ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Meeting U.S. National Security Goals — And Paying For Them Too

By Guest Blogger on Mar 2, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Our guest blogger is Sarah Jacobs, an intern with the National Security team at the Center for American Progress.

The F-22

The F-22

The Obama administration released its request for the FY 2011 defense budget last month. The requested $708.3 billion represents a more than tripling in spending from 1997, bringing our defense budget to an historic high, surpassing the Reagan era buildup, Vietnam, and higher than even the peak during the Korean War, a peak which we’ve been over for the past seven years.

This dangerous trend of building off the base of the previous year’s budget is unsustainable and not, as many think, inevitable. While national security must be the number one priority for the United States, a point that Obama has made repeatedly, defense dollars are unrestrained and lend further to the fears of an exploding deficit and a far too limited United States.

Never has there been a more important time to emphasize fiscal discipline. There is no legal reason that the defense budget should be exempt from the discretionary freeze. Congress should examine the defense budget and find where things can realistically and safely be reduced. Our troops deserve every dollar they need to remain safe and to accomplish our mission; but there are places that the budget can be slimmed down to better reflect our current threats of the 21st century. We must ensure that defense dollars are effective and focused and held accountable like all other parts of the budget.

Defense spending has been unconstrained for a decade, reaching higher than ever amounts. These increases have not been rebalanced or traded off. The Obama administration needs to seek clarity and reexamine what is being spent where. And while certainly no compromises are being struck to balance spending, the spending is raised disparately and with little explanation why.

We need to see where we can realistically cut back. For example, we do not need to grow military force when we are planning on drawing down numbers from our current conflicts. There is currently no arraying the budget by mission. The Department of Defense has no specific data on their spending. There needs to be better military and DOD priority setting like the successful drawdown from 1989-1995. Read more

Politics

After initially applauding Bunning’s obstruction, Cornyn now runs away.

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 2, 2010 at 9:12 pm

This week, there has been a significant public backlash against Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), the obstructionist who has been blocking the temporary extension of unemployment benefits. The Republican Party is also coming under fire for largely staying away from criticizing Bunning (with the exception of Sens. Susan Colllins and James Inhofe). Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was doing damage control today, insisting that Bunning was just “one senator. This does not represent the position of the caucus.” On Friday, however, Cornyn was singing a very different tune, and actually took to the Senate floor to laud Bunning:

I admire the courage of the junior senator from Kentucky, Senator Bunning. It’s not fun to be accused of having no compassion for the people who are out of work, the people for who these benefits should be forthcoming, and I believe will be forthcoming. But somebody has to stand up, finally, and say enough is enough, no more inter-generational theft from our children and grandchildren by not meeting our responsibilities today. And that’s what I interpret him to have done.

Looks like Cornyn isn’t too interested in standing up for Bunning’s “courage” now that it’s not politically popular.

Justice

Florida Lawmaker Introduces Legislation Urging Congress To Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Igor Volsky on Mar 2, 2010 at 8:30 pm

Florida State Representative Rick Kriseman with President Obama

Florida State Representative Rick Kriseman with President Obama

A Florida lawmaker has filed an amendment in the Florida House of Representatives urging Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and adopt a nondiscrimination policy. “It’s past time to end the failed policy of ’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Rick Kriseman, a Democrat said, noting that the policy has ended the careers of “a great number of lesbian and gay military servicemembers” and “hindered the military.”

Kriseman’s amendment urges Congress to adopt Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) repeal bill or “similar legislation“:

That the Congress of the United States is urged to adopt, and the President of the United States is urged to sign into law, H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, or similar legislation, that institutes a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to service in the United States military and repeals the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The legislation also notes the broad support for repealing DADT within the military and the public and cites numerous studies that have found that the policy has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and forced the military to discharge more than 13,000 qualified men and women during a time of war. “There are at least 65,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers on active military duty today and another 1 million gay and lesbian veterans who have served our nation proudly,” the bill says. “Every study authorized by the Department of Defense on the subject of the relationship between sexual orientation and participation in military service has shown that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and unit cohesion in the Armed Forces.”

