The Senate returns from another vacation today to once again take up matters of national importance at the very last minute. The subject of this rare Sunday session…the Patriot Act…which is due to expire at midnight tonight.
Presidents Bush and Obama have stated that the authorities granted under the Patriot Act are critical to national security and the war on terror. Given that these two party leaders have reached an agreement on the matter you would think that there would be consent within congress and a quick renewal of the legislation. And you might expect that any difference of opinion on the matter would be between the Republican war hawks on the right and the kumbaya bunch on the left. You would be wrong on both counts. Once again the battle rages within the Republican Party.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the senior senator from Kentucky, wants to see the bill pass. In fact he has thrown all of his political weight behind the bill by promising that he would get the bill passed by the midnight deadline. Senator McConnell’s promise should not be taken lightly. He has a long history of pulling compromises on weighty measures from the flames of certain defeat.
McConnell’s major opposition on the floor today will come not from the left but from the junior Republican Senator from his home state of Kentucky; presidential hopeful Rand Paul. Paul has been outspoken in his isolationist leanings and his opposition to what he sees as a violation of our civil liberties under the Patriot Act. In recent days he orchestrated a 10+ hour filibuster against the renewal of the Patriot Act and publically blamed the war hawks in his party for the rise of ISIS and the mess in the Middle East: “The war hawks of my party have been wrong on foreign policy for the past twenty years.” In a direct challenge to McConnell’s leadership, Paul has promised to do everything within his power to stop the bill from renewing. Needless to say his comments have not been well received inside the Republican caucus.
When voters handed Republicans control of the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell confidently promised that the chamber would set aside the gridlock that had characterized the previous six years and return to the job of governing. Thus far his success has not matched his rhetoric. Today he will face another test. Once again his primary opposition will come from within his own party; this time from his compatriot from the Bluegrass State.
Stay tuned!
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
It's Not About Religion. It's Politics!
Sometime within the next 30 days the Supreme Court will hand down verdicts on two landmark cases.
The first will decide whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain the law of the land as written or whether 8 million Americans will be forced from the insurance rolls. The second will determine whether same sex marriages will become legal under federal law granting those couples the same rights and privileges as traditional married couples.
Evangelical Christians believe that there is currently a war being waged in this country against their religious freedoms. They see these two court cases as important battles to be waged in this war. They see a verdict in favor of the ACA and the legalization of same sex marriage as an infringement on their first amendment rights.
The ACA requires that business owners provide health care coverage for all full time employees that includes coverage for contraceptives. Evangelical Christians say that the requirement to provide coverage for contraceptives is in conflict with their religious beliefs and therefore an infringement on their constitutional rights to practice their religion.
As respects same sex marriage… evangelicals believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They say that forcing them to abide by a law that recognizes same sex marriage constitutes a suppression of their right to freely practice their religious beliefs.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a practicing member of the Catholic faith. As such I can say without reservation that no matter what the Court rules on these two issues it will have zero effect on my ability to exercise my religious beliefs. That is because this evangelical argument is about politics not religion. Their argument simply does not hold Holy Water.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the ACA, Christian business owners will not suddenly be required to use contraceptives. They won’t be permitted to impose their faith based boycott of contraceptives onto their employees either.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of legalizing same sex marriage, Christians will not suddenly be required to enter into same sex unions. They will simply have to come to grips with the fact that members of the LGBT community who are legal US citizens are entitled to the same marital rights and privileges as their traditionally married brethren.
Evangelicals are using their religion to gain a political advantage.
There’s nothing “Christian” about that.
The first will decide whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain the law of the land as written or whether 8 million Americans will be forced from the insurance rolls. The second will determine whether same sex marriages will become legal under federal law granting those couples the same rights and privileges as traditional married couples.
Evangelical Christians believe that there is currently a war being waged in this country against their religious freedoms. They see these two court cases as important battles to be waged in this war. They see a verdict in favor of the ACA and the legalization of same sex marriage as an infringement on their first amendment rights.
The ACA requires that business owners provide health care coverage for all full time employees that includes coverage for contraceptives. Evangelical Christians say that the requirement to provide coverage for contraceptives is in conflict with their religious beliefs and therefore an infringement on their constitutional rights to practice their religion.
As respects same sex marriage… evangelicals believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They say that forcing them to abide by a law that recognizes same sex marriage constitutes a suppression of their right to freely practice their religious beliefs.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a practicing member of the Catholic faith. As such I can say without reservation that no matter what the Court rules on these two issues it will have zero effect on my ability to exercise my religious beliefs. That is because this evangelical argument is about politics not religion. Their argument simply does not hold Holy Water.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the ACA, Christian business owners will not suddenly be required to use contraceptives. They won’t be permitted to impose their faith based boycott of contraceptives onto their employees either.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of legalizing same sex marriage, Christians will not suddenly be required to enter into same sex unions. They will simply have to come to grips with the fact that members of the LGBT community who are legal US citizens are entitled to the same marital rights and privileges as their traditionally married brethren.
