Before and after last November's elections, attention has been given to the question: Will the Tea Party (TP) be a force that drives GOP policy making in Congress, or will the establishment GOP absorb the newcomers? While TP candidates were elected to both the House and Senate, the primary search for the answer has focused on the House which was taken over by the Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner. (See post "The Tea Party vs. The GOP: And The Winner Is . . . ")
In seeking to answer the question, much of the analysis has focused on the House passage before going on recess of a budget that would cut $61 billion from the current fiscal year which ends September 30. Based on this outcome, it could be said that Boehner's establishment GOP lost that intra-party fight since it initially proposed a cut of only $40 billion. After protests by TP members and other spending hawks, the establishment GOP, in this case meaning the GOP leadership and the chairman and top Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, were forced to go back to the drawing board and come up with an additional $21 billion in cuts. (See post, "Egypt and Boehner's Budget: Works in Progress".)
One problem with calling the TP the clear winner of this intra-party tug of war is that the outcome was really driven by the anti-spending pressures of the 87 new GOP House members, which included those identified with the TP, but also new members not linked to the TP but who shared the view that major cuts in federal spending are imperative, now. Then, of course, there are the approximately 150 GOP returnees who also backed the $61 billion cut. So just on these numbers, the TP showed itself a force to be reckoned with but the bulk of the needed votes came from non-TP House members.
But what does matter is that the TP, even before the elections, had staked out a position on spending cuts and big government and forced Republicans as a whole to move further to the right ideologically on this and other issues, including opposition to President Obama's health care reform which Republicans see as cutting across both the spending and big government issues. In forcing that ideological shift, the TP changed the national dialogue and that change was certified by the current and continuing war with the Democrats over federal spending, deficits, and debt. In political science terms, this would be called issue displacement. That is, having successfully beaten the Democrats over the head during the election about the state of the national economy and the failure of Obama and congressional Democrats to produce new jobs, now it's time to change the subject to deficit spending and debt.
Here is where a recent column by Washington Post writer E.J. Dionne, Jr., keys in on the essential point about the winner between the TP and the GOP establishment, and between the Republicans and Democrats. As Dionne put it, "No matter how much liberals may poke fun at them, tea party partisans can claim a victory in fundamentally altering the country's dialogue."
What this means is that the GOP doesn't have to raise hell about "Where are the jobs you promised?" and it doesn't even have to come forth with its own job-creation program. The issues of getting federal spending and the national debt under control have come to so completely dominate the national agenda to this point that it is a hard sell for the Democrats to even make the point that the GOP spending cuts will actually mean the loss of many jobs. That's the devastating political effect of issue displacement. Within that context, this posting declares the TP the winner against Boehner's establishment GOP -- so far, maybe.
Having changed the subject, the next test for the TP may come this week. That involves the March 4 deadline for continuing federal spending or shutting down the government. Over the past week the issue has focused on House-Senate efforts to work out a two-week, $4 billion cut in federal spending, to be followed by still another effort to provide funding/cuts for the remainder of the fiscal year. For the TP any deal-making talk may be less a matter of how many dollars in spending cuts may be in the compromise, but rather the word "compromise" itself which means the TP would fall short of what it demanded.
As stated in another previous post, the TP has taken on the character of a "puritanical movement". It is a movement that wants to define in its own terms what is meant by giving the country "back to the people, return to the Constitution, and restore old values. . . ." With fellow Republicans in mind, the TP means you either accept what we say this undefined rhetoric means and vote accordingly, or else we will fight you in the next election. And the warning is retroactive. Thus, in the 2012 elections, the TP is already out for the scalps of Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah), Richard Lugar (Indiana), and Olympia Snowe (Maine) for their past votes and willingness to go along with Democrats.
What this means is that Boehner has his work cut out for him to get the TP and fellow traveling spending hawks to support a very short term compromise spending plan to void shutting down the government. Given the way Congress uses "smoke and mirrors" to obscure spending issues and decisions, one can be moderately optimistic that some way will be found to pretend that $1 in actual cuts can be made to appear like $2 to satisfy the TP/hawks while at the same time allowing the establishment GOP to avoid any possible negative political effects of a government shutdown.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
THE EUROPEAN UNION STEPS INTO ALICE'S WONDERLAND
It has been several months since I've had a posting focused on the Israeli-Palestinian so-called peace process. The title of that posting indicates this blogger's view of that process, "The Peace Process That Isn't, and maybe never was." There probably wouldn't have been another posting on that moribund issue if there hadn't been a story online two days ago that the European Union (EU) has prodded the Israelis to resume the peace talks on the grounds that the current instability/uprising in the Arab world makes restarting the talks even more important. The Israeli response was that the revolutions and uprisings are unrelated to the Palestinian problem. But given the EU's resurrection of the issue, I put aside what I was writing on the Tea Party and the budget to peer again into the Israeli-Palestinian great divide.
The EU and its representative who went to Israel must see something that is not visible to the rest of us. And it seems a bit of European chutzpah to even be the bearer of such a message. Just last week four EU members (Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal) of the U.N. Security Council voted for a resolution denouncing Israel's continued construction of settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The U.S. cast the only veto.
The settlement issue has been the sticking point for resuming the negotiations, the Israelis continuing to approve new settlement construction while the Palestinians have stated repeatedly they will not resume direct peace talks unless the settlements are stopped. Settlements, of course, are only the threshold issue. Farther down the road are the substantive issues of marking the borders for an independent Palestinian state, Israel's security concerns, resettlement of refugees driven out of the occupied territories by the l967 war, and the Palestinian demand that East Jerusalem be the capital of a new Palestine.
If the settlement issue isn't enough to block further talks, look at some of the other events that have occurred since last fall when the latest round of talks collapsed, events which the EU seems to overlook but which directly affect any possible resumption of negotiations. Here's a rough timeline for those events.
In late January Al Jazeera, the pro-Arab international news network, leaked to British media that over about a decade of secret Israeli-Palestinian talks, the Palestinian negotiators made several major concessions to Israel, including agreement to let Israel annex many settlements in dispute, settle for the return of just 100,000 of the estimated 5 million refugees, and concede more areas of old Jerusalem to the Israelis. On top of that, the so-called "Palestine Papers" alleged that Israel had informed the leaders of the Palestinian Authority that it was going to send the army into Hamas-controlled Gaza in 2008 and also told of Israeli plans to assassinate Hamas leaders. The allegations were denied by the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas. Regardless of the authenticity of the leaks, the stories inflamed Hamas which controls Gaza and which has long opposed any peace settlement with Israel. Before trying to launch another round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the first need is to repair the split between leaders of the West Bank and Gaza.
The "Palestine Papers" were reported at about the same time that Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, a far right extremist and defender of expanded settlements, was reported to be working on a provisional plan concerning creation of an independent Palestine. His plan, never officially endorsed as yet, would give independence to about 40-50 percent of the disputed territory with the remainder to be negotiated at some indeterminate future date. The Palestinian Authority rejected such a plan outright because they see Lieberman as the enemy and also see such a provisional arrangement becoming permanent.
Then about two weeks ago the Palestinian Authority's entire cabinet resigned except for Prime Minister Fayyad who was to form a new government. This came at the same time that new Palestinian parliamentary elections were announced for September. The elections would be the first to be held since Hamas narrowly won the 2006 election and eventually gained control of the Gaza strip, leaving Abbas controlling only the West Bank.`The sudden announcement of elections may indicate that the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere were prompting Abbas to clean up his own legitimacy, as well as that of the parliament. Abbas' term of office ran out in 2009 but he has managed to hold on to his position. And, in the same week, Saeb Erakat, the long time chief negotiator for the Palestinians, resigned his position when it was concluded that the leaked Al Jazeera material came from his office.
What we have then is considerable disarray within the Palestinian Authority which, on top of the already deeply embedded mistrust between it and Israel, would certainly further weaken the Palestinian negotiating strength vis a vis Israel. So except for any rhetorical or good-feeling value it may have for the EU, the Europeans urging a restart of the collapsed talks seems out of touch with reality.