Momentum for repealing DADT has slowed after Marine Commandant James Conway expressed his support for DADT and the Navy and the Army testified that a moratorium on discharges could complicate the Pentagon’s review of the policy. Still, in an interview with DC Agenda today, Murphy reiterated his belief that Congress would repeal DADT in this year’s defense authorization bill. “We usually don’t pass that into law until October of that year,” Murphy said. “October is about seven months away. That’s plenty of time for the folks to get ready to just put out to the troops that you need to respect not just one another’s race, one another creed, but also one another’s sexual orientation.”

Tomorrow, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Mark Udall (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Roland Burris (D-IL) will hold a press conference to introduce legislation to repeal DADT and the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on DADT.

Politics

Bunning finally stops hurting millions of Americans, gives up blocking unemployment benefits.

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm

The suffering of hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans eased tonight as Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) finally stopped blocking legislation temporarily extending unemployment and COBRA benefits, which stopped on Sunday. The New York Times reports:

It came after Mr. Bunning’s fellow Republicans began to air their own concerns about how the Senate blockade had the potential to damage their political brand while also having a direct impact on their constituents.

While Democrats hailed the progress, they also said Mr. Bunning’s decision to delay the aid had caused serious disruptions in federal programs and could create bureaucratic problems as people try to reclaim their federal aid.

“Sometimes just because we have the power to do things, we ought to think twice before we use that power,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No.2 Democrat in the Senate.

Bunning had been stating that he didn’t want to extend the benefits because the weren’t “paid for,” even though, as ThinkProgress reported earlier today, he voted for an unpaid-for extension during the Bush administration. Bunning’s obstruction affected the jobs of federal transportation workers (who have been furloughed without pay for the past two days), Medicare payments to doctors, television service for rural residents, small business loans, and flood insurance. The bill is now expected to come up for a vote tonight.

Economy

Democrats Push Back On Dodd’s Proposal To Give New Consumer Protection Power To The Fed

By Pat Garofalo on Mar 2, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) has decided to float a regulatory reform proposal that, instead of creating an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), would place a consumer protection division inside of the Federal Reserve. The move seems aimed at garnering some Republican support for regulatory reform, since the proposal comes from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), but Dodd is now starting to receive some pushback from other Democrats.

Until yesterday, Dodd had been rightly critical of the Fed’s utter neglect of its consumer protection responsibilities, calling it “an abysmal failure,” and noting that “for far too many years, far too many risky and abusive subprime loans were made.” Other Democrats evidently still feel the same way:

– Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): [I]n my 20 years of trying to get the Federal Reserve to properly protect consumers, it has been an uphill, and very often unsuccessful, battle. I am very leery of any consumer regulator being placed inside the Fed.

– Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): We’ve seen in the past that it hasn’t worked when consumer protection is not primary for any agency, for any group, that it get shuttled aside.

– Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR): The question I would raise is, why the Fed? Why put consumer protection back in the Fed after it’s been so woefully neglected?

I asked earlier today whether Dodd was expecting House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) to go along with his plan, after Frank worked very hard to get an independent CFPA through the House over opposition from Republicans and conservative Democrats. The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz tracked Frank down, and it turns out that he is not pleased:

“I don’t like it. On the consumer agency think it is much too weak; when I heard it would be lodged in the Federal Reserve, I thought it was a bad joke,” Frank says. “The limitations over the powers, and the [exclusion of] pay day lenders — I’m not happy with what I’ve seen so far…“If the Senate were to send us what I’ve seen so far, I wouldn’t bring it it to the House [floor],” Frank says.

Schumer, Merkley, and Brown are all on the banking committee, where Dodd’s bill has to clear its first hurdle, so it’s unclear how Dodd envisions this moving forward. Plus, the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), said putting a consumer protection division within the Fed would be akin to “moving the Department of Agriculture to the Pentagon and housing it over there and yet be autonomous.” In one final complication, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), yet another banking committee member, has promised to propose an amendment on the Senate floor creating a strong CFPA, if Dodd somehow gets his bill out of committee.

