Podcasts about budget control act

Eric and Eliot welcome former Secretary of Defense and former CIA Director Robert M. Gates to discuss his article in the current (November-December) issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Dysfunctional Superpower: Can a Divided America Deter China and Russia." They touch on the unprecedented threats (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, violent Islamist extremism) confronting the United States, the role of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and their motives for undermining the U.S. led international order, their predisposition to miscalculation, the suitability of the current national security decision-making system for the current moment, the consolidation of the defense industrial base, the damage done to national defense by repeated Congressional failure to pass a budget and reliance on continuing resolutions and gimmicks like the Budget Control Act, and the necessity of national leadership to spell out for the American people the threats to our security and prosperity and the reasons why the costs of preserving the U.S. led order are worth the candle. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/robert-gates-america-china-russia-dysfunctional-superpower https://www.amazon.com/Exercise-Power-American-Successes-Post-Cold/dp/B0862HDR6F/ref=sr_1_1?crid=ZNQW9YTL1GCH&keywords=the+exercise+of+power&qid=1700510748&sprefix=The+Exercis%2Caps%2C203&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/030794963X/ref=monarch_sidesheet https://www.amazon.com/Passion-Leadership-Lessons-Change-Service/dp/0307949648/ref=monarch_sidesheet

Why does the federal government budget under pressure in high-stakes showdowns like the debt ceiling deadline, especially when Republicans control Congress under Democratic presidents? And why do the imposed spending constraints not last? On this special edition, Matt Grossmann talks to Joshua Huder of Georgetown University for a deep dive into the context and history for the debt ceiling showdown. Rather than review the day-to-day dynamics of the current struggle, they review what has happened under previous standoffs and agreements, why Republicans take budgeting to the brink, and the legacy of the Budget Control Act from the last time they won.

On today's program, sponsored by HII, Sam Bendett of the Center for Naval Analyses discusses Russia's claim to have taken Bakhmut and Ukraine's stance they are still control parts of the devastated city, why Wagner Group mercenary and convict force boss Yevgeny Prigozhin isn't getting credit, how F-16s for Ukraine might change the next phase of the war, the high cost of Russia's long-range strikes against Kyiv and Ukraine's successful defense against those strikes, and an unmanned systems update; and Byron Callan of the independent Washington research firm Capital Alpha Partners discusses the prospects for a deal that averts a US debt default and what that deal might mean for defense spending given what happened in the wake of 2010 debt crisis that resulted in the Budget Control Act of 2011, what analysis of 2011-2016 tells is about what might happen next, and a look at the week ahead with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian.

We've talked extensively on Inside Sources about the debt ceiling crisis, and the problems our country is facing regarding our government spending and national debt. The discussion about real proposals and real solutions needs to be had, we can't afford to put this off any longer. So, what's being proposed? And how can we increase the political will to pass real budget reform? Romina Boccia gives an in-depth analysis of the Better Budget Control Act of 2011, and how to improve this legislation to apply today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Romina Boccia joins Tommy to talk about the spending and debt of the US. What can Congress do to fix it?

While spring is slowly giving way to summer in many parts of the country, with visitors gaining more and more access to the National Park System, a stand-off in Washington over the country's debt ceiling very likely would greatly disrupt operations in the parks. It was just a decade ago that a federal budget sequestration, that is a forced cut across all federal agencies budgets as part of the Budget Control Act, led to closed campgrounds, Sunday closures of National Park System units, and 900 permanent positions that went unfilled. For the National Park Service, the sequestration led to a 5% budget cut that also led to a reduction in invasive plant control at the parks, a reduction in maintenance of fences and building repairs, science and research activities, and natural resource monitoring. In Washington today, House Republicans want to see some pretty stiff budget cuts in return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. According to the New York Times, one outcome, if the funding cap's proposal put forth by the Republicans is approved, would be a 51% reduction in the Interior Department's budget. How devastating might that be to the National Park Service and the National Park System? We're going to explore that question with Mike Murray, chair of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, and John Garder, senior director of Budget and Appropriations at the National Parks Conservation Association. 

