By Friday, Congress will pass the last of the 2010 Appropriations Bills. You probably heard last week that House and Senate conferees had theoretically come to terms on what was included in this last part: Defense.
The Appropriations Bills say what Congress will and will not fund. In general, there is virtually no transparency in what gets accomplished, and all sorts of things get stuck into the bills at the last minute. For example:
[T]he Commodity Futures Modernization Act that was slipped into an omnibus bill back in 2000. The text was only available for 24 hours and its inclusion in the omnibus was only known for 4 minutes before final consideration. The passage of the Act not only created the "Enron loophole" but a market of unregulated derivatives which contributed to near economic collapse in late 2008.
There are many progressives who are concerned about this last big bill of 2010 for dueling reasons. First, they want the House to slip into the Defense bill an increase to the debt ceiling along with additional funding for COBRA, unemployment, Medicaid and food stamps. Second, they are well aware that hidden in the bill is the extension to the Patriot Act. Finally, there's Afghanistan. President Obama can say "more troops" but it's up to Congress to fund those troops, and some would like that discussion to be transparent, separate, debated, and voted on so that constituents can see who stands where. And then, there will need to be both House and Senate votes. But, there is an out:
There is still a possibility that appropriators have to craft another continuing resolution to fund the Defense Department until the Senate can agree on a time to vote on the bill. The Pentagon is currently funded through a continuing resolution that expires Dec. 18.
If they don’t appoint official conferees, the way the House and Senate could take up the $636 billion defense bill with the additional legislation is by using the Senate version of the bill as a shell. Appropriators would strip out the contents of the Senate bill and fill in the negotiated defense bill as well as the additional provisions. By doing it that way, it ensures that the bill won’t be open to amendments in the Senate.
While the Senate did pass a bunch of appropriations bills last week, Defense was not included. That omnibus bill had been previously passed by the House, and was not amended in the Senate. Therefore, it's good to go to Obama for his signature.
The blackmail part of the Defense Appropriations Bill is that there is something for everybody. Honest. It's over a thousand pages and if someone listed out everything, and presented the list, every American would find something on it that he/she wants. And something else he/she abhors. I call it institutional blackmail because stuffing *#^& amendments into bills at the last second is a way that people in Congress cut deals. "Afghanistan is abhorrent to you, Congressman, and your constituents? Well, you're going to have to vote for it if you want food stamps in your U6 27% unemployed district." -OR- "Sure, I'll vote for the COBRA extension, but only if you vote for the Patriot Act extension."
It would be so much better if there were some system, some law, whereby amendments could only be attached to a bill if they in some way related to the bill. Better yet, more laws, more bills, with NO amendments. There would be so much more transparency. Imagine, if you will, straight up or down votes on each issue, at 50% plus 1 in each chamber.
The Defense Appropriations bill is usually the worst for this because it is often the last appropriations bill of the year, it's always huge, and it's therefore not only the last chance for a lot of things, but it is always rushed due to the fact that Congress wants to go home, and most people aren't paying enough attention. It's always worst when we are a country at war: whether you support a specific war or not, those are OUR KIDS and until they come home, we all want them to have body armor and food and everything else they need.
So it goes, another process issue to be considered.
By the way, I selected the graphic because of what it represents, which to me is a lot of how the debate over the Defense Appropriations Bill SHOULD come down every year. Lots of debate on the topic, lots of transparency, and the final commitment. It is a statue in DC's Judiciary Square, and there is a similar statue in the rose garden at the UN in NY. The latter was a gift from what was then the Soviet Union. The name of the statue is "Guns into Plowshares" and it is composed of guns collected during an amnesty gun buy-back program in DC.
I cannot remember when a single week in DC could have such potential and actual ramifications on so many different areas of our lives. Our DIRECT lives, we Americans.
To remain unaffected by the things occurring this week, you would need to be a self-employed hermit with no friends or family who is immune to all disease and incapable of having an accident. Otherwise, you KNOW someone with an underwater mortgage, someone who could deploy to Afghanistan, someone without a job, and/or someone without health insurance.....it's a big, big week.
The Senate is debating health care. I've finished the Senate bill they're looking at, and have some information on some of the amendments. I am reserving comments until the amendments are finalized, since that could truly change the nature of the bill. My bottom line question will likely be whether passing a bad bill is better than passing no bill at all.
President Obama will speak on Afghanistan tonight. You'll be able to watch it here on DCW. "Everyone" says that we'll be looking at sending 30-some-odd thousand young Americans to fight there. If you missed it, you should read the Senate Foreign Relations report on how we let Bin Laden slip out of Tora Bora eight years ago this month.
The Obama administration is looking at fining mortgage lenders that don't modify enough mortgages. There is money available to the lenders (up to $3,000) for each modified mortgage, but it seems that make more money by NOT finalizing the modifications. Sadly, no one is talking about modifying the mark to market rules, which actually could get the mortgage lenders moving incredibly quickly to accept some blame, share the pain, and move on. However, the administration is considering allowing judges to modify residential first mortgages during bankruptcy proceedings, which would have an immediate affect on the housing situation.
The jobs summit starts tomorrow. I am relieved and hopeful since Paul Krugman will be there. He has been one of the few voices of reason during the economic crisis. I hope they listen to him. Also attending (albeit not a complete list) will be executives from Disney, AT&T, Comcast (yes, the folks on track to buy NBC), Google, Boeing and FedEx, along with the president of the UnitedSteel Workers, academics, mayors and past and current administration members.
