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.
It is really upsetting to hear that the fate of women in Afghanistan is going back to the way it was before the beginning of the war. Everything that was gained is slowly being lost. It will be interesting to keep an eye on Turkish foreign events to see the country's role in future events in the Middle East. Your previous blogs have mentioned that they could play a stabilizing role in the region.
ReplyDeleteThat budget stuff is just snakey. It doesnt surprise me but the people deserve to be represented better than those kinds of games. The people have said that they want real cuts in spending. The smoke and mirrors that that are played against the people on so many issues is disgraceful.
Shiela
ReplyDeleteAnd you can expect things to get worse for women in Afghanistan. I read another story where the woman heading the Women's Ministry attacked the network of women's shelter which provide a haven for women fleeing various brutalities. So who can you trust in that country?
The interesting thing about Turkey is how it continues to gain influence in the region without making a big splash about anything. But as I've said previously the big problem for many in this country is that Turkey is a Muslim country now run by a Muslim-based but basically sectarian, modernizing party. But because it is Muslim it is suspect. For Israel to begin to make nice with Turkey would require Israel to back off of its "we were right" stand on the forceful stopping of the humanitarian relief ship. But perhaps more importantly but less likely, Netanyahou has to gain some control over the extreme right wing members of his coalition, particularly Foreign Minister Lieberman who is truly a loose cannon.
As you know, I am a left of center liberal but even I get nervous tremors about how we are going to get a handle on our deficit/debt problem. We can't just keep talking about the problem without directly taking on the issues of entitlement programs, particularly medicare and medicaid. But entitlements are the third rail of politics. I am hopeful that some back room talks are taking place that will allow both sides to agree simultaneously that work must now begin on them. No one wants to step out first with an actual plan on how to deal with the entitlements except Obama's debt commission which is largely ignored. Right now all the talk of spending cuts is really chump change that is focused on just 12 percent of the budget.
It is upsetting to hear about the women's situation. The gains made in Afghanistan were so promising at one time. It was great to hear that girls could be educated and the women were treated better. To hear that another woman is turning against her own sex is even more upsetting. All these rulers care about is their own gain in personal power and wealth. The welfare of their own people is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI am hoping with you that there is something being discussed about entitlements in back rooms, but I think that even the low hanging fruit should be tackled to help reduce spending. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step and maybe our journey to reduce spending needs to start with the small items which will add up. I think that every bit helps. Thank you for the blog.
It is amazing in this day and age that women are treated so badly. And where does the world stand in this? Where is the sanctimonious UN? They criticized the US (or more specifically AZ) as being anti humanitarian for merely wanting to enforce our country's immigration laws, yet they remain silent on stonings and other atrocities committed in countries like Afghanistan that are centuries behind in their thinking.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I agree entirely with the above comment on spending. One one hand I do agree. Why keep spending even what is considered small amounts when it does add up in the end. But, I disagree because I'd rather the politicians devote their attention to the bigger spending programs.
dpchuck and Carole
ReplyDeleteNormally I would respond separately but since both of your comments overlapped it seemed that a single reply would fit both.
When it comes to women, we live in a world of contradiction. We have had women as heads of government in Israel, Britain, India, Australia, and Germany and probably some others. But in places like Iran and Afghanistan we still live in the middle ages. And the Egyptian revolution has brought out that in that country also women certainly do not have equal rights and are subject to considerable abuse. As regarding the U.N. speaking up, the normal place to look would be the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. But last year Iran, the land of lashings and stoning, was voted to one of the Commission's 45 seats. Commission membership is based on regional representation so when a vacancy opened, Iran was one of only two countries put up to fill the regional vacancy. So much for the U.N. and the rights of women.
As to spending cuts and the issue of every bit counts vs going for the big ticket items, it is interesting to note how state and local governments deal with that issue. If you want to cut a lot of money, you have to go where the money is and for state and local governments that means education and public safety (police and fire). So they go for it which is painful politically as well as substantively in that cutting in these fields means cutting out such things as music and art programs, more crowding in the classroom and fewer cops and firemen on the job. In the case of the federal government if you want to go where the money is that would mean biting the bullet and going to the entitlement programs -- social security, medicare, and medicaid. In the absence of political courage in both parties, the burden for cuts falls on the so-called discretionary spending which represents only 12 percent of the budget so if you want to save a lot of money, such as $60 billion, you have to cut deeply into programs, as was just done by the House. There was a bit of cutting action beyond the non-defense discretionary funds with some money taken from the Pentagon such as eliminating the alternative engine for the F-35, but the real burden for the cuts fell on the non-defense, discretionary programs. It is not clear at all when the two parties will muster the courage to take on the entitlements, although there are some mutterings about a bipartisan effort. We'll see.
Chuck, you're welcome; my pleasure.
Maybe I'm premature but it seems like the Tea Party isn't coming through very strongly. Their amendemnt to slash $22 million was rejected. The house sure hammered the EPA while pandering to the large businesses. While I don't think we should completely tie up industries that can create jobs by slamming them with endless regulations that almost reach a point of pettiness, it seems like the current bill proposed by the house completely panders to dirty industries and jeopardizes health and safetly.
ReplyDeleteShiela
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to think that the Tea Party has gotten the edge on the establishment GOP but it is rather difficult to really assess this since the cuts have been pushed by the 87 new House members and not of all of these are identified with the Tea Party. In any case, the cuts of EPA funds have been driven by the traditional GOP conservative pro-business support. Once the Republicans captured the House it meant tough times ahead for the EPA which now has to count on the Senate to preserve its money and efforts to limit its regulatory authority. Cutting off funds for Planned Parenthood is driven by the pro-life, anti-abortion groups which to some extent cut across party lines.
Sheila
ReplyDeleteJust noticed. Excuse the typos or plain misspellings in your name above. Guess I automatically put "i" before "e" except after "c".