THE SEQUESTER BLAME GAME

In October, 2010 the British government  instituted  cuts to spending and met significant resistance from the public and organized labor.  Over the next two years, Spain, Italy and Greece followed suit with similar results.  After decades of increases in public spending without regard to the lack of commensurate increases in public revenues, reality finally made its claim on politics and reluctant governments, faced with rapidly rising borrowing costs due to the weakness of their currencies, had no other choice.  The cuts were painful, as all surgery is, but the pain of ignoring the problem with its attendant high inflation rates, low consumption and job loss would have been much worse and the leadership in these nations showed political courage in addressing the problem.

The budget “sequester”, a mandatory across the board schedule of cuts to U.S. federal spending went into effect on March 1 and like the reductions in government spending in Western Europe,  will cause discomfort, even economic pain, for a broad segment of the American population.  President Obama has abandoned attempts at leadership and is traveling around the country warning workers in a whole host of government and private business occupations that their agencies and workforces will face downsizing.  Pell Grants, air travel, pre-school programs, environmental programs, Food and Drug supervision, even Capital janitors, etc. etc. etc. and of course “national security” are all “in danger” and “ it’s the Republicans fault.”

Essentially, Obama is telling the American people that spending cannot and should not be cut.  He remains focused on raising taxes on “the rich” as a prescription for dealing with deficits while paying lip service to “targeted “ spending cuts, but he has offered few specific targets and is trying to gain political advantage by demonizing House Republicans for rejecting tax increases in negotiations to restructure the sequester.  But the sequester is not about taxes.  It is all about spending cuts and the U.S. spending problem dwarfs the problems in Europe.  Comprehensive tax reform should also be a priority but as separate legislation, not as piecemeal amendments to spending bills.

The “sequester” was of course, never intended to become policy.  In June, 2011 during the gridlock over raising the national debt limit, Republicans demanded spending cuts.  A compromise was reached and the debt limit extended.  The compromise included the creation of a Congressional “super committee”,  formally, the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was armed with the findings of the President’s own Simpson/Bowles deficit reduction  commission of December, 2010, and was charged with making specific  recommendations on reducing the deficit  to Congress to reduce spending.  To provide an incentive for the super committee and the Congress to act, the sequester was passed which would require “across the board” cuts in government spending in the amount of $1.2 trillion  over a nine year period (2013-2021) if they failed to do so.  The logic was that a super committee made up of members of Congress from both parties would act with foresight, integrity and political courage and recommend meaningful cuts to specific programs based on their relative importance.  The logic was correct, but the super committee did not contain enough such individuals and it reported its failure due to partisan gridlock in November, 2011.  No recommendations were made, the Congress failed to act and the “sequester” of automatic spending cuts loomed and became reality on March 1, 2013.

This fiscal year’s cuts total $85 billion which of course is a large number in absolute terms.  But in relative terms it dwindles in importance relative to the problem it is supposed to correct.  The actual 2012 federal budget deficit was $1.089 “trillion”.  Thus if 2013 spending and revenues remain the same the sequester cuts will reduce the deficit by only 7.8%  percent.  The remaining deficit will increase the federal debt by $1.04 trillion, to over $17.656 trillion.

Obama claims to have offered a “serious” deficit cuts program but the Republicans have ignored it.  The “plan” however is a “smoke and mirrors” political statement issued in the hopes that no one would examine it and the alleged savings included would simply be reported as a credible budget effort.  Here are some of the alleged “specific” cuts included.

In the area of heath care Obama would;  “Reduce payments to drug companies.” He doesn’t say how or which ones but he claims  the savings will be $140 billion.  He would also reduce payments to hospitals by $30 billion but again fails to specify the criteria or mechanism for such reductions.

Next in his exploitation of generalities is a proposal to eliminate  “certain subsidies” for agriculture.  This is supposedly worth $30 billion.  How that could by calculated without identifying specific subsidies doesn’t seem to matter.  The “plan” gets more preposterous however.  In a first for a budget item, he assigns a $50 billion reduction in government health care costs by simply “encouraging efficient care after hospital stays.” The formula for turning encouragement into actual savings would be interesting to see but is not provided.  However “encouragement “ gets quantified again in his next item:  “Encourage beneficiaries  to seek high value care” and “ask the most fortunate to pay more”.  How many “encouraged beneficiaries” and what the definition of high value care is in terms of actual cost isn’t provided but it is supposed to add up to $35 billion in savings to the government.  And if patients ignore the encouragement and avoid cheap care for quality care?  That’s not considered.  His next spending cut proposal?, “Other health savings”, $120 billion.  Spending cuts were never so easy.

