More on Federal Budget

A handful of Democratic and Republican senators are considering a rewrite of 60 of the most consequential words to ever pass through Congress. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed after the attacks of 11 September 2001, and provides the legal cornerstone for the so-called US "war on terror". Only one brave Congress member opposed it. It allows the US government to wage war at anytime, any place and on anyone deemed a threat to national security – with remarkably little evidence needed.

The way the country invests its resources and prioritizes spending is a direct expression of the values of the nation. Last week, the faith-based advocacy community on Capitol Hill released a budget proposal dedicated to justice and economic opportunity for all. Read about the FCNL's involvement and what the Faithful Budget can do for you and your community.

The President's Budget was 244 pages long. Didn't have time to read it? We've got you covered. Check out charts, tweets and short summaries of Pentagon spending in the budget proposal, and stay tuned for more reactions from our programs.

Uncertainty around U.S. military base closures has caught some attention, but uncertainty about the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan has gone largely unnoticed.

In fact, there is so much uncertainty around President Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan that the government can’t even properly budget for it — unlike the base closures, which did have a budget request.

According to a recent Harvard report, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $6 trillion in the long term.

Reps. Walter Jones (NC) and Bruce Braley (IA) introduced H.R. 1238, the True Cost of War Act to require the Obama administration to present official government cost projections for the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—something that has not yet been done.

Here at FCNL, we’re looking for two things to protect the human services that our communities rely on: significant cuts to the Pentagon budget and increased revenues. While we are finally seeing cuts to the Pentagon, the need for new revenue still exists. Revenue positive tax reform would help the government balance its books. More importantly, though, it could stop taxes from further exacerbating economic inequality.

The stop-gap funding bill passed by Congress this week will keep the government running through the September, but lawmakers ducked many of the tough budget issues including whether to cut the Pentagon budget in order to make room for other key priorities. What's next?

This week saw the release of two house budget plans that couldn’t be more varied on the ideological spectrum. The first, known as “The Path to Prosperity” or the Ryan budget, was introduced by the House Budget Committee and Rep. Paul Ryan. The other, “The Back to Work Budget,” is an alternative budget plan of the Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chaired by Rep. Keith Ellison (MN-5) and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3).

Throughout the past few years budget uncertainties, FCNL has continued to call on the Pentagon to pay its fair share. The Progressive Caucus budget not only reflects many of the values and principles we have, but uplifts these issues in a piece of legislation that will see votes on the floor.

Today across the country, several groups will be participating in a national day of action for Pentagon spending cuts. Nationally and locally, these groups will be calling on the Pentagon to pay its fair share.

This is a crucial time for Congress as we countdown to the fiscal cliff on March 1.

As Congress gears up for another round of votes on how to address the federal budget deficit, we see some good news in the public statements by several senators arguing for more cuts in Pentagon spending.

Congress did something extraordinary at the beginning of this year. Despite intense pressure from military contractors and billions of dollars spent by defense lobbyists, our elected officials left in place deep cuts in Pentagon spending. If you had polled FCNL lobbyists a year ago, almost none would have predicted that Congress would pass legislation that retained these cuts.

But this struggle to rein in runaway Pentagon spending isn’t over yet. The last-minute, end-of-year budget deal Congress approved on January 1 put off the cuts in Pentagon spending by two months. While the deal keeps the U.S. on track to reduce the planned growth in military spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years, Congress will return to this debate over the next two months. Their decision-making isn't over.

You may be wondering why I’m celebrating, when the “fiscal cliff” deal that Congress cut with the president is so messy and when, by almost any measure, Pentagon spending is at historically high.

But this legislation might have been far worse. Just a few weeks before, the House voted 215 to 209 to restore money for the Pentagon while making harsh new cuts in domestic spending.

A deal to avoid the tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to take place around the end of the year is looking less likely. What are the alternatives?

Last night’s Presidential Election was historic no matter where you sit in the political spectrum. Perhaps it wasn't that surprising, especially if you follow Nate Silver’s Five Thirty Eight blog. Some House and Senate elections also left many on the edges of their seats. It is going to take some time to predict and know what this 113th Congress will hold for U.S. policy domestic and abroad.

