Congressmen Back Step on Sequester as Cuts Become Personal

American Airlines passengers wait for their flight at Miami International Airport. Photo courtesy of Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Congress has been in partisan gridlock cannot seem to get anything done. The only way any cuts to our growing deficit have been able to occur have been by default – the sequester deadline. A few months ago, the sequester took affect and 2.4% of future spending was cut across the board – including many air traffic controller jobs. With less air traffic controllers at airports, there have been many flight delays. Members of Congress, trying to get out of town for a 9 day break, realized that this issue would affect them, and all of Congress joined together to do something for once.

In February, I wrote,

“Many people do not understand what the sequester is or what it means, but they have been told to be afraid of it. Here is some truth about the sequester: $984 billion will be cut – not $1.2 trillion. The other $216 billion will come from interest savings. The $1.2 trillion will not be cut all at once. It will be spread out over nine tears, $109 billion per year. Finally, the sequester will not affect Social Security, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits, the Children’s Health Insurance Program , unemployment insurance, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Need, and some other mandatory spending programs.”

Congress has been able to set aside its differences and take quick action, but who did they do it for? Despite the fact that if Congress did not do something about the flight delays, constituents would be complaining about it throughout the recess, politicians’ decision had little to do with the American people. Chances are, all the politicians (Republicans and Democrats) did not want their own flights to be delayed on their way out of the Capitol. The Federal Aviation Association was given relief from the sequester, but schools and some programs that affect the poor must still take actions to function within smaller means.

With Congress whittling away at the sequester, what will become of these cuts. When the sequester took affect at the beginning of March, it was already going to be a relatively small dent in the deficit. Congress will probably give relief to education over the summer, just before school starts for the Fall. We can count on other exceptions to the sequester being made in the next few months as well. The teeth of the sequester are being filed down. As I wrote back in February, the sequester was probably  just another political tactic – something Republicans and Democrats can agree on. A tactic to scare the American people.  The sequester looks similar to classic political strategies that are still used today.

It is true that the sequester was not designed to make cuts intelligently. It was designed to not discriminate between programs. If Congress could work together, a better solution could be found. However, we cannot decide to give the horse the rod and later replace it with a feather.

Excerpt taken from “Obama Sticks Blame for Sequester on Republicans”

Star-Telegram article

Obama Continues Attack on Whistleblowers

Last week marked the 10th anniversary of Ridenhour Prizes – an  award given by the National Institute and Fertel Foundation to whistleblowers. Founder of the Fertel Foundation Randy Fertel said, ” At a moment when a debate is raging about the treatment of whistleblowers, The Ridenhour Prizes recognize those who put their lives on the line to challenge the status quo.” Congratulations to the winners: James Hansen, Jose Antonio Vargas, Seth Rosenfeld, and Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering. However today, we would like to give our condolences to those would-be-whistleblowers who did not step forward because of a chilling effect that was created by the White House and the Pentagon.

The Ridenhour Prizes are named in honor of Ron Ridenhour, a soldier who informed Congress and the Pentagon about the mass killings of innocent men, women, and children during the Vietnam War. This information led Seymour Hersh to write a series of articles for the Dispatch News Service about My Lai, which Hersh later won the Pulitzer Prize for. Few may remember Ridenhour, but his information led to the turning point in public opinion of the war.

During the president’s first campaign, he said whistleblowers were “the best source of information about waste, fraud and abuse in government,” and that their “acts of courage and patriotism . . . should be encouraged rather than stifled.” For the record, Obama did follow up his words by implementing the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This act increased the protection and rewards for whistleblowers, while increasing punishments for managers who retaliate against them. However, this only confuses the situation even more because the president has used the Espionage Act to attack 6 whistleblowers since he’s been in office. The Espionage Act is an old, unpopular law passed in 1917. It has been used in the past 3 times, which means Obama has increased the number of times the law has been used by 200%. 2011 Ridenhour winner Thomas Drake was charged under the Espionage Act after he exposed a National Security Agency’s program to monitor civilian communications.

Conveniently announced while the country debates whistleblower protection, a new documentary “War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State,” directed by Robert Greenwald, premiered. The movie tells the stories and hardships of 4 whistleblowers and the journalists they brought their information to.

I wrote a blog 2 weeks ago telling how “the defense of Obama’s position is expected at a federal court of appeals” concerning new efforts to increase the amount of federal workers who could not be protected for whistleblowing. The president decided to continue his support for the Pentagon’s stance to expand the category of government employees who are not protected by whistleblower protection statutes to include some workers who do not have access to classified information.

