More on Federal Budget

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.

A few months ago, shortly after I arrived in Washington to begin working at FCNL, I was waiting in Union Station for a train back to Connecticut when I noticed a local news channel reporter and camera. Sure enough, the reporter approached and asked if I would be willing to respond to a few questions.

"What do you think of the new legislation proposed by Sen. Schumer to heighten security screening on trains?" the reporter asked. Not knowing anything about the new measures, I couldn't say much. "Are you worried about terrorism when you travel by train?" the reporter pressed. "Do you think that measures that screen all train travelers will make us more secure?" No, I'm not worried about terrorism when I travel by train and no I don't think screening everyone getting on a train will make me more secure.

Has the $1.3 trillion dollars spent on the "war on terrorism" made our country safer? Does the "see something, say something" campaign and the "homeland security" measures in our local communities find real threats to our lives and safety or do they perpetrate a society of fear and mistrust?

There is a solution to homelessness. It’s a home. And there’s a solution to unemployment. It’s a job. Our elected officials can take action that will not only prevent homelessness and address substandard low-income housing, but they can act to put people to work by investing in affordable housing.

This week, FCNL joined 44 organizations in a letter circulated by the National Low Income Housing Coalition to White House officials charged with developing President Obama’s jobs creation strategy.

The decisions Congress makes in the next six months will have a lasting impact on government policy. Rather than getting bogged down in the details of the Gang of 12 supercommittee or the individual appropriations, our FCNL network can be most effective by continuing to insist that any new government spending plan should include $1 trillion in cuts to Pentagon spending, investments in creating jobs and provisions to make everyone pay their fair share.

The good news -- I guess -- is that Congress agreed on something to allow the debt ceiling to be raised.

But there seems to be something missing.

Three things caused the debt to rise out of control in the last decade:

(1) the U.S. fought two wars without counting them in the budget and without raising adequate revenues to cover the expense, putting more than a trillion dollars on the national "credit card,"

(2) temporary tax cuts that were supposed to address the recession following the 9-11 attacks were continued way beyond their expiration dates, costing about a trillion dollars, and

(3) health care costs spiraled upwards, affecting huge parts of the federal budget -- federal employee health care, military health care, veterans' health care, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The "deal" doesn't deal with any of those. War spending was put back on the credit card as "emergency" spending, even though language elsewhere in the bill carefully defines "emergency" as a situation that is "unanticipated," "sudden," "unforeseen," and "temporary."

My colleague Ruth Flower has posted a great analysis of the debt limit legislation Congress will approve today. The bottom line as I see it is that although, as we at FCNL have been predicting, Congress could make some real cuts in Pentagon spending, the short term impact on our struggling economy, on people with out jobs and on state level priorities could be devastating.

Long term everyone agrees Congress needs to address the federal budget deficit. FCNL's Policy Statement says clearly that the nation needs to budget enough revenues to pay for what we spend. The real question is how to do that? The debate should be about what is the best strategy to restore economic growth (historically the real driver for deficit reduction) and how to ensure that federal spending choices reflect the moral values of our nation.

Although the deal approved by Congress does protect Pell grants and, potentially, some programs for the poor, in her analysis Ruth highlights some of the most dangerous cuts at a time when our economy is fragile and unemployment is high: "Programs like Head Start, community services block grants, most housing assistance, nutritional assistance for Women, Infants, and Children, community health programs and many programs for the elderly will face deep and serious budget cuts."

Today, I participated along with a dozen other faith community leaders in a series of meetings in the offices of congressional leaders. Set up by a coalition of faith-based organizations, the focus of this coalition during the past few weeks has been on both lobbying and praying. Praying for our elected officials and their staffs to act responsibly to raise the debt ceiling, to address the budget fairly in a way that represents ALL the people, particularly those who are vulnerable by poverty, ability or age.

Today's prayer vigil included messages of faith from Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders and began this way:

We are gathered on Capitol Hill as people of faith to pray for a just and compassionate federal budget. Inspired by a common spiritual conviction that God has called on all Americans to protect the vulnerable and promote the dignity of all individuals living in society, we are an interfaith coalition aiming to protect those struggling to overcome poverty in the U.S. and abroad, and to exclude programs that protect people in poverty from the U.S. budget deficit debates.