The debt ceiling fight will continue to dominate the headlines for the weeks and months to come. President Biden has said he won't negotiate with Republicans. But back in 2011, the former vice president was one of the lead negotiators, helping raise the debt ceiling and pass the Budget Control Act. Boyd says the President has some lessons to learn from his former self.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this Washington Roundtable episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast, sponsored by Bell, our guests are Dov Zakheim, PhD, former DoD comptroller, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dr. Patrick Cronin of the Hudson Institute, Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO who is now with the Center for a New American Security and Michael Herson of American Defense International. Topics: — Global implications of a US debt default as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin warns that only “extraordinary measures” will allow the government to remain solvent unless Congress raises the nation's borrowing limit — Political dynamics on the Hill as House members demand spending cuts across government and the White House refuses to negotiate — Moves the Pentagon can make to stretch out its budget — How US allies and partners view the debt spectacle and lessons on how the 2011 Budget Control Act just national security — Washington assures Ukraine of continuing support as allies meet in Germany to supply Kyiv with more heavy weapons — What's driving Washington's shift on backing Ukraine's effort to retake Crimea  — How Israel and South Korea as responding to US move to draw down arms from stockpiles in both nations to help Ukraine — Biden administration's seeks 40 F-16s fighters for Turkey in exchange for Ankara's support for Sweden and Finland's NATO membership — China's global charm offensive as Australia moves to restore trade ties — Whether Xi Jinping is actually pressuring Vladimir Putin on the Russian leader's war on Ukraine or merely part of a PR posturing effort — Future of Israel's democracy as Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his support clash with the country's Supreme Court

Original Release on November 15th, 2022: As we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. Andrew Sheets: How do you think central banks respond to this backdrop? The Fed is going to have to balance what we see is some moderation of inflation and the ECB as well, with obvious concerns that because forecasting inflation was so hard this year and because central banks underestimated inflation, they don't want to back off too soon and usher in maybe more inflationary pressure down the road. So, how do you think central banks will think about that risk balance and managing that? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We have seen some surprises, the upside in terms of commodity market prices, but we've also been surprised at just the persistence of some of the components of inflation. And so central banks are very well advised to be super cautious with what's going on. As a result. What we think is going to happen is a few things. Policy rates are going to go into restrictive territory. We will see economies slowing down and then we think in general. Central banks are going to keep their policy in that restrictive territory basically over the balance of 2023, making sure that that deceleration in the real side of the economy goes along with a continued decline in inflation over the course of next year. If we get that, then that will give them scope at the end of next year to start to think about normalizing policy back down to something a little bit more, more neutral. But they really will be paying lots of attention to make sure that the forecast plays out as anticipated. However, where I want to stress things is in the euro area, for example, where we see a recession already starting about now, we don't think the ECB is going to start to cut rates just because they see the first indications of a recession. All of the indications from the ECB have been that they think some form of recession is probably necessary and they will wait for that to happen. They'll stay in restrictive territory while the economy's in recession to see how inflation evolves over time. Andrew Sheets: So I think one of the questions at the top of a lot of people's minds is something you alluded to earlier, this question of whether or not the US sees a recession next year. So why do you think a recession being avoided is a plausible scenario indeed might be more likely than a recession, in contrast maybe to some of that recent history? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. Let's talk about this in a few parts. First, in the U.S. relative to, say, the euro area, most of the slowing that we are seeing now in the economy and that we expect to see over time is coming from monetary policy tightening in the euro area. A lot of the slowing in consumer spending is coming because food prices have gone up, energy prices have gone up and confidence has fallen and so it's an externally imposed constraint on the economy. What that means for the U.S. is because the Fed is causing the slowdown, they've at least got a fighting chance of backing off in time before they cause a recession. So that's one component. I think the other part to be made that's perhaps even more important is the difference between a recession or not at this point is almost semantic. We're looking at growth that's very, very close to zero. And if you're in the equity market, in fact, it's going to feel like a recession, even if it's not technically one for the economy. The U.S. economy is not the S&P 500. And so what does that mean? That means that the parts of the U.S. economy that are likely to be weakest, that are likely to be in contraction, are actually the ones that are most exposed to the equity market and so for the equity market, whether it's a recession or not, I think is a bit of a moot point. So where does that leave us? I think we can avoid a recession. From an economist perspective, I think we can end up with growth that's still positive, but it's not going to feel like we've completely escaped from this whole episode unscathed. Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. So I maybe want to close with talking about risks around that outlook. I want to talk about maybe one risk to the upside and then two risks that might be more serious to the downside. So, one of the risks to the upside that investors are talking about is whether or not China relaxes zero COVID policy, while two risks to the downside would be that quantitative tightening continues to have much greater negative effects on market liquidity and market functioning. We're going through a much faster shrinking of central bank balance sheets than you know, at any point in history, and then also that maybe a divided US government leads to a more challenging fiscal situation next year. So, you know, as you think about these risks that you hear investors citing China, quantitative tightening, divided government, how do you think about those? How do you think they might change the base case view? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think there are two-way risks as usual. I do think in the current circumstances, the upside risks are probably a little bit smaller than the downside risks, not to sound too pessimistic. So what would happen when China lifts those restrictions? I think aggregate demand will pick back up, and our baseline forecast that happens in the second quarter, but we can easily imagine that happening in the first quarter or maybe even sometime this year. But remember, most of the pent-up demand is on domestic spending, especially on services and so what that means is the benefit to the rest of the global economy is probably going to be smaller than you might otherwise think because it will be a lot of domestic spending. Now, there hasn't been as much constraint on exports, but there has been some, and so we could easily see supply chains heal even more quickly than we assume in the baseline. I think all of these phenomena could lead to a rosier outlook, could lead to a faster growth for the global economy. But I think it's measured just in a couple of tenths. It's not a substantial upside. In contrast, you mentioned some downside risks to the outlook. Quantitative tightening, central banks are shrinking their balance sheets. We recently published on the fact that the Fed, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank will all be shrinking their balance sheet over the next several months. That's never been seen, at least at the pace that we're going to see now. Could it cause market disruptions? Absolutely. So the downside risk there is very hard to gauge. If we see a disruption of the flow of credit, if we see a generalized pullback in spending because of risk, it's very hard to gauge just how big that downside is. I will say, however, that I suspect, as we saw with the Bank of England when we had the turmoil in the gilt market, if there is a market disruption, I think central banks will at least temporarily pause their quantitative tightening if the disruption is severe enough and give markets a chance to settle down. The other risk you mentioned is the United States has just had a mid-term election. It looks like we're going to have divided government. Where are the risks there? I want to take you back with me in time to the mid-term elections in 2010, where we ended up with split government. And eventually what came out of that was the Budget Control Act of 2011. We had split government, we had a debt limit. We ended up having budget debates and ultimately, we ended up with contractionary fiscal policy. I think that's a very realistic scenario. It's not at all our baseline, but it's a very realistic risk that people need to pay attention to. Andrew Sheets: Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, I always like getting a chance to talk to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for part two of this episode where Seth and I will discuss Morgan Stanley's year ahead. Strategy Outlook. If you enjoy thoughts of the market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share this podcast with a friend or colleague today.

