re: "Obama Wants Double-Digit Cuts to Intel Budget: No Way, Says House Intel Chairman"

PETER SCHWEIZER at Big Peace highlighted the importance of our intelligence budgets.

Money quote(s):

"James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, reported earlier this month that the Obama deficit-reduction plan "calls for cuts in the double-digit range--with a B--over 10 years." Congressman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, responded today during the 11th Annual C4ISR Journal Conference outside Washington. While arguing that congress must find efficiencies that will cut costs, "I will not allow a cut in mission capability," he told the audience. "We have to save money. We have to get efficient. But I'm not going to nick the bone." He went on: "I am not saying do more with less. I'm saying we...need to do business differently to remain competitive.""

You don't do more with less, you accomplish less with less. Working "smarter" can tighten things up at the margins, but it's not a cure-all.

10/27

re: "But It’s Just 19 Murders"

Mark Krikorian at The Corner ("The one and only.") was almost ready to miss the Bush Administration.

Money quote(s):

"The House Judiciary Committee has released a report on how many immigrants identified by the Secure Communuties fingerprint-matching system were released (i.e., not deported) after being arrested by local police, and how many went on to commit additional crimes. (The report is here and the Washington Times story is here.) According to the report, over a nearly three-year period, just in the jurisdictions using the Secure Communities system, almost 47,000 illegal aliens were arrested but released because ICE chose not to take them into custody."

&

"(T)he administration refuses to ask Congress for more funds to increase deportations — funds that would be approved. So they’re intentionally setting the ceiling on how many people they can deport lower than necessary, and then pointing to that ceiling to justify the release of illegal aliens who go on to kill Americans."

7/31

re: "Obama Killed The War Powers Act? No, Congress Did"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") analyzed an analysis from the Washington Post.

Money quote(s):

"Ackerman and Hathway make the same mistake that many people wh(o) analyze this issue do in that they view the Presidency’s power grab int he area of war powers as a completely one sided matter. They forget that there is more than one branch of the Federal Government. As I noted when the debate over the Libyan engagement began (which was roughly an hour after the President announced it), Congress has nobody to blame but itself for the fact that Presidents have essentially written them out of the war powers process over the past 60 years"

Mr. Mataconis also made an on-target criticism whose underlying basis changed just this week past.

"With but a few notable exceptions, two of which happen to share the last name Paul, no Senator or Congressman of either party has stood up and said anything over the past two months about the President’s decision to commit American military forces to action in a nation that did not attack us and poses no threat to us or our interests, in a conflict where we still aren’t even sure if the “rebels” are any better than the government they’re trying to overthrow. Nobody in Capitol Hill with the power to do so has help hearings on the engagement, or suggested that the matter be put to a vote in the House and the Senate."

He concluded:

"The problem is what this means for the future. Once again, Congress has abdicated in the face of a Presidential power grab and that means that, in the future, this President and his successors will feel much more free to act without considering either the desires, or the existence, of Congress. One day, maybe Congress will wake up and realize what’s happened, and when they do they will only need to look in the mirror to find the party responsible for this disaster."

re: "White House’s ‘Libya Isn’t A War-War’ Defense Not Going Over Well In Congress"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") describes the push-back by Congress.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Obama Administration responded to Congressional demands for more information regarding the mission in Libya by saying that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply because American forces are not engaged in hostilities in or near Libya. Not surprisingly, that explanation has not gone over well among Congressional critics of the Administration’s policy"

"(T)he House may consider cutting off funding for the Libya mission if the Administration does not further clarify its position"

IIRC, that's kind of what the Constitution envisions in a situation like this.

"The White House, meanwhile, has basically said it doesn’t intend to respond any further to the House"

Yeah, ignoring Congress is a win-win of a strategy. (Oh wait: I meant just the opposite.)

"(W)e may be headed for some kind of real confrontation between the House and the White House over the mission in Libya. Frankly, it’s already gone further than I expected. Usually, Congress just rolls over and plays dead on these sorts of things but it’s clear that the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, combined with the fact that the Libya mission remains decidedly unpopular, have emboldened Boehner and others to actually take a stand here.

