The Nuclear Option: Hey Congress, Fund the Dang Wall

breitbart.com ^ | 26 Apr 2017 | CHARLES HURT

[Helicondelta]

A full decade after voting to construct a secure barrier along the U.S. border with Mexico, Congress continues to refuse to lay out the money required to build the damned wall.

This, even after the stunning upset in last year’s elections by the juggernaut presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, who won the presidency on a clarion vow to voters that he would once and for all build a wall along the border. Mr. Trump’s historic upset came after years and years of both Democrat and Republican politicians talking tough about illegal immigration and promising to crack down on the porous border, yet refusing to actually fix the problem.

This wall, Mr. Trump promised during the campaign, would finally halt not only illegal immigration but also the highly destructive drugs, gangs and slavery pouring over the southern border.

Despite the clear message from voters last year, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismisses the wall as “immoral, expensive and unwise.”

Her comment made history as the moment Nancy Pelosi finally discovered morality. Also noteworthy is that it was the first time Nancy Pelosi has every found anything to be too “expensive” to stick to the poor, innocent American taxpayer.

As for her mention of wisdom? Well, clearly, that was some kind of typo or another one of her random brain sizzles.

It wasn’t so long ago that Ms. Pelosi’s fellow Democrats were all for the immoral and expensive. Her party’s last two standard-bearers — former President Barack Obama and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — both voted in favor of the so-called “Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

After passing the construction of that barrier into law, Congress balked at actually paying for it and ultimately scrapped much of it

[bert]

I don’t know how the money will be obtained from Mexico.

I think there will be a problem taxing remittances because there are so many ways to go around Western Union. There is talk of taking the funds on deposit and assets of a major convicted drug dealer. That would be good.

My thought is that President Trump will make the Mexican government an offer they can’t refuse. I don’t know precisely what that would be but it will be such they will find accepting the offer to fork up some money, border guards,and who knows what else better than the alternative.

There will be a deal.

[maxtheripper]

The continuing cost of the wall, ie staffing and maintenance etc., will need to be addressed at some point as well.
Unfortunately this would not be a one time expense, it will need to be a budgeted line item in perpetuity for it to remain an effective barrier in the future.

[BlueLancer]

"The continuing cost of the wall, ie staffing and maintenance etc., will need to be addressed at some point as well."

Heck, do like they do for highways ...

Maintenance and upkeep for the next 10 miles of The Great Border Wall is sponsored by Joe's Bait Shop, 101 Main Street, Houston, Texas.

[Yosemitest]

The GOP Has a Nuclear Option ...:

Rick Klein and Shushannah Walsh:
“Want to really blow up the Senate – and fast?
A new proposal is emerging that would likely do just that, and it has nothing to do with Senate Democrats’ vow to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
A proposal is being pushed by some Senate Republicans that would seek to ensure that a House-passed bill could be passed intact by only a simple majority of senators.”

“How would that work?
Well, the vice president, of course, is the president of the Senate.
The thinking goes
that if the Senate parliamentarian ruled that parts of the bill can’t be folded into budget reconciliation, Vice President Mike Pence could simply overrule that.
Sen. Rand Paul wants the White House to make that commitment now:
‘That alone, I think, would break the logjam,’ he told reporters Thursday.
Perhaps, but that’s not all it would break.
This would be the executive branch’s changing the rules of the upper legislative body.
Filibusters could be broken, perhaps in any circumstance, at the whim of the vice president.
In honor of a certain former veep, that would be a BFD.”

Here's more from an excerpt from another source about the option of "The Nuclear Option for Legislation in the Senate":

Cruz Pushes Obamacare Repeal Gambit That Could Roil the Senate

... Cruz’s answer:
lean on Vice President Mike Pence’s gavel to dodge those procedural limits and broaden the legislation’s scope.

It’s not at all clear whether Cruz’s colleagues will go along.
The move relies on a radical interpretation of the vice president’s constitutional role as presiding officer of the Senate,
where he could step in and effectively overrule the chamber’s parliamentarian.
It would resemble the so-called nuclear option of ending filibusters ...

... Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, the conservative who unseated then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary, told reporters he doesn’t buy leadership’s excuse that they can’t pursue a far bolder plan.

He said Ryan is overstating the case that existing rules can’t allow an insurance overhaul. “He wants to be respectful of Senate rules, I do not,” Brat said.

“From what I understand,” Brat said, “whoever’s sitting in the chair has authority over the parliamentarian.
So they can rewrite the rules.”

To speed passage of an Obamacare replacement -- and circumvent Democratic opposition, Republicans opted for a budgetary procedure called reconciliation
that requires only a simple majority in the Senate,
but only if the legislation has minimal effect on the deficit.

GOP leaders, including Ryan, have said this is limiting their ability to include provisions popular with conservatives like selling insurance across state lines.

The Texas senator, who had dinner with Trump this week, said Ryan and Senate GOP leaders are wrong.

“You don’t need to override the parliamentarian or get a new parliamentarian.
It is the vice president who rules,” he told reporters Thursday.

Having Pence rule against established norms for what is allowed in a reconciliation bill would undo decades of Senate tradition of deferring to the parliamentarian’s rulings.
It could also potentially allow both parties far wider latitude in the future to avoid a 60-vote threshold for all sorts of provisions that don’t directly impact spending or taxes.

Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, another conservative, said
trying to craft an Obamacare repeal bill to meet the Senate’s current interpretation of its rules is "untenable."

"... If you get the job done he looks a little differently on the other side," he said.

... "Under the Budget Act of 1974, which is what governs reconciliation, it is the presiding officer, the vice president of the United States, who rules what is permissible on reconciliation and what is not,” Cruz said.
“And that is a conversation I have been having with a number of my colleagues.” ...

So in ending the DemocRATS 'political war', let me end my comment by stating, "It's time to NUKE THE DemocRATS !"

[maxtheripper]

Might be an idea.

What has anyone heard regarding access to the Rio Grande?
Isn’t at least part of the border like right in the middle of the Rio Grande river?