Senate Democrats are cautiously optimistic about a potential agreement to fund the Department of Homeland Security. But it’s far from a done deal.
As negotiations ramp up on Capitol Hill to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, Senate Democrats seem to be clinging to a particular word: reforms.
It was a term party leaders used in the context of Immigration and Customs Enforcement nearly two dozen times during a March 24 news conference.
The refrain threw cold water on a new GOP compromise to fund the critical agency — minus ICE’s enforcement and removal operations — and end a crisis that has upended air travel across the country.
“Democrats are continuing to push for modest reforms,” Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters. “The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that.”



I’m not saying we shouldn’t do this, but how does this hurt them? Sure, it delays them from getting things done, but that’s assuming they have a strong desire to do so, not just that it’s their job. They’re still being paid. Stock value does hurt most of them though, which a general strike effects.
Notably, he was leading a war, where a lot of people had to sacrifice their life, not just some money. If you think they won the war without hurting themselves, I don’t know what to say. Again, I’m not saying to not shut things down in the government. I think they should. I’m just also saying general strikes hurt them too, and probably significantly more.