If that’s the case, I’m glad to see it. It’s been far too long, since the passage of the War Powers Act really, that Congress has acted in any decisive manner to try to reign in the Executive Branch’s power grabs in the war making department. Regardless of the outcome of this particular policy dispute, the fact that Congress, or at least part of it, is acting with some backbone here is a welcome sight, especially in light of the specious reasoning that the Administration uses in its report."

Not to be too hung-up on process when results do matter, but since the only oaths or vows I've ever publicly sworn have been (in order) to the Constitution and to Madame-At-Arms, I take Constitutional processes pretty seriously. (That's just how I roll.) But let's look at results as well:

Qahdafi has been on my better-off-dead list since at least the 1980's. He's just that bad of a "blackhat." But realities of international politics and diplomacy have meant that we've let him stay alive lo all these intervening decades.

Pres. Bush (#43) even managed to get the guy, after publicly naming Libya as part of the Axis of Evil and then taking down Saddam's Iraq in about a week, to give up his WMD programs and start playing responsible adult (as much as the murderous tyrant was capable of portraying, anyhow).

So going on the warpath and trying to take out Qahdafi (while saying we're doing something else, but that's another argument) just doesn't make sense to me from an American perspective. Does. Not. Compute. Arab Spring or no, we had Muammar Qahdafi in the box we wanted him in, not troubling us and not looking to trouble us.

And now, any other dictator with WMD has got to wondering how it's to his benefit to give that up.

So how does this make sense?

"(T)he idea that the President can engage in hostilities with a nation that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our interests, and then fund the military war without Congressional appropriations seems to defy any reasonable reading of the Constitution."

I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (less so reading-between-the-lines) and I concur with Mr. Mataconis' assessment

re: "Since you enjoy your job so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut .... "

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") explains what's stupid about this amendment.

Money quote(s):

"In case you did not see this -- Rep. Thomas Reed, R-N.Y sponsored an amendment that cut the locality pay for Foreign Service officers serving overseas. Mr. Reed's press release touts the removal of the "automatic 24 percent pay raise for foreign service officers," his third successful amendment apparently. And it passed the House over the weekend.

There is locality pay for all CONUS states. Why Congress is only targeting the 11,500 Foreign Service workforce is not clear. About 70% are not in the Senior Foreign Service and could be affected by this cut when deployed overseas. I mean really, that's about 7,600 federal employees serving overseas in over 260 posts. Mr. Reed's state is home to some 69,000 federal employees (not counting the feds working for CIA, DIA, NSA and the other "A"s who may be assigned in the state of New York). Look - that's 9 times the Foreign Service number. Imagine the savings there?"

The overseas locality increase, which is only about two-thirds implemented (it has been being phased in over a period of years since it's long-overdue approval) is being mis-cast as a payraise. And in the current economy, it's hard (politically) to make the case for payraises for diplomats. We get that.

It's why, along with all other federal employees, our salary scale is frozen. We get that too, and I've heard precious little squacking about that, even in private. We all have family and friends back home who're out-of-work or struggling and we get it.

But "getting it" shouldn't be a two-way street.

"(A)s Ed points out "the House bill as enacted has no hope of Senate passage or earning President Obama's signature, so this proposal -- while interesting and certainly controversial -- may not survive."

May not survive this time, that is not to say it won't happen ever.

All that did not preclude folks from slinging around their ignorance online --

You folks working overseas apparently do not pay the first $80K of your income overseas. Did you know that? Hah! That IRS has been cheating on FS folks again! It collected every tax penny from your salary including self-employed spouse's annual income of less than $700. If you believe everything you hear, that IRS did not have to collect anything from your $56K + $700 income? Really.

Go ahead and believe that crap, and you might end up sharing a jail cell with whatshisname actor and tax evader.

Foreign Service folks are not/not exempt from paying full federal, state, and Medicare/SS tax on salaries just because they live in Burkina Faso or whatever the name of the hellhole they're presently assigned to. They pay their taxes happily and willingly, 'cuz if they don't, they could get written up for atrocious unlawful uncivic unprofessional behavior, then they won't get promoted, then they get kick out, then they're just part of the 9% unemployment stats. The end."