The EU and its representative who went to Israel must see something that is not visible to the rest of us. And it seems a bit of European chutzpah to even be the bearer of such a message. Just last week four EU members (Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal) of the U.N. Security Council voted for a resolution denouncing Israel's continued construction of settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The U.S. cast the only veto.
The settlement issue has been the sticking point for resuming the negotiations, the Israelis continuing to approve new settlement construction while the Palestinians have stated repeatedly they will not resume direct peace talks unless the settlements are stopped. Settlements, of course, are only the threshold issue. Farther down the road are the substantive issues of marking the borders for an independent Palestinian state, Israel's security concerns, resettlement of refugees driven out of the occupied territories by the l967 war, and the Palestinian demand that East Jerusalem be the capital of a new Palestine.
If the settlement issue isn't enough to block further talks, look at some of the other events that have occurred since last fall when the latest round of talks collapsed, events which the EU seems to overlook but which directly affect any possible resumption of negotiations. Here's a rough timeline for those events.
In late January Al Jazeera, the pro-Arab international news network, leaked to British media that over about a decade of secret Israeli-Palestinian talks, the Palestinian negotiators made several major concessions to Israel, including agreement to let Israel annex many settlements in dispute, settle for the return of just 100,000 of the estimated 5 million refugees, and concede more areas of old Jerusalem to the Israelis. On top of that, the so-called "Palestine Papers" alleged that Israel had informed the leaders of the Palestinian Authority that it was going to send the army into Hamas-controlled Gaza in 2008 and also told of Israeli plans to assassinate Hamas leaders. The allegations were denied by the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas. Regardless of the authenticity of the leaks, the stories inflamed Hamas which controls Gaza and which has long opposed any peace settlement with Israel. Before trying to launch another round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the first need is to repair the split between leaders of the West Bank and Gaza.
The "Palestine Papers" were reported at about the same time that Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, a far right extremist and defender of expanded settlements, was reported to be working on a provisional plan concerning creation of an independent Palestine. His plan, never officially endorsed as yet, would give independence to about 40-50 percent of the disputed territory with the remainder to be negotiated at some indeterminate future date. The Palestinian Authority rejected such a plan outright because they see Lieberman as the enemy and also see such a provisional arrangement becoming permanent.
Then about two weeks ago the Palestinian Authority's entire cabinet resigned except for Prime Minister Fayyad who was to form a new government. This came at the same time that new Palestinian parliamentary elections were announced for September. The elections would be the first to be held since Hamas narrowly won the 2006 election and eventually gained control of the Gaza strip, leaving Abbas controlling only the West Bank.`The sudden announcement of elections may indicate that the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere were prompting Abbas to clean up his own legitimacy, as well as that of the parliament. Abbas' term of office ran out in 2009 but he has managed to hold on to his position. And, in the same week, Saeb Erakat, the long time chief negotiator for the Palestinians, resigned his position when it was concluded that the leaked Al Jazeera material came from his office.
What we have then is considerable disarray within the Palestinian Authority which, on top of the already deeply embedded mistrust between it and Israel, would certainly further weaken the Palestinian negotiating strength vis a vis Israel. So except for any rhetorical or good-feeling value it may have for the EU, the Europeans urging a restart of the collapsed talks seems out of touch with reality.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
TURBULENCE ABROAD AND AT HOME
If you want to talk about turbulence and political disarray, it's difficult to know where to begin. In the Arab world and Iran we are witnessing revolution and/or violent street protests demanding political and economic reform. But we also have our own brand of political disarray in the form of trench warfare in Washington over cutting federal spending and, at the state level, efforts in some Republican controlled states to get even with strong public employee unions that have been traditionally strong backers of the Democratic party. First, disarray abroad.
The first thing to be said is that the outbreaks in the various countries of the Middle East and north Africa are not part of a pan-Islamic movement intent on installing fundamentalist Islamic law in countries now governed by secular leaders, many with pro-western attachments. From all reports, the revolutions/uprisings are home-grown efforts to deal with home-grown grievances against ruling regimes. In Libya the issue is somewhat akin to that of Egypt, corrupt, repressive regimes too long in power, and where there is a huge gap between a rich elite and a massive underclass of poor and near poor.
In Bahrain the same general problem exists with the added grievance of the exploitation of an impoverished Shia majority (70 percent) by a wealthy Sunni minority (30 percent) led by the king and his appointed prime minister who is also his uncle. The brutality of the royal response to the protesters is heightened by the fact that over the years the army and security forces have been manned by co-religionist Sunnis recruited from abroad, from countries such as Pakistan, Jordan, and Yemen. By contrast, the Egyptian army which eventually sided with the pro-democracy demonstrators is made up of conscripts.
If the various countries of the region are experiencing domestic upheaval, the uprisings, particularly in Bahrain, have created the same problem for President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton as occurred with the Egyptian revolution. Both Egypt and Bahrain play key roles in our policies in the Arab/Muslim world so any uprising forces the U.S. to walk a tight rope in choosing sides between the rulers whom we have supported for decades and the ruled. In Egypt, as indicated in a previous posting, we waffled on the issue. In Iran, it was easier when the anti-government protesters took to the streets last week; we came out strongly in their favor.
In Bahrain where our 5th fleet is headquartered our public pronouncements made a nod of sympathy toward the protesters, but we are avoiding giving any overt encouragement to them, unlike the support we gave to the pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt. In Bahrain the U.S. emphasis is on urging the government to constrain the severity of its responses to the demonstrators. If constraint is needed anywhere, it is certainly in Libya where the government crackdown on protesters has been especially violent. If all of these problems aren't enough for U.S. policy in the Arab/Muslim world, we added to those woes last week by casting the only veto of a U.N. resolution aimed at halting the spread of Israeli settlements in occupied territory of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Now to the disarray at home.
First, it should be stated that Congress has again gone home. For President's Day they take a week off. Someone once said something like this, "Congress has adjourned, the Republic is "safe." After watching the House of Boehner finally go through a hard week of work of budget cutting, maybe there is some truth in the old saying. But the real issue is now upon us.
The historic budget cuts made by the House are now kicked over to the Senate which has also gone home. When it returns it has just five days to do something before March 4 when the continuing resolution (CR) under which the federal government has been funded runs out (see previous post). There are indications that House-Senate compromise talks may be going on during the recess. It seems right now that there are two possible outcomes -- pass another CR or let the government shut down on March 5. The Democratic-controlled Senate has made it clear it will not accept the House-passed cuts so if the government shuts down it's the fault of the Republicans, who now seem to be controlled by the Tea Party and spending hawks. Boehner, on the other hand, said he will not accept another short term CR which does not include a major cut in spending for the rest of this fiscal year which ends September 30. So it's eyeball to eyeball and we have to wait to see if anyone blinks. Meanwhile, there are also significant outbreaks of discontent at the state and local levels where they're also running out of money.
At the state and local levels the customary approach to big budget shortfalls is to go where the big money is. For these governments the big bucks are in education and public safety (police and fire), and medicaid (for the states). States have sought to trim medicaid costs but they are constrained by the federal government in how much they can do since the program is funded through federal matching grants. So to meet the budget needs, school programs such as music, art, and athletics are cut or eliminated, teachers are laid off and classrooms are more crowded, and there are fewer (sometimes far fewer) police and firemen on the job. Contrast that with the federal government where politics keeps the President and Congress from going where the money is--social security, medicare, and medicaid--and instead they scratch away to make a lot of big cuts in a lot of small programs.
Now state governments, at least those controlled by Republicans, are going for another pot of money, public employees, including teachers. In Wisconsin, the Republican controlled government says it will cut the budget by limiting collective bargaining with public employee unions while also increasing employee contributions to pension and health care funds. It is not difficult to interpret this as revenge upon those public employees unions that have been strong supporters of Democratic candidates over the years. It is interesting to note that police and firefighter unions are excluded from the proposed legislation; Milwaukee police and fire unions supported the Republican governor in the election. The Wisconsin confrontation has drawn the most attention, but other states have also embarked on similar efforts to weaken public employee unions.