Read more at “Obama Takes Stand Against Whistleblowers”

The Ridenhour Prizes

The Washington Post Article

“War on Whistleblowers” Documentary Website

Huffington Post Article

Mother Jones Article

Fact Check: Obama Places Blame about Gun Control Bill

Obama had a press meeting at the White House this week concerning his disappointment about the failure of the gun control bill in the Senate. Before he spoke, he brought out a Sandy Hook family and made sure everyone had really big frowns on their faces. But this is normal presidential rhetoric nowadays. The important thing is who he blamed for the frowny faces and whether that is accurate or not. There were several scape goats falsely accused by the president.

First, Obama blamed Republicans. However, 4 of the 6 decisive “no” votes came from Democrats. Senators Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas, Mark Begich (D) of Alaska, Max Baucus (D) of Montana, and Heidi Heitkamp (D) of North Dakota did not vote in favor of the gun control bill. These senators come from states with large populations of gun owners, who might need their guns for protection in the wilderness.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (D) was going to join these senators and vote “no,” but decided to vote “yes” so there could be another vote later at a date not yet set.

Second, Obama blamed the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbyists. However, the NRA was in favor of background checks shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre. Even when other gun rights supporters criticized the NRA, they stood their ground.

The third point of my analysis is probably the trickiest to explain. Obama said, “90 percent of the American people supported” the gun control bill. Perhaps 90 percent of Americans want more background checks, but did not like this bill. A majority of the Republicans and independents that were included in that 90 percent feared that improved background checks or gun registration might lead to their guns being confiscated sometime in the future. Not to be confused with paranoia, this is how legally owned guns were confiscated in Canada and the United Kingdom. In an Associated Press-Gfk Poll, 59% of Americans said they did not like the current con control legislation on the Senate floor.

Last but not least, Obama said people were scared into thinking the bill would create a Big Brother type registry. He added that the legislation would make such a registry illegal. If a gun owner registry was made illegal, then how would the police track down the legal owner of a gun when the gun was used in a crime? A registry is necessary, and like what is mentioned above, it could be used to take legally owned guns away from Americans.

Also read on this site: “Why did the Senate Gun Control Bill Fail?”

Independent Journal Review article

NPR article and discussion

Why did the Senate Gun Control Bill Fail?

Courtesy of the Associated Press.

Earlier this week, the recent gun control bill was turned down in the Senate. With a vote of 54 to 46, the bill failed by 6 votes. The assault weapons ban also failed 60 to 40.  Since the Democrats currently have control of the Senate, many are baffled as to why this legislation was dropped.

Spurred into action by sentiments after the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, Congress has been working on a gun control bill since shortly after the president was reelected. The gun control bill contained legislation for more and stricter background checks.  This would extend background checks to online and gun show sales, which currently do not require background checks.

The assault weapons ban was meant to prohibit high capacity magazines, and assault weapons. Assault weapons prohibited by this ban in would include semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have 1 of the following: pistol grip, forward grip, folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, grenade launcher or rocket launcher, barrel shroud, or threaded barrel. It would also include pistols that have 1 of the following: threaded barrel, second pistol grip, barrel shroud, capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip, or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. High capacity magazines were defined by the failed bill as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Democrats have been weary in the past about passing gun control legislation. When an American politician representing a gun enthusiast  tries to pass gun laws, he often loses the gun enthusiast’s vote. However, the adamant belief in protecting 2nd Amendment rights is held by more than just gun owners. The founding fathers recognized what guns meant to the American Revolution, and the right to bear arms has been seen as an American tradition since then. Today, Republican are persistent about the protection of 2nd Amendment rights.

 

It is possible that this issue was too complicated for freshmen Senators Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia and Pat Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania. Despite this effort to make a bipartisan bill, there was a lot of pressure to please the Left before the Right. This is like preaching to the choir, and then thinking others would like the idea just as much or they can just force it on them. Negotiations on an issue championed by Republicans should start with them in mind. Obama and Michael Bloomberg leading the way might have turned off many Republicans to gun control. In addition, not all Democrats were in the “choir.” With Democrats in conflict with each other on the issue and Republicans working in unison against the gun control bill, Republicans won. There is no doubt that the gun control debate will be brought to Capitol Hill again in 2014.

NPR article and radio discussion

Diannne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban summary

ABC News story

 

Obama Takes Stand Against Whistleblowers

“Whistleblowers” by Kip Lyall.

