Brooks and Capehart on the pressure to end the government shutdown

The government shutdown is barreling towards November 1st, when funding begins to lapse on some key government benefit programs. And both parties are watching key off-year races happening next week. Here to help us break it all down,

we are joined by Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC. Happy Halloween to you both. Thank you. No representation, no costumes, no orange,

no nothing, no pumpkins.

We do not. We were dressed as pundits.

Yes, exactly. Two judges today, Jonathan, said that the administration has to use this reserve fund to pay for SNAP benefits, which to back up a little bit, SNAP benefits and the expiration of those benefits was one of the ways the GOP was trying to pressure Democrats to end the shutdown. Do you think this ruling, these rulings, takes any pressure off of them to,

and then maybe the shutdown does come to an end?

I don't think these rulings take any pressure off Democrats for two reasons. One, I've always believed that tomorrow, November 1st, was one of the dates that the Democrats were looking at. That's the date when people start getting the open enrollment starts, and they start to find out how much

their premiums are going to cost. This is what Democrats have been talking about for a few months now and why they won't provide the votes.

These are the subsidies for Obamacare that will now go through the roof.

Right. and why they won't provide the votes. These are the subsidies for Obamacare that will now go through the roof.

Right.

And so that's why they're not providing the votes for to reopen the government. The other thing, the other date that we should pay attention to is the elections on Tuesday. These will be, whether we like it or not, bellwether. And I suspect that depending on the outcome on Tuesday,

we could see some shifting, people getting together, talking, and coming to some resolution over the shutdown. But the other thing that's hanging out there that people forget, it's not just the subsidies that Democrats have a problem with. It is also that the whole thing of rescissions,

and that they could come to some, any kind of agreement.

This is the Trump administration saying, basically taking Congress's spending authority away. Say, I know you appropriated this money. It's coming back.

Right, exactly. We don't care what you decide, what you authorize. We will do, we will spend the money the way we want to spend it, or we won't spend it at all. And so if you're a Democrat and you are a part of some gang, I don't know if they still do gangs like they used to in the past, but even if they provide the votes and they come to some agreement, the president and Russell Vought, the OMB director,

could just step out there and say, we don't care what you think. So I don't think, all the way back to your original part of the question, I do not think the two judges, their ruling stakes any pressure off Democrats. If anything, as we get beyond tomorrow and certainly beyond the elections on Tuesday, I think pressure could grow on Republicans, Republican leaders, particularly Senator Thune, Majority Leader Thune, to come up, let's come up with something so we can get the government reopened. David, do you think that the Democrats are making a coherent, resonant argument as to

why they are holding the line here?

I think it's okay. I mean, they're emphasizing the subsidies. Frankly, it was up to me. I might have mentioned a once in a nation's history threat to democracy as the core problem here. But, you know, they're making

coherent case on the health subsidies. I think it's not the legitimate case that should be made at this moment in American history.

Do you think if they had pivoted though to that argument to say we will not fund what they argue is an unlawful administration, that that would be more resonant?

I don't know. Clearly their pollster said nobody cares about democracy, because they wouldn't be making that case. The pollster said we're good on health care. And if you look at the issue list, which party do you trust on which issue, Republicans have an advantage on almost every issue except for health care.

So they picked the one issue. You know, I think we're at the glide path down toward a government reopening. And I say that because last time this happened at this length in 2018, it's when the air traffic controllers began to not show up at work.

Right. When the benefits began to really get cut and people began to feel it, then they reopened the government. And I don't know which way they'll go, like who, how they'll cut some sort of deal,

but you got SNAP, you got, as we saw earlier, the Head Start. There's just a lot of things where people are really beginning to feel it. And so I think they'll begin. I just, before, hopefully the next time we meet,

the government will be open, but you know, we should not be running government by shutdown. You should go to the voters. If you want a policy change, go to the voters. If you want a policy change, go to the voters. Don't shut down the government. And frankly, somebody should ask the Democrats, why did you schedule the subsidies to expire a year before an election? Why don't you just make the subsidies forever? Right. And the reason they didn't want to do that is

they want to hide the cost because what the Democrats are proposing would increase the national debt by 1.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. But we should, I'm upset that not everybody's upset. Like so our democracy is deteriorating to such a degree there should be howling outrage that why are you shutting down the government? Why are we hurting snap moms? Food stamps, you know the poorest people among us. And there should be more outrage about that.

I mean the, one of the things that the Democrats have argued to your point, David, that that does outrage them is the ongoing masked agents that are all over the cities. The president was just in Asia, successfully had this meeting with President Xi and seemed to lessen some of the trade tensions a bit, but also refloated this idea that he's going to send more troops into the cities, in different cities.