So much for the turbulence abroad and at home -- for now.
The first thing to be said is that the outbreaks in the various countries of the Middle East and north Africa are not part of a pan-Islamic movement intent on installing fundamentalist Islamic law in countries now governed by secular leaders, many with pro-western attachments. From all reports, the revolutions/uprisings are home-grown efforts to deal with home-grown grievances against ruling regimes. In Libya the issue is somewhat akin to that of Egypt, corrupt, repressive regimes too long in power, and where there is a huge gap between a rich elite and a massive underclass of poor and near poor.
In Bahrain the same general problem exists with the added grievance of the exploitation of an impoverished Shia majority (70 percent) by a wealthy Sunni minority (30 percent) led by the king and his appointed prime minister who is also his uncle. The brutality of the royal response to the protesters is heightened by the fact that over the years the army and security forces have been manned by co-religionist Sunnis recruited from abroad, from countries such as Pakistan, Jordan, and Yemen. By contrast, the Egyptian army which eventually sided with the pro-democracy demonstrators is made up of conscripts.
If the various countries of the region are experiencing domestic upheaval, the uprisings, particularly in Bahrain, have created the same problem for President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton as occurred with the Egyptian revolution. Both Egypt and Bahrain play key roles in our policies in the Arab/Muslim world so any uprising forces the U.S. to walk a tight rope in choosing sides between the rulers whom we have supported for decades and the ruled. In Egypt, as indicated in a previous posting, we waffled on the issue. In Iran, it was easier when the anti-government protesters took to the streets last week; we came out strongly in their favor.
In Bahrain where our 5th fleet is headquartered our public pronouncements made a nod of sympathy toward the protesters, but we are avoiding giving any overt encouragement to them, unlike the support we gave to the pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt. In Bahrain the U.S. emphasis is on urging the government to constrain the severity of its responses to the demonstrators. If constraint is needed anywhere, it is certainly in Libya where the government crackdown on protesters has been especially violent. If all of these problems aren't enough for U.S. policy in the Arab/Muslim world, we added to those woes last week by casting the only veto of a U.N. resolution aimed at halting the spread of Israeli settlements in occupied territory of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Now to the disarray at home.
First, it should be stated that Congress has again gone home. For President's Day they take a week off. Someone once said something like this, "Congress has adjourned, the Republic is "safe." After watching the House of Boehner finally go through a hard week of work of budget cutting, maybe there is some truth in the old saying. But the real issue is now upon us.
The historic budget cuts made by the House are now kicked over to the Senate which has also gone home. When it returns it has just five days to do something before March 4 when the continuing resolution (CR) under which the federal government has been funded runs out (see previous post). There are indications that House-Senate compromise talks may be going on during the recess. It seems right now that there are two possible outcomes -- pass another CR or let the government shut down on March 5. The Democratic-controlled Senate has made it clear it will not accept the House-passed cuts so if the government shuts down it's the fault of the Republicans, who now seem to be controlled by the Tea Party and spending hawks. Boehner, on the other hand, said he will not accept another short term CR which does not include a major cut in spending for the rest of this fiscal year which ends September 30. So it's eyeball to eyeball and we have to wait to see if anyone blinks. Meanwhile, there are also significant outbreaks of discontent at the state and local levels where they're also running out of money.
At the state and local levels the customary approach to big budget shortfalls is to go where the big money is. For these governments the big bucks are in education and public safety (police and fire), and medicaid (for the states). States have sought to trim medicaid costs but they are constrained by the federal government in how much they can do since the program is funded through federal matching grants. So to meet the budget needs, school programs such as music, art, and athletics are cut or eliminated, teachers are laid off and classrooms are more crowded, and there are fewer (sometimes far fewer) police and firemen on the job. Contrast that with the federal government where politics keeps the President and Congress from going where the money is--social security, medicare, and medicaid--and instead they scratch away to make a lot of big cuts in a lot of small programs.
Now state governments, at least those controlled by Republicans, are going for another pot of money, public employees, including teachers. In Wisconsin, the Republican controlled government says it will cut the budget by limiting collective bargaining with public employee unions while also increasing employee contributions to pension and health care funds. It is not difficult to interpret this as revenge upon those public employees unions that have been strong supporters of Democratic candidates over the years. It is interesting to note that police and firefighter unions are excluded from the proposed legislation; Milwaukee police and fire unions supported the Republican governor in the election. The Wisconsin confrontation has drawn the most attention, but other states have also embarked on similar efforts to weaken public employee unions.
So much for the turbulence abroad and at home -- for now.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
NOTES: AFGHANISTAN, ISRAEL, THE BUDGET WAR
One of the principal charges against Taliban rule in Afghanistan which ended with the U.S. invasion in 2001, was its outrageous degradation and brutalizing of women. With the overthrow of the Taliban and the coming of a new government under President Hamid Karzai, the status of women improved with women returning to school, entering public life, and shedding, if they chose, the symbol of their inferior status--the burqa. But over time some of those early gains have been eroding.
The latest move backward was illustrated with a story in our local newspaper. According to the article, the Afghan government is seeking a change in the law that, if approved, would seriously erode women's freedom. Under the proposal, a woman who flees a brutalizing husband or father or refuses to be forced into an unwanted marriage would be required to justify her flight to a government panel. The panel would decide if she can seek protective shelter, be sent to jail, or forced to go back home. The proposed change is seen as a further effort by Karzai to find favor with religious and social conservatives to aid in some kind of reconciliation with Taliban insurgents. Summary thought: there seems to be no end to our misery of dealing with Karzai and his incredibly corrupt rule. Now, a note on Israel.
During the Egyptian revolution there was great concern in Israel that the ouster of President Mubarak would endanger the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of l979 which has been a key part of Israeli security against hostile neighbors in the region. In taking over the government of Egypt, one of the first moves of the Egyptian military was to assure Israel that the peace treaty would be honored. That pronouncement does not, however, guarantee a similar commitment from any future post-military government. Thus, this would certainly seem to be the time for the Israelis to stop their hand wringing about the Egyptian accord and its future and seek to restore better relations with Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel (1949) and for years a good friend of Israel with a wide range of political, economic, and military relations.
These relations deteriorated rapidly after the Israeli military incursion into Gaza in early 2009, a move condemned by Turkey and other nations, and later that year when 8 Turks were killed when the Israelis forcefully stopped a boat taking humanitarian aid to Gaza. To these issues have been added what have looked like planned efforts by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, a far right cabinet member, and others in his ministry to antagonize Turkish officials. While it may not be easy to put humpty dumpty back together, it would certainly seem to serve Israeli self-interests if Prime Minister Netanyahou would launch such a reconciliation. As the possibility of greater Israeli isolation in the region increases, Turkey's role and influence is growing.
Now a look at the arcane world of budget politics in Washington, the look taking the form of a primer on the moving parts that are in play and colliding.
We are currently in fiscal year 2011 which began last October 1 and will end on September 30. Normally the government is funded through 12 separate appropriation bills. But none of these have been passed so the money is provided through a series of short-term "continuing resolutions" (CR) which, with some adjustments are based primarily on fiscal 2010 funding levels which ended last September 30. The current CR expires on March 4 so Congress can: 1) pass a catchall appropriation bill to fund the multiple agencies and programs for the rest of the year. The Senate tried this last fall during the post-election special session but the Republicans blocked the bill; 2) pass another CR with or without overall or specific reductions or increases; or 3) do nothing and let the government shut down on March 4 as happened in l995. With that simplistic background, the primer moves on to happenings this week.
