I have no truck with those who cavalierly compare PresidentBarack Obama with former President G.W. Bush. I share their frustrations that some of the current President's policies bring on progressives' disapproval.
One area that some disapprove of is President Obama's decision to ostensibly secure our country from violent religious extremists by escalating the US military occupation in Afghanistan, continuing the covert expansion military force into Pakistan, Yemen, and who knows where next week.
An email today brought the news that the Obama Administration is apparently planning to continue the underhanded Bush Administration practice of feeding the military / contractor beast outside the regular budget process through use of a supplemental, even though the President is quoted as saying the last one was the last.
The Obama Administration's accomplishments during the first year have been well documented here in text and pictures in several diaries this month.
Still, some Kossacks continue to express disappointment and even go so far as to compare the current Administration with the former.
This is often overdone, but in the area of abuse of rights to privacy and right to trial at home, and the continued use of US military power abroad to fight "terrorism", there is clearly not enough difference as of yet. (I know, only first year.)
UPJC email this week points to the continuation of the sordid Bush Admin practice of avoiding regular budgetary debate in Congress through the use of the infamous Supplemental:
Obama wants $33 billion more for wars Comes on top of record $708 billion request for next year
Obama to Seek $33 Billion More for Wars
Posted By Jason Ditz On January 12, 2010,Antiwar.com
When President Obama requested a $106 billion "emergency" was funding bill in early 2009, it was promised that this would be the last time the administration would ever seek such a supplement, and that they would instead simply increase the size of their regular defense funding bill to cover the wars.
And indeed, the FY 2010 defense funding bill indeed included a massive bump in funding for the assorted ongoing wars, one that was shrugged off however as it was said to replace the annual "emergency" requests.
In spite of this, President Obama is now planning to ask for another $33 billion in "emergency" war funding to pay for his latest escalation of the war in Afghanistan, as well as to purchase yet more attack drones.
Not only does this decision seem wrong-headed and, based on results, unlikely to further goals of making us safer. It appears to be yet another instance where the President exhibits frustrating disconnect between what he says and what he does.
So its being called an "emergency" request instead of a supplemental WTF? What's the difference?
Some may argue that this is understandable since the new policy was decided on after this summers huge deficit spending for "Defense" debacle. (See Senate Passes $106 Billion War Funding Bill Despite Predictions, Opposition Never Materialized
Some in Congress want to oppose further spending, Speaker Nancy Pelosi
has said that she will not twist arms this time in support of the new President.
At a roundtable with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, Pelosi said many House members "are eager to have a vote soon on Afghanistan" and the resolution the Cleveland Democrat plans to introduce early next year will likely satisfy that need.
Since Kucinich announced last week that he'll be introducing a resolution to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, a dozen colleagues from both political parties have agreed to cosponsor his measure.
http://www.cleveland.com/...
This may be another excuse for less than enthusiastic support for Democrats this year. It is also a call to action for those who do not want to see this kind of spending continue.
WaPo carried this today:
Obama to ask for $33 billion for Afghan troop buildup
....The money, mainly for the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and other war costs in the current 2010 fiscal year, would come on top of Obama's expected request to increase the Pentagon's overall budget in fiscal 2011 to a record $708 billion, the officials said on condition of anonymity.
Fiscal 2010 Defense Department funding, including war costs in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military construction, already comes to $660 billion.
If approved by Congress, the $33 billion emergency funding request, in line with estimates released last month by the Pentagon, would push that 2010 total to $693 billion.
...
High unemployment and a record $1.4 trillion deficit are among the toughest domestic challenges facing Obama and could dim the election prospects for his Democratic Party in congressional elections next November.
"could dim election prospects." Go figure.
Call Congress?