Chamber of Commerce head to GOP: If you don’t pass amnesty this year, don’t bother running a candidate in 2016

posted at 8:01 pm on May 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

Politico claims he was joking but I’m not sure why. This guy’s only saying what the entire Republican leadership thinks.

Maybe the “joke” is that he’s pretending to care about the political implications of amnesty and the fate of the GOP when all he really wants is cheap labor.

“If the Republicans don’t do it, they shouldn’t bother to run a candidate in 2016,” Donohue joked at an event on infrastructure investment in D.C. “Think about that. Think about who the voters are. I just did that to get everybody’s attention.”…

“You think Congress can get immigration reform done this year, in an election year?” moderator Eamon Javers asked Donohue.

“Yes, yes,” Donohue replied.

National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said he also thought immigration reform could pass this year, perhaps in a lame-duck session.

I’ve been thinking they wouldn’t dare try something as sneaky as passing immigration reform during the lame-duck, but realistically there are only three “windows” left before the 2016 election. One is this summer, if Boehner decides (stupidly) that he can’t afford to let Obama out-pander the GOP on immigration yet again by “relaxing” U.S. deportation policy before the midterms. I think passing something this year is less likely than it used to be, though, now that ObamaCare isn’t quite the catastrophe for Dems that it looked to be back in October. If Boehner’s going to risk amnesty, he wants the party to be in a position of absolute strength so that even a small fall-off in turnout doesn’t cripple it on election day. Right now the party seems a bit weaker than it was a few months ago. That fall-off could cost the GOP a race or two if current conditions hold.

The second window is early next year after the new Congress is seated. Boehner might decide to start the session off with a big “achievement” on immigration, to get it done and get it out of the way knowing that grassroots righties will revolt short-term but that most will forgive and forget in the interest of beating Hillary once it’s time to vote in 2016. The window here is small, though — just a few months before Republican presidential candidates start declaring and the primary campaign begins, as GOP contenders won’t want to deal with the issue on the trail. Doing it next year also gives ammo to amnesty opponents to argue that the issue is simply too hot to touch in a presidential election cycle and will tear the party apart if it happens. And by 2015, Obama’s saber-rattling about granting an executive mass amnesty will be louder than ever. If the GOP’s serious about not trusting him to enforce the law, those threats will only hurt the cause in the House.

Which leaves us with the third window, the lame duck. There’ll be no worries then about Republicans staying home in the midterms to protest the new amnesty law, as there would be if Boehner passed something this summer, and having it done before the new Congress is seated would give GOP leaders a chance to start fresh in January with a new agenda to help conservatives move on. Just one problem: If Boehner’s serious about coming back as Speaker next year, the lame-duck would be the worst possible time to pass something. It’ll look cowardly to amnesty opponents since the lame-duck is a moment of minimal congressional accountability and it’ll be fresh in everyone’s minds when the vote for the new Speaker happens in January, galvanizing anti-Boehner forces. He’s probably done as Speaker if he decides to go ahead with this in November. Is he prepared to make that sacrifice?

Exit quotation from the man himself: “We’ve got a lot of good candidates out there, and yes, Jeb Bush is my friend, I think he’s make a great president. And I’ve been nudging him for some time.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’m taking issue with you saying obamacare only reduced the number of uninsured by 5 million, as you keep claiming over and over…
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 5:22 PM

 
5.14M previously uninsured covered by Obamacare per your link.
 
rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 6:46 PM

 
I’m looking forward to the new numbers. You said the 15th, right?

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Nope. They will STILL work for less. You know why?… it’s because 7 or 8 bucks an hour sounds pretty good in the third-world crap-holes they come from, as is the standard of living. How naive can one be not to see that if the Chamber of Commerce wants it, it can’t be good for raising wages?

Murf76 on May 13, 2014 at 6:08 PM

So you think people who can get more will gladly take less just… because?

I suspect the chamber is for it for a couple reasons:
1) minimum wage is still damn cheap
2) they want to stabilize the labor market and avoid disruptions like the right actually trying to deport millions
3) they want to kill off e-verify and other things they consider burdensome regulation of the free market

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM

My favorite part of the thread, btw.

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Thanks, I enjoyed ditching you. I’m surprised you enjoyed being ditched, but then you do seem t have a bit of a masochistic streak. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

per Tlaloc’s link.