What do you make of all of that? Look, this is the president's fantasy, a fantasy that he is exercising on cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, trying to in Portland, here in Washington, making noises about doing the same thing in New York City. You know, last week, two weeks ago, I did an event at Aspen Ideas Economy in Newark, New Jersey

and did a Q&A with the mayor of Newark, Mayor Ross Barak. And I asked him, you don't have National Guard troops in Newark, but what would you do? What would you say if the president turned his attention on you? And he gave a terrific answer that ended with,

you can't scare people into safety. This idea that you are going to stop all crime, all crime. I mean, people, human beings have been killing each other since at least Cain and Abel. And so the idea that the president of the United States, Donald Trump, thinks that he's going to stop crime by putting, all crime, by putting

troops on the streets of American cities, it is lunacy. It's not that mayors, local officials, and governors don't want federal government help in solving whatever crime issues they have, but the way the administration is going about it, it's either you take troops or we're going to send them. We're going to send them anyway. And what local officials have always wanted

was a willing partner, a smart partner in the federal government to help them. And that's not what they're getting from this particular administration.

I distinguish between a bunch of these different things. The ICE thing, I think what ICE is doing is terrible. What we're doing to those ships coming out of Venezuela is an atrocity. The National Guard doesn't really bother me. I mean, I live in Washington, DC. I've got National Guardsmen walking around everywhere. They're nice, pleasant people and they're bored out of their minds. And are they doing any good? I don't know.

Empirically, I would love to see studies. It is absolutely true the more cops you have on the street, the less crime you get. And so it's absolutely true that law enforcement. Is it true that if you have National Guardsmen on the street it cuts down on crime? I saw a study only after two weeks in DC, and there was a drop in crime that was noticeable. But the point I would make, and so I

think it's just an empirical matter. We can figure out does it work. Right. But I think some of the problem the Democrats have been making is saying well crime is coming down, crime is coming down. That is bad messaging because there are a lot of people including in DC and in Chicago and the cities I know where people know crime is coming down but it's still pretty bad. And it feels that way. I mean I ran into a woman sometime over the last two weeks who said I had to shut my business because the crime was so bad. And so she lost her business.

And she said to me, I know crime is coming down, but it doesn't feel that way to me. And when I can't go into the CVS and I can't buy a razor because they're locked up, then it doesn't feel that way to me. And so I think the Democrats are making a mistake by saying,

oh, crime is coming down. issue what it is, it's a real issue for people, whether the National Guard will help. We can just experiment and figure that one out. Right.

Can I just say something, William, though? Because in listening to David's answer, I mean, on the one hand, a moment ago, David, you said, where's the howling outrage about threats to democracy? And to my mind, and to a lot of people's minds, putting National Guard troops and even Marines on the streets of Los Angeles, that is to a lot of people and to me especially a harbinger of what

could come. And so troops on the streets... This is a threat to democracy that you in your mind. Yes, yes. So they might be here under the guise of fighting crime, but then that doesn't stop the president from changing their orders and having them do something that the American people definitely do not want. And so I think when people say, we don't want National Guard troops,

it's not that they're saying that there's no crime and that we don't have problems, it's that they're looking five, 10 steps ahead of what could possibly happen. And I think National Guard troops in LA, Portland, Chicago, and threatening to use them in New York City

if Zoran Mamdani wins the election on Tuesday, that sends a different kind of message. That is a threat to democracy message that a lot of people take.

I don't really agree with that. I mean, I have just total faith in the culture of the US military. For 200 odd years they have wanted to stay out of politics. If you saw when Trump gave a speech to the senior brass in Quantico, you could see those men and women wanted to stay out of politics. And occasionally you get a younger, you know, serviceman who will be cheering at a

political rally. But I think that the desire not to do anything that's authoritarian runs so strongly through the US military that I put faith in that.

I wanted to turn to the elections. We have about 30 seconds left. So no, no, no. This is an important conversation to be having. Three big races, the New Jersey governor, the Virginia governor, and New York City, as you mentioned.

Democrats seem to be doing well in Virginia. A socialist Democrat is going to most likely win in New York City. Virginia is not sure. What do you think the Democrats ought to take from this?

I think you mean New Jersey is not sure.

New Jersey not sure, yes.

Thank you. New Jersey is not sure. Look, these off-year elections, especially the Virginia governor's race, are viewed as canary in the coal mine, harbinger, the mood of the country. I think if Democrats win the governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, and the mayor's race, I think that's what I think will change the tenor and tone

of what's happening here in Washington.

Gentlemen, sorry to cut you off. Jonathan, David, so good to see you.

You too. You too.

Thanks.