For me, there was one major take away from last night: it is time to get to work.

Poverty rates in this country are unacceptably high for a prosperous nation. A few weeks ago we were relieved to discover that there were not more people living in poverty in 2011 than there were the previous year. However, there were still 46.2 million people struggling to make ends meet. This includes 16.1 million children, so that one in every five children under the age of 18 lived in poverty. The United States is the country with the highest GDP and yet has the second highest percentage of children living in poverty in the developed world. So why wasn’t there a single question about poverty during last week’s presidential debate?

Last week marked the first week back for the House and Senate after the August recess. With less than a month until the beginning of the October 1 fiscal year, Congress has their hands full, having yet to find a solution to the federal budget deficit problem. The clock is ticking as not only the fiscal year steadily approaches but also the start of a new calendar year that brings the threat of sequestration, $1.2 trillion of automatic across the board cuts to domestic and defense programs. The conversation and activity on the Hill last week centered on the looming threat of the sequester.

Two significant bills passed the House and the Obama administration released their mandated report on the sequester.

Here’s a recap.

When I received an offer letter for this internship back in May, I was excited to say the least -- just ask anyone who witnessed the high-fiving spree I went on the moment after I read the e-mail. Now, as I start my third week at FCNL, my passion and commitment to this job have only grown since that first, thrilling moment.

As FCNL's communications director, I usually deal more with words than numbers. But right now numbers give a good picture of what's ahead. Here are some that are particularly important to keep in mind.

57: Days before the election. Now that both parties have finished their conventions, all eyes are on November 6.

6: Days that Congress is likely to be conducting business between now and Election Day. Between congressional recesses, days when votes don't start until 6:30pm, and pressure to get back on the campaign trail, there's not a lot of time for getting the business of governing done.

1: Things that Congress has to do before it can adjourn. Congress hasn't yet passed legislation to fund the government and pay government employees after September 30.

With the election looming, few legislative days left to act, and one big task remaining, it doesn't take a crystal ball to see that members of Congress are almost certainly going to push taking action on a number of other issues into their session after the November elections--issues such as whether to extend the expiring Bush tax cuts and whether to let across-the-board budget cuts to go into effect.

Which brings me to a few more important numbers.

There’s a lot of talk here in Washington and across the country about the effect on jobs if the Pentagon budget is cut. Pentagon contractors are threatening to hand out pink slips to thousands of workers just weeks before the November election, using the fear of layoffs to try and force Congress’ hand to avert planned cuts to Pentagon spending. But the choice between jobs and a balanced, responsible budget is a false one. Here’s the problem with the logic: more Pentagon spending doesn’t necessarily equal more jobs, and less Pentagon spending doesn’t necessarily equal fewer jobs.

My arrival in D.C. and my first week at FCNL coincides with Mitt Romney’s recent announcement of Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate. This announcement brings Rep. Ryan’s budget into the public eye. Rep. Ryan is most known as the author of “Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal” the controversial budget plan that slashes domestic spending, increases defense, and shrinks the overall size and role of the federal government.

As the new Legislative Associate on Domestic Issues for FCNL, I’ll be working closely on the federal budget; covering a broad range of issues from human needs programs to military spending. I am coming from my work as the Director of the Peace Economy Project, a St. Louis based organization that does education and research about lowering military spending. I am thrilled about coming to FCNL and expanding upon the foundation I built working on military spending issues at the local level in St. Louis. So as I settle in, I find myself reflecting on the debate we’re having now and that will continue right through the fall.

You might wonder, are we planning to hide nukes in the corn fields? Or launch soybeans at Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Well, we do hide nukes in the cornfields and we do control drones from the prairie land where soybeans are grown (among other places). Senator John McCain sees the farm bill as a way to reinforce his point that the Pentagon budget should not be cut by $1 trillion--or even close.

Last week, Senator McCain filed an amendment to the farm bill that asks the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by August 15, 2012 on the specific impacts on national security if an additional nearly $500 billion in automatic budget cuts (bringing the total to an estimated $1 trillion) are made.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed its plan to spare the Pentagon from mandatory cuts by instead slashing food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs for people in the U.S. who are struggling.