Pushing back against this sort of recurring ignorance is one of the unstated purposes of this web log. Okay, it's a (former) mil blog as well as a diplo blog. And sometimes I try to bridge the cultural gap between the two, as well as the greater one with the larger public.

I don't be-grudge military members their being tax-exempt during combat deployments. We don't get that, even when deployed to the same places, because we have a different compensation system as foreign service officers. As a consular officer who's worked American Citizen Services, more than once I've encountered the expat American abroad who declares "I pay your salary."

Um. Unless you're making a lot more than you're letting on (and thus are liable for federal tax on your imcome above the $80 or $90k mark), no, you don't.

Not that it matters in terms of how helpful we can (or can't) be, but it's one of those phrases that can bring a (suppressed) smile to a consular officer's face when he hears it.

"(D)espite prevailing belief to the contrary, Uncle Sam's employees overseas are not exempt from paying taxes (unless they're civies at Gitmo). The foreign earned income does not include amounts paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof. Congress wrote that up. It's the law of the land."

"You also -- supposedly ride around town in a $50,000 Cadillac with diplomatic license plates on the bumper like -- let me get this right -- "like you are better than the very citizens you are supposed to be serving." Ouch! Such sparkling prejudice. Really, a Cadillac? That must be the low level Qatari diplomat riding around in his regular car in DC streets. Have not seen any Cadillac at US overseas posts, not saying there's none, just haven't see any from the embassy compounds I've been to. Saw lots of armored Chevy where you can't roll down the windows. In case you think its armored for decoration, I can assure you it's not. It is armored from front to back and have bullet resistant glass because driving/riding around in a USG vehicle overseas is like driving around with a target mark on your back. What? Um, sorry, not target, they're called cross-hairs now. And in case you think this is vehicle security gone mad, it's not that either. See, the US ambassador to Lome got carjacked recently. And the ICE agents in Mexico who were recently killed/wounded in Monterrey were also using an armored SUV. If not for armored vehicles, not Cadillacs, mind you --- there would be many, many more names up on that memorial plaque on the wall."

Note to residents of and visitors to Washington, D.C., New York City, and other cities which host diplomatic and consular missions from other countries within the United States: the diplomatic and consular license plates you may notice on cars parked illegally or cutting you off in traffic? Not being driven by American diplomats.

Hard to imagine, but we don't get diplomatic plates (or immunity) when we're stationed at home.

Those annoying diplomatic luxury cars you may encounter? Driven by foreign diplomats.

"We have unarmed diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan where they hate/hate the USA terribly and now think all diplomats are spies. And you don't ever get a tax break for service in those posts."

It would be nice, don't get me wrong. But we don't expect that it will ever happen. And that's okay. Just don't erroneously assume and accuse us of getting what we don't receive and aren't entitled to, at least not as a pretext for denying that which we are.

"I just don't think the FS has the numbers. Even if the entire Foreign Service, and spouses and kids write to their congressfolks and senators, that may not really matter when push comes to shove. The diplomatic service needs to tell its story better. You need more than employees and family members to step up and say -- it's unfair to single out a small group of people for a pay cut."

This is a common lament. The Department of State and the U.S. Foreign Service (and its members) have no domestic political constituency of any consequence. Which is why I'm never shy, when I have a happy American customer who's thanking me profusely, about suggesting they drop their congressional representative a short note or email, if they really are that happy about the service and help they've received, and share their impressions.

They don't have to commend anyone by name, it's not about individual credit, but there are always plenty of congressional inquiries being initiated about complaints, fair is fair.

JG - I will renounce! Hay-Webster to give up US citizenship

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner

I will renounce! Hay-Webster to give up US citizenship

Published: Sunday August 2, 2009

Hay-Webster


Tyrone Reid, Sunday Gleaner Reporter


South Central St Catherine Member of Parliament (MP) Sharon Hay-Webster has decided to give up the land of her birth - the United States of America (USA).

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Hay-Webster, an Opposition MP, has initiated the process of renouncing her US citizenship in order to remain a member of the House of Representatives.

Fifteen months ago, an unyielding Hay-Webster, with legal team in tow, was ready for a showdown with her political adversaries to prove that despite possessing a US passport, she was eligible to sit in the lower house.

