Good afternoon, Daily Kos readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post your manifesto.
This is an open source project, so feel free to add your own insights. Here's the news I found lurking around the Internets...
Afghanistan withdrawal bill
Once upon a time, Afghanistan was "the good war." In comparison to #WhateverTheFuckWeWereThinking in Iraq, the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda was the noble war justified by 9/11. Almost nine years later, the Taliban is still lurking around. We have no idea if Osama bin Laden is alive or dead. The current Afghan government is almost as corrupt as the Taliban. The focus on the occupation of Iraq and Bush's insistence on avoiding "nation building" even as we were trying to "build a nation" did not help the situation.
Some members of Congress have had enough of the sacrifice in blood, treasure, and perhaps a more than a little bit of the moral high ground.
A Withdrawal Plan for Afghanistan
Two key antiwar critics, Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jim McGovern, are expected to introduce legislation as early as next week calling for a "flexible timetable" for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The proposal, now in final stages of preparation, was confirmed by McGovern and by Feingold's office.
The coordinated effort, the first of its kind during the Afghanistan war, is reminiscent of similar House-Senate proposals that eventually succeeded in winning majority support during the Vietnam War. During the Iraq War, resolutions calling for a timetable steadily advanced as well, until they became Obama's platform in 2008.
The new initiative will challenge the Obama administration and offer an organizing vehicle for the peace movement. The recent sixty-five votes for Representative Dennis Kucinich's antiwar resolution is not a true measure of antiwar sentiment in the Congress, McGovern told me, adding, "We haven't had our full debate on the war." Congressional restlessness is climbing over sacrificing American lives and dollars for a corrupt and recalcitrant Karzai government, he argues.
I don't know the chances for passage, but this will at least start the conversation.
Institutionally speaking, this is also an interesting move from Congress. One of the great debates in the history of political science is the tension between Congress and the Executive Branch in foreign affairs, particularly war. In late 2001, Congress essentially handed George W. Bush a blank check to conduct the war in Afghanistan, thus abdicating power. It will be interesting to watch Congress try to reassert its power and reign in the president on the war.
In related news, the Administration seems to be getting frustrated with the Afghan government.
White House hints it might cancel Obama meeting with Afghan president next month
The White House offered fresh signals of its displeasure with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday, hinting that it might cancel his Washington meeting with President Obama next month.
Press secretary Robert Gibbs said a planned meeting between Obama and Karzai on May 12 is "still on the schedule."
But later, in a reference to a series of anti-Western comments made recently by the Afghan leader, Gibbs said that "we certainly would evaluate . . . continued or further remarks" by Karzai before deciding whether it's "constructive to have such a meeting."
Adding to the headaches is the apparent overthrow of the government in Kyrgyzstan, a U.S. ally with some serious human rights issues.
All things considered, President Obama might quietly welcome a Congressional initiative to get out of the war.
****
FY 2011 Budget
It's springtime in Washington. That means cherry blossoms and budgets. This year's budget is looking to be a rematch of the health insurance reform fight.
Democrats face tough budget fight
House Democrats are facing a much tighter vote on the budget resolution in 2010 because of big deficit projections and the looming midterm election.
As a result, centrist Democrats will have a harder time voting for the resolution, which sets discretionary spending levels and previews the federal government's fiscal situation for the next few years.
~snip
House Democratic leaders are "working with our caucus on a budget that builds on our fiscal responsibility efforts," according to an aide to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). The chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees, Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), have also said they're planning to produce a resolution.
Even the most liberal Democrat has to shudder at the prospect of deficit that hovers around $1 trillion. The deficit is the gap between expenditures and revenues just for this year. In addition, the national debt is $12.4 trillion, which is getting close to our total GDP. On a historical note, fiscal conservatives were fought hard for budget cuts when Eisenhower's proposed budgets increased by $5.8 billion between FY '56 and FY'58. In 2004, we were spending that much a month in Iraq. Naturally, due to inflation one should be looking at federal spending as percentage of GDP and that is roughly the same between then and now (17.7 percent in 1960 vs. 18.4 percent in 2001 according to this 2002 analysis by the CBO. However, in this analysis of the FY 2011 budget, CBO is looking at increased layouts equal to about 24.1 percent of GDP in the next decade.
I'm not looking for a job at Cato, but those are the numbers we are looking at.
Additionally, Paul Volcker, a White House aid, has proposed a European style value added tax (VAT) and possibly carbon taxes to deal with the deficits. A VAT is similar to state and local sales taxes. As a result, they tend to have the greatest impact on the poor and middle class since it is paid equally by everyone.
On the process side, the budget resolution is a rule of the house and guides the budget process along for the year while setting spending limits for the appropriations committees to wrestle with this summer and fall. It is not necessary to have a budget resolution for each house. The Republicans got along without one in 2006 for the FY 2007 budget. Additionally, the resolutions from the House and Senate don't need to be identical, but that does make the process move more smoothly when it comes time to reconcile the House and Senate spending bills. Traditionally, we get budget resolutions sometime in April.
****
Goodwin Liu confirmation
Stop me if you have heard this one before. Senate Republicans are looking to stall or better yet completely derail one of President Obama's nominees to a federal appeals court. This is getting absolutely ridiculous.
Senate Democrats defend 9th Circuit Court nominee Liu against GOP criticism
Senate Democrats defended Goodwin Liu's candidacy for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday, a day after the GOP suggested his nomination might be in jeopardy because he had not provided enough information to a Senate committee.
~snip
The Republicans added that they needed more time to review the new information submitted by Liu and complained that "this expedited schedule is unacceptable given that we have no confidence in the completeness or accuracy of his record before the Committee."
On Wednesday, Leahy struck back, telling Sessions in a letter that Democrats had already postponed Liu's hearing once at the GOP's request and that there was no reason for additional delay.
If we were living by the Republican schedule, Obama's last appointee would get an up or down vote a few years after humans develop warp drives capable of interstellar space travel. More accurately, they are just so mad that they are not in power that they have decided to obstruct at every opportunity.
****
Cap and Trade
Hey, remember back in 2008 when Democrats won huge majorities in the House and Senate. Ahhh... those were the days.
House liberals shift climate change tactics, will not draw 'lines in the sand'
Liberal House Democrats are shifting their political tactics on climate change after failing to secure a public option in the new healthcare reform law.
The move comes in the wake of liberals having to walk back threats that they would vote against a healthcare bill without a government-run program.
"Drawing the line in the sand too quickly was part of the lesson we learned on healthcare," the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), told The Hill.
Love it or hate it, the cap and trade scheme is likely to go the way of the public option. Personally, I'm not a big fan of cap and trade and would simply prefer strong caps with serious investments in green technology. I would actually like to see more research into using algae as an energy source.
****
Teh stupid! It burns!
Yesterday was light on fodder for The Most Important News of the Day™. Well when it rains, it pours. A selection of today's headlines:
DC Media Scoff At President Obama’s Substantive And Detailed Answer To Health Care Question
'Cause a President has to speak in catch phrases and avoid that analysis crap that newspapers can't quote.
Juneau County DA warns districts on sex ed law
The money quote:
"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."
This district attorney actually wants to arrest teachers for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" if they teach kids why they have all those hormones raging through their bodies.
GOP stars set for Wednesday rally
Featuring Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann. Don't expect a well reasoned 17-minute analysis of the health care bill.
Bob McDonnell Leaves Out Slavery From 'Confederate History Month' Proclamation: Not 'Significant' Enough
Because the War of Northern Aggression had so little to do with slavery and so much to do with tariffs on cotton.