What is the difference between a fence and a wall? On immigration, the position of the Nancy Pelosi House (along with many Senate Democrats) is that “fences between countries are sensible and worthy of 10-figure appropriations of taxpayer dollars, but walls in the same locations and serving the same purpose are immoral,” James Freeman notes in the WSJ.
Morally Unacceptable and Not Cost Effective?
According to Ms. Pelosi, “We’re not doing a wall. It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with a wall is an immorality between countries. It’s an old way of thinking. It isn’t cost effective.”
Would a serious person call a program morally unacceptable and then add that it’s not “cost effective?” Mr. Freeman wonders if the Speaker is demanding more efficient immorality?
Regardless, she is not alone in presenting opposition to the Trump border wall as partly motivated by a determination to protect taxpayers.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) is also calling the Trump wall plan “expensive and ineffective.” For context, the President is seeking $5.6 billion in funding this year.
For additional context, when congressional Democrats aren’t publicly discussing the Trump border plan, they are privately engaging in a spirited internal debate about whether to spend 6,000 times as much on a government health care plan.
So Democrats have a natural credibility challenge in presenting themselves as guardians of the public fisc, even among those taxpayers who have forgotten the spending surge that followed the inauguration of the last Democratic President.
With Thursday’s House legislating, Democrats have made themselves even less believable.
Read more here.