But yesterday Hay-Webster hoisted the proverbial white flag. "I told my constituency executive on Friday night that I intend to renounce and the party chairman is also aware … I told them I have been in discussion with the embassy already," she told The Sunday Gleaner in solemn tones."

"Her move to relinquish her US citizenship is the latest causality in the politically charged dual citizenship maelstrom rocking Gordon House.

Already, the court has booted three MPs - Daryl Vaz, Gregory Mair and Michael Stern - from Parliament because of the constitutional breach that rendered them ineligible to sit in the lower house when they were elected in the 2007 general election."

&

"Under the Jamaican Con-stitution, non-commonwealth nationals, who have pledged allegiance to a foreign power, are disqualified to sit in the House."


tyrone.reid@gleanerjm.com

JO - No more by-elections

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Observer

No more by-elections

Friday, March 27, 2009

Dear Editor,

Congratulations to the JLP's Daryl Vaz for winning the West Portland seat once again. Well tried, Kenneth Rowe!

Read the whole letter here.

Snippet(s):

"I don't think it is right for other by-elections to be held where MPs hold dual citizenship because it is costing the country a lot of money and times are already hard.

I am therefore appealing to both sides of the House of Representatives to put away all those other cases of dual citizenship and deal with the issues at hand."

_____

Robert Lewars
St Catherine
lewars72@yahoo.com

JG - The mother of all laws

Jamaica Gleaner

The mother of all laws

Published: Sunday March 8, 2009

Lambert Brown, Contributor


Abe Dabdoub must be commended for bringing to the nation's attention the issue that some of our lawmakers possibly are themselves lawbreakers. The constitution of any country is the highest law of the land. The authority for all other laws springs directly from the constitution.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Parliament cannot legally pass any law which conflicts with the Constitution. That is why the Privy Council overruled the Parliament over laws passed by the Caribbean Court of Justice under the previous government."

"Allegations that almost 10 per cent of the members of our House of Representatives are sitting there contrary to the Constitution is frightening. Our leaders have let us down by allowing people not qualified to be members of Parliament to be making laws to bind the rest of the society. These 'strangers' have influenced laws relating to life and death, such as the recent resolution on the death penalty. Can we, as a nation that believes in the rule of law, allow this to continue? A resounding no should be our response. The condoning of this most egregious breach of the Constitution by inaction and obfuscation must be brought to an end with dispatch.

I refuse to believe that our leaders were unaware of requirements of Section 40 of our Constitution."

"One potential benefit of Dabdoub's exposure of the constitutional breach is to make us all more knowledgeable about our Constitution. If, through this, we enjoy growth in nationalism, gain greater respect for our laws, institutions and our citizenship, then our country would indeed owe Dabdoub an even greater debt of gratitude. How we overcome the ignorance is a big challenge which we must face head on as a nation."

&

"The average US congressman or senator is busy drafting and passing laws or participating in hearings with a view to improving governance. It is their knowledge and the full exploitation of their constitution that makes the American congressmen so powerful. It is the absence of such knowledge that makes our parliamentarians appear so infantile and impotent. "

_____

Lambert Brown is president of the University and Allied Workers' Union, and can be contacted at labpoyh@yahoo.com. Feedback may also be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.

JG - MPs should declare citizenship status

From my archive of press clippings:

Jamaica Gleaner

MPs should declare citizenship status

published: Sunday May 18, 2008

Daryl Vaz, who continues to occupy the seat in the House of Representatives for the constituency of West Portland, had said he had accepted the ruling by Chief Justice McCalla that he was ineligible for membership in the legislature because of his citizenship of the United States, which he vigorously sought to maintain.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"(T)here needs to be a thorough review of that section of the Constitution that bars Jamaicans from the legislature if they are by "own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to any foreign power or state".

This, on the face of it, is likely to be in conflict with an attempt at a greater and fuller engagement of Jamaicans in the diaspora, who contribute substantially to the economy and have much more to offer.

Indeed, several countries agree on the need for this flexibility.

However, the law is the law; it ought to be a shackle, establishing the boundaries beyond which the society strays into anarchical and anti-democratic territory.

And the Constitution is the supreme law, setting the contours within which other laws can be set. Selective application of the Constitution, therefore, is potentially ruinous to social and political order."