1. On Monday the President sent Congress a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal 2012 which begins on October 1 of this year. The budget envisions a $1.1 trillion decline in deficits over the next 10 years. While blasting the President's budget plan as not cutting spending enough, the GOP is not expected to present its own alternative until April. Many fellow Democrats were also unhappy because of the proposed cuts in programs directed at low income persons. No early action on the President's 2012 budget can be expected.
2. Meanwhile, the GOP, beginning in the House, is seeking cuts in this year's ( fiscal 2011) spending. The House of Boehner has taken up another CR which would cut $61 billion off the 2010 (repeat 2010) funding level, the base year for the series of CRs that have been passed previously to keep the government going. The CR being debated would extend through the end of the fiscal year, September 30. But, as noted in the previous posting, the GOP anti-spending hawks have been pressing for and are claiming a $100 billion cut for this year, a claim characterized in my previous post as the old "smoke and mirrors" budget politics. The media have used both the $61 and $100 billion figures, adding to the confusion about the proposed GOP cut.
A hypothetical illustration is in order: a farm program was appropriated $100 million for fiscal 2010. Obama in his 2011 budget proposal requested an increase to $105 million, but none of his 2011 requests were ever approved so 2010 became the base year for the 2011 CRs. The House CR now being considered would cut $5 million from that 2010 level. But to make the cut look bigger to appease the Tea Party-backed members and the other anti-spending hawks, they claim a $10 million cut, using Obama's failed $105 million request for fiscal 2011 as the base line. That is, $105 million minus the $95 million in the CR now being considered comes out as a supposed savings of $10 million rather than the $5 million reduction actually being considered.
3. By way of conclusion, whatever the House does this week or next, the result will go to the Democratic controlled Senate which is unlikely to accept the House spending plan. So, since the current CR runs out on March 4, there is the likelihood that the short time until March 4 won't permit any compromise agreement and another short-term CR will be passed.
I hope the above clarifies what is going on right now in what in the smoothest times is a very complicated budget process, now made more complex by the high stakes politics being played.
The latest move backward was illustrated with a story in our local newspaper. According to the article, the Afghan government is seeking a change in the law that, if approved, would seriously erode women's freedom. Under the proposal, a woman who flees a brutalizing husband or father or refuses to be forced into an unwanted marriage would be required to justify her flight to a government panel. The panel would decide if she can seek protective shelter, be sent to jail, or forced to go back home. The proposed change is seen as a further effort by Karzai to find favor with religious and social conservatives to aid in some kind of reconciliation with Taliban insurgents. Summary thought: there seems to be no end to our misery of dealing with Karzai and his incredibly corrupt rule. Now, a note on Israel.
During the Egyptian revolution there was great concern in Israel that the ouster of President Mubarak would endanger the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of l979 which has been a key part of Israeli security against hostile neighbors in the region. In taking over the government of Egypt, one of the first moves of the Egyptian military was to assure Israel that the peace treaty would be honored. That pronouncement does not, however, guarantee a similar commitment from any future post-military government. Thus, this would certainly seem to be the time for the Israelis to stop their hand wringing about the Egyptian accord and its future and seek to restore better relations with Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel (1949) and for years a good friend of Israel with a wide range of political, economic, and military relations.
These relations deteriorated rapidly after the Israeli military incursion into Gaza in early 2009, a move condemned by Turkey and other nations, and later that year when 8 Turks were killed when the Israelis forcefully stopped a boat taking humanitarian aid to Gaza. To these issues have been added what have looked like planned efforts by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, a far right cabinet member, and others in his ministry to antagonize Turkish officials. While it may not be easy to put humpty dumpty back together, it would certainly seem to serve Israeli self-interests if Prime Minister Netanyahou would launch such a reconciliation. As the possibility of greater Israeli isolation in the region increases, Turkey's role and influence is growing.
Now a look at the arcane world of budget politics in Washington, the look taking the form of a primer on the moving parts that are in play and colliding.
We are currently in fiscal year 2011 which began last October 1 and will end on September 30. Normally the government is funded through 12 separate appropriation bills. But none of these have been passed so the money is provided through a series of short-term "continuing resolutions" (CR) which, with some adjustments are based primarily on fiscal 2010 funding levels which ended last September 30. The current CR expires on March 4 so Congress can: 1) pass a catchall appropriation bill to fund the multiple agencies and programs for the rest of the year. The Senate tried this last fall during the post-election special session but the Republicans blocked the bill; 2) pass another CR with or without overall or specific reductions or increases; or 3) do nothing and let the government shut down on March 4 as happened in l995. With that simplistic background, the primer moves on to happenings this week.
1. On Monday the President sent Congress a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal 2012 which begins on October 1 of this year. The budget envisions a $1.1 trillion decline in deficits over the next 10 years. While blasting the President's budget plan as not cutting spending enough, the GOP is not expected to present its own alternative until April. Many fellow Democrats were also unhappy because of the proposed cuts in programs directed at low income persons. No early action on the President's 2012 budget can be expected.
2. Meanwhile, the GOP, beginning in the House, is seeking cuts in this year's ( fiscal 2011) spending. The House of Boehner has taken up another CR which would cut $61 billion off the 2010 (repeat 2010) funding level, the base year for the series of CRs that have been passed previously to keep the government going. The CR being debated would extend through the end of the fiscal year, September 30. But, as noted in the previous posting, the GOP anti-spending hawks have been pressing for and are claiming a $100 billion cut for this year, a claim characterized in my previous post as the old "smoke and mirrors" budget politics. The media have used both the $61 and $100 billion figures, adding to the confusion about the proposed GOP cut.
A hypothetical illustration is in order: a farm program was appropriated $100 million for fiscal 2010. Obama in his 2011 budget proposal requested an increase to $105 million, but none of his 2011 requests were ever approved so 2010 became the base year for the 2011 CRs. The House CR now being considered would cut $5 million from that 2010 level. But to make the cut look bigger to appease the Tea Party-backed members and the other anti-spending hawks, they claim a $10 million cut, using Obama's failed $105 million request for fiscal 2011 as the base line. That is, $105 million minus the $95 million in the CR now being considered comes out as a supposed savings of $10 million rather than the $5 million reduction actually being considered.
3. By way of conclusion, whatever the House does this week or next, the result will go to the Democratic controlled Senate which is unlikely to accept the House spending plan. So, since the current CR runs out on March 4, there is the likelihood that the short time until March 4 won't permit any compromise agreement and another short-term CR will be passed.
I hope the above clarifies what is going on right now in what in the smoothest times is a very complicated budget process, now made more complex by the high stakes politics being played.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
EGYPT AND BOEHNER'S BUDGET: WORKS IN PROGRESS
With all of the conventional wisdom about events in Egypt that has now been widely distributed through print and electronic media, it is a challenge for a twice a week blogger to say anything new. So the first part of this somewhat lengthy posting is my perception of where we and the Egyptians are at this point. The second part is a look at where we are at home with the internal GOP struggle on the budget/spending issue. First Egypt.
Three quotes seem to fit the situation.
"After me the deluge." King Louis XV of France who was followed by Louis XVI and the French Revolution, and a lot of beheadings including the king and queen.
"But I am confident that the people of Egypt can find the answers and do so peacefully, constructively, and in the spirit of unity. . . ." President Obama following the announcement of the resignation of Egyptian President Mubarak.
"Just shut up." Columnist David Ignatius' reflection on the U.S. propensity to give advice to Egypt.
Right now what has been achieved in Egypt is the overthrow of an autocratic, repressive, and corrupt regime, replaced by military rule. That's a momentous, historical achievement but in some respects that may have been the easy part. Mubarak in justifying his retention of power had taken the Louis XV view. Dump me and you'll get chaos. Obama took an optimistic view that the spirit of the pro-democracy movement on Tahrir Square will prevail and will bring the actual fruits of democracy. We'll see.
