Trump should veto the omnibus, but not for the reasons he cites [UPDATE, he signed it]

After signaling to Congress that he supports the omnibus spending bill it was about to pass, President Trump is now threatening to veto the bill. He complains that it does nothing for the DACA population and virtually nothing to build his wall.

In my view, these are not good reasons to veto the omnibus. Doing something for the DACA population should not be a priority, and certainly not to the point of blocking legislation that boosts funding for our armed forces.

The border wall is overrated as an immigration control measure. In an ideal world, we would build some more of it, but it’s not worth vetoing an otherwise meritorious spending bill.

But the omnibus is not that bill. It’s a budget-busting Christmas gift to liberals, who are overjoyed with it.

I agree with Ted Cruz who complained that the undesirable (he said “disastrous”) elements of the omnibus “are almost too numerous to list.” Cruz went on to list some of them:

It continues to fund Planned Parenthood, a corrupt organization whose horrifying abortion practices should preclude it from receiving taxpayer dollars.

It continues to fund sanctuary cities, which are defying the law and making Americans less safe. Instead of rewarding sanctuary cities, we should be passing legislation like Kate’s Law. . .

It fails to provide sufficient funds to properly secure our border, let alone build the wall. . . necessary.

It tells federal agencies that they can spend taxpayer dollars to study the ‘causes’ of gun violence, a mandate that – make no mistake – will be abused by future liberal administrations to manufacture evidence to try to violate law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

It funds the Ex-Im Bank, a classic example of corporate welfare that has doled out over $100 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, primarily to a handful of giant and well-connected corporations.

It fails to reduce funding for the EPA, which under Obama administration zealots, killed thousands of jobs and dramatically strayed from its core mission of ensuring clean air and water.

He might have added that it spends far too much money on pet Democratic projects like energy initiatives.

Cruz concluded: “All of these measures amount to piling even greater debt onto the backs of our kids and grand kids, all because we are incapable of living within our means.”

Chuck Schumer is as delighted as Cruz is upset. He gushed:

It’s a great deal. We think it’s a very good deal for the American people. We’re very gratified with the result.

“I hope this is a metaphor for the future,” Schumer added.

A veto would be a better “metaphor.” It would not produce a cure, though. Rather, it would probably lead to negotiations that give Trump a little more money for the wall. All, or nearly all, of the objectionable spending Cruz described would almost certainly remain.

But at least Trump would save a little bit of face, while also signaling to Congress that he’s willing to use his veto power when Republicans and Democrats collaborate to pass bad legislation.

UPDATE: Trump has signed the bill. I’m not surprised.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.