This Friday\u2019s \u201cCFM\u201d meeting (a church group) is at our house, and my husband is out of town, so I\u2019ve been trying to tackle the project of getting the house Company Clean. \u00a0Which meant that last night, rather than blogging, I had the TV tuned to CNN while I scrubbed the floor. \u00a0(Incidentally, the Magic Eraser was remarkably effective at removing the dirt that mopping couldn\u2019t, though it meant hands-and-knees cleaning.)<\/p>\n
So this morning I thought I\u2019d offer a few thoughts before I start the workday.<\/p>\n
The big question that everyone seems to be watching for is this: \u00a0will Obama be conciliatory or combative at the big press conference this afternoon? \u00a0My money is on fake-conciliatory. \u00a0Obama is too full of himself to learn a lesson that involves humility. \u00a0Whether he says so or not, he\u2019ll be convinced that each and every one of the Republican victories were issues of (take your pick) personal failings on the part of the Democratic candidate, that candidate\u2019s failure to stand up for Obama\u2019s policies, a dissatisfaction with the way the country is headed which voters have wrongly and ignorantly pinned on the Democrats, or perhaps just a dumb electorate, perhaps even racist, whose wishes don\u2019t deserve to be accommodated, and to whom History Does Not Belong. \u00a0He may even discard the significance of the Republican majority in the House as due to gerrymandering (conveniently forgetting about instances when it benefitted the Democrats) and in the Senate as fundamentally un-democratic due to the disproportionate weight given to low-population states (though low-population-state Democratic Senators are OK). \u00a0In any event, he will very quickly discard any notion that the Republican majorities now in the House and Senate were democratically elected, and return to viewing them, and speaking of them, as adversaries whose only legitimate role is to pass legislation that he wants, or at least shut up about his executive actions \u2013 rather than as the actual legitemate legislative branch of government.<\/p>\n
Sorry, I know that\u2019s pretty negative. \u00a0But what it boils down to is that an agenda for the next Congressional session has to take it as a given that Obama is out for himself, not for the greater good. \u00a0Granted, he\u2019s not \u201cout for himself\u201d solely in the limited sense of pursuing policies that enrich him monetarily, in the short- or long-term (I imagine that he\u2019s taking it for granted that he\u2019ll be able to rake in huge sums of money after office, simply with fees for speech-giving, with an expectation that whatever Hilliary and Bill are earning, he ought to be offered double), but he wants to have it his way, as an expression of his personal power.<\/p>\n
Will Obama push through with amnesty? \u00a0 You\u2019d think not, if he wants to be able to work with Congress to pass legislation over the next two years. \u00a0But I don\u2019t think he cares about that \u2014 or, if he does, he may even think that the best way is to take this action as a demonstration of his power, as a sort of shock-and-awe, to say, \u201cI didn\u2019t bluff here, and I won\u2019t bluff when I threaten to veto any legislation that\u2019s not 100% to my liking.\u201d <\/p>\n
It is also the case that the Republicans still have a significant disadvantage: \u00a0whenever there\u2019s a power struggle, the media can be counted on to portray the GOP, not Obama and the Democrats, as the obstructionists. \u00a0Trying to get a counter-message out will be difficult. \u00a0Trying to shame Obama into signing legislation will also be difficult, though perhaps for something crucial it may be possible to have a combination of a grass-roots and TV-commercial-based campaign. \u00a0Maybe a few hashtags?<\/p>\n
Which means that, like it or not, I think the Republicans will have to make a preemptive offer to defuse this grenade. <\/p>\n
My suggestion: \u00a0offer now, in this lame-duck period, a minimum wage increase as part of the same bill which hobbles Obama\u2019s ability to grant executive-order amnesty. \u00a0The bill would have to pin down those parts of existing immigration legislation which are ambiguous, such as whether H1-B visas are one-per-individual or one-per-household. \u00a0The key in Obama\u2019s game as to existing illegal immigrants is to apply the same concept as for DACA: \u00a0we announce that we will not deport these individuals due to prosecutorial discretion, and therefore we grant you a work visa; perhaps the best legislative way to prevent this without limiting the \u201cprosecutorial discretion\u201d concept entirely (assuming that its existence is due to legitimate uses in the past) is to assign a maximum such work permits per year with firm consequences for doing otherwise. \u00a0And the minimum wage increase? \u00a0Yes, we can say until we\u2019re blue in the face that it\u2019ll take away opportunities for marginal workers, but most Americans don\u2019t care. \u00a0As something of a work-around, I\u2019d institute subminimums for certain targeted groups: \u00a0under 20s, those 62+, the long-term unemployed, first-time entrants into the workforce.<\/p>\n
Later, in January, craft a true enforcement-first bill. \u00a0How to ensure the enforcement happens? Waves of visas to be granted for classes of illegal immigrants, by priority class, after implementation of each type of enforcement legislation (and I care much more about workplace enforcement, including under-the-table workers than fence-building). \u00a0In the meantime, true deportation of those with no ties to the community and recent arrivals (I\u2019d make English-speaking ability as much a marker of integration as ability to \u201cprove\u201d long-term residence, which is easily forged), with a one-for-one requirement which limits or halts the granting of work visas for new immigrants if this process isn\u2019t implemented properly. <\/p>\n
Other items on the agenda, for January:<\/p>\n
From what I understand, both the GOP and Obama himself want him to have fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements, and it\u2019s Reid that was the obstacle. \u00a0I don\u2019t know the particulars, but this seems like an easy one. \u00a0Does Obama want this enough that he\u2019d be willing to sign on to approving the Keystone pipeline? \u00a0I\u2019m not sure.<\/p>\n