Obama has made it clear several times that he wishes to be the most transparent president in history. He has encouraged government whistleblowers to come forward. Then why is he now attacking whistleblowers? This is the question on many Americans’ minds.

The Justice Department along with the Defense Department explains that federal employees can be demoted, reassigned, or even fired without appeal if their jobs are deemed “sensitive” – even if employees do not have access to classified information. In the past, civil service protections for these workers have protected them from being fired for speaking out against corruption. The White House’s actions would remove civil service protection rights from hundreds of thousands of government workers, according to some lawyers. According to the Office of Special Counsel,  which protects whistleblowers and investigates their reports, said there are approximately 500,000 Department of Defense civil service employees considered to have “sensitive” positions. The Obama administration’s actions would encourage employees to strike back against those who wish to report government corruption and waste.

Instead of taking the side of civil service workers, Obama is in agreement with the Justice Department and Defense Department along with the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. This places the president against whistleblower advocates, federal employee unions, and congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Many are surprised that an act like this would come from the president,  a workers’ rights advocate and former civil rights attorney.

Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project Tom Devine explained, “This is an administration at war with itself. It’s Obama versus Obama.”

Devine continued, “On the one side, you have the Department of Defense, and the Office of Personnel Management trying to functionally cancel the civil service system. And on the other side you have President Obama’s Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel, defending the integrity of it.”

Congressmen are speaking out against Obama. Senator Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa argued, “This abuse of national security classifications is a prime case where the administration could send a signal to the bureaucracy to knock this type of behavior off. Instead, the administration is backing an absurd position against the whistleblowers. If this administration wants to create an environment where whistleblowers aren’t afraid to come forward, helping the whistleblowers, instead of fighting them, would be a good place to start.”

Obama even met resistance from members of his own party. Representative Elijah Cummings (D) of Maryland, the leading Democrat on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, argued, “Providing agencies with complete discretion to strip federal workers of whistleblower and other civil service protections would undermine Congressional intent and would be patently unjust.”

The defense of Obama’s position is expected at a federal court of appeals later today.

Politico article

Rubio Gives Seal of Approval for Immigration Reform Plan

The Senate “Gang of 8.” Courtesy of NewswithViews.com.

Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio (R) of Florida gave his approval for an immigration reform plan that he and other senators have been working on. Previously, Rubio warned that the plan was not ready for the Senate. Some were concerned that his skepticism would discourage his fellow Republican senators from supporting the plan, but today, he spent time on 7 network talk shows, ready to give his support. Rubio claimed this plan would be “a net positive for the country, now and in the future.”

The immigration reform plan would create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. If the bill passes, illegal immigrants  will be able to apply for a legal status in the U.S. However, Rubio points out that the plan would not give amnesty to approximately 11 million illegal immigrants or give them federal benefits before full citizenship had been granted. According to the plan, it would take 10 years before an illegal immigrant already in the country to qualify for full legal citizenship. In order to appease the concerns of many Americans on immigration reform, the plan includes tougher border security and better employee verification systems.

Rubio has been working with a group of 8 senators, called the “Gang of 8,” to reform American immigration policies . Besides Rubio, the “Gang of 8” includes Senators Arizona’s Jeff Flake (R) and John McCain (R), South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham (R), Illinois’ Dick Durbin (D), New Jersey’s Robert Menendez (D), New York’s Chuck Schumer (D), and Colorado’s Michael Bennet (D). Schumer explained, “The eight of us have met in the middle, and I think that’s where the American people are.”

This bipartisan group sets a good example for Congress, which has been too divided to move forward on much if anything. Republican political consultant  Karl Rove has expressed his support. “The Democrats and Republicans here have tried to cobble together a bill that is thoughtful, sensitive, tough, and with an eye toward getting something done.”

Rubio has been a star actor in the “Gang of 8.” Currently considering a run for the presidency in 2016, America has kept an eye on him. Rubio is a Cuban-American who knows about the difficulties of immigration through his parents. His background attracts other Cuban-Americans and even some other Latinos to the Republican Party. However, it is important to note that other Latino-Americans do not necessarily have the same beliefs and life styles as Cuban-Americans. In regards to Rubio’s possible run for president, Rove said, “I think it will help him.”

Whether the immigration reform plan passes in the Senate or not, it shows Rubio’s leadership capabilities. Schumer said that Rubio was “a tremendous asset here.”

Graham added that Rubio is “indispensable” and “a  game changer.”

Nobody knows when the plan will reach the Senate floor. Rubio said it might come “as early as this week.”

