In a way you're right.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is trying to have it both ways. He's trying to project himself as an efficient Senate Majority Leader while also conveying a unified stance to party. By refusing to put any House bill before the Senate that doesn't include funding for Pres. Trump's southern border wall, McConnell is trying to show that the Senate is efficient in (Senate) governance (i.e., why bring something to the Senate floor for a vote if the President will only veto it). But on the other hand, he's also trying to show that Senate Republicans are with their party's leader - the POTUS - on this particular issue. The problem is, they aren't with him at all and Spkr Pelosi illustrated as much by throwing their own Senate bill right back in their faces and daring them to reject it. In effect, that's exactly what Sen. McConnell is doing by not bringing the House bill that has the same Senate provisions in it up for a vote. This mere act plays right into Trump's hands and shows he can control the Senate.
I would like to address the two issues highlighted above.
First up, the part in bold. You had it right in your first post that this fight over funding for the border wall is really about power. The House and Senate would agree to any level of funding if this wasn't about feeding Trump's ego. Everyone knows the southern border is relatively safe. There is no threat of impending breach from an enemy known or unknown attempting to storm the country from the south. Unfortunately, the way the President has phrased the immigration issue along the southern border, people are wrongly believing the "national security" hoax when the issue isn't about "a national security under threat from a hostile force", but instead an issue of "cultural identity and economics". That's what Republicans have been saying for years even before Trump became President. Why did that change? Answer: Because Trump changed the narrative to his liking.
It's sad that Trump's supporters (and many others on the right) have begun to believe the hype. I'd agree with them if there was an exchange of gun fire between migrant forces armed with semi-auto rifles, armored vehicles, etc., and our security forces along the southern border (i.e., Border Patrol, National Guard, ICE, DEA, etc.), but that's not the case. A few irate migrants throwing stones does not constitute a breach in national security. It simply represents an irritating situation (that could escalate into a chaotic situation) along our southern border and nothing more.
Next, the underlined portions. A cost analysis on border security would be a good step, but what metrics would one use? Without incorporating immigration reform policy into the mix, how would one determine if any of the technical counter-measures would save money let alone prove effective? Your proposal is interesting, I just don't see how it gets done or proves anything. Trump has made it clear he doesn't care about any border security measures that don't include funding his border infrastructure project. So, anything the Democrat-controlled House puts forward would be rejected out of hand. The only way this ends is if people who are grossly impacted by this shutdown make their voices heard. The longer this goes on and the more the Dems are able to show they are trying to do what's right for those most effected by this closure (not to mention if the economy continues to show weakness), the worse it gets for Pres. Trump. And right now, he's not winning.
