Subject: Re: Schumer to reintroduce border bill


Right? Isn't that why they objected to increasing the IRS budget? Because they wanted people to be able to cheat on their taxes, and get away with it? Because they wanted criminal tax evasion to increase and go unpunished? Is that right?

This analogy would work if we had an avalanche of tax cheats and the IRS was powerless to stop it...and we had had a raft of Republicans calling for cheating...and so on and so forth.

Or maybe - just maybe - it's possible for adults who are discussing political and policy issues to recognize that any regulatory enforcement mechanism has trade-offs.

Of course. The current bill that Schumer is fronting is not it. I get that it's the first time democrats have deigned to stop by the negotiating table but that in and of itself isn't anything to write home about. In other words, all of them swore to uphold the laws of the country and as such they don't get a pat on the back for deciding to do their jobs for once.

That people of good faith can differ about the relative weight to assign the negative consequences of a draconian enforcement regime and those of the rulebreaking that happens in a less-than-draconian enforcement regime....and not falsely proclaim that the opposing position wants the rulebreaking, rather than wants to avoid the other consequences of the draconian regime.

Reasonable people can agree and disagree all the time. I'd encourage the democrats to put down the "get in their faces" tactics that they've adopted over the last 20 years.