Evangelicals are using their religion to gain a political advantage.
There’s nothing “Christian” about that.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Lesson Not Yet Learned
The recent fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to ISIS forces raises serious questions about the president’s strategy in the region. Questions that were actually answered years ago.
The American people have made it clear that they want no part of another ground war in the Middle East. The president, much to the consternation of his critics, has listened to the people that he has sworn to serve. He has employed a strategy against ISIS that calls for US military support from the air coupled with Iraqi forces on the ground. US warplanes soften the targets from the air while Iraqi forces take and control territory on the ground. It is a military strategy that has been used for as long as airplanes have been dropping bombs. It is a strategy that hinges on the Iraqi’s ability and willingness to engage and defeat their enemies.
Such was not the case in Ramadi.
By all accounts Iraqi forces outnumbered ISIS rebels by a 10-1 margin. Yet upon receiving the first word that the ISIS attack was imminent most Iraqi soldiers threw down their weapons and fled. ISIS fighters rolled into Ramadi and found little resistance. What they did find was a treasure trove of US supplied arms, tanks and supplies that had been abandoned by the fleeing Iraqi army.
The unwillingness of the Iraqi army to standup to its enemies should come as no surprise to American military strategists. In the lead up to both the first and second Iraq wars the Iraqi military was hailed as one of the best trained best armed armies in the world. Saddam’s vaunted Iraqi Revolutionary Guard manned the world’s fourth largest military. Yet in both conflicts the Iraqis fled when faced with the reality of facing America’s massive military might. Mass Iraqi surrenders were commonplace…often occurring before a shot was fired.
American taxpayers ponied up over $25 billion borrowed dollars to train and arm the Iraqi army only to see it turn tail once again at the first sight of conflict. If the Iraqi people are unwilling to fight for their own country then why should we?
Please spare me the neo-con talking points about all the reasons that we need to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria:
“We need to maintain access to the Iraqi oil.” No we don’t. Our oil and natural gas reserves are larger than that of any other country including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Europe is far more dependent on Iraq’s oil supply than we are. Why not let Europe figure out how to protect those interests.
“We need to make certain that the trade routes in the area remain open.” The US Navy can make certain that those trade routes remain open from the safety of international waters.
“If ISIS is allowed to prevail they will establish a caliphate in the region that will reign terror on American interests.” Before ISIS there was Al Qaeda. After ISIS another group will take its place. There is no military solution here. Unless of course we are willing to occupy the entire Middle East with American troops…forever.
“We need to plant the seed of democracy in the region. Once the locals see the benefits of a democratic way of governing they will come around.” Under the watchful eye of the American military democratic elections were held in both Iraq and Afghanistan; Malaki and Karzai named the respective victors. These two fine gentlemen rewarded our efforts by extorting tens of millions in CIA funneled bribes while they got cozy with Iran, Russia and the Taliban.
“We need to stem Iran’s influence in the region.” See above.
“We need to demonstrate American leadership.” Please!
The Middle East is complicated. Any reliance on the locals to set aside centuries of conflict to suddenly link arms with “American infidels” is both simplistic and foolhardy.
There is no military strategy in the Middle East. One would think that after all these years we would have learned that lesson.
The American people have made it clear that they want no part of another ground war in the Middle East. The president, much to the consternation of his critics, has listened to the people that he has sworn to serve. He has employed a strategy against ISIS that calls for US military support from the air coupled with Iraqi forces on the ground. US warplanes soften the targets from the air while Iraqi forces take and control territory on the ground. It is a military strategy that has been used for as long as airplanes have been dropping bombs. It is a strategy that hinges on the Iraqi’s ability and willingness to engage and defeat their enemies.
Such was not the case in Ramadi.
By all accounts Iraqi forces outnumbered ISIS rebels by a 10-1 margin. Yet upon receiving the first word that the ISIS attack was imminent most Iraqi soldiers threw down their weapons and fled. ISIS fighters rolled into Ramadi and found little resistance. What they did find was a treasure trove of US supplied arms, tanks and supplies that had been abandoned by the fleeing Iraqi army.
