A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.

ESSAY: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

Essay: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

-Christopher Carroll

Congress isn’t giving itself an ObamaCare exemption, but the deal recently reached with the White House isn’t doing the Affordable Care Act any favors.

Congress and their staffers, after a small measure of hysteria, do not need to worry that they will lose the health insurance coverage provided them by the federal government: the Obama administration has seen to that. With the deal came a collective sigh of relief from congressional offices across the country. It also came with a sense of resentment from many voters.

The issue arose when it was realized that Democrats had agreed to a provision written into the Affordable Care Act by Senator Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) requiring Congress and their staffers to be covered by health insurance offered through the ACA exchanges. What at the time was perceived to be rather minor legislation has now seemingly overly burdensome for the Congressmen who wrote the law.

 

The difference between the old and new systems is by no means inconsequential. Right now, prior to implementation of the ACA on January 1st, members of Congress and their aides are covered through the Federal Employee Benefits Program, a program that covers 75% of premiums. Grassley’s statute, however, means that about 11,000 Congressmen, aides and staff would lose that coverage. Additionally, Congressmen and some staffers wouldn’t be able to qualify for other benefits provided by the ACA. “The Members – annual salary: $174,000 – and their better-paid aides also wouldn’t qualify for ObamaCare subsidies,” explains the Wall Street Journal. “That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out of pocket expenses.”

The deal has expectedly been met with scathing remarks and scorn. Republicans on the Hill, including Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.), have not wasted time to make political hay, calling Obamacare “a train-wreck, even for Congress.” Many voters are angry as well, interpreting the deal as more back room dealings by untrustworthy Congressmen placing the burdens of unwanted laws on the people while exempting themselves.

Others, meanwhile, do not see the deal as an exception for Congress at all. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca.) believes that the deal resolves legislation that was meant simply to embarrass Democrats, “and the collateral damage was to staff.” Ezra Klein, the popular writer at Wonkblog, has pointed out that the deal is not an exemption at all and calling it one is misguided. Instead, the deal is meant to fix a problem created by the Grassley amendment.

Français : (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The issue at hand isn’t about the cost the deal may or may not force on individuals. Instead, it is an issue of law, logistics and timing. As explained by Mr. Klein, “Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers” until 2017. In other words, because large employers aren’t allowed on the health exchanges, Congressional staffers and aides will not be afforded the same opportunities that most Americans will be offered under the Affordable Care Act. They will, in effect, be penalized for working for the government.

****

Americans angry at Congress are misdirecting their frustration; the public’s enmity should instead be directed towards Obama administration and the administration that should be embarrassed.

The President’s crowning achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was conceived with exemplary intentions. Free healthcare for all has long been an idea dearly held by many liberal lions throughout the decades and this bill was meant to get America closer to that ideal. However, the bill is crumbling around itself.

Earlier this year, the administration postponed the employer mandate of the ACA, weakening the law so as to buy time for businesses to implement the new requirements. Now, Americans hear of more band-aid fixes and backroom deals, necessary to rectify further failures to anticipate the needs of government workers.

The deal itself, is good. It is not an attempt by Congressmen to get out of a poorly constructed bill. It is simply an attempt to treat congressional aides fairly, giving them the opportunity to receive employer benefit options, similar to ones that are going to be offered to people not affiliated with Congress. However, Congressmen and aides should bare in mind that this fight has come at a political cost for Obama and the ACA in general. On the surface, the deal appears to be an attempt by Congress to avert being subjected to laws already imposed upon the people. The political ramifications of those feelings are dangerous during good economic times, even more so when felt during times of economic instability and high unemployment.  Congressmen would be smart to take time to explain this to their constituencies. The ACA is already an immensely complicated bill. Most people are misinformed about what it does and how it could help them and this deal is more bad press for a bill that has received precious little.

 

It is a shame that a bill that was viewed as progress towards universal healthcare, a passion for generations of Democrats from FDR to Teddy Kennedy, has have been so badly botched. Could ObamaCare do more harm than good on the road towards universal healthcare in America? With each passing failure, the answer becomes a more emphatic, yes.