As the initial euphoria fades, people with jobs will go back to work while the immediate prospects have not changed for those without jobs and who were so much a part of the revolution. That will be one of the great challenges ahead -- reforming and developing the economy to relieve the poverty and near-poverty that sent so many protesters into the streets. Politically, right now the military is in charge but it must sit down with diverse groups and work out the rules for the next stage--presumably free elections. Meanwhile the army also has to take up the reins of actual governance and see that, to use an old expression, "the trains run on time". At the same time the military must resolve internal differences between those who were firm backers and beneficiaries of Mubarak's rule and those with reformist leanings.
The bottom line for the U.S. at the moment should be Ignatius' advice to "Just shut up". We have enough scrambling to do to sustain and/or repair relations with various countries in the region who benefitted directly from Mubarak rule, such as Israel, and those who shared his view on autocratic rule and self-preservation, such as Saudi Arabia. In a previous posting, "The Gospel According to Us," I found considerable fault about the U.S. preaching reform in the Muslim world while sharing a bed with the autocrats to whom we were preaching. We should now firmly resist the temptation to preach to the Egyptians about what they now must do to achieve their democracy. We seem to have made it through the first 48+ hours of post-Mubarak Egypt with no preaching from our officials. It should be clear that the world is weary of our preaching one thing while realpolitik takes us in the opposite direction. Now a bit on the GOP and its internal struggles in the House of Boehner.
In some sense watching the turmoil within Speaker Boehner's House majority is akin to watching the final act of the Egyptian revolution. Just when you think a decision has been made, a new push by the "opposition" forces a new decision. In Egypt, Mubarak's "no" I'm not leaving was followed the next day by his departure, occasioned by pressure from the military in concert with a new rage from the protesters after Mubarak initially said "no". In the case of Boehner's problem in controlling "opposition" within his majority, it is the House establishment GOP headed by Boehner vs. the more extremist Republicans--the Tea Party (TP) and other cut-spending hawks.
In a sense Boehner is the source of his own problem by including in his pre-election "Pledge to America" last September that he would cut government spending by $100 billion in fiscal 2011 which began last October 1. Now that same $100 billion cut has become the target goal for the TP/hawks. Meanwhile, the establishment GOP has been trying to adjust the number downward because so much of fiscal 2011 has already passed and the money has been spent.
In trying to pro-rate the spending cuts downward to fit fiscal year reality, the establishment GOP, through the Appropriation Committee, came up initially with a reduction figure of about $40 billion. When TP/hawks rebelled, the Appropriations Committee went back to the drawing board and boosted the cut to $60 billion. The TP/hawks were still not satisfied so a new cut of $100 billion was cobbled together, but it's really the old "smoke and mirrors" game on federal budget/spending policy. The $100 billion is based on cuts to Obama's original 2011 budget which was never enacted. Because no 2011 appropriation bills were ever passed, the government has been funded through "continuing resolutions" passed by Congress and these are based on 2010 numbers. So the $100 billion cuts conjured up and forced on the House GOP establishment is actually about $60 billion.
As of this writing the House Republicans have not yet presented their final budget to be sent to the floor for a vote, but will be doing so this week. While the House Republicans are putting the final touches on cuts for fiscal 2011, Obama is sending his 2012 buget plan to Congress today (Monday). In any case, like Mubarak's "no" and then "yes", following the Republican twists and turns and verbal gymnastics is like watching a motion picture. And to repeat a quote from Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
But this posting has gone on too long, so using a part of Yogi's quote ". . . it's over."
Three quotes seem to fit the situation.
"After me the deluge." King Louis XV of France who was followed by Louis XVI and the French Revolution, and a lot of beheadings including the king and queen.
"But I am confident that the people of Egypt can find the answers and do so peacefully, constructively, and in the spirit of unity. . . ." President Obama following the announcement of the resignation of Egyptian President Mubarak.
"Just shut up." Columnist David Ignatius' reflection on the U.S. propensity to give advice to Egypt.
Right now what has been achieved in Egypt is the overthrow of an autocratic, repressive, and corrupt regime, replaced by military rule. That's a momentous, historical achievement but in some respects that may have been the easy part. Mubarak in justifying his retention of power had taken the Louis XV view. Dump me and you'll get chaos. Obama took an optimistic view that the spirit of the pro-democracy movement on Tahrir Square will prevail and will bring the actual fruits of democracy. We'll see.
As the initial euphoria fades, people with jobs will go back to work while the immediate prospects have not changed for those without jobs and who were so much a part of the revolution. That will be one of the great challenges ahead -- reforming and developing the economy to relieve the poverty and near-poverty that sent so many protesters into the streets. Politically, right now the military is in charge but it must sit down with diverse groups and work out the rules for the next stage--presumably free elections. Meanwhile the army also has to take up the reins of actual governance and see that, to use an old expression, "the trains run on time". At the same time the military must resolve internal differences between those who were firm backers and beneficiaries of Mubarak's rule and those with reformist leanings.
The bottom line for the U.S. at the moment should be Ignatius' advice to "Just shut up". We have enough scrambling to do to sustain and/or repair relations with various countries in the region who benefitted directly from Mubarak rule, such as Israel, and those who shared his view on autocratic rule and self-preservation, such as Saudi Arabia. In a previous posting, "The Gospel According to Us," I found considerable fault about the U.S. preaching reform in the Muslim world while sharing a bed with the autocrats to whom we were preaching. We should now firmly resist the temptation to preach to the Egyptians about what they now must do to achieve their democracy. We seem to have made it through the first 48+ hours of post-Mubarak Egypt with no preaching from our officials. It should be clear that the world is weary of our preaching one thing while realpolitik takes us in the opposite direction. Now a bit on the GOP and its internal struggles in the House of Boehner.
In some sense watching the turmoil within Speaker Boehner's House majority is akin to watching the final act of the Egyptian revolution. Just when you think a decision has been made, a new push by the "opposition" forces a new decision. In Egypt, Mubarak's "no" I'm not leaving was followed the next day by his departure, occasioned by pressure from the military in concert with a new rage from the protesters after Mubarak initially said "no". In the case of Boehner's problem in controlling "opposition" within his majority, it is the House establishment GOP headed by Boehner vs. the more extremist Republicans--the Tea Party (TP) and other cut-spending hawks.
In a sense Boehner is the source of his own problem by including in his pre-election "Pledge to America" last September that he would cut government spending by $100 billion in fiscal 2011 which began last October 1. Now that same $100 billion cut has become the target goal for the TP/hawks. Meanwhile, the establishment GOP has been trying to adjust the number downward because so much of fiscal 2011 has already passed and the money has been spent.
In trying to pro-rate the spending cuts downward to fit fiscal year reality, the establishment GOP, through the Appropriation Committee, came up initially with a reduction figure of about $40 billion. When TP/hawks rebelled, the Appropriations Committee went back to the drawing board and boosted the cut to $60 billion. The TP/hawks were still not satisfied so a new cut of $100 billion was cobbled together, but it's really the old "smoke and mirrors" game on federal budget/spending policy. The $100 billion is based on cuts to Obama's original 2011 budget which was never enacted. Because no 2011 appropriation bills were ever passed, the government has been funded through "continuing resolutions" passed by Congress and these are based on 2010 numbers. So the $100 billion cuts conjured up and forced on the House GOP establishment is actually about $60 billion.
As of this writing the House Republicans have not yet presented their final budget to be sent to the floor for a vote, but will be doing so this week. While the House Republicans are putting the final touches on cuts for fiscal 2011, Obama is sending his 2012 buget plan to Congress today (Monday). In any case, like Mubarak's "no" and then "yes", following the Republican twists and turns and verbal gymnastics is like watching a motion picture. And to repeat a quote from Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
But this posting has gone on too long, so using a part of Yogi's quote ". . . it's over."
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
MUBARAK EXITS (NO); BOEHNER STUMBLES (YES)
The previous posting started off with a bit of Boehner bashing, followed by a few perspectives related to Egypt. This posting reverses that order, Egypt first and then a bit more on Boehner who is making bashing him relatively easy so far. This posting was based originally on the assumption that Mubarak would announce later today that he was resigning, at least that's what the media had been reporting all day today (Thursday). It didn't turn out that way; he said he was staying although turning his presidential power over to his Vice President Suleiman. Regardless, the perspectives on Egypt in this post have some staying power if the resignation takes longer, although the longer it takes the thinner the ice on which U.S. policy in the region skates.
