Senate Democrats Have the Power to Stop Trump. All They Have to Do Is Use It.

By Adam Jentleson, The Washington Post

29 January 17

We're inclined to compromise. But if we want to hold this administration accountable, we'll need to play hardball.

s a Democratic Senate aide for the past seven years, I had a front-row seat to an impressive show of obstruction. Republicans, under then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, decided they would oppose President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at every turn to limit their power. And it worked: They extorted concessions from Democrats with threats of shutdowns, fiscal cliffs and financial chaos. I know firsthand that Democrats’ passion for responsible governance can be exploited by Republicans who are willing to blow past all norms and standards.

Now we have a president who exemplifies that willingness in the extreme. Partly, this explains why he faces more questions about his legitimacy than any president in recent history and why he drew three times as many protesters as inauguration attendees last weekend. But in something of a mismatch, Republicans’ unified control of government means that the most effective tool for popular resistance lies in the Senate — the elite, byzantine institution envisioned by the founders as the saucer that cools the teacup of popular opinion.

Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans.

The procedure for withholding consent is straightforward, but deploying it is tricky. For the Senate to move in a timely fashion on any order of business, it must obtain unanimous support from its members. But if a single senator objects to a consent agreement, McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees and seven days to advance any piece of legislation — and that’s without amendment votes, each of which can be subjected to a several-day cloture process as well.

McConnell can ask for consent at any time, and if no objection is heard, the Senate assumes that consent is granted. So the 48 senators in the Democratic caucus must work together — along with any Republicans who aren’t afraid of being targeted by an angry tweet — to ensure that there is always a senator on the floor to withhold consent.

Because every Senate action requires the unanimous consent of members from all parties, everything it does is a leverage point for Democrats. For instance, each of the 1,000-plus nominees requiring Senate confirmation — including President Trump’s Cabinet choices — can be delayed for four days each.

While the tactic works well, as we’ve seen for the past eight years, there remains the question of strategy. Should Democrats be pragmatic and let Trump have his nominees on a reasonable timetable, so as not to appear obstructionist? So far, this has been their approach to some of Trump’s Cabinet picks.

But it’s also fair to say that, by nominating a poorly qualified and ethically challenged Cabinet, Trump forfeited his right to a speedy confirmation process, and Democrats should therefore slow it down to facilitate the adequate vetting that Trump and Senate Republicans are determined to avoid by rushing the process before all the questionnaires and filings are submitted. Four days of scrutiny on the Senate floor per nominee, even after the committee hearings, is a reasonable standard for fulfilling the Senate’s constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

Democrats can also withhold their consent from every piece of objectionable legislation McConnell tries to advance. With 48 senators in their caucus, they have the votes to block most bills. But even when Democrats don’t have the votes, they can force McConnell to spend time jumping through procedural hoops. This is the insight McConnell deployed against Reid to manufacture the appearance of gridlock, forcing him to use the cloture process more than 600 times.

Finally, Democrats can withhold their consent from Trump until they feel confident that foreign governments are not interfering in our elections. Credible reports hold that U.S. intelligence agencies are investigating whether Trump’s campaign cooperated with the Russian government on Vladi­mir Putin’s personally directed meddling. Withholding consent from Trump’s agenda until an independent, bipartisan probe provides answers is not just reasonable; it’s responsible. If Democrats withhold consent from everything the Senate does until such a process is established, they can stall Trump’s agenda and confirmation of his nominees indefinitely. Sen. Richard Durbin has been a leader in demanding an independent investigation. But unless Democrats back their calls with the threat of action, McConnell will steamroll them and never look back.

Of course, it would be unwise to deploy this strategy blindly. The kind of universal obstruction pioneered by McConnell during Obama’s presidency is not in Democrats’ nature: They believe in the smooth functioning of government.

But Democrats’ concern with delivering results for their constituents is also part of who we are and something we should embrace. Even for innately cautious Democrats, some issues demand dramatic action. If Trump wants to put their concerns about his legitimacy to rest, he can reach out with consensus nominees and policies, and come clean about his ties to Russia and his tax returns (which may show whether he has compromising financial debts to Russian interests). Until then, Democrats can stand up for America by withholding their consent.

In Fight With Trump, Mexico Has Plenty of Ways to Punch Back

By Joshua Partlow and David Agren, The Washington Post

29 January 17

f the trade war is coming, how would Mexico fare?