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

-Christopher Carroll

It is that time of year. We are once again wondering if the debt ceiling will be raised and if a budget for the 2014 fiscal year (starting in October 2013) will be passed. Once again, we wonder if the government will be shut down. The question this time is, if it happens who will have turned out the lights?

It seems like every summer, Congress and the White House begin posturing and flexing their muscle, staring down one another in an attempt to intimidate the other into fiscal submission. This year, House Republicans seem especially eager to engage in the yearly schoolyard fight over the budget and debt ceiling. Meanwhile, President Obama and the White House seem eager to avoid a Washington brawl, yet are ready to strike back if the House throws the first punch.

As many readers will know, the debt ceiling debate is a misnomer. Having nothing to do with the amount of debt that Congress can accrue in the future, the ceiling simply gives the Treasury Department the ability to pay the debts already incurred. Yet prominent Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R – Fl.) Sen. Ted Cruz (R – Tx.), and Sen. Rand Paul (R – Ky.), want to link raising the debt ceiling to defunding Obamacare, a proposal that has drawn the ire of Democrats and even some Republicans. This perennial threat is frequently the strongest tool in the Republican fiscal tool-belt, providing them with the most leverage of any common threat to lower taxes and decrease government expenditure.

A full-fledged government shutdown is a less common and much more extreme threat. The damage that a shutdown would do to the economy would be drastic.  By failing to come to an agreement on a new budget or even a Continuing Resolution, the federal government would be forced to shut down on October 1st, something that has not happened since the Clinton-Gingrich standoff in 1995.

****

Republicans seem to feel that because they control a majority in Congress, they can hold President Obama, the White House, and the Senate hostage in all fiscal matters. While this is partially true (Congress constitutionally has the power of the purse), the strategy is dangerous.

Much to the displeasure of GOP leadership and Republican strategists, most Republican Representatives are not following their lead and are willing to push hardline fiscal policies in an attempt to prevent primary challenges in their home districts from the right. These Representatives are using the debt ceiling and the government budget to prove their disdain for Obamacare and boost their fiscal conservative credentials. As was discussed in a July 20th post, this strategy joins those of many recent House Republican policies that may be good for individual Representatives but bad for the Grand Old Party and for the entire country.

House Republicans must realize that the risks aren’t worth the rewards. A government shutdown and fight over the debt ceiling would add uncertainty to both the economy and to the election year. As it stands now, very few Republican seats in the House are at risk from democratic challengers and the chances that the GOP loses the House are zero. Maintaining that majority must be of the utmost priority for the GOP. However, letting the country default on debt or letting the Government fully or even partially shut down, would add a variable to the upcoming mid-term elections that could lead to disaster for Republicans. The only way Republicans will lose the House,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R – Ok.), former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, “is to shut down the government or default on the debt.”

Democrats and the Obama Administration would surely be able to use such political battle against the Republicans in the public, showing that their obstructionism and failure to come to a workable agreement on the budget is hurting the economy and country. The President will not allow Congress to use the Affordable Care Act, the hallmark of his presidency, as a trading chip for a budget or ceiling agreement. It will be too easy for Democrats to say that Republicans shut down the government because they wanted to take health care coverage away from millions of Americans.

****

In the end, a shut-down is bad politics for everyone. The economy would suffer. Republicans would risk their large majority in the House. Democrats would benefit the most from a shutdown, but it would be at the expense of devoting time and energy to pressing debates over immigration, the farm bill and Obamacare’s implementation.

Worst of all, it would give the public even more reason to distrust their leaders. In a perfect world where cooler heads prevail, this discussion wouldn’t be an issue. Of course the debt limit would be raised, we must pay our bills or risk defaulting. Of course a budget or continuing resolution will be reached, the government must serve the country. But alas, this world is not perfect. Cooler heads don’t prevail. The lights could be turned off and the public and economy could be left to suffer. Republicans should be more afraid of the dark then they are letting on.