Mystifying. After announcing their intention to force Democrats to confront a radical idea gaining traction among their base, House Republicans are reportedly walking away from the plan -- for reasons that strike me a bit confusing. "Abolish ICE" is an ascendant litmus test for the Democratic Party's left-wing base, attracting sufficient support as to inspire hilarious backflips from craven panderers with presidential ambitions. Some "progressives" went so far as to file a bill to dismantle the immigration enforcement agency. The GOP plan, based on widespread reports, was to give Democrats a chance to actually vote on their colleagues' (will unpopular) idea. Recognizing the trap, the authors of the legislation balked at their own idea, amusingly denouncing the planned vote, on the exact bill they championed, as a "stunt." And now Republicans have called the whole thing off, it appears:
In a surprising reversal, House GOP leaders have scrapped a floor vote on a Democratic measure calling for the abolishment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, the House will vote Wednesday on a resolution - authored by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) - to support ICE, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters on Monday. "What I found so interesting is the Democrats introduced a bill to abolish ICE ... we give them an opportunity, and they say they don't want to vote for it," said McCarthy...The California Republican said Thursday he intended to bring the abolish ICE bill to the floor in an attempt to force vulnerable Democrats to take a difficult vote. GOP leaders thought Democrats in swing districts would be reluctant to criticize the federal agency responsible for fighting human and drug trafficking and border enforcement. But Democrats responded by vowing to vote "no" and dismissed it as an election year show vote...While the vote has been called off for now, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) still would like the bill to come to the floor.
Scalise's instincts are right on this one, I think. Force the Democrats to either splinter over an extreme proposal, or line up behind Nancy Pelosi to torpedo something they supposedly believe in (as Senate Democrats did on single payer healthcare not too long ago). The report says that some moderate Republicans weren't happy about the prospect of voting on this question because it would consume floor time on a bill that had no chance of becoming law. That's true, but it's not as if the GOP-controlled Congress is capable of passing any immigration-related laws, so why not highlight the other party's dysfunction and radicalism in an election year? Speaking of radicals, the hard Left's newest darling made quite a mess of a recent interview, botching a defense of her own empty anti-Israel talking points, and cooking up this gem:
Socialist Ocasio-Cortez confronted with booming economy & low unemployment numbers.— Benny (@bennyjohnson) July 16, 2018
She says "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs” and "Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.” pic.twitter.com/dxIqwqZn89
Setting aside the astounding ignorance of claiming that low employment is attributable to many people having, um, multiple employers, she's also wrong on the main quasi-"point" she attempts to advance as an excuse for capitalism's success:
The latest employment numbers are from the June jobs report. They show that only 4.8 percent of employed Americans hold multiple jobs. That’s lower than before the Great Recession and lower than during the 1990s boom. Indeed, that number has been declining for years.
The author of that fact-check then tackles Ocasio-Cortez's assertion about capitalism:
Then there was this from Ocasio-Cortez: “Capitalism has not always existed in the world and will not always exist in the world.” Actually, capitalism has pretty much always existed. People have been trading since there was something to trade. “The market economy, contrary to what you might have heard, has existed since the caves,” writes Deirdre McCloskey in “Bourgeois Dignity.”
He goes on to share this chart, which is a compelling, 30,000-foot vindication of modern capitalism as a massive humanitarian victory over poverty and hardship:
I'll leave you by circling back to immigration. How can we possibly pretend that our border is secure when Kate Steinle's killer was deported five times before firing the bullet that ended her life? Or when this (32-year-old) man returns to America illegally for the 12th time before attacking his wife with a chainsaw and fleeing in a stolen car?
Is it okay to separate this man from his children? How would the Abolish ICE crowd deal with serial violations such as these? And would they actually have the cojones to cast on-the-record votes for their own plan?