Security

Kyl Hamstringing START Deal And US-Russian Relations

By Max Bergmann on Mar 2, 2010 at 6:31 pm

Kyl-pointingIt looks as if the final hurdle to a new START deal rests on largely symbolic and inconsequential language relating to missile defense. Yet this language is becoming a major obstacle for a new START treaty and prompted a phone call between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. However, the call wasn’t enough to finalize a deal and negotiators adjourned talks. McClatchy reports that:

Negotiations to complete a new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty have stalled over a Russian demand for the option to withdraw unilaterally if Moscow determines that U.S. missile defenses would threaten its intercontinental nuclear missile force, a senior U.S. official said Monday. Similar “unilateral statements” have been included in previous arms control treaties, and the Bush administration used one in 2002 to abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union. The Obama administration, however, has rejected the Russian demand, fearing that it could make it harder to win the Republican votes needed for Senate ratification of the new nuclear arms pact.

Why is the Obama administration going to the mat over an inconsequential issue? Last week, Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) wrote a letter (pdf) to Obama protesting this possible treaty clause, arguing that it was “troubling” because it would “put pressure on the United States to limit” its missile defense systems. But this is a ridiculous argument since if the Russians feel that strongly about the threat of US missile defense they could still withdraw from the next START treaty whether that language is in the treaty or not. In other words, the additional language changes nothing. Therefore, the letter from Kyl seems more like an effort to disguise his opposition behind the more politically palatable issue of missile defense, rather than have to argue that he is crazily against decreasing the number of nuclear weapons pointed at the United States.

Now Kyl – who is the most important Republican in this area – has not said he would oppose a new treaty and he did seemingly signal that to support the treaty he may no longer be demanding the building of new nuclear weapons. This is a good sign and getting Kyl to support the treaty would guarantee ratification.

But getting Kyl’s support is also a huge gamble since almost every sign points to Kyl doing everything he can to obstruct a treaty. As the McClatchy story indicates, trying to meet Jon Kyl’s demands has a real cost, as it is stalling the entire treaty and putting ratification this year in doubt, as well as creating unnecessary turmoil in the US-Russian relationship. Should the Administration succeed in stripping out the language, the Administration would still be gambling on the sincerity of Kyl to not backtrack on any deal to support the final treaty.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 2, 2010 at 6:14 pm

I guess it makes me smile:

— Kent Conrad talks reconciliation.

— Mike Tomasky is no Rahm Emanuel: “at other times, he needs to do the right thing and not worry about what Lindsey Graham is going to say.”

—Beware the Breitbartocalypse.

— The future is hard to predict.

— Are drones killing the Air Force?

— Darko benefitting from low expectations.

Kurt Cobain was very fond of taking himself more seriously, so I think this video of figure skating to “Smells Like Teen Spirit” would probably inspire a second suicide; the rest of us can just enjoy it.

Politics

Fifteen States Have Polluter-Driven Resolutions To Deny Climate Threat

By Brad Johnson on Mar 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Yesterday, the South Dakota legislature passed a resolution telling public schools to teach “balance” about the “prejudiced” science of climate change by a vote of 37-33. Earlier language that ascribed “astrological” influences to global warming was stripped from the final version.

This act of conspiracy-driven ideology is hardly alone — a Wonk Room investigation has found at least fifteen state legislatures attempting to prevent limits on greenhouse gas pollution. The states of Alabama and Utah have already adopted resolutions calling for the overturn of the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming endangerment finding, with legislators in thirteen more states in tow. Several resolutions argue that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the threat of manmade global warming is actually a conspiracy:

KENTUCKY: “WHEREAS, a recent disclosure of communications among scientists associated with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has cast serious doubt upon the scientific data that have purportedly supported the finding that manmade carbon dioxide has been a material cause of global warming or global climate change . . . ”

MARYLAND: “WHEREAS, E–mail and other communications between climate researchers around the globe discovered as part of the recent “climate–gate” controversy indicate that there is a well–organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data and incorporate tricks to substantiate the theory of climate change . . . ”

OKLAHOMA: “WHEREAS, intense public scrutiny has revealed how unsettled the science is on climate change and the unwillingness of many of the world’s climatologists to share data or even entertain opposing viewpoints on the subject . . .”

