Obama's Budget creeps towards the Senate

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag testified before the Senate Committee on the Budget concerning President Obama’s FY2010 Budget. Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) praised the transparency and initiatives set forward in the budget, which included healthcare reform, a revamping of education, and a shift away from dependence on foreign oil.

Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) criticized the costs associated with the budget. Gregg pointed out that the debt to GDP ratio in 2013 will be 67% and questioned how sustainable such a costly plan could be. He said that it would double the publicly held national debt in 5 years.

Orszag stated that this budget accounts for $2.7 trillion in costs not accounted for in previous budgets, and although it would see some increases in mandatory spending, but this is partially due to baseline changes in this spending. He continued that healthcare reform would help, because one of the problems with entitlement spending is that a disproportionate amount of it is in Medicare and Medicaid.

Economy and Environment are National Security Threats

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on threats to the United States. In his written statement, he said that, “the primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications.” Blair said that time was of the essence, because “statistical modeling shows that economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they persist over a one to two year period.” The threat to nations both politically and economically could affect regional stability, and could prevent America’s allies from fully meeting their defense and humanitarian responsibilities.

Blair highlighted a number of nations which have specific security concerns to the United States, including Iran and Afghanistan, but Blair brought up broader security concerns. Among these broader concerns were resource scarcity, overpopulation, and climate change. Blair said that by 2025 more than one billion people will be added to the world population, which will exacerbate the food and water shortages in some areas. Blair continued that this larger world population will use more energy, which would fuel climate change. This could lead to a quicker rise in sea-levels, as well as widespread health problems and agricultural losses. He said, “such a complex and unprecedented syndrome of problems could cause outright state failure, or weaken the important pivotal states counted on to act as anchors of regional stability.”

National War Powers Commission calls for new balance in time of conflict

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Today the National War Powers Commission, co-chaired by former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher, recommended to Congress a new relationship between Congress and the President in a time of armed conflict which has not been declared war. In his prepared statement, Christopher said that the approach they proposed would create a bipartisan Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, a body that the president would be required to consult with before deploying U.S. troops to any significant armed conflict, defined as “combat operations lasting or expected to last more than a week”. Christopher continued that if secrecy was important in the success of the operation, then the president must consult with the committee three days after the start of the combat. Within 30 days of the armed conflict beginning Congress must vote on whether or not to approve the conflict.

The proposed plan would replace the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Baker said that one of the biggest faults with the resolution is that “most legal experts consider it unconstitutional”, but went on to remind the body that the Supreme Court has not ruled on it. The 1973 resolution was brought about in response to the Vietnam War, which the president deployed military forces without a formal declaration of war. The proposed statute would improve upon the ’73 resolution in tempering the power of the president in armed conflicts lacking the formal classification of ‘war’, and as Baker said, “would promote meaningful discussion between the president and Congress when America’s sons and daughters are to be sent into harm’s way.”

McCain and Feingold tackle pork reform

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico - Talk Radio News Service

Today Senator John McCain (R-Ariz), Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spoke of their plans to reintroduce their version of the line item veto bill. Feingold said that the bill would allow the President to mark certain earmarks for reconsideration, have it sent back to Congress, and have each marked spending allocation voted on individually. If either chamber votes against rescinding the money by a simple majority vote, then the project would be funded.

The Supreme Court had previously struck down as unconstitutional McCain’s previous attempt to introduce a line item veto. McCain said that he wants to “get around” that decision by the Court through a new legislative effort, which McCain said would be fully constitutional.

All three members of Congress felt that this would be an important step towards reforming wasteful pork. Ryan said that this would bring accountability and common sense to the earmark process. McCain said that he anticipates it being difficult to pass, but Feingold said that this bill is important, because earmark money is “real money” that comes out of taxpayers pockets. Ryan went on to say that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but a “good government issue”.

Bailouts vs. Bankruptcy - how to help the auto industry

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico - Talk Radio News Service

Today the Heritage Foundation held a forum concerning the best methods for dealing with the auto industry, specifically focusing on the benefits of bankruptcy. Paul Ingrassia, former Detroit Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal and Pulitzer Prize winner, said that Chapter 11 Bankruptcy may be of long term benefit to companies like GM and Chrysler. According to Ingrassia and fellow panelist Douglas Foley, of McGuireWoods LLP, bankruptcy could free the companies from contractual obligations which are otherwise overly burdensome to their operations. It would allow these companies to reduce the number of brands and dealers they have without lengthy legal gridlock, which in turn could provide the ability for the auto companies getting back on their feet through a very thoughtful reorganization.

Andrew Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said that there are many risks with further government involvement in assisting the flailing auto industry. The first risk he highlighted was economic, more specifically the risk that with a government safety net, companies will be less responsible and self-regulating. Grossman also addressed the financial risk assumed by the taxpayers in the course of government intervention, because it is money which will possibly not be paid back to the government. Additionally, Grossman addressed the risk of politicizing the operations of these companies if the government were to gain an ownership stake. Grossman felt that if routine operations within these companies were politicized, they would be subject to political chess games and lobbying, hurting the way that business could operate within the free market. Grossman insisted that the proper solution to the problems faced is to stop all government bailouts and to insist on bankruptcy.