Taxpayers need stronger oversight of border policies

The humanitarian crisis along the U.S./Mexico border exposes the suffering of the Americas for all to see. Evil is on display when families must flee their colonized homelands in order to survive; when after that hard exodus, the administration of the country where they seek refuge separates children from their parents and subjects them to extended detention, neglect, abuse, and even death.

Combating this evil requires smart stewardship of resources, not simply shoveling more money at the administration in question. Unfortunately, a recent border spending bill shows how easily Congress forfeits their fiscal oversight. It was also a triumph for an executive who wants control of our public purse, and it feeds the culture of wheeler-dealer patronage that defines the leadership of both major parties.

Here’s a quick review of what happened. First the Democrat-led House passed a $4.5 billion appropriations bill providing humanitarian aid for the border, including stated restrictions to make sure money would be spent as intended. Given Donald Trump’s shifty record with finances, these restrictions were deemed critical to passage by House Democrats.

The Republican-led Senate then rejected that original House bill. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that Trump didn’t want those humanitarian restrictions on spending. Something different would be voted on. In response, House Speaker Nancy Policy said the Senate and House bills would ultimately go to a conference committee to reconcile differences and negotiate a compromise.

The political process followed a familiar script up to that point, with Democrats seeking to provide stronger congressional oversight of Trump, and Republicans mostly catering to his whims. McConnell’s bill removed spending restrictions, and it shifted the channels of funding so that border-related expenditures would also flow to branches of the military. As a result, the final price-tag increased from $4.5 to about $4.6 billion.

What follows demands closer attention. For some reason a large number of Senate Democrats signed off on those changes. Then Pelosi reversed her earlier position, announcing that there would be no negotiations in a conference committee and instead the House would simply vote on McConnell’s bill. She brought his bill to the floor and it passed, over the objection of nearly a hundred Democrats.

Significantly, more Republicans voted for the final bill in the House than did members of Pelosi’s party. Yet in the wake of passage, major news outlets failed to focus on that glaring outcome and the shadow it casts on her reasoning. Instead, reporters spotlighted a rift between Pelosi and a handful of progressive Democrats. Their coverage made it look as if the bill was opposed solely by four congresswomen of color rather than a much larger group that includes them.

There’s been little attempt to fill in the gaps since then, mostly because Trump re-inserted himself into the process by spewing his signature venom on Twitter. Thus the media became enmeshed in a debate over whether Trump is fanning the flames of racism or merely modeling a lack of civility. While Pelosi led the House to formally condemn Trump’s tweets, he doubled down on messaging that’s far more fitting for a schoolyard bully than a president. His opponents booed, and his groupies cheered. All the oxygen in the press room was sucked up by his claims on public attention.

Words matter, of course, especially when they come from our country’s highest ranking official. Giving him massive sums of spending money without careful restrictions matters even more. A big part of our humanitarian crisis stems from that fact that arguments over rhetoric have drowned out discussion of major policy shifts that worsen the situation.

I pray we can re-balance political discourse so that concerns about the abuse of money and power are not trumped by brawling spectacles over melanin. The astute congresswomen of color who were attacked by Trump have urged us not to be distracted from policy decisions. Social justice requires smart stewardship, and we need to make sure resources are not wasted. This spending bill offers a critical learning opportunity.

Questions remain. Why were congressional Republicans unwilling to use their constitutional power of the purse to support a less costly spending bill in which humanitarian restrictions would have been enforced? Why did Democratic leaders go along with liberal-spending Republicans rather than negotiate a more compassionate conservative approach?

I don’t buy the notion that this was simply a matter of tight scheduling. Yes, the congressional clock was running up against the July 4^th recess. No doubt some lawmakers were eager to return to their home districts or attend Trump’s costly parade, financed with millions diverted from the Defense Department, National Parks Service, and a special fund maintained by the District of Columbia to secure the nation’s capitol from terrorist threats (this fund will have a $6 million deficit by September and Trump still owes $7.3 million that he took for his 2017 inauguration). Nevertheless, Nancy Pelosi would have had more leverage to negotiate, even given this time squeeze, if more Senate Dems had voted against McConnell’s bill. Instead, many provided McConnell and Trump with bi-partisan cover. Considering the administration’s inhumane record on border spending, there must have been some other reason why Democratic leaders forfeited negotiations. Something must have motivated Pelosi to reverse her position, turn on a dime, and sideline members of her party who were ready to keep working into the recess.

That question of why Senate Dems defected seems to be ignored at every turn. In a more reasonable reality it would have been placed in front of the man who is accountable for an answer, yet who largely avoided media attention in the wake of the vote. What mule-trading calculus did Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer use when he decided to do Trump’s bidding and vote for McConnell’s bill rather than support his fellow Democrats in the House?

One can only guess, absent attention from paid journalists. Aside from the rejection of spending restrictions, the most noticeable difference between the Senate and House bills is the addition of military spending. The amount is small by federal standards, about $145 million. Yet perhaps this was not just a matter of price tag so much as budgetary emphasis. Did that added provision of military appropriations play a role in convincing Schumer and Pelosi to step in line with McConnell and the rest of Trump’s Republicans who shunned provisions for tighter spending? Does behind-the-scenes trading over this bill connect with other deals involving budget caps and the debt ceiling?

Such questions should not be reduced to yes-or-no answers. For me they point to the broader inquiry into the way we prioritize limited public resources – both in terms of how we invest taxpayer dollars in the deployment of our armed forces and in terms of budget policy in general.

Personally I’d rather my money go toward solving the problem at the source rather than militarizing our border-lands. Clear strategies are available from groups with detailed knowledge and experience. Let’s carefully target money toward strategic initiatives that make life safer throughout the Americas, especially in areas people are fleeing. Unfortunately, a provision to restore humanitarian aid to those places (aid that was recently cut by Trump) was removed in the final bill. So much for putting smart money where our heart is. And to make matters worse, Trump has since decreed that our country will no longer even consider the pleas of southern asylum-seekers.

Outrage and discouragement abound, yet here’s a bright note from my home state. I’m grateful to Oregonians who were unwilling to simply hand over more funds without strong oversight. Five out of seven members of our Congressional delegation opposed McConnell’s bill. Alas, Representatives Kurt Schrader and Greg Walden voted to simply give Trump our lunch money. But Reps Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, and Peter DeFazio tried to keep a firmer hold on the purse strings. And hats off to Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden for their continued leadership on this issue. By saying no to loose spending, these Democrats give me hope that more leaders might learn to carefully steward resources and restore our humanitarian values.

That hope will grow exponentially if progressives master the language of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, forge this language into our own righteous sword. Regressive politicians claim conservatism as their native battle-tongue, even as they drive us deeper into the bowels of debt in order to enrich themselves and their ultra-spoiled patrons. We will change the culture of Washington for the better, make the Americas hospitable for all God’s children, when we prove the left is right on the money.