PBS NEWSHOUR: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Miles O’Brien to discuss the week’s news, including how Hurricane Harvey might redirect Republicans’ fall agenda, the Trump administration’s response to the emergency, how the government will pay for the long and arduous recovery, whether the storm will shift political discourse about climate change and more.



Brooks said Hurricane Harvey gave Republicans the pretext to change the subject from funding a border wall to funding relief for Hurricane Harvey. Brooks said Texas will need to be rebuilt and there will be a demand for construction workers.



"They could say, 'hey, we can’t do the wall right now, we got to rebuild Texas,'" Brooks said about GOP Congressmen. "And, by the way, on the background, a lot of people are going to need a lot of construction workers in Texas. And this is a construction with a construction worker flourish."



"So, maybe this isn’t the time to crack down on immigration," Brooks added.



Brooks also said the unity that was seen in Houston, the most ethnically diverse city in the U.S., proved wrong the argument that we will never have solidarity if more immigration and diversity is allowed.



"To me, the two biggest things that happened was, first, Houston came together," Brooks said. "And that is significant, because Houston is the most ethnically diverse city in this country. And there’s an argument that is sometimes made, oh, we will never have solidarity as a nation if we’re so ethnically diverse."



"Well, Houston does it. And so if they can do it, I think that argument against making our country diverse or opening up more immigration falls down," Brooks added.



Brooks said the idea that relief funding should be offset by cuts, or "rip the money from other program," seems like "an insane way to do government."



"The second issue is whether they have what I talked about before, the offsets. And this is what Republicans have traditionally demanded. If we’re going to pay for Sandy relief, if we’re going to pay for Katrina relief, we got to rip the money from some other program," the columnist said.



"And that seems to me an insane way to do government," Brooks declared. "You have got these permanent domestic policy programs. Then we have a pretty steady slate of disasters that we have to pay for. Every we have a disaster, to rip money from the permanent programs just seems, like, crazy."



Transcript, via PBS NewsHour:





MILES O’BRIEN: In addition to the grueling work of rescue and recovery on the ground, Hurricane Harvey has stirred up political challenges and marked the first natural disaster on President Trump’s watch.



For what’s at stake, we get the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.



Gentlemen, good to have you with us.



To what extent has the storm on Friday and what has ensued changed what’s going to happen in Washington in September? Do you think this is a reset in a sense, David?



DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: I have decided to take the most willfully confident or least optimistic point of view just maybe post-flood, that the dove comes bearing the olive branch.



And I do think there’s potential for things to get better. The Republicans were headed toward dysfunction this fall with the budget showdowns, with this fight over the wall, possible government shutdown.



And now they at least have a pretext, all the while knowing they look dysfunctional and they have to get something done. Now they have a pretext to change the subject, to put some budget relief in there for the flood, without doing offsets, without trying to rip the money out from other programs.



And they could say, hey, we can’t do the wall right now. We got to rebuild Texas. And, by the way, on the background, a lot of people are going to need a lot of construction workers in Texas. And this is a construction with a construction worker flourish.



So, maybe this isn’t the time to crack down on immigration. And so I think there’s a possibility, if they want to look functional, to seize this moment, whether they will or not. But I’m going for maximal optimistic unrealism.



###



MILES O’BRIEN: I want to talk a little bit about what is going on in Washington in just a moment.



But let’s — a couple of things about the actual, the response on the ground. We didn’t have a Brownie moment this go-round, as we did in Katrina. Is your sense that, politically, the Trump administration did well in the way things happened on the ground as far as the immediate response in Texas and Louisiana, David?



DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I would say the range of government programs seemed to go well.



The people on this program and all the ones we have seen and interviewed, I think they have generally been impressive. They had tough calls to make, the mayor of Houston, on whether to evacuate or not. That was a tough call. You could argue it either way. The people seem to be responding.



To me, the two biggest things that happened was, first, Houston came together. And that is significant, because Houston is the most ethnically diverse city in this country. And there’s an argument that is sometimes made, oh, we will never have solidarity as a nation if we’re so ethnically diverse.



Well, Houston does it. And so if they can do it, I think that argument against making our country diverse or opening up more immigration falls down. The second thing is that I think, as Washington becomes more dysfunctional, power is going to the cities and states.



And I thought the basic efficacy of the Houston government this week is further sign that that may have to happen even more.



###



MILES O’BRIEN: Yes, these are — it’s a much longer road than I think people fully appreciate.



Once we in the media and the nation kind of moves on to the next thing, it gets very difficult for these people on the ground. They still have a huge problem.



Quick. The administration wants to move as quickly as possible, it says, to get a relief package under way. How realistic is that, David? Do you think that there’s — given all that happened post-Hurricane Sandy and the efforts that you mentioned of Senator Cruz and others to try to block that aid package, will there be obstacles?



DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think the first tranche of this package, they will get.