Of course if“encouragement” doesn’t work then there is always the equally vague “reform” strategy.  He would save $50 billion simply by “reforming”   Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Postal Service regulations.  How, and why this would save $50 billion is not explained.

Additional “other savings” from fees on wireless service providers, sales of “excess property”, and “program integrity” are listed at $45 billion. 

Obama’s plan was clearly crafted as a talking point by political advisers who were careful not to include any specific cuts that might offend Democrat voting constituencies or liberal pundits and as such is no plan at all.

Thus, essentially the problem created by the sequester is two fold; first,  Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not want to cut spending, it goes against their ideology.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made it abundantly clear when she declared that “We don’t have a spending problem.  We have a deficit problem.” , meaning that she believes the deficit is the result of a lack of revenues i.e. taxes.

The other side of the sequester problem is that it is a blunt force tool when a scalpel is required.  Across the board cuts are imposed by politicians who, like Obama want to avoid angering specific groups.  But every government expenditure has a vocal constituency which will claim that it’s funding, no matter how trivial , gratuitous, or non-essential, is vital.  Reality requires that government spending be reduced.  Many government programs are beneficial but not vital. In a time of austerity brought on by profligate, voter appealing spending, hard choices must be made. This requires political courage and executive leadership, both of which are sadly lacking. 

Common sense tells us that agencies like the FBI, the Coast Guard, and the FAA should not be cut by the same percentage as government subsidies to so called “green industries” which by definition are not technologically advanced enough or have enough customer appeal to be self supporting.  Nor should they be cut by the same percentage as nice but uncritical grants to cultural organizations, price supports to sugar beets and peanuts, military recruiting enhancements in times of downsizing, or foreign aid to less important nations or those who consistently prove unreliable allies.  There are abundant places to cut spending without reducing vital services to U.S. citizens. 

 

The Defense Department is being particularly hard hit as they have absorbed roughly half of the sequester cuts.  Ship deployments and flight hours are being cut but could be restored by significantly reducing  the number of bases and personnel in Germany and England  which are largely Cold War hold overs with little strategic justification.  

 Eventually the tougher political problem is that of entitlements which the reality of demographics make unsupportable under their current rules.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are exempt from the sequester cuts but are the largest drivers of federal deficits.  Adjustments will have to be made and it is up to the executive branch to explain that the viability of these programs depends on their modification for future beneficiaries.  That seems far fetched given this administration’s reluctance to cut or modify any social program.

The Republicans in the House will have to be ready to make some compromises given the Democrats control of the Senate and the White House but should do so only in return for specific cuts in spending.  But since Obama will continue to rely on “encouragement”, “reform”, and demagogic “sky is falling” political tactics,  progress will only come if they make a serious effort to identify and prioritize the necessary cuts and then demand similar specificity by Obama as his alternatives during negotiations.

The “sequester” is ill conceived but is not the crisis inducing program that Obama is trying to scare the public with, and it is not beyond repair.  It is legislation that can be modified by further legislation which should be passed after being carefully crafted.  However the ideological war and entrenched partisanship that currently substitutes for serious statecraft in Washington makes the prospects highly uncertain.

DRONES, COURTS AND COMMON SENSE

The war in Iraq is over and the war in Afghanistan is winding down to an announced U.S. withdrawal date of “combat forces” in 2014. But the separate, although related “war on terrorism” continues and will no doubt do so for the foreseeable future. Anti-western Islamic extremists, some organized as affiliates of Al-Qaida, operate in Yemen, Pakistan, Algeria, Libya, Somalia, Mali, and other nations in the Middle East and Africa. Thus the current political controversy about the use of drones as weapons systems will need to be resolved as their use will remain relevant for many years.

The Obama Administration has greatly expanded the role of armed drones especially in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, partly because of enhanced technological capability which has emerged over the last four years and partly because of military advantages they offer in the struggle against global terrorism.

The issue now being argued in the media and the U.S. Senate has focused on the strategy of “targeted killings” in which individuals known or suspected of being terrorist operatives are selected for attack by armed drones launched from regional sites but controlled by operators (“pilots”) thousands of miles away. Opposition to this tactic has arisen mostly from predictable sources in the U.S. These include the political Left, both commentators and Senators, anti-military organizations i.e. Code Pink and Left leaning civil liberties groups i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Opponents offer different perspectives. Some criticize the tactic as a moral issue. Others claim U.S. constitutional violations. Others claim it violates international law.