UTAH: “WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as ‘Climategate,’ indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome . . . “

Every resolution makes the false claim that protecting citizens from hazardous climate pollution would hurt the economy, instead of recognizing the potential of a green recovery. Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Alaska lawmakers talk about being “dependent” on the coal and oil industries whose lobbyists are fighting climate action. Several of the resolutions, drafted early last year, call on Congress to reject the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House of Representatives in June but has languished in the Senate. The Alaska and West Virginia resolutions support Sen. Lisa Murkowski‘s (R-AK) effort to rewrite the Clean Air Act (S.J.Res. 26), and Alabama’s resolution calls for the passage of Rep. Earl Pomeroy’s (D-ND) similar effort (H.R. 4396).

The most legally bizarre resolution is Arizona state senator Sylvia Allen’s (R-AZ) “tenther” argument that the U.S. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. Allen also believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The other Arizona resolution, along with the Kentucky, Virginia, and Washington resolutions, would attempt to block state enforcement of global warming rules.

These efforts to overturn the Clean Air Act and replace science with conspiracy theories are being supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national organization that brings conservative state lawmakers together with industry lobbyists. ALEC promotes a resolution opposing the endangerment finding drafted by its Natural Resources Task Force, which includes over 120 lawmakers from around the nation and a similarly sized group of corporate representatives. Although ALEC does not have an official position on the validity of climate science, the organization is “actively involved in helping people get together and share ideas,” a representative told ThinkProgress. For example, the spring ALEC task force meeting will feature Exxon Mobil-backed global warming denier Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.


States With Resolutions Opposing Greenhouse Endangerment Finding
State Bill Sponsor Status Notes
AK HJR 49 Stoltze (R) Pending Supports Murkowski
AL HJR 218 Gipson (R) Enacted Supports Pomeroy
AZ HB 2442
SCR 1050		 Burges (R)
Allen (R)		 Pending Blocks state enforcement
Tenther resolution
FL H 1535 Adams (R) Pending Opposes Waxman-Markey
GA HR 1357
SR 958		 Stephens (R)
Pearson (R)		 Pending Supports overturn
IL HR 961
SR 666		 Phelps (D)
Forby (D)		 Pending Opposes Waxman-Markey
KS SR 1809 Natural Resources Committee Pending Opposes “administrative fiat” by EPA
KY HJR 20 Fischer (R) Pending Cites hacked emails to block state enforcement
MD HJR 13 Jenkins (R) Pending Cites “climate change conspiracy” to oppose EPA
MO HCR 46
HCR 59		 Funderburk (R)
Brown (R)		 Pending Opposes Waxman-Markey, EPA
OK SCR 41 Lamb (R) Adopted by Senate Cites “unsettled” science to support overturn
UT HJR 12 Gibson K (R) Adopted Cites “Climategate” to support EPA withdrawal
VA HB1357 Morefield (R) Pending “Carbon dioxide shall not be considered air pollution”
WA S 6477 Stevens (R) Pending Blocks state enforcement
WV HCR 34 Shott (R) Pending Cites “vigorous, legitimate, and substantive” scientific debate to support Murkowski

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Climate Progress

REPORT: Fifteen States Have Polluter-Driven Resolutions To Deny Climate Threat

By Brad Johnson on Mar 2, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Yesterday, the South Dakota legislature passed a resolution telling public schools to teach “balance” about the “prejudiced” science of climate change by a vote of 37-33. Earlier language that ascribed “astrological” influences to global warming was stripped from the final version.

This act of conspiracy-driven ideology is hardly alone — a Wonk Room investigation has found at least fifteen state legislatures attempting to prevent limits on greenhouse gas pollution. The states of Alabama and Utah have already adopted resolutions calling for the overturn of the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming endangerment finding, with legislators in thirteen more states in tow. Several of these “Dirty Air Act” resolutions argue that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the threat of manmade global warming is actually a conspiracy:

KENTUCKY: “WHEREAS, a recent disclosure of communications among scientists associated with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has cast serious doubt upon the scientific data that have purportedly supported the finding that manmade carbon dioxide has been a material cause of global warming or global climate change . . .”