The unwillingness of the Iraqi army to standup to its enemies should come as no surprise to American military strategists. In the lead up to both the first and second Iraq wars the Iraqi military was hailed as one of the best trained best armed armies in the world. Saddam’s vaunted Iraqi Revolutionary Guard manned the world’s fourth largest military. Yet in both conflicts the Iraqis fled when faced with the reality of facing America’s massive military might. Mass Iraqi surrenders were commonplace…often occurring before a shot was fired.
American taxpayers ponied up over $25 billion borrowed dollars to train and arm the Iraqi army only to see it turn tail once again at the first sight of conflict. If the Iraqi people are unwilling to fight for their own country then why should we?
Please spare me the neo-con talking points about all the reasons that we need to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria:
“We need to maintain access to the Iraqi oil.” No we don’t. Our oil and natural gas reserves are larger than that of any other country including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Europe is far more dependent on Iraq’s oil supply than we are. Why not let Europe figure out how to protect those interests.
“We need to make certain that the trade routes in the area remain open.” The US Navy can make certain that those trade routes remain open from the safety of international waters.
“If ISIS is allowed to prevail they will establish a caliphate in the region that will reign terror on American interests.” Before ISIS there was Al Qaeda. After ISIS another group will take its place. There is no military solution here. Unless of course we are willing to occupy the entire Middle East with American troops…forever.
“We need to plant the seed of democracy in the region. Once the locals see the benefits of a democratic way of governing they will come around.” Under the watchful eye of the American military democratic elections were held in both Iraq and Afghanistan; Malaki and Karzai named the respective victors. These two fine gentlemen rewarded our efforts by extorting tens of millions in CIA funneled bribes while they got cozy with Iran, Russia and the Taliban.
“We need to stem Iran’s influence in the region.” See above.
“We need to demonstrate American leadership.” Please!
The Middle East is complicated. Any reliance on the locals to set aside centuries of conflict to suddenly link arms with “American infidels” is both simplistic and foolhardy.
There is no military strategy in the Middle East. One would think that after all these years we would have learned that lesson.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Case Closed!
Over the past few weeks we have been subjected to news coverage of a number of Republican presidential hopefuls stuttering and sputtering in an attempt to answer some version of this hypothetical question:
“Knowing what we know now…would you as president have gone into war with Iraq?”
To me the answer is quite evident. But then I’m not trying to curry favor with the right to win the Republican nomination.
According to the media it took Jeb Bush four times to get it “right.” First yes…then no…then maybe…then no. Current poll frontrunner Marco Rubio chose the path of deflection saying: “the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein.” Jeb is struggling to remain loyal to his brother. Marco is living on another planet.
The problem with this entire line of questioning is the premise of a hypothetical…because we did in fact know then what we know now. We knew that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and that Saddam did NOT possess a nuclear weapon. We know that the Bush administration was well aware of these facts at the time but chose to ignore them in order to make the case for war. We know this because the guy who delivered the intelligence to President George W. Bush told us so.
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Michael Morell served as Deputy Chief Director of the CIA. His job at that time was to personally provide the president with the most up-to-date intelligence information that the CIA had and to make certain that the president had a clear understanding of that intelligence. He served as the president’s personal briefer.
Appearing this week on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Mathews” to promote his new book; Morrell said that he advised the president that the CIA had no intelligence to connect Saddam with 9/11 nor was there intelligence to indicate that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon.
Mathews then played a news video of Vice President Dick Cheney saying that we had intelligence that Saddam did in fact have a nuclear weapon. Matthews asked Morell if Cheney’s statement was true.” Morell, obviously uncomfortable with the question deflected that his job was just to inform the president of the facts the CIA had gathered not to determine how it was used. Mathews asked again: “Was that a true statement? “No,” Morell said. “That’s not true.”
Mathews then quoted excerpts from Morell’s book where Morell writes that the CIA told the president that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda “but senior officials, most significantly the Vice President, continued to imply that there was a current connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This was inconsistent with the analysis but the implications continued, all to the detriment of the American people’s understanding of the truth.”
Morell also implicates the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby saying “Libby’s attempt to intimidate a top CIA official was the most blatant attempt to politicize intelligence that I saw in thirty-three years in the business, and it would not be the last attempt by Libby to do so.”
Over the past twelve years we have heard many voices weigh in on the legitimacy of the Iraq war. There are those on the right seeking to defend the Bush administration and those on the left eager to garner a political advantage from what we know now to be one of the worst foreign policy decisions in our history. For me these were all political hacks bearing a huge political agenda on their shoulders.
I have been reluctant to believe the narrative that the Bush administration took us to war on a lie because I found it hard to believe that any person or persons could be capable of sending men and women into harm’s way under false pretenses. In the foggy world of “intelligence” where things are rarely as they seem, the “war was based on faulty intelligence” theory seemed the most plausible.