61% had insurance previously, and 60% of the Medicaid recipients were eligible already and didn’t need Obamacare for coverage per politifact link above, so that’s

(6M * 39%) + (7M * 40%) = 2.34 + 2.8 = 5.14

5.14M previously uninsured that Obamacare covered

Good to see that in the face of overwhelming evidence you’ll…just keep repeating yourself over and over.

A less ideologically pure specimen might have modified their views in the face of contary facts. But not you! Your fanatical devotion to a discredited argument is hereby recognized.

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM

A less ideologically pure specimen might have modified their views in the face of contary facts. But not you! Your fanatical devotion to a discredited argument is hereby recognized.
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM

 
It’s simple math with data derived from your HHS link, politifact, and your latest CBO link.
 
You can’t point out where the numbers are wrong because they’re not. You can only insult.

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 8:29 PM

This is the obvious part you’re missing: WHY was the high of 18% in 2013? Shouldn’t it have been in 2010 when the ACA was passed?

You do realize the ACA wasn’t fully in effect until 2014, right?

Here’s an analogy:
Let’s say a very small town has 5 people unemployed in 2010, then the mayor does something amazingly stupid and it spikes up to 50 people unemployed by 2013.

In 2014 it settles a bit to 25 people unemployed. Would you believe the mayor trying to credit his dumbass idea from 2010 as the reason “25 previously unemployed people are now employed” as if that’s a good thing?

No, you’d have to be mathematically illiterate to believe that. Because you can’t count the people that were employed in 2010 among the “previously unemployed.”

CapnObvious on May 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Better analogy- the town had 5 people unemployed. Then due to a depression people got laid off left and right. In 2010 the town had 30 people out of work and the mayor came up with his plan. By 2013 there were 50 people out of work. Next year the plan started to work and hey what do you know mysteriously unemployment started to drop. Within half a year it was back down to 25 people.

The mayor says “my plan is working, uneployment is coming down.”
His detractors say “Are you crazy? We still have 5x the unemployment of when you started!”

His detractors are lying by omission since they know perfectly well the depression occurred but they want to try and forget that fact.

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:31 PM

I’m looking forward to the new numbers. You said the 15th, right?

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 8:21 PM

I believe that’s the case but that’s just off the top of my head. I could be mis-remembering.

It’s simple math with data derived from your HHS link, politifact, and your latest CBO link.

You can’t point out where the numbers are wrong because they’re not. You can only insult.

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 8:29 PM

When will you let it sink in that your numbers, no matter how simple, no matter what the source, no mater how incredibly impressed you are with your ability to press calculator buttons, do not match reality?

Beautiful theories fall before ugly facts all the time. The key is the facts are right and the theory wrong. Theories that do not correctly model the real world have one use- science fiction.

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:35 PM

It’s simple math with data derived from your HHS link, politifact, and your latest CBO link.
 
You can’t point out where the numbers are wrong because they’re not. You can only insult.
 
rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 8:29 PM

 
When will you let it sink in that your numbers, no matter how simple, no matter what the source, no mater how incredibly impressed you are with your ability to press calculator buttons, do not match reality?
 
Beautiful theories fall before ugly facts all the time. The key is the facts are right and the theory wrong. Theories that do not correctly model the real world have one use- science fiction.
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:35 PM

 
You don’t know how to read the links you cited then. The numbers are taken directly from your sources.
 
That you are accepting statements and numbers without understanding (or even trying to read) the data you provided is 100% dinosaurs-coexisted-with-man-because-that-guy-in-the-robe-told-me-and-then-we-had-a-casserole-in-the-gym faith.

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Since we’re here
 

In fact the only source I can find getting numbers like yours is this report:
http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/changeInUninsurance.html

however that report explicitly says they are underestimating:
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM

 

A February report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services revealing that state agencies deemed 8.9 million people eligible for these programs also is problematic. That figure includes a mix of people gaining access because of Obamacare, people who previously were eligible but not enrolled and people who are simply renewing their existing benefits.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/02/obamacare-enrollment-total_n_5069961.html

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 9:28 PM

This is typical of the anti-intellectual streak on the right of late. You insist that no matter how badly prepared you are to do the math yourself that you simply MUST be as smart as the experts in the field. So naturally when your numbers come out different it’s their fault.