Part of the problem with drones for opponents appears to be the psychological impact of a new technology which seems to employ impersonal robot- like ruthlessness.  In truth, although the aircraft are unmanned, they are being guided via satellite from  long distances, and are still being “flown” by human controllers who have more detailed information about their targets than would a pilot of a more conventional fighter aircraft. Sensors on drones provide more detailed information and their slower speed and enhanced loitering capability make their target identification /acquisition and weapons delivery more precise than conventional aircraft, thus reducing the possibility of wrong targets or casualties involving innocent bystanders.  Also as a practical matter, drones are significantly less expensive than fighter aircraft and the total avoidance of the potential loss of pilots is a major advantage.

The underlying issue in the drone debate is however, the changed nature of warfare as it relates to international terrorism. This is a war between organized military and intelligence resources of the U.S. deployed and engaged against various components of an armed entity that has, and continues, to target American and allied military and civilian personnel and infrastructure around the world. This enemy has no organized national identity, integrates itself with general populations and wears no identifying uniform,  but they are clearly not civilians and have thus been identified as enemy combatants. Critics of the targeted killings of terrorist leadership argue that they often occur “far from the battlefields” and are thus not part of any declared conflict.  But despite the concentration of forces in Afghanistan where the U.S. is supporting the national government in its struggle against the Taliban insurgency, there are no geographically defined battlefields in the war on terrorism. The battlefield is wherever the terrorists reside and operate.  Terrorist attacks planned, launched or directed from Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia are just as deadly as those originating in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

The Obama Administration’s position is that killing a terrorist enemy where we find him with the permission of the governments of those nations where the attacks take place is an act of preemptive self-defense under international law. Unfortunately, the formulation of international law lags far behind the problem of international terrorism and the use of aerial attack in response to it. Attempts to interpret such laws to apply to this new threat lead to a wide difference in opinions often heavily influenced by underlying ideological differences. 

The basic national right of national self- defense is acknowledged in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (1945) but does not address a preemptive right. However, that right is accepted as customary international law based on the so called Caroline Case of 1837 in which standards of applicability include the “necessity of self- defense, instant and overwhelming” and leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation.” This 19^th Century formulation has in general been refined to the basic requirements of “imminent necessity” and “proportionality” of action. 

The problem of interpreting international laws crafted in less technologically advanced times and designed to apply to interactions between states so as to apply between a state and individuals  representing a non-state actor is one for lawyers and academics. But the resolution of the terrorist threats cannot wait and the President's constitutional responsibilities as Commander -in-Chief may make such resolution impossible in all circumstances. 

The issue of targeted killings i.e. specific targets identified by intelligence sources as members of terrorist organizations has been further complicated by two incidents where the targets have been U.S. citizens by virtue of their having been born in the U.S.  Critics of these two operations claim that the guarantee of “due process” to U.S. citizens by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution requires a civilian judicial proceeding to prove guilt and subsequent proceeding to impose a sentence, thus making the Commander in Chief’s (U.S. President's) determination that such individuals are appropriate targets by drones or any other military means is unconstitutional.

This is another instance where the relative uniqueness of the nature of international terrorism in traditional jurisprudence comes in conflict with the President's duties as Commander-in-Chief and his responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States.  It invites the question of whether a citizen of the U.S. who travels abroad, joins an armed and militant organization for the purposes of sponsoring, encouraging, inciting or carrying out violent attacks on U.S. citizens, military or civilian, has in actual effect renounced his U.S. citizenship and the protections therein.

Even if not, then does that citizen’s participation in an organization of armed combatants with the same purpose, still render that citizen as a proper target for military disposition?

Once again, the impossibility of arrest, and extradition, and the aforementioned need for the President to act before, not after, a terrorist attack, makes the constitutional argument seem inappropriate.

U.S. Attorney General Holder, speaking at Northwestern University Law School, outlined the Obama administration's legal rationale for killing U.S. citizens in foreign countries, as it did in 2011 with the airstrike that killed suspected al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen and later his son, both U.S. citizens by birth.

“ . . .the government authorizes targeted killings against U.S. citizens only after a careful review that finds the citizen poses an imminent threat of attack against the United States, that capture is not a viable option, and that the killing would be in line with the laws of war.”

Still, the debate among legal experts is inconclusive at this point as there is no agreement on which legal framework applies; International Human Rights Law; the Law of Armed Conflict as outlined in the Geneva Conventions or the 2001 U.S. Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.  School of Law professor at the University of Virgina  Saikrishna Prakash supports the Administration's position

"I believe the 2001 Authorization [for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists] permits the president to use military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban. If the president determines that a U.S. citizen is a member of either group, he may use military force against that citizen.  Apparently the president concluded that al-Awlaki was a member of al-Qaida and he further concluded that an attack was warranted. The president's actions were wholly consistent with domestic law."