While strongly supporting the reform demands of the demonstrators, the bottom line problem for the U.S. has been how hard to push for Mubarak to exit. In the early stages of the pro-democracy, anti-Mubarak street demonstrations, the U.S. seemed to be urging that the sooner Mubarak leaves the better, but without joining the protesters in their demands that he leave NOW. Then, as the street demonstrations became more violent when pro-Mubarak supporters openly clashed with the anti-Mubarak protesters, the U.S. seemed to be moving closer to the "leave now" position to avoid further chaos. Then as the protesting returned to more peaceful ways and newly appointed Vice President Suleiman met with some opposition leaders and showed a seeming willingness to accede to some of the major protester demands, the U.S. policy shifted toward support of an "orderly transition" process, emphasis on the word "process". Process is an indeterminate word in terms of a time frame but it certainly seemed that our policy was backing farther away from any appearance that we were supporting the "leave now" demands of the demonstrators.
Here is where President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were and still are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The U.S. was under pressure from many of its friends in the Middle East, including Israel, and outside the region to back away from an openly anti-Mubarak policy. Their position: don't be too hasty in throwing Mubarak, a long time friend and ally, under the bus. This may in part account for our shift toward an "orderly transition" process as the path toward a democratic Egypt.
On the other hand, the pro-democracy demonstrators, now joined by striking workers seeking better pay and working conditions, may have gotten the feeling that the U.S. was going soft on them and their demands and edging back toward its more traditional policy of backing those in power. The danger for the United States here is that the longer the uprising lasts and our support of an "orderly transition" continues, the greater the possibility that the pro-democracy protests may sour on the U.S. as a backer of their demands. The protesters have focused their pro-democracy demands to ousting Mubarak and getting major political, economic, and legal reforms. Contrary to media reports Mubarak did not resigned but said he was turning his powers over to his vice president. With that, the U.S. concern turns to the so-called transition or turn over of power process. The concern is that those in power, whoever they may be, will stall on meeting pro-democracy demands in hopes that the the uprising will end, the protesters will go home and back to work, and they can soften their responses to the protester demands. Looking further ahead, it is likely that regardless of which side comes out on top, the people in power or the protesters, the U.S. will be looked at more skeptically as a "reliable" friend, not only by the protesters but also by the others in the region such as the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And "friend" in any form may be a best case scenario. And, of course, what will be the role of the military? With that thought, it's time to turn again to House Speaker John Boehner.
The first rule for exercising leadership in Congress is to be able to count the votes. Put another way -- don't put any issues on the floor for a vote unless you know you will win. Boehner and his leadership team failed the vote counting test twice on Tuesday and again on Wednesday..
The House GOP leadership controls the flow of legislation to the floor and on Tuesday it brought to a vote legislation to extend three provisions of the Patriots Act enacted in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. That act expanded the government's surveillance authority to help uncover terrorist activity. The three provisions are due to expire at the end of the month so to hasten their extension Boehner brought the legislation up under a special rule that prohibits offering amendments but requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Unfortunately for Boehner and company, the final vote was seven short of the two-thirds required. President Obama supports extension of the provisions. The Patriots Act vote was actually the second time on Tuesday when the GOP leadership apparently couldn't count votes. Earlier in the day, the Republicans pulled a trade bill off the floor before a vote could be taken, a move which usually means the bill was headed for defeat. Then on Wednesday Boehner again fell short of the two-third vote needed on a bill to force the U.N. to pay back $179 million in supposed overpayments.
The biggest embarrassment for Boehner was on the Patriots Act vote when 26 Republicans deserted him and joined 122 Democrats to reject the bill. Aside from the embarrassment of losing a vote so soon after taking over House leadership, the interesting thing to note is that those deserting him came from the very conservative wing of the party, those opposed to what they see as big government's growing intrusion into individual privacy. Anti-big government is part of the core values of libertarians and tea party supporters and thus sends a message to Boehner that their policy views are not to be ignored when it comes to future votes. The next test of tea party willingness, or not, to support Boehner and the establishment GOP will come next week when another central tea party issue, government spending, starts down the legislative path. Like the crisis in Egypt, stay tuned.
While strongly supporting the reform demands of the demonstrators, the bottom line problem for the U.S. has been how hard to push for Mubarak to exit. In the early stages of the pro-democracy, anti-Mubarak street demonstrations, the U.S. seemed to be urging that the sooner Mubarak leaves the better, but without joining the protesters in their demands that he leave NOW. Then, as the street demonstrations became more violent when pro-Mubarak supporters openly clashed with the anti-Mubarak protesters, the U.S. seemed to be moving closer to the "leave now" position to avoid further chaos. Then as the protesting returned to more peaceful ways and newly appointed Vice President Suleiman met with some opposition leaders and showed a seeming willingness to accede to some of the major protester demands, the U.S. policy shifted toward support of an "orderly transition" process, emphasis on the word "process". Process is an indeterminate word in terms of a time frame but it certainly seemed that our policy was backing farther away from any appearance that we were supporting the "leave now" demands of the demonstrators.
Here is where President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were and still are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The U.S. was under pressure from many of its friends in the Middle East, including Israel, and outside the region to back away from an openly anti-Mubarak policy. Their position: don't be too hasty in throwing Mubarak, a long time friend and ally, under the bus. This may in part account for our shift toward an "orderly transition" process as the path toward a democratic Egypt.
On the other hand, the pro-democracy demonstrators, now joined by striking workers seeking better pay and working conditions, may have gotten the feeling that the U.S. was going soft on them and their demands and edging back toward its more traditional policy of backing those in power. The danger for the United States here is that the longer the uprising lasts and our support of an "orderly transition" continues, the greater the possibility that the pro-democracy protests may sour on the U.S. as a backer of their demands. The protesters have focused their pro-democracy demands to ousting Mubarak and getting major political, economic, and legal reforms. Contrary to media reports Mubarak did not resigned but said he was turning his powers over to his vice president. With that, the U.S. concern turns to the so-called transition or turn over of power process. The concern is that those in power, whoever they may be, will stall on meeting pro-democracy demands in hopes that the the uprising will end, the protesters will go home and back to work, and they can soften their responses to the protester demands. Looking further ahead, it is likely that regardless of which side comes out on top, the people in power or the protesters, the U.S. will be looked at more skeptically as a "reliable" friend, not only by the protesters but also by the others in the region such as the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. And "friend" in any form may be a best case scenario. And, of course, what will be the role of the military? With that thought, it's time to turn again to House Speaker John Boehner.
The first rule for exercising leadership in Congress is to be able to count the votes. Put another way -- don't put any issues on the floor for a vote unless you know you will win. Boehner and his leadership team failed the vote counting test twice on Tuesday and again on Wednesday..
The House GOP leadership controls the flow of legislation to the floor and on Tuesday it brought to a vote legislation to extend three provisions of the Patriots Act enacted in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. That act expanded the government's surveillance authority to help uncover terrorist activity. The three provisions are due to expire at the end of the month so to hasten their extension Boehner brought the legislation up under a special rule that prohibits offering amendments but requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Unfortunately for Boehner and company, the final vote was seven short of the two-thirds required. President Obama supports extension of the provisions. The Patriots Act vote was actually the second time on Tuesday when the GOP leadership apparently couldn't count votes. Earlier in the day, the Republicans pulled a trade bill off the floor before a vote could be taken, a move which usually means the bill was headed for defeat. Then on Wednesday Boehner again fell short of the two-third vote needed on a bill to force the U.N. to pay back $179 million in supposed overpayments.
