I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2018
DACA was abandoned by the Democrats. Very unfair to them! Would have been tied to desperately needed Wall.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2018
DACA
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) refers to illegal “dreamers” who came to the US as minors. Under restrictive conditions, they can receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation.
The policy was established by the Obama Administration in June 2012 and plans to begin phasing it out were initiated by the Trump Administration in September 2017. The policy was established by executive action rather than legislation, however, participating individuals are still commonly referred to as DREAMers after the DREAM Act; a bipartisan bill first proposed in 2001 that was the first of a number of subsequent efforts in the U.S. House and Senate to provide an opportunity for certain illegal illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children to attend college and eventually become permanent citizens of the United States. DACA provides no such path to citizenship.
CNN comments on the [Veto Threat](Trump threatens to veto $1.3 trillion spending bill over immigration).
Trump was fuming about the spending bill, an official said, particularly the news coverage he watched Friday morning that said his immigration priorities won’t be fully funded.
“He doesn’t like it,” the official said, who described the President’s mood as “venting” more than seriously considering a veto.
Spotted in the West Wing Friday morning, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short did not appear alarmed by the President’s tweet.
“I think we’ll be OK,” he told CNN.
Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters on Thursday that the bill “funds his (Trump’s) priorities.”
“Is it perfect? No,” Mulvaney added. “Is it exactly what we asked for in the budget? No.
“Let’s cut right to the chase: Is the President going to sign the bill? The answer is yes,” he said.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/mishtalk/economics/bhqZOTH0MkyNVT-dYczcag/Pxb2939jskO78HpqlON5bQ
Well once it’s been establish in token actions by a nation’s central bank that there will always be a buyer for low yield treasury bonds, fiscal expenditure becomes a political pretense of borrowing, whilst in practice just spending newly printed money.
Yet strangely enough, if fiscal government did just nationalize its central bank and spend via the printing press, investors would be far more anxious. Always there must be this pretext of debt, of future obligation to pay back what was spent today. Perhaps because it maintains the illusion of restraint, or constraint, of government and its ability to directly cause monetary inflation. But that’s what it is, an illusion. As every subsequent politician has demonstrated, there’s always room for more debt.
Fiscal expenditure is no joke you know. Unlike all the other forms of credit exploitation, government debt spending actually reaches into the real economy. Just look at what happened to Greece.