- Sign Up
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 8 December 2011 - 8:20pm
Remember, "It's the Economy, Stupid?" So how come Democrats in Congress - over the objections of the Obama Administration - are helping Republicans press sanctions on Europeans who buy oil from Iran - sanctions that would increase unemployment in the U.S. during the 2012 campaign?
The National Defense Authorization Act now contains a Senate amendment by Republican Senator Mark Kirk - supported by many Democrats in Congress - that would sanction European banks and companies that do business with Iran's Central Bank, in order to stop Europeans from buying Iranian oil. This is a big deal, because Iran is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, and blocking Iranian oil exports to Europe would raise the price of oil, in Europe and in the United States.
Kirk's amendment would hurt the U.S. economy, at a time when economic contraction in Europe could push the U.S. back into recession.
Is fear of the economic blowback of the sanctions on Europe that Kirk wants to impose justified? Many Europeans seem to think so.
On Tuesday, Reuters reported:
The European Union is becoming skeptical about slapping sanctions on imports of Iranian oil, diplomats and traders say, as awareness grows that the embargo could damage its own economy without doing much to undercut to Iran's oil revenues.
"Maybe the aim of sanctions is to help Italy, Spain and Greece to collapse and make the EU a smaller club," one trader joked.
The remark reflects the growing unease that EU sanctions would hit hardest some of the continent's weakest economies, because Iranian oil provides the highest share of their needs, not to mention the rest of the bloc.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 7 December 2011 - 7:01pm
Reps. John Conyers, Ron Paul, Jim McGovern, Walter Jones, and Barbara Lee sent a letter to the NDAA conferees pressing them to accept the Senate Merkley language pressing for an accelerated drawdown from Afghanistan.
The letter is here.
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 7 December 2011 - 12:24pm
Before and After: Washington Post Photo Gallery Headline
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 5 December 2011 - 10:26pm
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 1 December 2011 - 3:46pm
On Wednesday night, the Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment introduced by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley calling on President Obama to speed up U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. This was a watershed event towards ending the war. The previous high water mark of Senators calling for expedited withdrawal was 27; the previous high water mark on a vote was 18. The vote is a green light from the Senate to the White House for a faster military withdrawal that would save many American and Afghan lives and (at least) many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Because it was a voice vote, there was no roll call. But, if you want to know who especially to thank, 21 Senators sponsored Merkley's amendment:
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT); Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM); Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY); Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH); Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT); Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK); Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD); Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND); Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY); Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA); Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV); Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) ; Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV); Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT); Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
The Senate vote - which saw John McCain standing alone in vocal opposition - is more evidence that on key issues of war and military spending, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Buck McKeon haven't been speaking for Republicans generally.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 30 November 2011 - 3:47pm
You might not know it from national press reports, but there are plenty of Members of Congress of both political parties who think that cutting the military budget is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and have concrete ideas for doing so.
(The New York Times did note last week that the leaderships of both parties are content to let stand the automatic cuts to the previously projected military budget mandated by the Budget Control Act.)
You can see that Senators have ideas for cutting the military budget from the list of amendments filed in the Senate to the National Defense Authorization Act, currently under consideration. [To weigh in with your Senators on these amendments, you can use the toll-free number established by the Friends Committee on National Legislation: 1-877-429-0678.]
Even if many of these amendments don't pass in the next few days, these ideas will still be nominees for consideration as the Pentagon considers how it wishes to cough up an additional half trillion dollars in savings from previously projected spending over the next ten years, as mandated by the Budget Control Act.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 29 November 2011 - 1:20pm
Shortening the war in Afghanistan by two years could easily pay half of the costs of an extension and expansion of the payroll tax holiday, the centerpiece of President Obama's jobs bill. Thus, the amendment put forward by Senator Merkley calling on the President to accelerate the drawdown in Afghanistan - which the Senate may vote on today - could make a significant contribution to creating more than half a million American jobs next year.
On Monday, Senate Democrats introduced legislation to extend the payroll tax cut. According to Majority Leader Reid, under the bill the average working family would have close to $1,500 a year more to spend. As the New York Times noted, "lower- and middle-income workers are the greatest beneficiaries of the tax cut."