In order to stave off the first $50 billion in reductions to Pentagon growth required under the Budget Control Act, the House proposed to slice $261 billion from investments in our communities over the next decade. Our budget lobbyist, Ruth Flower, has more analysis of what was in the House proposal.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a bill that has been passed by Congress every year for over 50 years. Most authorization bills are taken up once every two-five years, but Congress has a special affinity for the military authorization bill—often calling it a “must-pass” bill. This year will be no different.

Last year, the fiscal year (FY) 2012 NDAA became synonymous with indefinite detention due to provisions included that allow for detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military. President Obama signed the NDAA on December 31, 2012, after it was passed by both chambers. Often forgotten, however, are some of the other momentum-building votes that happened on amendments to the FY2012 NDAA.

One of my colleagues came back from a recent Capitol Hill hearing on funding for nuclear weapons with an astonishing observation. As he looked around the room, he saw some 20 lobbyists representing companies that would benefit from building new nuclear weapons. The sad part, he said, that he and one other person were the only people in the room pressing for funding to be cut.

The peace movement is often outnumbered on Capitol Hill, but my colleague said that in the past the differences haven't been so stark. Here at FCNL, where we field the largest team of registered lobbyists working for peace on Capitol Hill, we're well aware of the resource imbalance. The good news is that we see a real need and possibility that Pentagon spending will be cut significantly in the next year in order to preserve funding for other priorities.

It's spring. Here in Washington, the cherry blossoms are almost past, and everything it taking on a faint yellowish tinge as the pollen count rises.

This time of year, there's a lull in the action on Capitol Hill as members of Congress take a two-week break to return to their states and districts. The House and Senate are both on recess until April 16, and most members will be holding public events and opportunities for constituents like you to talk with them and share your views. These in-person interactions are some of the most influential in shaping members' points of view on what matters to the people they represent.

This recess is a critical time for members to hear from you. In the next several months, members will be making critical decisions on federal budget priorities, including whether to preserve current law that would require $1 trillion in cuts from the Pentagon budget over the next 10 years. This recess is the longest stretch of time that representatives and senators will be home until August, when election-year campaigning will be at the top of many of their agendas.

The President's State of the Union speech last night focused on getting the economy back on track. That's good. That's where most of us live. We know that nothing in our future is secure if we don't have jobs, homes, education for our children, and an ability to adapt to changing demands. We want solutions.

The President offered a number of fairly specific steps forward -- most of them more "supply side" than I would have expected -- but they might work. His attention to small businesses that create jobs here, and recommendations to end the incentives for multinational corporations to export jobs overseas were positive. Small business owners we've talked to, however, have emphasized that a high percentage of them are in service industries that serve local customers. If they don't have customers, all the tax breaks in the world can't help them to hire more people. So we need to be sure more people have jobs and incomes. Small businesses need more customers.

Supporting a move toward manufacturing to encourage renewable energy development would create some of those jobs and help to support the "demand side" of the equation that small businesses (and others) need. But it takes a while to get a new industry ramped up. What happens in the meantime? I missed hearing a commitment to those still struggling with the financial tsunami that washed over this country (and the world) over the past few years...those who still can't find jobs... those who haven't yet completed the skills training and education that the president rightly promoted. Those who were already poor before the recession. I didn't hear a commitment to unemployment insurance and to basic income assistance for those on the edge and those who are below our country's official definitions of poverty. One in five children in poverty -- in this country. Can we live with that?

On January 5th, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta released the Pentagon's new military strategy document, designed to guide military budgets and operations for years to come. Despite the heavy rhetoric from President Obama and Secretary Panetta claiming the new strategy represents big changes, I find little more than cosmetic touch ups to the same old war policies that have gotten the US into its current economic and security problems and reaped horrendous global damage along the way.

Yes, the size of the forces will be reduced somewhat. Yes, there's a shift away from the idea of the US being able to fight two major wars simultaneously (that one has been buried in Iraq and Afghanistan already). Yes, military planners will be focusing more on Asia and the Middle East, less on Europe and Latin America. And yes, there will be changes in the budget line items (think more drones and cyberwarfare) presented to Congress.