However, Schumer said, “I see nothing in the way, and I think you’ll see a major agreement that’s balanced, that’s fair, that will have the widespread support of the American people on Tuesday.”

Republicans ask for Social Security Cuts

As part of the ongoing budget debate, Republicans in Congress are asking for cuts to Social Security. However, the president is pushing back, reiterating a need for a “balanced approach.” the cuts to Social Security are being called “chained CPI.”

It is believed by Republicans that “chained CPI” would merely cause seniors to buy more generic goods instead of name brands and more expensive products at the most. This would only occur in cases where future beneficiaries did not have additional income or assets to live off of during their retirement years. Some economists state that the cuts would help account for the reality of inflation. Others counter that less money for seniors would mean more poverty. Health care, which seniors are dependent on, continues to skyrocket, no matter what inflation numbers say.

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said today that the president will only allow for “chained CPI” if a couple conditions can be made. “This chained CPI that’s being referred to here, it is something the president will only accept on two conditions,” he said. “One, it’s part of a balanced package that includes asking — closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest, and two, that it has protections for the most vulnerable, including the oldest seniors.” This makes President Obama the first Democratic President to even suggest Social Security cuts. However, this strategy is designed to bring Republicans to a compromise on the budget and encourage them to be more accepting of increasing taxes.

Republicans are hesitant to take the president’s offer. House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio stated, “If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there is no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.”

Despite Boehner’s resistance, it might be his own party’s conditions in the deficit talks that stop the cuts from moving forward. Pfeiffer explained, “If Speaker Boehner’s position, as he said it in that statement, remains his position, then we will not make progress, because what this president will not do is come in, right after getting reelected, and enact a Romney economic plan, which is what the Republicans in the House are proposing.” If Simply put, if Republicans stand firm on not supporting increases in taxes, and Obama says there will be no Social Security cuts without increases in taxes, then there will be no Social Security cuts.

Boehner has met some resistance from within his own party. Concerning the Social Security cuts,  “the president’s showing a little bit of leg here,” South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said, “He showed some leadership. That puts the burden on us.” However, Graham said the cuts were not big enough anyways. The South Carolina senator is also in favor of “harmonizing the age for retirement” by increasing the retirement age.

Huffington Post article

Rand Paul Threatens to Filibuster Gun-Control Legislation

Harry Reid. Courtesy of the Associated Press.

Rand Paule. Courtesy of Rand Paul’s Twitter feed.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) has threatened to filibuster any new gun-control legislation that is brought to the Senate floor. Many claim that Paul’s recent filibuster on the use of drones to execute terrorists was a waste of time. However the drone strike filibuster gain a large amount of support from Republicans and Democrats alike. Now, critics claim a Paul filibuster on gun restrictions would be a waste of time. Despite what the critics say, Paul is gaining momentum on the issue. Republican senators are joining his cause.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada has plans to bring legislation to the Senate floor that would increase background checks and stop interstate gun trafficking. In March, Paul contacted Reid to warn that he will block any action to create new gun-control legislation. In a letter to Reid, Paul was joined by Senators Ted Cruz (R) of Texas and Mike Lee (R) of Utah.

Reid is continuing the gun law push and is expected to bring legislation to the Senate within the next few weeks. A second letter was then sent to Reid last Monday, and this time, the letter had 13 Republican congressmen signatures instead of 3. Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R) is on the list. This potential 2016 presidential candidate joined Paul on the gun-control filibuster promptly after Paul’s first warning to Reid. On the list of 13 is also National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas. Other supporters include Senators Jim Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina, Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin, Mike Enzi (R) of Wyoming, Jim Risch (R) and Mike Crapo (R) of Idaho, Dan Coats of Indiana and Pat Roberts of Kansas.

While Paul is gaining support, Reid may have a few tricks up his sleeve. A new rule has been introduced to the Senate allowing a filibuster to be dodged if the Republican and Democrat parties are allowed to bring 2 amendments each to the legislation being filibustered. Under this option, Paul and his supporters could still voice their protests in the Senate and stall the gun-control debate while they speak. However, this would not stop the debate entirely. Reid has not stated any plans to use this option. Another possible option is Reid could gain bipartisan support against the filibuster. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) has stated that he will back down from the filibuster if the amendment option is given.

Paul is not planning on backing down without a fight. The senator plans to send another letter on this coming Monday stating that they “intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.” The Gun Owners of America has joined Paul and is pushing senators and the larger gun rights group, the National Rifle Association, to join Paul’s filibuster.