But I find Mr. Morell’s account to be credible. He has no apparent axe to grind and as the guy in the room he certainly knew the details of what he was delivering to the president. And to those who would question his credibility given his newly published tell all; he could have made easily made a ton of money writing the same book from the other side of the fence. His job was not to advocate a position but to merely deliver the facts: facts which the Bush administrated distorted to make the case for war. One only need consider the lack of WMD’s or nuclear weapons found after the invasion to corroborate that the Bush/Cheney narrative was false. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and Wolfowitz took us to war on a lie. Can there be a more heinous breech of duty?
There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who would like nothing better than to bring harm to the United States. The intelligence community is charged with sifting through millions upon millions of pieces of data to ferret out those persons and organizations that wish us ill will. It would seem to be a nearly impossible job. A job made all that more difficult when the “evildoers” are roaming the halls of the White House.
“Knowing what we know now…would you as president have gone into war with Iraq?”
To me the answer is quite evident. But then I’m not trying to curry favor with the right to win the Republican nomination.
According to the media it took Jeb Bush four times to get it “right.” First yes…then no…then maybe…then no. Current poll frontrunner Marco Rubio chose the path of deflection saying: “the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein.” Jeb is struggling to remain loyal to his brother. Marco is living on another planet.
The problem with this entire line of questioning is the premise of a hypothetical…because we did in fact know then what we know now. We knew that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and that Saddam did NOT possess a nuclear weapon. We know that the Bush administration was well aware of these facts at the time but chose to ignore them in order to make the case for war. We know this because the guy who delivered the intelligence to President George W. Bush told us so.
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Michael Morell served as Deputy Chief Director of the CIA. His job at that time was to personally provide the president with the most up-to-date intelligence information that the CIA had and to make certain that the president had a clear understanding of that intelligence. He served as the president’s personal briefer.
Appearing this week on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Mathews” to promote his new book; Morrell said that he advised the president that the CIA had no intelligence to connect Saddam with 9/11 nor was there intelligence to indicate that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon.
Mathews then played a news video of Vice President Dick Cheney saying that we had intelligence that Saddam did in fact have a nuclear weapon. Matthews asked Morell if Cheney’s statement was true.” Morell, obviously uncomfortable with the question deflected that his job was just to inform the president of the facts the CIA had gathered not to determine how it was used. Mathews asked again: “Was that a true statement? “No,” Morell said. “That’s not true.”
Mathews then quoted excerpts from Morell’s book where Morell writes that the CIA told the president that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda “but senior officials, most significantly the Vice President, continued to imply that there was a current connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This was inconsistent with the analysis but the implications continued, all to the detriment of the American people’s understanding of the truth.”
Morell also implicates the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Scooter Libby saying “Libby’s attempt to intimidate a top CIA official was the most blatant attempt to politicize intelligence that I saw in thirty-three years in the business, and it would not be the last attempt by Libby to do so.”
Over the past twelve years we have heard many voices weigh in on the legitimacy of the Iraq war. There are those on the right seeking to defend the Bush administration and those on the left eager to garner a political advantage from what we know now to be one of the worst foreign policy decisions in our history. For me these were all political hacks bearing a huge political agenda on their shoulders.
I have been reluctant to believe the narrative that the Bush administration took us to war on a lie because I found it hard to believe that any person or persons could be capable of sending men and women into harm’s way under false pretenses. In the foggy world of “intelligence” where things are rarely as they seem, the “war was based on faulty intelligence” theory seemed the most plausible.
But I find Mr. Morell’s account to be credible. He has no apparent axe to grind and as the guy in the room he certainly knew the details of what he was delivering to the president. And to those who would question his credibility given his newly published tell all; he could have made easily made a ton of money writing the same book from the other side of the fence. His job was not to advocate a position but to merely deliver the facts: facts which the Bush administrated distorted to make the case for war. One only need consider the lack of WMD’s or nuclear weapons found after the invasion to corroborate that the Bush/Cheney narrative was false. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet and Wolfowitz took us to war on a lie. Can there be a more heinous breech of duty?
There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who would like nothing better than to bring harm to the United States. The intelligence community is charged with sifting through millions upon millions of pieces of data to ferret out those persons and organizations that wish us ill will. It would seem to be a nearly impossible job. A job made all that more difficult when the “evildoers” are roaming the halls of the White House.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
"Your tax dollars at work"
“Your tax dollars at work!”
You undoubtedly recognize this phrase. It is sometimes used as means of informing a person or persons that the government is paying for a particular project. More often than not it is used in sarcasm to express one’s frustration over the failings of our federal government.