One of the mayors attending will be Ed Pawlowskiof Allentown, PA. President Obama will be traveling to Allentown following the two-day summit. In a way, the choice of this location is a metaphor for health care, jobs, home ownership and the American dreams delayed by the current recession.
Back during the Reagan administration, Billy Joel wrote the song Allentown, chronicling the death of a coal and steel town. Ever since, it has happened again and again: autos in Michigan, car parts in Ohio, textiles in the Carolinas, fallout across the US. If you've never seen it:
On Tuesday night, President Obama will address the nation on how we go forward in Afghanistan.
Tomorrow, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will publish their report, which you can read below. Note the title: Tora Bora Revisited: How we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today. It's scathing.And worth reading for the historical narrative.
It's obvious from the report that we could have had Bin Laden in December of 2001, he was easily in the grasp of our troops, but thanks to the team of Rumsfeld and Franks, we virtually lethimgo. The conclusion is that by sticking with airstrikes and Afghanis, in lieu of American boots on the ground, Bin Laden walked out of Tora Bora, and into Pakistan, where he likely resides today.
Imagine: had we caught him, that would have been the end. Sure, there would have been other ramifications, but there's a good chance the foray into Iraq could have been avoided as all lies would have been on Bin Laden.
I've looked at speeches from candidate Obama, and it's not back tracking to "finish" the "job" in Afghanistan. It's what he's always said he'd do. The disparity with John Boy was the idea of having a clear exit strategy, and a plan to get us there.
I recommend you read the Senate report prior to Tuesday's speech.
The letter below was sent out by the Progressive Democrats of America, and is reprinted in its entirety with permission from Tim Carpenter, Executive Director. I hope you'll use the links to read the background.
The information in the (health care) links talk about a number of things the current legislation being discussed misses. The rights of individual states to allow for Single Payer in just their states. (If you can opt out, why can't you opt for Single Payer? Just saying...) Also affordability and the maintenance of reproductive rights. I have purposely not given my opinion on whether the bills in the chambers are good or bad, as passed in the House, and up for discussion in the Senate. I've only said that it's important that they pass. PDA provides important input to the discussion.
Also take a look at the California resolution, it will become important next week.
Dear Friends,
Washington can be a very lonely place when you are fighting for progressive ideas like Medicare for All and an end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is for that reason I wanted to thank all my friends at PDA for your hard work this past week.
Last Wednesday, I had an opportunity to meet with your national director Tim Carpenter, following his visit to the White House, and PDA’s political director Steve Cobble. They met with five other members of Congress that day in an effort to save my amendment.
Later that evening, as a result of the leadership and grassroots work of Progressive Democrats of America and its allies, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) affirmed their support for a states' right to enact single-payer healthcare in their letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Read the letter here.
We succeeded in putting the CPC on record supporting states like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio and others across the country to continue the fight for single-payer healthcare at the state level. I know without PDA leading this fight we would have not won this important battle in the struggle for Medicare for All.
I also want to congratulate the California Democratic Party, which voted last week to end the U.S. occupation and air war in Afghanistan. I commend the authors of this resolution, especially my friend Norman Solomon, the national co-chair of PDA's Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign, and Marcy Winograd, PDA candidate for Congress. I also commend the leadership of Karen Bernal and the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, and I applaud the work of PDA’s California chapters in helping to pass this timely resolution.
What a great week we had together! Please keep fighting to build the movement for Healthcare NOT Warfare.
There has been a lot of chatter from different sides of the puzzle, so I thought I would give you all a perspective from a retired military guy on the Afghan War.
In the Presidential campaign, when asked about the two wars that were ongoing, President Obama replied that the Iraq war was a War of Choice and that the Afghan war was a War of Necessity. He was correct. The Bush administration had to respond to the terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11, and those terrorist were trained and based out of Afghanistan. It was necessary to dismantle their machine to prevent further attacks. But the Bush administration decided it would be more profitable to fight Iraq so they took their eye off the real mission. That puts the current administration in a tougher position, and allowed al Queda to plan and make additional attacks in Spain and England.
First, mission definition. What is the mission now in Afghanistan? Is it still to go after and destroy terrorism? Or are there multiple missions? If we look at recent events it's clear that the mission in Afghanistan has taken on new and additional tasks. They are trying to clear out pockets of insurgents. They are trying to do some nation building, They are using DEA to go after the drug trade. And they are launching drone missions into Pakistan to go after terrorist. Mission definition is a constantly changing factor in an extended war. Remember, it is an extended war because of the Bush administration. But you have to develop a mission strategy. Only then can you evaluate what troops and equipment you need to fulfill the mission. And you can only get out of a war when you have established a mission that can be achieved. The Korean War had a mission to prevent the North from taking over the South. Guess what - we are still there, and the Korean War has never officially been declared over.
If we are simply under the original mission of eliminating the terrorist, it would be a simple task. You simply make peace with the Taliban, give them back their portion of Afghanistan, and bribe them to keep the terrorist out. If the terrorist start setting up camp again, you send in the bombers. No ground troops required. You wouldn't worry or care about collateral damage because you had worked out a deal with the Taliban, and they would have had to ave violated that deal to allow the terrorist back in. The Taliban used to be our allies. We were paying them and supplying them with weapons in their fight against the Russians. So we know how they work. They like money, and they like to be left alone.
By Friday, Congress will pass the last of the 2010 Appropriations Bills. You probably heard last week that House and Senate conferees had theoretically come to terms on what was included in this last part: Defense.