Maybe it's our heightened awareness during the holiday season of those who are less fortunate or maybe it's the lobbying work I did for many years on behalf of initiatives to end homelessness, but I was taken aback last week to see a young mom with a baby and toddler sitting on the cold ground outside my local Target store, begging for spare change. And in the short walk to my home, I saw two more people who were homeless-men sleeping at 3 o'clock in the afternoon in the local park, the signature shopping cart overstuffed with belongings nearby. These could have been scenes in any impoverished neighborhood, except that I live in Washington, DC, a metropolitan area that has actually gotten richer as the economic crisis has hit other cities and towns hard.

The news this week that the wealth of members of Congress has grown dramatically relative to the people who elect them may come as no surprise, but the economic gap between those who make decisions about the federal budget and policies that govern our country is unsettling. I hope that during this break when elected officials visit soup kitchens or public housing for the elderly, they make the link between their votes in Congress and how the programs funded through federal dollars serve their constituents. Despite the anti-government program rhetoric that is bandied about in election season, federal funding makes a difference in the lives of millions of our neighbors and in the quality of life in the communities where we live.

The congressional supercommittee's failure to reach agreement on a plan to cut the federal budget by at least $1.2 trillion is a missed opportunity to set the nation on a new path. We at FCNL have been arguing that that Congress could save $1 trillion of that amount just with a 15% cut in Pentagon spending.

Yet no agreement is better than a bad agreement. The FCNL community may see more progress in our efforts to cut Pentagon spending and reorient federal budget priorities with the failure of this committee than we would have if the committee had agreed to a deal that exempted the Pentagon from real cuts.

No, I don't think congressional failure to reach agreement and gridlock is a good result. But change doesn't happen in Congress with one vote or one supercommittee. From the Occupy Wall Street movement to the local protests about cuts in your community, Congress is getting a message that business as usual isn't okay.

Your messages to Congress, your letters to the editor, your lobbying and the advocacy of tens of thousands of other people have also played a part in persuading Congress that they cannot keep writing the Pentagon blank checks, and they cannot cut the deficit just on the backs of the poor.

• Public schools reducing to four days a week in Minnesota. NPR news (10/30/11?) • A 20% increase in families turning to emergency homeless shelters as they lose their housing. NYT Times Editorial These news briefs caught my attention this past week. Local school districts, cities and towns, counties and states are making cuts to programs that are painful to the 99%. %. And they are painful in ways that are immediate--like families becoming homeless or people losing jobs because of cutbacks.

These services which are provided by local government can be bolstered by federal revenue that comes to states and local communities; our Congress will make choices about our priorities. Will they act to help create communities where every person's potential may be fulfilled?

Between now and Thanksgiving, the so-called Super Committee will be weighing all sorts of proposals for re-shaping the federal budget to cut spending by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. While much of the focus in Washington is on the numbers - how much to cut from which programs - at FCNL we'd like to see the debt crisis push policymakers to reshape US policy writ large, not just tinker around the edges.

I

President Obama's proposals to cut the federal budget deficit don't include the $1 trillion in savings to the core Pentagon budget. Now is a good time to write Congress to demonstrate support for these cuts.

Today, International Peace Day, President Obama addressed the UN General Assembly as it opened its annual sessions in New York. He framed his speech around the theme of building peace and preventing war, noting that the UN was founded as "an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes," and that " Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible."

It's nice to hear the U.S. president saying such things to the world community, but back here in Washington U.S. policies are moving in the opposite direction. The House is preparing to move legislation that would radically undercut the UN and the prospects for peace in the Middle East. And the Senate is marking up legislation that will reduce funding for the tools to prevent war - diplomacy, development, and international cooperation. Meanwhile, the new congressional "Super Committee" charged with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion is sharpening the budget-cutting knives for even deeper cuts across the federal budget in years ahead.

So what would a budget for peace really look like? We'd have to debate the details, but here are some general principles that should guide it.