It ended with a wonderful benediction by Shan Cretin, General Secretary for AFSC.

It's no surprise, but this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows it well:

In five years, half of the federal debt will be contributed by Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq if current policies are allowed to continue.

FCNL has been saying for awhile that the federal debt, which is more dangerous to U.S. national security and economic well-being, needs to be addressed with a combination of income-generating activities (taxes) and decreased spending, particularly military spending. Payments to recover from the economic downtown must continue - the United States will not function at full capacity without increasing the employment rate and providing for the basic human needs of all its citizens.

There's something that's been bothering me about the whole discussion of the debt ceiling and whether/how/by how much Congress should raising it. A podcast from the NPR project Planet Money finally made me realize what it is.

Some members of Congress are arguing about whether to increase the amount of money that the government is allowed to borrow. They're saying that the government has promised to spend too much money, so drastic measures are needed to keep those promises from bankrupting the country.

But who is it that decides how much the government should be spending in the first place? Congress.

Like all news junkies, I’ve been captivated by news of Osama bin Laden’s death, how it’s been reported and how Americans and the international community have responded. Along with the 63% of the U.S. public that doesn’t think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting, I hope we’ll see the withdrawal of troops this summer as President Obama promised. De-escalating our military involvement as a response to bin Laden’s death signals not only a new approach for how the U.S. responds to terrorism but it could also have a remarkable impact in helping reduce our federal debt.

As Congress grapples with the debt ceiling and fixing the deficit through spending reductions and tax increases, they would do well to read Amy Belasco’s March 29 Congressional Research Service report. It couldn’t be more stark: "Congress has approved $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks." The allocation of that $1.23 trillion: "About 94% of the funds are for DOD [the Department of Defense], 5% for foreign aid programs and diplomatic operations, and 1% for medical care for veterans."

"That's not fair."

It's a refrain we hear from children on playgrounds or from squabbling siblings or even from elected officials. If you ask children to make choices that are 'fair'--like how to divide a candy bar or a pie, they can usually figure out a practical way to choose.

So, it was a little ironic to hear the budget ballyhooing in Washington the past few weeks as the president called for "adult discussions" on the current federal budget and over our spending priorities for the next fiscal year.

This past weekend, a government shutdown was narrowly averted by an eleventh hour compromise. Unfortunately, this was just a prelude of things to come. In the weeks ahead, the debate in Washington is going to get louder and nastier. When we hear conflicting explanations for the disagreement, and numbers like $40 billion here and $1 trillion dollars there, it easy to get distracted by the drama and conflict and lose sight of the effect these decisions will have on our lives and the lives of people that we know, everyday.

As of this morning, it looks very much like the government will shut down at midnight tonight. Why? What does it mean?

Reports from the hill indicate that the disagreements at this point are mostly over a number of policy riders that the House has attached to the spending bill.

You can read a complete list of these riders here.

The New York Times has a good overview of which government services will be affected.

For a good explanation of why our federal budget is so out of whack in the first place, have a look at our Federal Budget page. For resources on what you can do about it, check out the Our Nation's Checkbook campaign.

And remember, even when the government is shut down, congress is still in session, so don't stop lobbying!

Right now, both the fiscal year 2011 and 2012 are being negotiated in separate, parallel processes. We’re now six months into FY2011, and Congress has not decided on spending, instead going from temporary resolution to the next. These “continuing resolutions,” which extend federal funding as-is for as few as 2 weeks to as long as several months, give each party more time to negotiate with hopes that they’ll settle on a budget that reflects its fiscal priorities. In the meantime, programs and services that rely on federal money, and the people that depend on them, are on shaky ground.

On Friday, the most recent three-week CR expires. Current negotiations are around a tentative agreement to cut spending by around $33 billion, which is basically a halfway point between the Republicans’ initial goal of cutting more than $61 billion and Democrats wanting to keep spending at 2010 levels.

Congress will approve a spending bill in mid-April that requires deep cuts in some government spending over the next six months, while allowing Pentagon spending to rise by between $5 billion and $15 billion.