The second issue is whether they have what I talked about before, the offsets. And this is what Republicans have traditionally demanded. If we’re going to pay for Sandy relief, if we’re going to pay for Katrina relief, we got to rip the money from some other program.



And that seems to me an insane way to do government. You have got these permanent domestic policy programs. Then we have a pretty steady slate of disasters that we have to pay for. Every we have a disaster, to rip money from the permanent programs just seems, like, crazy.



Will they insist on the offsets this time? I think, in the first tranche, probably no, but the second tranche, $15 billion maybe in the first, but they’re talking about a $150 billion need. And so that’s just a gigantic budget lift.



###



MILES O’BRIEN: All right, so what about the talk of government shutdown, which was in play before the storm came in? Is that gone now, you think?



DAVID BROOKS: Well, if this were a normal country with a normal government, you would think there’s no way. I think we’re…



(LAUGHTER)



MILES O’BRIEN: But that is not the case.



DAVID BROOKS: That is not the case.



So, I think there is still some chance. I have trouble. I do think this was a moment where they was some unification. Republicans know they can’t be total disasters as the governing party.



And I just wish there was some more forward-looking enthusiasm. The Chicago Fire, the San Francisco Earthquake, these were moments of revitalization for those cities, a chance to take the disaster and really build something.



So far, I haven’t seen much of a chance. What are we going to do with this and how are we going to make Houston a different city and a better city than even it was?



###



MILES O’BRIEN: It seems we prefer to fund the fire department, rather than buying fire insurance. It’s kind of the way we roll in this country in some ways.



So, all right, so I got to ask this because it has come into play a lot this week. Is there any chance that there will be some sort of sea change, if you will, in political discussions about climate change, in the wake of this? How many of these storms do we have to go through before politicians come around on this one, David?



DAVID BROOKS: I would be stunned.



(LAUGHTER)



DAVID BROOKS: Climate change, in the way it wasn’t 20 years ago, it’s a total partisan issue now.



MILES O’BRIEN: Is that because Al Gore ran for…



(CROSSTALK)



MILES O’BRIEN: That’s the moment, isn’t it? Yes.



DAVID BROOKS: I happen to think he had some positive effects with the movement. I think he had a very negative effect.



You used to have John McCain and a lot of Republicans with climate change legislation.



MILES O’BRIEN: Right.



DAVID BROOKS: And once it became a Democratic issue, the Republicans had to go on the other side. And there was perverse effect of what Al Gore did.



###



MILES O’BRIEN: Well, you don’t have to be a math guy to realize that’s not working out very well. Right?



So, as far as the funding issues, they got to fund the government. They’re going to have to take care of the debt ceiling. All that is going to happen, do you think, now? What’s your thoughts on that? That’s a lot of work to do right now.



DAVID BROOKS: An inglorious trudge-through.



I think what’s happening — what has happened on Capitol Hill is, they have divorced the Trump administration. They have said, he’s — this guy is an independent. We’re going to have to do this thing ourselves.



And if they can’t do this, then the whole Republican Party is in big trouble.



MILES O’BRIEN: What about tax reform? That was something that, in the midst of this storm, President Trump was talking about. Is there any chance there will be any traction on that?



MARK SHIELDS: There is no tax reform.



What it is, is a tax cut. And they have concluded that there’s a real problem in this country when it comes to money distribution, that the poor have too much and the rich don’t have enough. And this is the solution.



DAVID BROOKS: Just to make Mark feel good, I don’t think anything is going to pass.



I was thinking, who was in office, who was in power in 1986? You had Dan Rostenkowski in the House, a guy named Bob Packwood in the Senate, James Baker,



MARK SHIELDS: Patrick Moynihan.



DAVID BROOKS: Patrick Moynihan, Bill Bradley.



MARK SHIELDS: Bill Bradley. Dick Gephardt. Yes.



DAVID BROOKS: This was like the dream team of legislative skill.



MARK SHIELDS: Yes.



DAVID BROOKS: And there’s just nobody like that, because they don’t — people do not have the experience to pass complicated legislation, let alone a White House.



Tax reform is incredibly hard, because every time you cut a loophole, there’s an army that wants to preserve it. And it’s just hard to…



MARK SHIELDS: Dick Darman.



DAVID BROOKS: Dick Darman is another figure.



(CROSSTALK)



MARK SHIELDS: Yes. Yes.



(CROSSTALK)



DAVID BROOKS: We have sort of lost human capital in Washington of people who know how to do complicated stuff.



MARK SHIELDS: It’s a good point. We have devalued it.



When you run against Washington long enough, and deprecate public service, I mean, after a while, you stop attracting or making it appealing for talented people to come and to stay. And then public service was an honorable and important…



(CROSSTALK)



DAVID BROOKS: The talent is a side, but the experience is low.



Those people had put through, over the previous 20 or 30 years, lots of complicated legislation, especially under Johnson, and even under Nixon.



And the people now, they just don’t have the experience of doing that.