Sounds good, except this part
I'd be fine with some additional border security funds being the end result in a final budget negotiation, but the starting position for Dems should be zero increase to the funding. By saying "see, us Democrats want to spend an additional $6 billion on border security too! Just not for a wall!" you're just validating the GOP's false narrative of a crisis on the border; shifting the debate to haggling over the method of dealing with the "crisis."
This was addressed and argued extensively in the last thread, but it still doesn't sit well with me at all.
Glad to have a clean CR for now though.
still makes no sense to me. Why is almost $6 billion in additional border security funding the Dems' starting point for border negotiations?! Does the party legitimately believe there is a "crisis" at the border requiring that level of additional funding? Or is it simply more of the shitty preemptive negotiating on the part of Democrats?House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said earlier Friday that House Democrats were holding off on plans to unveil a border-security proposal expected to match or exceed the $5.7 billion Trump has demanded
I'd be fine with some additional border security funds being the end result in a final budget negotiation, but the starting position for Dems should be zero increase to the funding. By saying "see, us Democrats want to spend an additional $6 billion on border security too! Just not for a wall!" you're just validating the GOP's false narrative of a crisis on the border; shifting the debate to haggling over the method of dealing with the "crisis."
This was addressed and argued extensively in the last thread, but it still doesn't sit well with me at all.
Glad to have a clean CR for now though.