Congress is in recess again. It reconvenes next week in time for taking up still another short term funding plan to avoid a government shutdown. I've lost track of how many short-term funding bills have been passed so far; the current one runs out on April 8. While the amount of money proposed to be cut is a significant issue, it doesn't seem to be the major sticking point between the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate.
What is the great stumbling block is insistence by the tea party (TP) members and their fellow travelers that the funding legislation go beyond dollar amounts and include non-budgetary policies which are part of the right wing agenda. They include banning funds for Planned Parenthood, a gift to the anti-abortion activists, cutting out funding to implement health care reform, and banning new environmental regulations to get at smokestack emissions. Anyone of these considered alone would tie up the Congress, but when you include all of them in a short-term funding bill, it is hardly any wonder they get to the Senate DOA--dead on arrival.
Right now it looks like there will be another two months of the same, but we are approaching the real showdown. That will be when Congress has to consider a bill to raise the national debt level above $14.3 trillion, That is when the TP and supporters will try to draw a line in the sand. "If you want to raise the debt ceiling, then you must make deep cuts in spending." And here is where Speaker Boehner will have his work cut out for him. Boehner himself is a legislative realist (believe that's the nicest thing I've ever said about him.) who sees the need to raise the debt ceiling. His big task will be to avoid having the TP and supporters opposing him as a bloc and forcing Boehner to rely on Democrats to provide the needed votes. He had something of that same experience with the last short term spending bill but would hate having a re-run on the more visible issue of the debt ceiling.
This brings me to President Obama who has been criticized by some for not showing more leadership on the running series of short term spending bills.In my view, he would have to be nuts to involve himself in these skirmishes. Those scripts are pretty well written and hardly require a part for the President. Raising the debt ceiling is another matter. Raising the debt ceiling is needed to avoid a declaration of national bankruptcy and thus is a headline issue which he won't want to duck. A bipartisan group of 64 senators, 32 from each party, recently wrote Obama about sitting down with Congress to start work on a longterm blueprint for resolving the nation's growing fiscal dilemma. Such a blueprint would include perhaps major changes in the tax code, and figuring out a way to deal with the big ticket items that account for so much of the budget--social security, medicare, and medicaid. He is likely to agree with the senators, timed to the debt ceiling issue, to show his serious concern with the entitlement issues, but without committing to any specific approaches for doing so.
0-0-0-0
It will be interesting to see how long some of the players in the Libyan crisis hang in there. The Arab League which was a major factor in the U.S. decision to get involved sounds like it is backing away. Several Arab countries had also committed military support to the maintenance of the no-fly zone. So far, I have only heard reports that Qatar will be sending a small number of planes this weekend. Whether they will drop any bombs, fire any missiles, or just patrol, we don't know. Arab participation was sought to give cover to the U.S. and NATO so it wouldn't appear to be still another western attack on a Muslim country. Arab participation worked for the first President Bush in the first Gulf war but that was aided greatly by the fact that one Arab country (Iraq) had invaded another Arab country (Kuwait). In Libya we intervened in a civil war. The real test of Arab perseverence will come if Qaddafi hold on to control of some part of Libya. It seems like a good idea for us to get below the radar before that test comes.
It is not clear yet who will be taking over the no-fly zone responsibility. Having reluctantly (I hope) been sucked into that adventure, there's a good chance we will exit quickly. But in the Arab world, the U.S. will continue to be viewed as the leader of the band and even turning over responsibility to someone else is not likely to free us of an anti-Muslim image burnished by our wars and continuing presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At home and abroad, spring has gotten off to a painful start.
That first bit is good news, though we can't blame Congress for getting ourselves involved in the Libyan affairs. Nothing ever changes with trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink into a bill that is written to address a single issue such as the budget in this case. I must say even the idea of both sides sitting down with the President and addresing the real core of the debt crisis is a small ray of promising hope.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab countries should be the ones leading the effort, at least be much mjore involved than sending a few planes without even possibly dropping any bombs. I think we should step out and not get involved in these things and force others to step up to the plate.
Sheila
ReplyDeleteThe classic Christmas tree legislation is a tax bill when everyone under the sun is trying to protect his local widget factory. It's a small ray of hope so we'll see what happens. There's enough recognition of the deficit/debt problem to get the various stake holders to a table, at least you would think
As much sympathy I have for the Arab world when it comes to a greater balance in U.S. policy. I would be somewhat surprised to see them stepping out front on the Qaddafi-must-go. I am reasonably certain that some of the Arab monarchs liked the way he wouldn't give up and is the model on how to deal with their own dissdents--just keep the rhetoric under control.
Not too much surprise this is number one in the media coverage. I am hearing interesting discussions though on the reason we are in Libya, one of which is for humanitarian reasons. There seems to be a lot of popular support for entering into a war with Libya (which surprises me). I should maybe say a lot more support than there was of the Iraq war, although with the Iraq war there was a much larger coalition and congress was consulted. Iraq was also a humanitarian invsation. Maybe it was not coined that way at the beginning as the reason for going in, but no one could argue that it resulted in a big humanitarin effort. Sadam had subjected his people to torture for years and even used chemical weapons on his own people. So how can the Libyan humnanitarian effort be applauded but you do not hear as much discussion about the resulting humanitarian endeavors in Iraq? I am not arguing one way or the other on us going into Iraq but it just seems there is some hypocrisy in this whole situation.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey
ReplyDeleteThe humanitarian reason is about the only one that is viable. There is a willingness to prevent slaughter, but regime change would get little backing. Qaddafi is is a terrible guy but we've lived with him a long time. As to Iraq, as I recall humanitarianism was not a headline making making issue, the big sell came on weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be a fantasy and bringing democracy to the Middle East. After all the death and destructiion in getting rid of Saddam and death and destruction for the next eight years, it would be hard for anyone to make a case for the humanitarian aspect of the mission. The Libyan adventure is more akin to what we did in Bosnia and Kosovo where humanitarianism meant stopping ethnic cleansing.
There is always hypocrisy in foreign policy, We nay not be the best practitioners but we're pretty good.