Regardless, it begs the question…are the tax dollars we send the Washington being used in a manner that is in the best interests of the American people? A recent breakfast conversation motivated me to find out the answer to that question.
There is an old axiom that says: “you can always determine the priorities of a government by how it spends the people’s money.” If that is in fact true…and if we are to believe what the polls say are the people’s primary needs and concerns…then there are some serious changes that need to be made.
In 2014 the American people sent $3.1 trillion dollars in tax revenue to the federal government. According to the National Priorities Project each hard earned dollar that we sent to our fearless leaders was apportioned in the following manner:
Military: 27 cents
Medicare & Health: 26.5 cents
Interest on the Debt: 15.3 cents
Social Security, Unemployment & Labor: 8.4 cents
Veteran’s Benefits: 5.8 cents
Food & Agriculture: 5 cents
Government: 3.4 cents
Education: 2.5 cents
Transportation: 1.9 cents
Energy & Environment: 1.6 cents
International Affairs: 1.5 cents
Science: 1.1 cents
Housing & Community: .1 cent
If you check the math you will find that a 83 cents of every federal tax dollar goes toward funding the top five on the list: Military, Medicare/Health, Interest on Debt, Social Security/Unemployment and Veterans Benefits. What little funds that remain are spread out among the rest.
Unfortunately our federal tax dollars are insufficient to meet the country’s needs. To make up the shortfall we borrow. In 2014 the government borrowed 14 cents of every dollar spent…$492 billion in total. As of January 2015 the national debt stood at a just over $18 trillion dollars. Economists estimate that within the next ten years the federal taxes we send to the government will only be enough to fund the military, “entitlements” and interest on the debt. Everything else will have to be paid for with borrowed funds.
So we go back to the original question…given the amount of debt we continue to incur…are we spending our money wisely.
For example…we spend a significant share of our tax dollars on the military. 27 cents of every dollar plus an additional 5.8 cents on veteran’s benefits. The Iraq war…the most costly political error in our history…cost 4,500 American lives and $1.7 trillion in treasure. Estimates are that the benefits paid to Iraq war veterans over the next 40 years…and the interest expense to borrow the money necessary to pay those benefits…will cost an additional $6 trillion dollars. That’s $7.7 trillion for an ongoing mistake.
And make no mistake the Iraq war is not over.
The latest military strategy in Iraq calls for American fighter planes to conduct airstrikes against ISIS targets. Meanwhile the Iraqi Army…which the US taxpayers spent $20.2 billion to train and arm…is supposed to do the heavy lifting on the ground. The Obama administration continues to spend millions of borrowed funds on ineffective bombing raids against ISIS targets. I say ineffective because two days ago ISIS fighters retook the city of Ramadi…a city that hundreds of Americans lost their lives to secure. ISIS was able to retake Ramadi because the Iraqi Army threw down their weapons and ran.
Last Friday congress passed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act which appropriated $89.2 billion for the military to conduct wars on our behalf. The largest air force in the world is currently manned by the United States Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is manned by the United States Navy. The US maintains 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has 2. The US military has the capability of blowing up our enemies 10 times over. Yet we spend more. So much so that we spend more on our military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany COMBINED. 27 cents of every tax dollar. And then we wonder why our children are lagging behind other industrialized countries in education (2.5 cents) and our roads, bridges, trains and airports are outdated and in disrepair (1.9 cents). We lead the world at nothing except the ability to blow things up.
I fully realize that there is more to fixing things like education, roads and bridges than simply throwing more money at them. It’s all about setting priorities, goals and a plan for the future while providing the necessary funds to succeed. We talk about leading the world but the only thing of consequence that we lead in is our ability to blow things up.
The numbers don’t lie. The priorities are clear.
"Your tax dollars at work."
Is this the road that we want to continue to follow?
You undoubtedly recognize this phrase. It is sometimes used as means of informing a person or persons that the government is paying for a particular project. More often than not it is used in sarcasm to express one’s frustration over the failings of our federal government.
Regardless, it begs the question…are the tax dollars we send the Washington being used in a manner that is in the best interests of the American people? A recent breakfast conversation motivated me to find out the answer to that question.
There is an old axiom that says: “you can always determine the priorities of a government by how it spends the people’s money.” If that is in fact true…and if we are to believe what the polls say are the people’s primary needs and concerns…then there are some serious changes that need to be made.
