Congress still doesn’t have the votes to keep the government open

Susan Foster - Not when I have to pay for it from that source.

SSG Robert Webster - Pay what from what source? Sorry, I just didn't understand.

Susan Foster - Washington Post subscription. That is where your link above goes to.

SSG Robert Webster - OK, I see what you mean. It is a good article, but here is another from Fortune (which leans right). The Guardian also has one from an international perspective that is excellent. http://fortune.com/2017/03/09/why-politics-is-failing-america/

Susan Foster - "We both know that if the DACA isn't addressed now, it won't be." Not a true statement. The Republicans are all for addressing DACA, but are not willing to allow a future generation to become trapped in a State-less limbo which is why they are tying it to border security. The Dems are more than happy to trap more children in the same abominable situation so they have political leverage in the future. Truly heartless. A good analysis/commentary can be found here:
sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-imaginary-hispanic.html

LTC Stephen B. - Thank you for this. I'm reading it now. You certainly have a much better view of R's than I have seen in practice. Having an I by my name is because I'm a former R who believes they have lost their way as a party since the Tea Party rise. If I were one of the Dems, I wouldn't believe the R's for a second. They reneged on their own senator during the tax bill negotiations, so why would they keep their promise on this to another party? As far as CHIP, the R's have been catching heat on that since Sept when states started running out of money and they didn't address it. They tied it to the negotiations as a bargaining tool 2 weeks ago, not because they were concerned about the poor children. I don't believe for a second they care one whit about health care. There is no reason the entire immigration reform problem needs to be tied to the budget either--just this current group. I also don't buy the debacle falls all on the last administration, although they certainly exacerbated it. Pres Obama was way outside his authority on that, but I think he thought he could get Congress to act--something they've been putting off for about 17 years on some of these people. He certainly was wrong. And the Dems aren't nearly concerned enough about border security. Although I am opposed to a wall and believe it's a 3d century solution to a 21st century problem, I believe with today's technology there is a whole lot we could do that would better secure our borders. Being a former budget type, I also don't believe the amount of money the Dems offered is enough for the kind of technology I'm thinking of. And if their proposal wants amnesty for everyone here illegally, that is just a dumb idea and they ought to know that. They all have one job: To govern, and pass a budget to do that, and they just do not seem to have that ability. I can actually remember when Congress knew what a compromise was. Now it seems only a win is acceptable. I'm disgusted with the whole bunch of them, and I'd like to lock them in a room and take away bathroom privileges and food until they come up with something both can live with.

Susan Foster - "They reneged on their own senator during the tax bill negotiations, so why would they keep their promise on this to another party? " - Yeah, but when they renege it is usually by caving against their own party to give in to Dem demands - hence the "Establishment Party" label. You would think that putting both in the same bill so they 'go at the same time' instead of the usual 'you go first' arguments. Again, the Dreamers are only pawns for the Dems, I don't see them truly caring about anyone but themselves. YMMV.

The reason the two issues are tied together is border security needs funding - wall, more agents, etc - things the Dems are adamantly opposed to.

LTC Stephen B. - I just think they tried to bite this whole elephant at once (immigration), and they could take care of this bunch of dreamers and keep everything else off the table. I'm not sure "more agents" is what they need, but it's a more interesting discussion. I read one in a government exec mag a few months ago where DHS said they don't need to hire more agents. Even if they had a hiring spree, they couldn't hire them fast enough to keep up with the attrition rate (5%). They said their agency had doubled in size between 2005 and 2011, and the number of migrants apprehended while attempting to cross into the U.S. from Mexico has been dropping steadily over the past decade and a half. To put this in perspective, based on Border Patrol numbers for agents stationed at the border (for 2016 and 2017) and the number of apprehensions registered in 2016 and 2017, they calculated that on average a BP agent apprehends about one migrant per month. BP doesn't have the ability to transfer enough agents from quieter zones to ones with more smuggling and illegal migration. They (BP) recommended expanded benefits and career path incentives for helping to meet localized needs. In other words, a more agile BP, capable of incentivizing agents to relocate as needed and to stay on long-term. They need Congressional authority for all that. I do agree with the Dems on the wall, however. I'm sorry but I don't see any more obstruction in one than the other, and I don't think either one cares about anything but a win (Oct 23, 2010: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."). It's all about the politics. And frankly, the Pres has not helped matters at all during this whole process, just muddied the waters. But we can agree on one thing: it's a fine mess they've gotten us into.