Bloated Budgets, Border Tussles and Trump's Cash Troubles
Steve Dittmer | AFF Sentinel
Colorado Springs, CO
Originally sent to subscribers 03/19/24
The second batch of funding bills for a half-dozen departments has supposedly been hashed out by the Republican leadership and the White House. The rank-and-file haven’t seen any text yet but some Democrats have said they expect to like some provisions and not like some others.
In the old days, compromises contained things both sides liked and didn’t. But in recent years, more often than not, “compromise” has meant the political left only got almost all of what they wanted.
From what we’ve seen leaking out so far, any victories on the border portion of the Department of Homeland Security budget came down to cutting some funding, not reversing policy provisions that are needed to reduce or eliminate the flood of illegals. The Freedom Caucus certainly wanted some or all of the provisions of HR. 2 to be included in the funding bill, as the threat of a government shutdown was all the leverage they had in these negotiations.
The bill reportedly does cut out some of the funding for non-governmental organizations that are providing transportation, food vouchers and other benefits to illegals. But it is rumored to include more funding for more beds and detention facilities, according to The Hill.
Government funding deadlines are set for midnight Friday. House rules require a 72—hour lead time to actually read bills. That plus no text yet on Tuesday and the Senate likely having to suspend rules to get procedural and bill votes could mean a very short-term CR to get the bill passed and signed over the weekend.
All that supposes that when Republicans in both chambers see the text they can gather enough votes to pass it. That is not assured.
That means the Ukraine and Israel aid package is the last remaining issue Republicans have any leverage on to force more border reform.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has allowed the Texas law empowering Texas law enforcement to stop and detain illegals, since the Biden administration has done little to stem the flood entering the state of Texas.
SCOTUS may also get involved in the Trump case in New York, where the attorney general is eager to start taking possession of Trump’s real estate and bank accounts. There has been no obvious crime, as there was no victim, the banks made money on the deals and the banks testified they were happy with the deals. Nevertheless, the judge slapped a $464 million judgement, fine and interest on Trump.
On Larry Kudlow’s Fox Business network show Tuesday, several legal and finance experts chimed in.
The crux of the problem is, the judge gave Trump only 30 days to raise a bond to fully cover that amount and Trump has found no insurance company willing to go that high. No one seems to know of any bond ever granted over $100 million. Real estate does not count as collateral, only cash. And the judge has ruled that without the bond in place, Trump cannot appeal the ruling. Trump has until Monday to raise the cash, get a New York appellate court to stay the execution of the fine and confiscations or get a stay from SCOTUS.
Noted legal expert Jonathan Turley has said the SCOTUS case would likely hinge on the 8th amendment to the Constitution, which states that “excessive bail may not be required” by courts, nor “excessive fines.”
Those clauses were included by the Founding Fathers by dint of their experience with such practices by the occupying British during the American Revolution.
Turley called the whole case “selective prosecution,” and “mob justice.” By mob here, he means not the Five Families in New York but the kind of mobs that terrorized France during their revolution. Here, the fines have no relation to the alleged “offense” Turley added. There is no harm and no victim.
Fox legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said this case amounts to the courts saying, “We’ll take your business and property and you can appeal later.”
The experts said under the ruling the attorney general could go after Trump properties anywhere, including Florida and Scotland.
Financier and businessman Kevin O’Leary said on several programs that this is the kind of thing expected in banana republics or socialist countries like Venezuela or Cuba, not a financial capital of the world like New York.
This is no longer a Trump case, it is an American “brand” case, O’Leary said. It is an assault on American business and our economy, especially in New York. We need adults to intervene here, or no one will want to do business or bring capital to New York, he said.
For expressing your opinion on the DHS spending bill, spending in general or the American fiscal situation:
House contact info:
Senate contact info:
To contribute to AFF with a credit card there are two options:
To use any credit card on Square, click first link below:
To use your Paypal acct. click below:
댓글