Why a ‘National Emergency’ May Be Trump’s Best Bet

Plus, Dems gear up for single-payer health care By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey What to Watch for in Trump’s Oval Office Address to the Nation As the partial government shutdown stretches toward its 19th day, President Trump’s nationally televised address at 9 p.m. ET — his first from the Oval Office — should answer a host of questions: - Will the president seek to declare a national emergency at the border and seek to build a wall without approval from Congress? - Will he continue to reframe the battle as being about a massive “humanitarian crisis”? - Will he make any overtures toward compromise with the Democrats, who have been steadfast in rejecting funding for a wall? The answers, as of now, appear to be [no]( [yes]( and no. Trump’s speech, and his planned trip to the southern border on Thursday, “suggest the once-sleepy shutdown fight is about to enter a new phase: an all-out messaging war,” write Mike Lillis and Scott Wong at [The Hill](. As part of that PR campaign, the Trump White House “is increasingly positioning the situation at the southern border as a global humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, for which the same old solutions will not be sufficient,” [Politico notes](. Fact-checkers will be all over Trump's speech tonight, and numerous experts have said that the administration is [overstating the national security threat]( at the border and critics have charged that the administration is partly to blame for the humanitarian issues. The bottom line: The administration's “humanitarian crisis” framing likely won’t do much to resolve the impasse, as Trump still insists on $5.7 billion in funding for a wall or barrier of some sort and Democrats are resolute in rejecting any money for that purpose. Why Declaring a ‘National Emergency’ May Be Trump’s Best Bet As of Tuesday afternoon, President Trump was reportedly [still undecided]( about whether to follow through on his threat to [declare a national emergency]( on the southern border, opening up the possibility of [using unobligated military funds]( to build a border barrier. The president was reportedly unlikely to make such a declaration as part of his address to the nation. But Vice President Mike Pence said Monday that, while the administration would prefer to resolve the shutdown through talks with Congress, the White House was still considering the possibility of an emergency declaration. Such a move would be [challenged immediately]( in court and could result in a lengthy legal battle, with Democrats arguing that there is no border crisis. Even so, a declaration could make sense for political reasons, as a face-saving way for Trump and Republicans to wriggle out of the shutdown jam without conceding defeat in the fight for a wall. A legal fight would allow Trump to keep the wall issue alive, while ending the unpopular shutdown. Support for an emergency declaration is growing among Congressional Republicans, [Politico reports]( adding that some GOP leaders and White House officials see it as a way out of a fight they’re losing: “Trump allies believe it would send an unmistakable message to the president's base that he’s dead serious about border security. And GOP leaders on Capitol Hill also know support for the shutdown is slowly eroding inside the party, as more moderate Republicans call for an end to the crisis.” Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments, calls the idea “the best of several bad options” for Trump. “Whether there’s really an emergency is hotly debated, of course, and this tactic could quickly get bogged down in litigation and controversy over spending Pentagon money designated for other uses,” Valliere wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. “But that's not the point – this gambit could provide an exit strategy for the president, putting the immigration issue on the back burner for a while. It also could extricate him from the shutdown, which threatens to divide the GOP.” The bottom line: As long as the shutdown goes on, the pressure on Trump will only continue to build. Declaring a national emergency would dramatically up the constitutional stakes of the standoff. Valliere offers a guess as to how this all might end: “the shutdown will become increasingly unpopular and will end by late next week, with Trump getting $2 or $3 billion for unspecified border security, with treatment of ‘Dreamers’ liberalized, while keeping alive the litigious option of shifting Pentagon funds to construct a barrier. Will a real wall get built? No time soon.” Quote of the Day “He has so politicized the issue, and he has been so reckless in his presentation of what the stakes are that he walks into court with two strikes against him, the ball about to break over the plate, and he’s swinging too late.” – Robert F. Bauer, a White House counsel under President Barack Obama, on the challenges Trump would face in court in trying to defend a declaration of a national emergency at the border with Mexico. 70 Percent of Registered Voters Want a Compromise to End the Shutdown An overwhelming majority of registered voters say they want the president and Congress to “compromise to avoid prolonging the government shutdown” in a new [The Hill-HarrisX poll](. Seven in ten respondents said they preferred the parties reach some sort of deal to end the standoff, while 30 percent said it was more important to stick to principles, even if it means keeping parts of the government shutdown. Voters who “strongly approve” of Trump (a slim 21 percent of respondents) favored him sticking to his principles over the wall by a narrow 54 percent-46 percent margin. Voters who “somewhat approve” of the president favored a compromise solution by a 70-30 margin. Among Republicans overall, 61 percent said they wanted a compromise. The survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted January 5 and 6 and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Democrats Gear Up for Single-Payer Health Care Push Democrats are making it clear that they’re serious about moving forward on universal health care. