use the powers to advance our goals. That’s both a promise and a threat.

Behind closed doors, Republicans understand they are setting a vast new precedent. Fine. At a minimum, this exposes a vast hypocrisy in their approach to “limiting the size of government and defending the constitution.” That on its own is a major victory for the Democratic Party.

But should all this eventually go sideways…should the courts actually uphold this nonsense, then we as a party need to be crystal clear about how we will use these powers to our own ends. And not later. Now, during the campaign. Make it the direct and explicit consequences of supporting this nonsense, and do so in unambiguous terms.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/25/i-support-trumps-vision-border-security-i-would-vote-against-emergency/

House Democrats moving to force Senate Vote on Emergency Declaration

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is throwing her muscle behind a legislative effort to block President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, the first formal step to counter Trump and squeeze Republicans on the border wall.

Democrats will introduce legislation Friday to terminate the emergency proclamation and Pelosi is urging House colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO on Wednesday.

Politico: https://politi.co/2Ng9FRg

Once this passes the House, the Senate will be forced to vote on it. There are thirty-four seats up for grabs in 2020, so this will be the first truly consequential vote for each of the following Senators: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2020

Alabama Democratic Party Doug Jones
Alaska Republican Party Dan Sullivan
Arizona Republican Party Martha McSally
Arkansas Republican Party Tom Cotton
Colorado Republican Party Cory Gardner
Delaware Democratic Party Chris Coons
Georgia Republican Party David Perdue
Idaho Republican Party Jim Risch
Illinois Democratic Party Dick Durbin
Iowa Republican Party Joni Ernst
Kansas Republican Party Pat Roberts
Kentucky Republican Party Mitch McConnell
Louisiana Republican Party Bill Cassidy
Maine Republican Party Susan Collins
Massachusetts Democratic Party Ed Markey
Michigan Democratic Party Gary Peters
Minnesota Democratic Party Tina Smith
Mississippi Republican Party Cindy Hyde-Smith
Montana Republican Party Steve Daines
Nebraska Republican Party Ben Sasse
New Hampshire Democratic Party Jeanne Shaheen
New Jersey Democratic Party Cory Booker
New Mexico Democratic Party Tom Udall
North Carolina Republican Party Thom Tillis
Oklahoma Republican Party Jim Inhofe
Oregon Democratic Party Jeff Merkley
Rhode Island Democratic Party Jack Reed
South Carolina Republican Party Lindsey Graham
South Dakota Republican Party Mike Rounds
Tennessee Republican Party Lamar Alexander
Texas Republican Party John Cornyn
Virginia Democratic Party Mark Warner
West Virginia Republican Party Shelley Moore Capito
Wyoming Republican Party Mike Enzi

Space Force? There is no Space Force. There is only the Air Force, now as before

Bowing to bipartisan concerns in Congress, President Trump retreated Tuesday from his plan to create an independent “space force” in the Pentagon, proposing instead to consolidate the military’s space operations and personnel in the Air Force.

The scaled-down plan would still establish a new military service focused on war-fighting in outer space — the first new branch since 1947 — with a four-star commander who would become a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to an executive order that Trump signed Tuesday.

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-space-trump-20190219-story.html

This is a pretty big walk back, except that it’s not back far enough. Congress will never approve this either. The Air Force already has a Space Command, and it does all the things this new “Space Force” is supposed to do. And although inter-service rivalry prevents the leaders of the branches of our armed services from agreeing on much, one thing they will all agree on and lobby Congress on is their opposition to a new co-equal competitor for resources.

So no. Even aside from the dumb name, this was never gonna happen.

Deficits are a tool used to by Republicans to block Democratic priorities, and not a problem in and of themselves. This isn’t new

$22 trillion and rising:

The debt figure has been accelerating since the passage of Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut in December 2017 and action by Congress last year to increase spending on domestic and military programs.

The national debt is the total of the annual budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this year’s deficit will be $897 billion — a 15.1 percent increase over last year’s imbalance of $779 billion. In the coming years, the CBO forecasts that the deficit will keep rising, top $1 trillion annually beginning in 2022 and never drop below $1 trillion through 2029

talkingpointsmemo.com/news/national-debt-tops-22-trillion

The key thing to understand here is that this isn’t a bug in Republican politics but a feature. They know that tax cuts will run up debt, no matter what their rhetoric about cuts paying for themselves might be. They know it and they embrace it, because they know that when Democrats are eventually back in power, they can use the deficits to block Democratic spending priorities. They’ve done this one-two going on forty years now, and they won’t stop until and unless they’re made to.

From their perspective, both taxes and spending are problems to be solved through cuts. That’s first principles for them. Deficits, however, are a second order problem, one that only gets attention when in service to first principles. I know this seems maddeningly inconsistent from outside that worldview, but I promise you that in the inside it really doesn’t look or feel contradictory at all.

One of the most clever bits of Reagan’s coalition building was getting the deficit hawks and defense hawks into alignment. If all spending is bad except defense spending, then you’ve really put Democrats in a box, because Democrats like defense spending too. When they’re in power, they can’t offer to increase domestic spending by cutting defense spending. They want both! Which leaves only the option of raids on taxes to pay for new spending priorities, and THAT is a much harder sell.

He’s a former CIA Agent and current Member of Congress from Texas. His district has 820+ miles of border. And he thinks the border crisis is “a myth.”

Hurd’s district includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, more than any other member of the House of Representatives. But if you’re expecting Hurd, who was narrowly re-elected to a third term last year, to support President Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” and stand with the decision to partially shut down the federal government over the fight, you’ve got it all wrong. Trump’s border crisis is a “myth,” Hurd tells Rolling Stone, and a wall made of cement or steel slats is a “third-century solution to a 21st-century problem.”

“What I always say is building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security,” Hurd says.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/will-hurd-border-wall-myth-781204/

The Freedom Caucus now supports asset forfeiture and presidential emergency declarations. Remember this next time

It’s all fraudulent, the invocations of freedom and limited government and “don’t tread on me” hatred of government. They mean none of it. They never have

Had a Democrat done any of this, they would’ve pretended to object on principle, but that was always a lie. What’s changed is that’s now been made obvious.

And yet,,,here’s one of the leaders of the House Freedom Caucus enthusiastically endorsing the second of emergency powers to seize private property inorder to advance their public policy agenda. By definition, whatever principles he has, they don’t prohibit this.

twitter.com/repmarkmeadows/status/1083733171106209792

Don’t forget this next time. Take none of their “principled” complaints seriously. They mean none of it. None. Of. It.

Trump admits what he is doing is dumb and pointless, goes ahead with it anyway because….IDK?!?

Yet privately, Mr. Trump dismissed his own new strategy as pointless. In an off-the-record lunch with television anchors hours before the address, he made clear in blunt terms that he was not inclined to give the speech or go to Texas, but was talked into it by advisers, according to two people briefed on the discussion who asked not to be identified sharing details.

“It’s not going to change a damn thing, but I’m still doing it,” Mr. Trump said of the trip to the border, according to one of the people, who was in the room. The border trip was just a photo opportunity, he said. “But,” he added, gesturing at his communications aides, Bill Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, “these people behind you say it’s worth it.”
— Read on www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/donald-trump-speech.html