It’s exactly the same as the poll unskewing in 2012. Fortunately reality has a way of butting in on your delusions of competence.

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 4:47 PM

 

About 5 million previously uninsured people got coverage via Medicaid and the exchanges.
 
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/heres-some-stunning-and-unexpected-good-news-about-obamacare

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 9:28 PM

In fact the only source I can find getting numbers like yours is this report:
http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/changeInUninsurance.html

however that report explicitly says they are underestimating:
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM

 

Below is an excerpt from the Times‘ article showing how the ACA has helped create coverage for so many Americans:

• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.

• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.

• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs
 
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/31/due-obamacare-10-million-previously-uninsured-americans-coverage.html

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM

This is typical of the anti-intellectual streak on the right of late. You insist that no matter how badly prepared you are to do the math yourself that you simply MUST be as smart as the experts in the field. So naturally when your numbers come out different it’s their fault.

It’s exactly the same as the poll unskewing in 2012. Fortunately reality has a way of butting in on your delusions of competence.

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 4:47 PM

 

First off, the exchanges: The 7 million enrollment figure that the administration is bandying about is misleading. The actual number of uninsured covered by the marketplace will be much smaller. For starters, if the current trend continues, 20 percent of the 7 million will drop out without paying. Out of the remaining 5.6 million, only about half were likely previously uninsured. Why? Because reliable early surveys found that a whopping 65 to 90 percent of those flocking to the exchange already had insurance.
 
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/obamacare-enrollmentmedicaidexchangeshealth.html

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM

In fact the only source I can find getting numbers like yours is this report:
http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/changeInUninsurance.html

however that report explicitly says they are underestimating:
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM

 

At least six million in the new marketplaces, about 2 million of which were previously uninsured, a share that probably increased this month;
At least 4.5 million signed up through Medicaid or SCHIP
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/31/1288598/-Obamacare-brings-coverage-to-at-least-9-5-nbsp-million

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM

See if you can pick out what all the links have in common, Tlaloc.

rogerb on May 13, 2014 at 9:30 PM

This is typical of the anti-intellectual streak on the right of late.
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 4:47 PM

 
Tlaloc?

rogerb on May 14, 2014 at 6:00 AM

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Think about it… Just the sheer numbers involved dilutes the labor pool and depresses wages.

It might not be just the 11-12 million that pro-amnesty politicians are willing to cop to. During the Reagan amnesty, there were three times the number of people applying as what was expected. If that trend were to hold true today, we’d be seeing 33-36 million. And that’s before we start talking about chain migration.

What amazes me, is that after all the smack talk, when you lot finally catch Republicans acting badly, you can’t even see it.

Murf76 on May 14, 2014 at 7:21 AM

Why does anyone think Obamacare won’t be a disaster this November for the Democrats?

pdigaudio on May 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

About 5 million previously uninsured people got coverage via Medicaid and the exchanges.
 
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/heres-some-stunning-and-unexpected-good-news-about-obamacare

 
Tlaloc?

rogerb on May 14, 2014 at 1:50 PM

A less ideologically pure specimen might have modified their views in the face of contary facts. But not you! Your fanatical devotion to a discredited argument is hereby recognized.
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM

 
Tlaloc?

rogerb on May 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

I’m taking issue with you saying obamacare only reduced the number of uninsured by 5 million, as you keep claiming over and over…

Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 5:22 PM

 

About 5 million previously uninsured people got coverage via Medicaid and the exchanges.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/heres-some-stunning-and-unexpected-good-news-about-obamacare

Tlaloc?

rogerb on May 14, 2014 at 1:50 PM

 
It’s weird how this thread died so suddenly. Waiting for the 15th with fingers crossed, eh Tlaloc?

rogerb on May 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Thanks, I enjoyed ditching you. I’m surprised you enjoyed being ditched, but then you do seem t have a bit of a masochistic streak. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
 
Tlaloc on May 13, 2014 at 8:25 PM

 
I hope Tlaloc is okay.

rogerb on May 15, 2014 at 6:01 AM

Tlaloc?

rogerb on May 14, 2014 at 6:00 AM

.
Well, that’s a damn neat trick….

ExpressoBold on June 26, 2014 at 11:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3