Unfortunately, press reports indicate that Senate Republicans are very unlikely to support the bill, because to pay for the payroll tax holiday - which also would reduce the tax paid by employers - Democrats propose a 3.25 percent tax on gross income over $1 million.
From the point of view of the 99%, the appeal of paying for the payroll tax holiday with a tax on the very rich is obvious. As Paul Krugman has noted, the economic case for increasing taxes on the very rich is compelling.
However, if - as expected - the current Senate bill goes down to defeat due to Republican opposition, the question of how to pay for the extension of the payroll tax holiday will remain, so it makes sense to get some other good ideas for debt reduction which could pay for the tax holiday on the table.
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 28 November 2011 - 4:07pm
Calling your Senators is easy—just follow these simple instructions:
1. Call the Capitol switchboard using this toll-free number provided by FCNL: 1-877-429-0678
2. Ask the switchboard operator to connect you to one of your Senator's offices. If you need to look up your Senators, go to www.senate.gov.
3. When you reach your Senator's office, tell them your name and address, and then ask them to:
a. Support the Merkley amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (No. 1174), which would put pressure on President Obama to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Current co-sponsors:
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Bernard Sanders (D-VT)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
b. Support the Paul amendment to the NDAA (No. 1064), which would repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, officially ending the war in that country. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is currently a co-sponsor; [Update 11/30: the Paul amendment was defeated 30-67. Check how your Senators voted.]
c. Oppose the Kirk-Menendez amendment to the NDAA (No. 1414), which aims to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, a provision that could have dangerous consequences for the US economy as well as US-Iran relations. Sens. Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) are currently co-sponsors. [Update 11/29: Previously, both Kirk and Menendez had introduced amendments to this effect, but have since withdrawn them in favor of a joint effort.]
Submitted by Megan Iorio on 28 November 2011 - 4:00pm
Three key amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act are expected to come up for a vote this week in the Senate. Two of these amendments would help end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the other could bring us closer to war with Iran.
Amendment to Accelerate the US Military Drawdown from Afghanistan
The Merkley amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (No. 1174) would put pressure on President Obama to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. You can find the full text, with a list of current cosponsors, here.
Amendment to Officially End the War in Iraq
The Paul amendment to the NDAA (No. 1064) would repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, officially ending the war in that country. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is currently a co-sponsor. You can read the full text here.
Amendment to Collapse the Central Bank of Iran
The Kirk-Menendez amendment to the NDAA (No. 1414) aims to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, a provision that could have dangerous consequences for the US economy as well as US-Iran relations. Sens. Manchin (D-WV), Blunt (R-MO), Tester (D-MT) are currently co-sponsors. Previously, both Kirk and Menendez had introduced amendments to this effect, but have since withdrawn them in favor of a joint effort. You can read the full text of the Kirk amendment here.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 22 November 2011 - 8:38pm
The spectacle of Democrats and Republicans arguing about who is to "blame" for the "failure" of the "Supercommittee" is certainly tempting for many partisans. But any progressive who participates in the spectacle risks attacking their own interests to the degree that they promote the implicit assumption that the public interest would have been better served if the Super Committee had reached a deal.
We shouldn't be arguing about who is to "blame" for this development. We should be arguing about who should be awarded credit for this best-plausible-outcome.
We should, to borrow a phrase from Monty Python, be dancing on the Super Committee's grave, singing Halleluyah.
Who should get the Academy Award? The AFL-CIO? The Strengthen Social Security Campaign? The Tea Party? All of the above?
Indeed, it was a de facto coalition between the AFL-CIO and its friends and the Tea Party and its friends which again defeated the cruel plan of the extreme center to trade Social Security cuts and raising the Medicare retirement age for a relatively meaningless increase on the tax rates paid by rich people.
Why meaningless? Because tax rates raised today can easily be lowered in the future. Cutting Social Security benefits by changing the cost-of-living formula and raising the Medicare retirement age are forever.
From the point of view of the national aspirations of the indigenous people of the United States, what was the right price to charge for Manhattan Island? Surely the answer is: there was no right price. Cash is ephemeral. Control of territory could be forever.
Similarly, there is no amount of increasing taxes on rich people that can compensate low-income workers for cutting their Social Security benefits and taking away their access to Medicare.