The biggest embarrassment for Boehner was on the Patriots Act vote when 26 Republicans deserted him and joined 122 Democrats to reject the bill. Aside from the embarrassment of losing a vote so soon after taking over House leadership, the interesting thing to note is that those deserting him came from the very conservative wing of the party, those opposed to what they see as big government's growing intrusion into individual privacy. Anti-big government is part of the core values of libertarians and tea party supporters and thus sends a message to Boehner that their policy views are not to be ignored when it comes to future votes. The next test of tea party willingness, or not, to support Boehner and the establishment GOP will come next week when another central tea party issue, government spending, starts down the legislative path. Like the crisis in Egypt, stay tuned.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
AT HOME AND ABROAD
Send up a cheer. House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican majority have decided to come back to work, or create mischief depending on your point of view. The new Congress has been in session just over a month and the House has been in recess most of that time, including most of the last two weeks for what it calls "constituent work". Translation: go back home and start campaigning for re-election.
In the short episodic occasions the House has been in session, its achievements have been to pass a bill to repeal President Obama's health care reform law and to pass a toothless resolution to cut $60 billion out of this year's budget. It is often said by the legislators and others that Congress does most of its work in committees. In looking over the House schedule there was no indication that there were any committee meetings. In the normal course of the legislative process, the committees hold hearings on bills or on overseeing various activities of the government. The committees then feed approved bills into the legislative pipeline and these bills, or some of them, go to the House floor for debate and passage or rejection. If nothing goes into that pipeline, then nothing comes out. But that seems to be okay with Boehner and his leadership team. In calling for repeal of health care reform, they have no counter proposals of their own so the GOP-chaired committees have nothing to work on. While happy to denounce Obama on jobs and the economy, they have offered no economic recovery proposals of their own.
So what we have had from Boehner, et al, are feeble political efforts to appease the right wing of the party without doing anything of substance on the "people's business" unless you call campaigning back home the people's business. But that's what happens when you provide an abundance of money for lawmakers to travel home to politic. Now Boehner is talking about cuts in the congressional budget, but not nearly as large as cuts to various federal domestic agencies and programs. Also, it will be important to see exactly where the congressional cuts are made -- to the members' various staff, office, and travel accounts or institutions like the General Accountability Office and Library of Congress which fall within Congress' budget.
By way of contrast, while the GOP House was in recess the Democratic Senate stayed in session and there were numerous committee meetings on the schedule, as well as some floor votes. The Senate voted against a GOP effort to repeal health care reform. It voted, with bipartisan support, to repeal a section of the health care law that was recognized to be a particularly burdensome reporting requirement. And it passed a resolution supporting the popular uprising in Egypt. It also took up a bill concerning the Federal Aviation Agency.
So much for the homefront. Now for a look abroad with a domestic slant, which, at least for the present, takes one to Egypt and the Middle East.
A recent posting on this blog was on the possibility of a rerun of the bitter l950s recriminations about "Who lost China?" My point there was that we may get a rerun with the question being "Who Lost Egypt?" To this point the GOP leadership has been supportive of Obama's tightrope effort to identify with the anti-Mubarak protesters, viewing it as an opening for instilling democracy in an historically undemocratic Egypt.
But as the posting noted, the place to look for any beginning of a "Who lost Egypt?" witch hunt would be the right wing talk shows which so often provide the talking points for a wide range of anti-Obama issues. These talking points then become part of the anti-Obama mantra. It may be too soon to tell, but Rush Limbaugh has planted a seed for such a right wing mantra, saying that Obama has supported the Muslim Brotherhood, best known for its goal of establishing Islamic law-based governments in Egypt and the wider Muslim world. The dust has to settle in Egypt itself before we can tell if such a mantra has staying power. If the Brotherhood does play a significant role in a post-Mubarak Egypt, one can expect Limbaugh and kindred spirits to push the point as far as they can -- Obama lost Egypt to radical Islamists. Meanwhile Glenn Beck has been orbiting in his own celestial world about the Egyptian uprising being part of a conspiracy to establish a new Islamic caliphate throughout the Muslim world.
I'll conclude on a strictly "abroad" note. Another previous posting presented the possibility of Turkey becoming the replacement for the U.S. in our assumed role as the country which can foster political and economic stability in the region. It is difficult to imagine that the Egyptian uprising and other anti-government movements in the region will not diminish the U.S. image and political credibility in the region. If that is the case, then whom can we look to as a counterbalance to Iran becoming the dominant power in the region, to the virtual takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, and as a new spear carrier for the long-running Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and the U.S. effort supporting the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Beyond what was said in the post, "A Turkish Alternative," space today doesn't permit any further discussion of Muslim Turkey's role in the region. Except to say that, given the current state of the various anti-government movements in the Middle East, the possibility of a growing Turkish role requires a closer look stripped of the suspicions of many that Turkey, as a Muslim country, can't be trusted to instill our "western" morality and values into the Arab world.
-0-0-0-0-0-
P.S. Couldn't help noticing in the morning paper that two House subcommittees will hold hearings this week on restrictions on federal funding of abortions. Forget any national agenda, go to work on stuff that appeals to the right wing/Tea Party agenda.
In the short episodic occasions the House has been in session, its achievements have been to pass a bill to repeal President Obama's health care reform law and to pass a toothless resolution to cut $60 billion out of this year's budget. It is often said by the legislators and others that Congress does most of its work in committees. In looking over the House schedule there was no indication that there were any committee meetings. In the normal course of the legislative process, the committees hold hearings on bills or on overseeing various activities of the government. The committees then feed approved bills into the legislative pipeline and these bills, or some of them, go to the House floor for debate and passage or rejection. If nothing goes into that pipeline, then nothing comes out. But that seems to be okay with Boehner and his leadership team. In calling for repeal of health care reform, they have no counter proposals of their own so the GOP-chaired committees have nothing to work on. While happy to denounce Obama on jobs and the economy, they have offered no economic recovery proposals of their own.
So what we have had from Boehner, et al, are feeble political efforts to appease the right wing of the party without doing anything of substance on the "people's business" unless you call campaigning back home the people's business. But that's what happens when you provide an abundance of money for lawmakers to travel home to politic. Now Boehner is talking about cuts in the congressional budget, but not nearly as large as cuts to various federal domestic agencies and programs. Also, it will be important to see exactly where the congressional cuts are made -- to the members' various staff, office, and travel accounts or institutions like the General Accountability Office and Library of Congress which fall within Congress' budget.
By way of contrast, while the GOP House was in recess the Democratic Senate stayed in session and there were numerous committee meetings on the schedule, as well as some floor votes. The Senate voted against a GOP effort to repeal health care reform. It voted, with bipartisan support, to repeal a section of the health care law that was recognized to be a particularly burdensome reporting requirement. And it passed a resolution supporting the popular uprising in Egypt. It also took up a bill concerning the Federal Aviation Agency.
So much for the homefront. Now for a look abroad with a domestic slant, which, at least for the present, takes one to Egypt and the Middle East.
A recent posting on this blog was on the possibility of a rerun of the bitter l950s recriminations about "Who lost China?" My point there was that we may get a rerun with the question being "Who Lost Egypt?" To this point the GOP leadership has been supportive of Obama's tightrope effort to identify with the anti-Mubarak protesters, viewing it as an opening for instilling democracy in an historically undemocratic Egypt.
But as the posting noted, the place to look for any beginning of a "Who lost Egypt?" witch hunt would be the right wing talk shows which so often provide the talking points for a wide range of anti-Obama issues. These talking points then become part of the anti-Obama mantra. It may be too soon to tell, but Rush Limbaugh has planted a seed for such a right wing mantra, saying that Obama has supported the Muslim Brotherhood, best known for its goal of establishing Islamic law-based governments in Egypt and the wider Muslim world. The dust has to settle in Egypt itself before we can tell if such a mantra has staying power. If the Brotherhood does play a significant role in a post-Mubarak Egypt, one can expect Limbaugh and kindred spirits to push the point as far as they can -- Obama lost Egypt to radical Islamists. Meanwhile Glenn Beck has been orbiting in his own celestial world about the Egyptian uprising being part of a conspiracy to establish a new Islamic caliphate throughout the Muslim world.