In 2014 the American people sent $3.1 trillion dollars in tax revenue to the federal government. According to the National Priorities Project each hard earned dollar that we sent to our fearless leaders was apportioned in the following manner:
Military: 27 cents
Medicare & Health: 26.5 cents
Interest on the Debt: 15.3 cents
Social Security, Unemployment & Labor: 8.4 cents
Veteran’s Benefits: 5.8 cents
Food & Agriculture: 5 cents
Government: 3.4 cents
Education: 2.5 cents
Transportation: 1.9 cents
Energy & Environment: 1.6 cents
International Affairs: 1.5 cents
Science: 1.1 cents
Housing & Community: .1 cent
If you check the math you will find that a 83 cents of every federal tax dollar goes toward funding the top five on the list: Military, Medicare/Health, Interest on Debt, Social Security/Unemployment and Veterans Benefits. What little funds that remain are spread out among the rest.
Unfortunately our federal tax dollars are insufficient to meet the country’s needs. To make up the shortfall we borrow. In 2014 the government borrowed 14 cents of every dollar spent…$492 billion in total. As of January 2015 the national debt stood at a just over $18 trillion dollars. Economists estimate that within the next ten years the federal taxes we send to the government will only be enough to fund the military, “entitlements” and interest on the debt. Everything else will have to be paid for with borrowed funds.
So we go back to the original question…given the amount of debt we continue to incur…are we spending our money wisely.
For example…we spend a significant share of our tax dollars on the military. 27 cents of every dollar plus an additional 5.8 cents on veteran’s benefits. The Iraq war…the most costly political error in our history…cost 4,500 American lives and $1.7 trillion in treasure. Estimates are that the benefits paid to Iraq war veterans over the next 40 years…and the interest expense to borrow the money necessary to pay those benefits…will cost an additional $6 trillion dollars. That’s $7.7 trillion for an ongoing mistake.
And make no mistake the Iraq war is not over.
The latest military strategy in Iraq calls for American fighter planes to conduct airstrikes against ISIS targets. Meanwhile the Iraqi Army…which the US taxpayers spent $20.2 billion to train and arm…is supposed to do the heavy lifting on the ground. The Obama administration continues to spend millions of borrowed funds on ineffective bombing raids against ISIS targets. I say ineffective because two days ago ISIS fighters retook the city of Ramadi…a city that hundreds of Americans lost their lives to secure. ISIS was able to retake Ramadi because the Iraqi Army threw down their weapons and ran.
Last Friday congress passed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act which appropriated $89.2 billion for the military to conduct wars on our behalf. The largest air force in the world is currently manned by the United States Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is manned by the United States Navy. The US maintains 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. The rest of the world has 2. The US military has the capability of blowing up our enemies 10 times over. Yet we spend more. So much so that we spend more on our military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany COMBINED. 27 cents of every tax dollar. And then we wonder why our children are lagging behind other industrialized countries in education (2.5 cents) and our roads, bridges, trains and airports are outdated and in disrepair (1.9 cents). We lead the world at nothing except the ability to blow things up.
I fully realize that there is more to fixing things like education, roads and bridges than simply throwing more money at them. It’s all about setting priorities, goals and a plan for the future while providing the necessary funds to succeed. We talk about leading the world but the only thing of consequence that we lead in is our ability to blow things up.
The numbers don’t lie. The priorities are clear.
"Your tax dollars at work."
Is this the road that we want to continue to follow?
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Fools on the "Hill"
The United States is at war in the Middle East!
I realize that this is not breaking news to those of you who follow this space regularly; and I don’t mean to insult your intelligence. I ask that you bear with me while I take a moment to bring certain factions of our society up to speed.
For those newcomers who may have stumbled into this space while taking a break from posting pictures of themselves and their pets on Facebook…and the members of the United States Congress...this just in.
America is at war!
Nine months ago President Obama began authorizing air strikes against a terrorist group known as ISIS…the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. You may have seen some of their handiwork posted on Facebook. Those videos of the guys in orange jumpsuits being beheaded by a big dude wielding an oversized steak knife…that’s ISIS.
As I said the president has been bombing ISIS strongholds for the last nine months. 3,700 airstrikes to be exact; at a staggering cost of over $2 billion borrowed US dollars. Serious stuff!
When the president began these attacks many members of congress rose up in arms screaming that he didn’t have the authority to engage in military action without first receiving authorization from congress. “According to the Constitution only congress has the authority to declare war” they said.
The president argued that he didn’t need authorization because congress had already granted him the authority under Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) legislation passed in 2001.
But after listening to months of bitching on the Hill, the president acquiesced and sent congress a request for a new AUMF against ISIS. The president put on a happy face and said that he was pleased to have congress officially weigh in though he didn’t feel the vote was necessary. Sometimes you gotta’ do what you gotta’ do to keep piece in the family.
So after months of bitching and complaining you would expect that congress would flex its military gravitas, meet its constitutional obligations and pass a new AUMF. Instead they did nothing.