In December, 2010 a federal district judge dismissed a lawsuit against the government by the father of al-Awlaki in an effort to force the government to disclose the legal criteria for his name appearing on a “kill list”.  In his opinion Judge Bates' acknowledgment that "this is a unique and extraordinary case that presents fundamental questions of separation of powers involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional structure”, and that "vital considerations of national security and of military and foreign affairs and hence potentially of state secrets.”

Still, terrorism is, in the minds of some on the political Left, a civilian law enforcement issue. It can be so, if the terrorists are operating largely on their own in national territories which choose to treat them as such. The U.S. government has arrested and tried many individuals in federal court under domestic anti-terrorism laws.  However, in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the national military forces are engaged against organized terrorists with the assistance of the U.S. military. Utilization of aerial resources including drones is a part of this military cooperation. The implausibility of arrest in remote and unsecured regions and extradition to the U.S. for civilian criminal proceedings should be obvious and U.S. constitutional protections for civilian criminal defendants in the U.S do not apply to foreign enemy combatants in foreign countries.

Current discussions in the U.S. Senate involve the attempt to create some kind of judicial review in the name of “due process”.  The specific suggestion is that a judicial panel be created similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which was established to authorize wiretaps and searches of suspected spies and terrorists.  Presumably this new court would hear evidence provided by the executive branch to justify the targeting of individuals or at least U.S. citizens, for elimination abroad by military or intelligence agencies.

Since there is little likelihood of large numbers of U.S. citizens working abroad with foreign terrorist organizations, a court restricted to this part of the drone effort might be approved but it is unlikely that the Congress would allow judicial interference in the conduct of military/intelligence operations against foreign combatants abroad.  Ironically, the ACLU, which believes that the whole world is a theoretical courtroom in which lawyers should decide all important matters, is opposed to such a court.  They cling to the impossible construct of the “apprehension/extradition” civilian trial procedure.  As a back-up they support an equally unlikely scenario creating of a court to hear “damages claims” against the government for U.S. citizens found to be terrorists and eliminated in foreign countries.  The national security trump card possessed by the executive branch makes this highly unlikely from both a political and a judicial point of few.  

Al Qaida operating in Pakistan and its affiliates Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) operating in Algeria and Mali and Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), operating in Yemen remain fully functioning organizations which pose serious threats to regional stability and to U.S. and other Western interests.  This is the real world in which all U.S. Presidents must operate. 

THE SPEECH, THE PLAN, THE FUTURE

We expect inauguration speeches to be filled with platitudes, exhortations to rise above our personal problems, revel in our national strength and character, remember the sacrifice of our forebears and gird our loins for the future struggle, convinced of our success. Obama's second inaugural speech was no exception. Unfortunately he used the occasion to signal his commitment to an agenda of the political Left which he wrapped in the criticism proof verbiage of our historical founding documents. Although he only won the election by a 51.4% majority, he claimed to speak for all American with his refrain of “We the people”. “Equality”, “freedom”, “collective action”; who could disparage such goals? But “collective action” in Obama's mind is just a transparent emphasis on government spending. And in setting out an agenda for the next four years, no matter how general, what he left out is as important as what he included.

On January 20, 2013 the nation faced the slow but seemingly permanent slide into financial crisis brought about by government debt of $16.432 trillion, a number so large it is virtually impossible to conceptualize. With annual deficits raising the level of debt by an additional $1 trillion each fiscal year, Barack Obama's message to the people offered this plan for dealing with the economic crisis:

“ We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.”

That's it. That's his plan; no mention of the national debt which consumed close to $360 billion of our national wealth in interest payments in 2012 even with interest rates at historic lows. Revenues do not exist sufficient to pay this interest so it is borrowed and becomes part of the total debt each month. There was no goal of eliminating annual deficits, just “reduce” their size as they were just some minor nuisance.

Obama is averse to making the “hard choices” which he briefly mentioned and he is ideologically committed to remaking society in the model of a European advanced welfare state. Economic “equality” is his mantra but is an impossible goal although extreme concentrations of national wealth in the hands of a few is clearly a danger to the economic health of the nation. But progress towards a wider distribution of wealth cannot be achieved through government “redistribution” plans. Wealth can be reduced through taxation on those at the top up to a point before it has a negative impact on investment but it disappears into the black hole of government programs i.e. spending, which don't increase the personal wealth of others. Progress towards financial equality must come from economic growth on a national level which provides jobs and social mobility.