I'll conclude on a strictly "abroad" note. Another previous posting presented the possibility of Turkey becoming the replacement for the U.S. in our assumed role as the country which can foster political and economic stability in the region. It is difficult to imagine that the Egyptian uprising and other anti-government movements in the region will not diminish the U.S. image and political credibility in the region. If that is the case, then whom can we look to as a counterbalance to Iran becoming the dominant power in the region, to the virtual takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah, and as a new spear carrier for the long-running Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and the U.S. effort supporting the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Beyond what was said in the post, "A Turkish Alternative," space today doesn't permit any further discussion of Muslim Turkey's role in the region. Except to say that, given the current state of the various anti-government movements in the Middle East, the possibility of a growing Turkish role requires a closer look stripped of the suspicions of many that Turkey, as a Muslim country, can't be trusted to instill our "western" morality and values into the Arab world.
-0-0-0-0-0-
P.S. Couldn't help noticing in the morning paper that two House subcommittees will hold hearings this week on restrictions on federal funding of abortions. Forget any national agenda, go to work on stuff that appeals to the right wing/Tea Party agenda.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO US
These are not easy days for any blogger who wants to say something about Egypt. Events move so rapidly there and throughout the region that anything one says in the morning may be easily outdated before the day is out. But there is one area that isn't endangered by rapidly changing events. The point of reference for this is a recent statement by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Davos conference in Switzerland.
Addressing the gathering last week, Medvedev said that Russia is willing to take friendly advice, "But what we don't need is preaching. . . ." What he could have added was "from the United States." The current chaos in Egypt and the Arab world which started with the overthrow a few weeks ago of the government in Tunisia sharply focuses the U.S. propensity to preach, mostly with futility, for human rights and political and economic reform while at the same time being in bed with or trying to seduce those to whom we preach.
The U.S. through both Democratic and Republican administrations has been preaching the reform gospel for decades to bedfellows in the Arab world, most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia. At the same time we have been the primary source of their support. To Egypt we have been giving generous economic and military aid in return for that country's playing a key role in various U.S. foreign policy objectives in the area. (The Egyptian military in deciding where it stands in the current chaos is surely looking for a way to please the populace while retaining our military aid in the future.) In the case of Saudi Arabia, we have served as a guarantor of its security going back to Franklin Roosevelt for its assurances of a continuous oil supply from its vast reserves.
So when things start to fall apart in the region as certainly seems to be the case now, the perception of the United States is that of a backer of authoritarian and corrupt governments, not as a purveyor of reform. As stated, this has been the case for decades, but what is particularly annoying are the efforts of some apologists for former President George W. Bush to make the case that Bush was right and Obama has been wrong in judging the popular demand for freedom in the Arab world.
The basis for the "Bush was right" view is one of the former President's arguments for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003. At the time Bush said that in overthrowing Saddam, a U.S. goal was to implant the spirit and demands for democracy in a country with no historical experience with democracy. Further, that spirit would spread to other Arab countries in the region where the demand for democracy has been repressed historically by some form or other of authoritarian rule. But that argument was just neoconservative window dressing for the primary goal of the invasion which was to root out imaginary weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam, weapons that supposedly threatened the region and the United States itself. Or, as some argue, to gain control of Iraq's huge oil reserves.
But what, in fact, has resulted? First, in Iraq itself elections have been held but the the so-called democratically elected government appears to be headed in an anti-U.S. direction, heavily influenced by arch enemy and religiously authoritarian, non-Arab Iran. More importantly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have already severely damaged the U.S. image in the Muslim world where our two wars are perceived as military occupations by 21st century anti-Muslim, Christian crusaders. U.S. efforts to change these outcomes and perceptions in the Iraq and the larger Muslim world are being further diminished both by our past role in supporting authoritarian rule and our present catchup responses to events in Egypt and other countries where unrest and demonstrations have broken out. Granted, it has not been easy for President Obama to craft a way of walking a tightrope on how to deal with the sudden popular uprisings, but that doesn't diminish the reality of perceptions on the streets of Cairo and the larger Muslim world about U.S. policy, which at least to now has been been largely free of an anti-U.S. character.
It would be difficult to overestimate how damaging these events have already been to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As stated over and over in the media and in my previous post, the ouster of Mubarak, now or a little later, removes the key U.S. ally in our pursuit of various goals in the region. And with the considerable speculation that the major beneficiaries of change will be Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the future outlook for U.S. in the region appears even grimmer.
So to return to the opening theme about U.S. preaching to the world, we should either stop the preaching or give policy substance to what we preach. As we are finding out in the Arab world and to modify an old song title-- Preaching Don't Make It So.
Addressing the gathering last week, Medvedev said that Russia is willing to take friendly advice, "But what we don't need is preaching. . . ." What he could have added was "from the United States." The current chaos in Egypt and the Arab world which started with the overthrow a few weeks ago of the government in Tunisia sharply focuses the U.S. propensity to preach, mostly with futility, for human rights and political and economic reform while at the same time being in bed with or trying to seduce those to whom we preach.
The U.S. through both Democratic and Republican administrations has been preaching the reform gospel for decades to bedfellows in the Arab world, most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia. At the same time we have been the primary source of their support. To Egypt we have been giving generous economic and military aid in return for that country's playing a key role in various U.S. foreign policy objectives in the area. (The Egyptian military in deciding where it stands in the current chaos is surely looking for a way to please the populace while retaining our military aid in the future.) In the case of Saudi Arabia, we have served as a guarantor of its security going back to Franklin Roosevelt for its assurances of a continuous oil supply from its vast reserves.
So when things start to fall apart in the region as certainly seems to be the case now, the perception of the United States is that of a backer of authoritarian and corrupt governments, not as a purveyor of reform. As stated, this has been the case for decades, but what is particularly annoying are the efforts of some apologists for former President George W. Bush to make the case that Bush was right and Obama has been wrong in judging the popular demand for freedom in the Arab world.
The basis for the "Bush was right" view is one of the former President's arguments for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003. At the time Bush said that in overthrowing Saddam, a U.S. goal was to implant the spirit and demands for democracy in a country with no historical experience with democracy. Further, that spirit would spread to other Arab countries in the region where the demand for democracy has been repressed historically by some form or other of authoritarian rule. But that argument was just neoconservative window dressing for the primary goal of the invasion which was to root out imaginary weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam, weapons that supposedly threatened the region and the United States itself. Or, as some argue, to gain control of Iraq's huge oil reserves.
But what, in fact, has resulted? First, in Iraq itself elections have been held but the the so-called democratically elected government appears to be headed in an anti-U.S. direction, heavily influenced by arch enemy and religiously authoritarian, non-Arab Iran. More importantly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have already severely damaged the U.S. image in the Muslim world where our two wars are perceived as military occupations by 21st century anti-Muslim, Christian crusaders. U.S. efforts to change these outcomes and perceptions in the Iraq and the larger Muslim world are being further diminished both by our past role in supporting authoritarian rule and our present catchup responses to events in Egypt and other countries where unrest and demonstrations have broken out. Granted, it has not been easy for President Obama to craft a way of walking a tightrope on how to deal with the sudden popular uprisings, but that doesn't diminish the reality of perceptions on the streets of Cairo and the larger Muslim world about U.S. policy, which at least to now has been been largely free of an anti-U.S. character.
It would be difficult to overestimate how damaging these events have already been to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As stated over and over in the media and in my previous post, the ouster of Mubarak, now or a little later, removes the key U.S. ally in our pursuit of various goals in the region. And with the considerable speculation that the major beneficiaries of change will be Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the future outlook for U.S. in the region appears even grimmer.
So to return to the opening theme about U.S. preaching to the world, we should either stop the preaching or give policy substance to what we preach. As we are finding out in the Arab world and to modify an old song title-- Preaching Don't Make It So.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)