Until Friday.
On Friday the Republican controlled House passed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act which provides funding for the military. Included in the bill are $89.2 billion borrowed dollars for war funding. The bill also includes over 100 amendments dealing with matters ranging from border security , Merchant Marine retirement benefits, drones and the purchasing requirements for anchors and mooring chains. Noticeably absent from the bill…Authorization for Use of Military Force against ISIS.
When questioned as to why the AUMF was not included in the war funding bill the response from the Republicans was that “the defense bill was not the place to debate the war.”
???
The truth here is that congress wants no part of taking a “war” vote. They will sabre rattle, call the president’s foreign policy feckless and criticize him for “Leading from behind.” But when it comes to actually going on the record to send Americans into harm’s way…the silence is deafening. Political careers have been cut short just for being on the wrong side of a war vote.
So what we have here is the Republican led congress agreeing to fund to fund a war that they have not agreed to authorize.
Only in congress…
When Republicans won control of congress they promised the American people that they would set aside the obstructionist tactics that had ground our government to a halt. They promised to get back to doing the people’s business. They promised to govern. As far as authorizing the ongoing war against ISIS…not so much.
But they did pass another anti-abortion bill.
I realize that this is not breaking news to those of you who follow this space regularly; and I don’t mean to insult your intelligence. I ask that you bear with me while I take a moment to bring certain factions of our society up to speed.
For those newcomers who may have stumbled into this space while taking a break from posting pictures of themselves and their pets on Facebook…and the members of the United States Congress...this just in.
America is at war!
Nine months ago President Obama began authorizing air strikes against a terrorist group known as ISIS…the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. You may have seen some of their handiwork posted on Facebook. Those videos of the guys in orange jumpsuits being beheaded by a big dude wielding an oversized steak knife…that’s ISIS.
As I said the president has been bombing ISIS strongholds for the last nine months. 3,700 airstrikes to be exact; at a staggering cost of over $2 billion borrowed US dollars. Serious stuff!
When the president began these attacks many members of congress rose up in arms screaming that he didn’t have the authority to engage in military action without first receiving authorization from congress. “According to the Constitution only congress has the authority to declare war” they said.
The president argued that he didn’t need authorization because congress had already granted him the authority under Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) legislation passed in 2001.
But after listening to months of bitching on the Hill, the president acquiesced and sent congress a request for a new AUMF against ISIS. The president put on a happy face and said that he was pleased to have congress officially weigh in though he didn’t feel the vote was necessary. Sometimes you gotta’ do what you gotta’ do to keep piece in the family.
So after months of bitching and complaining you would expect that congress would flex its military gravitas, meet its constitutional obligations and pass a new AUMF. Instead they did nothing.
Until Friday.
On Friday the Republican controlled House passed the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act which provides funding for the military. Included in the bill are $89.2 billion borrowed dollars for war funding. The bill also includes over 100 amendments dealing with matters ranging from border security , Merchant Marine retirement benefits, drones and the purchasing requirements for anchors and mooring chains. Noticeably absent from the bill…Authorization for Use of Military Force against ISIS.
When questioned as to why the AUMF was not included in the war funding bill the response from the Republicans was that “the defense bill was not the place to debate the war.”
???
The truth here is that congress wants no part of taking a “war” vote. They will sabre rattle, call the president’s foreign policy feckless and criticize him for “Leading from behind.” But when it comes to actually going on the record to send Americans into harm’s way…the silence is deafening. Political careers have been cut short just for being on the wrong side of a war vote.
So what we have here is the Republican led congress agreeing to fund to fund a war that they have not agreed to authorize.
Only in congress…
When Republicans won control of congress they promised the American people that they would set aside the obstructionist tactics that had ground our government to a halt. They promised to get back to doing the people’s business. They promised to govern. As far as authorizing the ongoing war against ISIS…not so much.
But they did pass another anti-abortion bill.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Yes Mr. Speaker, It Is All About The Funding
As one might expect the tragic derailment of Amtrak Train # 188 has resulted in partisan finger pointing as the political blame game begins anew.
Speaker Boehner bristled when a reporter asked if Republican efforts to cut Amtrak funding were responsible for the crash.
“Are you really going to ask such a stupid question? Listen, they (Democrats) started this yesterday. It’s all about funding. It’s all about funding. Obviously, it’s not about funding…The train was going twice the speed limit…twice the speed limit at the curve, That’s the only relevant issue. The train was going twice the speed limit. Adequate funds were there. No money was cut from rail safety and the House passed a bill earlier this spring to re-authorize Amtrak and authorize many a lot of these programs…It’s hard for me to understand that people take the bait on some of the nonsense that gets spewed around here.”