MARYLAND: “WHEREAS, E–mail and other communications between climate researchers around the globe discovered as part of the recent “climate–gate” controversy indicate that there is a well–organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data and incorporate tricks to substantiate the theory of climate change . . . ”

OKLAHOMA: “WHEREAS, intense public scrutiny has revealed how unsettled the science is on climate change and the unwillingness of many of the world’s climatologists to share data or even entertain opposing viewpoints on the subject . . .”

UTAH: “WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as ‘Climategate,’ indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome . . .”

Every resolution makes the false claim that protecting citizens from hazardous climate pollution would hurt the economy, instead of recognizing the potential of a green recovery. Missouri, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Alaska lawmakers talk about being “dependent” on the coal and oil industries whose lobbyists are fighting climate action. Several of the resolutions, drafted early last year, call on Congress to reject the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House of Representatives in June but has languished in the Senate. The Alaska and West Virginia resolutions support Sen. Lisa Murkowski‘s (R-AK) effort to rewrite the Clean Air Act (S.J.Res. 26), and Alabama’s resolution calls for the passage of Rep. Earl Pomeroy’s (D-ND) similar effort (H.R. 4396).

The most legally bizarre resolution is Arizona state senator Sylvia Allen’s (R-AZ) “tenther” argument that the U.S. Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. Allen also believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The other Arizona resolution, along with the Kentucky, Virginia, and Washington resolutions, would attempt to block state enforcement of global warming rules.

These efforts to overturn the Clean Air Act and replace science with conspiracy theories are being supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a national organization that brings conservative state lawmakers together with industry lobbyists. ALEC promotes a resolution opposing the endangerment finding drafted by its Natural Resources Task Force, which includes over 120 lawmakers from around the nation and a similarly sized group of corporate representatives. Although ALEC does not have an official position on the validity of climate science, the organization is “actively involved in helping people get together and share ideas,” a representative told the Wonk Room. For example, the spring ALEC task force meeting will feature Exxon Mobil-backed global warming denier Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.


States With Resolutions Opposing Greenhouse Endangerment Finding
State Bill Sponsor Status Notes
AK HJR 49 Stoltze (R) Pending Supports Murkowski
AL HJR 218 Gipson (R) Enacted Supports Pomeroy
AZ HB 2442
SCR 1050		 Burges (R)
Allen (R)		 Pending Blocks state enforcement
Tenther resolution
FL H 1535 Adams (R) Pending Opposes Waxman-Markey
GA HR 1357
SR 958		 Stephens (R)
Pearson (R)		 Pending Supports overturn
IL HR 961
SR 666		 Phelps (D)
Forby (D)		 Pending Opposes Waxman-Markey
KS SR 1809 Natural Resources Committee Pending Opposes “administrative fiat” by EPA
KY HJR 20 Fischer (R) Pending Cites hacked emails to block state enforcement
MD HJR 13 Jenkins (R) Pending Cites “climate change conspiracy” to oppose EPA
MO HCR 46
HCR 59		 Funderburk (R)
Brown (R)		 Pending Opposes Waxman-Markey, EPA
OK SCR 41 Lamb (R) Adopted by Senate Cites “unsettled” science to support overturn
UT HJR 12 Gibson K (R) Adopted Cites “Climategate” to support EPA withdrawal
VA HB1357 Morefield (R) Pending “Carbon dioxide shall not be considered air pollution”
WA S 6477 Stevens (R) Pending Blocks state enforcement
WV HCR 34 Shott (R) Pending Cites “vigorous, legitimate, and substantive” scientific debate to support Murkowski

Update

At Legum’s New Line, Judd Legum discusses the disastrous consequences for Maryland if Del. Charles Jenkins’s petition were to pass.

Related Posts

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up