That is the question that has preoccupied politicians and business leaders here since President Trump won the election and began pursuing his agenda to impose tariffs on goods made in Mexico and to build a wall along the border.

Trump has made clear his disdain for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has governed commerce on the continent since 1994, and Mexican leaders have said that if the terms of the renegotiation did not further their interests, they might walk away, as well.

A trade dispute could have painful repercussions here in Mexico. The country relies heavily on the U.S. market: 80 percent of its exports are sold there, and some economists predict that a trade war could lead to a recession and spur more migration north. Others note that unrest might break out as the country is already tightly wound amid sharp increases in gas prices, the peso devaluation and the unpopularity of its president, Enrique Peña Nieto.

But before that happens, Mexico will sit at the negotiating table with the Trump administration. While the United States is the stronger power, Mexico is not without leverage if this dispute escalates. Top economic officials have already said that Mexico would “mirror” any additional taxes or tariffs that the United States imposes. Former officials have said that Mexico could also tax corporate profits from the many American companies with operations in Mexico.

Outside of the economic realm, Mexico also has plenty of cards to play in negotiations with Trump. Last year, Mexico deported nearly 150,000 migrants bound for the United States, most of them from Central America. Without this cooperation, officials predict that the number of migrants turning up at the U.S. border could double.

“He has the Central American card, which he has mentioned, and it’s a very powerful card,” former foreign minister Jorge Castañeda said of Peña Nieto.

After a slow start, Peña Nieto’s administration has ramped up drug war cooperation with the United States over the past four years. His administration has arrested many high-ranking cartel leaders, including twice capturing Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, the head of the Sinaloa cartel, who was extradited last week to New York. Mexican authorities help fight the heroin epidemic in the United States by going after local producers.

At the border, Mexican officials have been important partners on a variety of tasks, including gathering intelligence on drug cartels and facilitating food inspections, often working side by side with their U.S. counterparts. Mexico has also apprehended foreigners from other countries that pose a potential national security threat and has allowed U.S. authorities access to them. That cooperation could change.

If the United States begins mass deportations of Mexican immigrants, Mexico could also respond by checking the documents of the large populations of Americans who live in cities such as Ajijic or San Miguel de Allende.

“It’s evident that Mr. Trump wants vassals, not neighbors,” said Sergio Aguayo, a political analyst and professor at the College of Mexico. “What’s surprising is that he doesn’t understand that Mexico has a good number of measures at its disposal.”

He added: “We depend on each other in many ways. More than Trump imagines.”

Many in Mexico seem to fear that foreign investment will dry up if the trade tensions escalate. Trump’s warnings to U.S. companies not to ship jobs to Mexico already prompted Ford to cancel plans for a plant in Mexico and for Carrier, the Indiana-based company that makes heaters and air conditioners, to shift some jobs away from Mexico.

The auto industry in particular has been a bright spot for Mexico, and disruption in that manufacturing base could spell serious trouble.

“The big dilemma is a lack of certainty or stability,” said one person involved in the auto industry who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly. “If the U.S. places tariffs on auto imports, then it is a real game-changer.”

The person added: “It seems as though we are now in a waiting game to see just how severe the situation becomes.”

Without NAFTA, economists said, Mexico could lose some of the advantages that come with its lower-cost labor. With new tariffs on Mexican exports, “we just become less attractive to foreign investors because that margin is too small,” said Federico Estevez, political science professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico.

“On top of that, you have [Trump] bad-mouthing us all the time,” Estevez said.

Economists have noted that the steep devaluation of the Mexican currency makes its exports more competitive around the world. And imposing tariffs on Mexican goods will raise the prices in U.S. stores. Mexico has free-trade agreements with dozens of other countries and could look to expand its relationships outside of the United States if that market turns inward.

“It’s very curious that he would want to punish the American consumer,” Luis Foncerrada, the director of an economic studies institute in Mexico City. “Mexico can compensate with exports to other countries, deepening those agreements.”

That Trump seems not to be considering the ramifications of a trade war with Mexico might be the most worrisome aspect of the current crisis, said Fernando Turner Dávila, secretary of the economy in the industrial state of Nuevo Leon.

“This is worrying not only for Mexico but for the entire world,” he said. “They should be scared that there is no contemplation in the president of the most powerful country in the world.”