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) [said]( last week that she supports holding hearings on Medicare-for-All legislation, and on Tuesday House Budget Committee chair Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) sent a [letter]( to the Congressional Budget Office requesting a comprehensive analysis of how a single-payer health system would work in the U.S. Yarmuth said that although the Affordable Care Act significantly reduced the number of people without health care coverage, “millions of Americans remain uninsured, and millions more – even though they have insurance – struggle to afford their health care costs.” While many countries successfully provide “near-universal coverage through single-payer systems,” there are different paths the U.S. could take to build such a system. As they consider various options, lawmakers “will face many important decisions that could have major implications for federal spending, national health care spending, and access to care.” Yarmuth specifically requested an analysis of these issues: - how the system would be administered; - who would be eligible for coverage and how they would be enrolled; - what services would be covered and what cost-sharing requirements, if any, would be imposed; - what role, if any, private insurers would play; - whether other public programs (such as Medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Indian Health Service, and the Military Health System) would continue to exist; - how provider payment rates would be established; - what participation rules would be established for providers; - what methods would be used to contain costs; - how the system would be financed. The CBO report will provide a starting point for upcoming Budget Committee hearings “to review potential ways to achieve affordable, high-quality health care coverage for everyone, including Medicare for All.” Yarmuth added that an overall cost estimate was not his main objective: “The report would not necessarily provide CBO’s estimate of the effects of any particular proposal for a single-payer system on federal spending or national health care spending but would, to the extent feasible, provide a qualitative assessment of how the choices with respect to major design issues would affect such spending.” The bottom line: As MarketWatch’s Steve Goldstein [said]( the request signals that Democrats are serious about “moving beyond Obamacare,” but that given Republican control of the Senate, “there’s virtually no chance of a single-payer system being enacted this Congress.” Send us your thoughts on Trump's speech and the Democratic rebuttal. Email yrosenberg@thefiscaltimes.com. And connect with us on Twitter: [@yuvalrosenberg]( [@mdrainey]( and [@TheFiscalTimes](. And if this newsletter was forwarded to you, [sign up here]( to get your own free copy every weekday. Health Care Industry Spends $30 Billion a Year on Marketing The health care industry spent $30 billion on marketing in 2016, up from $18 billion in 1997, according to a new analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and highlighted by the [Associated Press](. The number of advertisements for prescription drugs appearing on television, newspapers, websites and elsewhere totaled 5 million in one year, accounting for $6 billion in marketing spending. Direct-to-consumer marketing grew the fastest, rising from $2 billion, or 12 percent of total marketing, to nearly $10 billion, or a third of spending. “Marketing drives more treatments, more testing” that patients don’t always need, Dr. Steven Woloshin, a Dartmouth College health policy expert and co-author of the study, told the AP. News - [How Trump Could Raid the Pentagon to Pay for the Border Wall]( – CNN - [Democrats Could Sue if Trump Declares National Emergency over Wall, Hoyer Says]( – The Hill - [A Quick History of Trump's Evolving Justifications for a Border Wall]( – Politico - [Newest Shutdown Casualty: Trump’s Own Policies]( – Politico - [The Reality on the Border: How Much Will a Wall Really Help?]( – Associated Press - [Government Shutdown Leaves Federal Workers Struggling to Pay for Food, Medication]( – HuffPost - [Bipartisan Governors Group Calls for Immediate End to Shutdown]( – Washington Post - [Shutdown Ripples Across Nation, Affecting Farmers, Homeowners, Even Craft Brewers]( – New York Times - [As Shutdown Stalls Farm Bailout, Trump Team Extends Deadline]( – Washington Post - [Government Shutdown Closes in on High Court]( – The Hill - [Airports Nervous About TSA Absences If Government Shutdown Continues]( – Time - [Hoyer: IRS Distributing Refunds During Shutdown Is Illegal]( – The Hill - [Court Rejects Trump’s Cuts in Payments for Prescription Drugs]( – New York Times - [New York City to Fund Health Care for All, Including the Undocumented, Mayor Says]( – Bloomberg - [Gov. Gavin Newsom Proposes Healthcare Mandate, Medi-Cal Expansion]( – Los Angeles Times - [Most Democrats Identify as Liberals for First Time in Gallup Poll]( – The Hill Views and Analysis - [Your Fact-Checking Cheat Sheet for Trump’s Immigration Address]( – Salvador Rizzo, Glenn Kessler and Meg Kelly, Washington Post - [Absent Paychecks May Put Trump in Bind]( – Niall Stanage, The Hill - [Missing Paychecks Due to Trump Shutdown Total $2 Billion Every Two Weeks]( – Saharra Griffin and Galen Hendricks, Center for American Progress - [Tax Refunds During the Shutdown? The White House Says Yes, but Don’t Count on It]( – Daren Fonda, Barron’s - [The Real National Emergency Is the Threat of Trump’s Collapse]( – Greg Sargent, Washington Post - [Why the Shutdown Is a Good Thing for House Democrats]( – Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call - [Yes, Trump Has Authority to Declare National Emergency for Border Wall]( – Jonathan Turley, The Hill - [No, Trump Cannot Declare an ‘Emergency’ to Build His Wall]( – Bruce Ackerman, New York Times - [No ‘Emergency’ Will Allow Trump to Build His Wall]( – Noah Feldman, Bloomberg - [No, Trump Can’t Use an Emergency Declaration to Build a Wall]( – David French, National Review - [New Leaders and Budget, Old Wars and Does, Worry Pentagon in 2019]( – Dov S. Zakheim, The Hill - [We Must Prepare Now for the Likelihood of a Recession]( – Lawrence Summers, Financial Times - [Should the Government Be Allowed to Negotiate Drug Prices?]( – Alicia Munnell, MarketWatch - [Opportunity Zones: What We Know and What We Don’t]( – Scott Eastman and Nicole Kaeding, Tax Foundation - [A $20,243 Bike Crash: Zuckerberg Hospital’s Aggressive Tactics Leave Patients with Big Bills]( – Sarah Kliff, Vox Copyright © 2019 The Fiscal Times, All rights reserved. You are receiving this newsletter because you subscribed at our website, thefiscaltimes.com, or through Facebook. Our mailing address is: The Fiscal Times 399 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10022 [Add us to your address book]( If someone has forwarded this email to you, consider signing up for The Fiscal Times emails on our [website](. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can [update your preferences]( or [unsubscribe from this list](