Politico article

Rand Paul Takes Stand on Drones: Success or Failure?

A few weeks ago, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) filibustered the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan. Paul did this in order to get the Obama Administration to clarify its use of drones to kill suspected terrorists. Since the start of the War on Terror, police state policies have been on the rise in the U.S. Those who stand against such policies have often been ridiculed by the public. Was the reaction to Paul’s stand any different from previous resistance?

News outlets have criticized Rand Paul. They claim that his opposition to drones was fueled by paranoia. Jokes have floated around the mainstream news media outlets ridiculing him. They claimed that this was a failed scheme produced to attract more political attention to the senator. This is similar to how his father, former Texas Representative Ron Paul (Lib.), was treated by the media during his time in the House of Representatives.

What these critics in the media did not tell the American people is that Rand Paul got a lot of support from both sides of the aisle. Democrat senators and representatives did not want to be seen supporting a Republican, so they did not sign his filibuster. However, Democrats gave odd reasons for why they support Paul’s cause, but could not join him in the filibuster. Another fact left out by the media was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which often sides with Democrats, praised Paul for bringing this issue to the public’s attention.

Recent polls have shown that  the senator’s filibuster caught the eye of many Americans – enough Americans to change public opinion. Almost a year ago, Americans were asked how they felt about drone attacks on terrorist. The results showed that people generally agreed with the use of drones to attack terrorists within the U.S. and abroad. However after Senator Paul’s filibuster, a new Gallup poll was used to see if the people had changed their minds. The results showed that they did change their minds. Most Americans are now opposed to the use of drones for attacking American citizen terrorist on American soil, American citizen terrorist on foreign soil, and foreign terrorists on American soil. The only case where Americans still approve of drone attacks is when a foreign terrorist is on foreign soil.

Paul introduced an important discussion to the people that would not have otherwise been brought to the public agenda. After learning the dangers of police state policies, the people decided that American terrorists need due process no mater where they are and they do not want drone attacks in their backyards. After the idea of drone strikes without due process for Americans became part of the public agenda, Attorney General Eric Holder came forward and stated that Obama cannot authorize a drone attack on American citizens on American soil. Was Paul’s filibuster a success? I would say so.

Washington Post article

The Guardian article

Reason article

Obama Proposes New Spending on Jobs and Infrastructure, but Will Republicans Take the Bait?

On Friday, Obama visited Miami to present his new infrastructure spending plan called “Fix It First.” Amidst the construction of a new tunnel that will connect a port to the highway, Obama pointed out that the ease of access that would be created by the tunnel would make the port more attractive to investors. Obama said, “That’s how we’ll encourage more businesses to start here and grow here.” While increasing spending on infrastructure has been a bipartisan issue in the past, Republicans in the House of Representatives are skeptical of the cost. House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio responded, “It’s easy to go out there and be Santa Claus and talk about all the things you want to give away. But at some point, somebody has to pay the bill.” How does the president plan to pay for this new project?

Since the sequester recently cut $4 billion out of federal construction projects, it will be difficult for Obama to find the funding necessary for “Fix It First.” First, the president’s plan calls for $21 billion in tax dollars. Tax dollars will need to be compensated for without adding to the deficit since the president promised not to increase spending. An additional $40 billion in tax dollars has been proposed by Obama to be used in infrastructure repairs.

In order to pay for these projects without increasing the deficit, Republicans believe the president will attempt to increase taxes. Spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, Don Stewart responded to Obama’s proposal, “Last time, I think he wanted to tax the same people that were supposed to create the job.”

According to the president, the 21 billion tax dollars would be used in three ways. $4 billion would be spent directly on infrastructure projects at the state and local levels. $10 billion would be used to create an “infrastructure bank.” This bank would provide loans to private companies for building projects. $7 billion would be given to state and local governments to help start new projects and to help private investors start new projects as well. More details on funding and spending will be outlined in the president’s 2014 budget, which is scheduled to be presented on April 10th.

The proposed plan is meant to increase the amount of middle class jobs in the U.S. However, Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, could not say how many jobs the plan would create. “I don’t have a job number for you because it depends on how much it’s leveraged,” Krueger said. “I can tell you when economists have looked at infrastructure investment in the past, they find it has a very high rate of return for the economy.”

Despite the stale mate of partisan politics on Capitol Hill, Republicans do want to work with the president on this plan. Despite Boehner’s skepticism, he said, “I’m committed to working to find a funding source so that we can begin to repair America’s aging infrastructure.”

Washington Post article