Methinks he doth protest too much.
The truth of the matter is that Republicans have a history of cutting domestic programs; including Amtrak. They favor cutting programs, as opposed to raising taxes, as the preferred method for reducing deficits and long term debt. Not 12 hours after the Amtrak #188 crash the Republican controlled House Appropriations Committee voted to cut Amtrak funding by $250 plus million dollars; a 15% cut from last year’s funding. In the end the committee approved $1.4 billion in funding; 1 billion less than the White House recommended.
Boehner is correct in that the crash occurred because Amtrak #188 went into a 50 mph curve at 106 mph. But the PTC safety system that the NTSB said would have stopped the train and avoided the accident, while installed was not yet fully operational due to piecemeal funding.
Democrats are not blameless here. When they held power in congress they chose to spend their political capitol on other issues…such as Obamacare.
Take a look at the voting record in congress for Amtrak funding and how it dovetails not just by party but by the electorate’s dependence on mass transit. Northeast corridor…mostly blue states…high population…high concentration of mass transit assets…high approval rate for Amtrak funding. Western states…mostly red states…low population…little in the way of mass transit assets…low approval rate for Amtrak funding. It’s not rocket science.
Speaker Boehner’s comments and for that matter the entire Amtrak debate misses the bigger issue. Amtrak and its funding are but a piece of a much larger puzzle.
We continue to ignore the fact that our entire infrastructure is in decay and out of date. Every economist that I can find says that investment in infrastructure is a critical component to achieving sustainable, robust economic growth, full employment and long term prosperity. And with today’s low interest rates…they say that there is no better time to borrow and make that investment. But we’d rather used borrowed money to blow stuff up.
Speaker Boehner says it’s not about the funding. Yes it is. China spends 9% of its GDP on infrastructure. India spends 7%. We spend 2%.
If we want to compete on the global stage…if we want to be considered a world power…then we have to be willing to invest in our infrastructure.
Yes Mr. Speaker, it is all about the funding.
Speaker Boehner bristled when a reporter asked if Republican efforts to cut Amtrak funding were responsible for the crash.
“Are you really going to ask such a stupid question? Listen, they (Democrats) started this yesterday. It’s all about funding. It’s all about funding. Obviously, it’s not about funding…The train was going twice the speed limit…twice the speed limit at the curve, That’s the only relevant issue. The train was going twice the speed limit. Adequate funds were there. No money was cut from rail safety and the House passed a bill earlier this spring to re-authorize Amtrak and authorize many a lot of these programs…It’s hard for me to understand that people take the bait on some of the nonsense that gets spewed around here.”
Methinks he doth protest too much.
The truth of the matter is that Republicans have a history of cutting domestic programs; including Amtrak. They favor cutting programs, as opposed to raising taxes, as the preferred method for reducing deficits and long term debt. Not 12 hours after the Amtrak #188 crash the Republican controlled House Appropriations Committee voted to cut Amtrak funding by $250 plus million dollars; a 15% cut from last year’s funding. In the end the committee approved $1.4 billion in funding; 1 billion less than the White House recommended.
Boehner is correct in that the crash occurred because Amtrak #188 went into a 50 mph curve at 106 mph. But the PTC safety system that the NTSB said would have stopped the train and avoided the accident, while installed was not yet fully operational due to piecemeal funding.
Democrats are not blameless here. When they held power in congress they chose to spend their political capitol on other issues…such as Obamacare.
Take a look at the voting record in congress for Amtrak funding and how it dovetails not just by party but by the electorate’s dependence on mass transit. Northeast corridor…mostly blue states…high population…high concentration of mass transit assets…high approval rate for Amtrak funding. Western states…mostly red states…low population…little in the way of mass transit assets…low approval rate for Amtrak funding. It’s not rocket science.
Speaker Boehner’s comments and for that matter the entire Amtrak debate misses the bigger issue. Amtrak and its funding are but a piece of a much larger puzzle.
We continue to ignore the fact that our entire infrastructure is in decay and out of date. Every economist that I can find says that investment in infrastructure is a critical component to achieving sustainable, robust economic growth, full employment and long term prosperity. And with today’s low interest rates…they say that there is no better time to borrow and make that investment. But we’d rather used borrowed money to blow stuff up.
Speaker Boehner says it’s not about the funding. Yes it is. China spends 9% of its GDP on infrastructure. India spends 7%. We spend 2%.
If we want to compete on the global stage…if we want to be considered a world power…then we have to be willing to invest in our infrastructure.
Yes Mr. Speaker, it is all about the funding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)