Obama's outline of a leftist path for the nation (euphemistically labeled “progressive” now that “liberal” is out of favor) contains dire consequences in both the domestic and international contexts. The political response needed by conservatives will be very difficult. While Republicans still control the House of Representatives, they have a huge problem to overcome in the negative perception of many voters which could produce additional negative results in the 2014 congressional elections. Moderation in the promotion of common sense conservative principles is made difficult when extremists within the Republican party are successfully labeled by the Democrats as the face of the party. Stridency, out dated intolerance and unworkable positions on social issues i.e. abortion, immigration, and gay marriage were used so successfully against the party that they blocked out the drastic economic conditions that usually dictate national elections outcomes. Republicans not only lost the presidential race, they also lost seats in the House and Senate. Remaining Republicans in the House now are the only fire wall between Obama's planned government expansion and a genuine economic recovery. As Louisiana's Republican governor, Bobby Jindal has recently said in a speech before the Republican National Committee;

““We’ve got a lot of work between now and the next midterm elections. … We’ve got to get the Republican Party back on track.” “We must stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It’s time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve had enough of that.”

House Republicans showed some hope in this respect by recently passing a three month extension of the debt limit. As onerous as the growing federal debt is, they recognized this year, unlike last year, that the limit had to be raised to accommodate obligations which had already been made, including interest on existing debt. Refusing to pay those existing obligations would cause great damage to the credibility of the dollar and be politically poisonous. Obama wasted no time in exploiting the possibility by raising the threat that payments to members of the military and social security recipients would be in danger.

Republicans need to make the case for a responsible future debt limit and the common sense spending reductions that would make that possible. The tendency to avoid the “tough decisions” on spending cuts by hiding behind “across the board” cuts of the type that created the “fiscal cliff” need to be avoided. All government spending programs are not equal in importance. Mitt Romney tried, however clumsily, to make that point by bringing up federal subsidies to “Big Bird” i.e. National Public Television. Big Bird is nice but hardly critical. There are lots of Big Birds in the federal budget and each has a constituency backed by sympathetic members of Congress, but now is the time to set priorities and Republicans need to fill the leadership void created by Obama and the Democrats in the Senate, but the decisions will have to be explained to voters in terms of non-ideological common sense.

Obama's new “progressive” path also wanders into America's role as the stabilizing force in international relations. Now free from the need to be reelected he has the “flexibility” he described to former Russian President Medvedev. Where he will lead the country with this new freedom is an important question. His inauguration speech offered little assurance in this regard:

“America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.”

There are plenty of crises to be managed and Obama's preference for “institutions” in place of American leadership is reflective of his community organizer background. The Middle East continues to slide into chaos and now the Islamic militant contagion has spread even further into Sub-Saharan Africa. Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, are all struggling with sectarian conflict with a heavy dose of Islamic extremism and organized terrorist involvement. Syria is an ongoing disaster with enormous implications for future regional stability. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues to fester.

The Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons continues unabated. American leadership in this confrontation has been handed off to the European Union and the United Nations and as the endless “dialogue” continues Iran's goal of becoming a nuclear power is close to becoming a “fait accompli”.

While doctrinaire liberals celebrate Obama's new path of governance Republicans must resist any attempt at wholesale reductions of U.S. military strength while at the same time cooperating in military restructuring to reduce budgets.

Obama's platitudes and laundry list of “We must . . .” items are no substitute for leadership in making the difficult choices to bring about fiscal recovery. His State of the Union address before Congress on February 12, 2013 will undoubtedly offer more of the same. He will proclaim the success of his economic stimulus, which contributed to the enormous growth of debt while having only a moderate impact on job growth; his government buy out of General Motors which stuck American taxpayers with billions of dollars of GM stock worth only a fraction of what was paid for it; and his health care plan which is already forcing insurance premiums higher. He will propose an immigration reform plan in general terms but not explain how to stop the continuing influx of illegals which the plan will encourage. And he will tell America that the economy is recovering along with the usual “our best days are ahead” platitudes. He will ignore the continuing high unemployment numbers, the debt and deficit crisis except to make the “rich” pay even higher taxes.

Fifty-two years ago on January 20, 1961 newly elected President John F. Kennedy in his inauguration speech uttered these famous words:

“ . . . ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. “

From that same podium Obama has reversed Kennedy's vision for America's future.

His ideologically based plan for an ever growing welfare state financed by ever growing debt and its concomitant intervention in the free markets and individual lives of American citizens as part of his “collective” strategy will offer a challenge to moderate and conservative participants in government if a dangerous and permanent restructuring of American society is to be avoided.