On this episode of the DefAero Report Daily Podcast, sponsored by Bell, Dr. “Rocket” Ron Epstein of Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Richard Aboulafia of the AeroDynamic Advisory consultancy discuss the US Army's decision to tap Bell's V-280 Valor tiltrotor as the winner of its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft competition; and Pentagon comptroller Mike McCord discusses the outlook for defense spending, the prospect of a year-long continuing resolution, the likelihood of another Budget Control Act as part of a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling, internal DoD lessons learned during the course of US support for Ukraine, replenishing depleted American weapon stocks, views on how to reform the Planning, Programming, Budget & Execution process, and improving Pentagon auditability with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian.

As we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. Andrew Sheets: How do you think central banks respond to this backdrop? The Fed is going to have to balance what we see is some moderation of inflation and the ECB as well, with obvious concerns that because forecasting inflation was so hard this year and because central banks underestimated inflation, they don't want to back off too soon and usher in maybe more inflationary pressure down the road. So, how do you think central banks will think about that risk balance and managing that? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We have seen some surprises, the upside in terms of commodity market prices, but we've also been surprised at just the persistence of some of the components of inflation. And so central banks are very well advised to be super cautious with what's going on. As a result. What we think is going to happen is a few things. Policy rates are going to go into restrictive territory. We will see economies slowing down and then we think in general. Central banks are going to keep their policy in that restrictive territory basically over the balance of 2023, making sure that that deceleration in the real side of the economy goes along with a continued decline in inflation over the course of next year. If we get that, then that will give them scope at the end of next year to start to think about normalizing policy back down to something a little bit more, more neutral. But they really will be paying lots of attention to make sure that the forecast plays out as anticipated. However, where I want to stress things is in the euro area, for example, where we see a recession already starting about now, we don't think the ECB is going to start to cut rates just because they see the first indications of a recession. All of the indications from the ECB have been that they think some form of recession is probably necessary and they will wait for that to happen. They'll stay in restrictive territory while the economy's in recession to see how inflation evolves over time. Andrew Sheets: So I think one of the questions at the top of a lot of people's minds is something you alluded to earlier, this question of whether or not the US sees a recession next year. So why do you think a recession being avoided is a plausible scenario indeed might be more likely than a recession, in contrast maybe to some of that recent history? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. Let's talk about this in a few parts. First, in the U.S. relative to, say, the euro area, most of the slowing that we are seeing now in the economy and that we expect to see over time is coming from monetary policy tightening in the euro area. A lot of the slowing in consumer spending is coming because food prices have gone up, energy prices have gone up and confidence has fallen and so it's an externally imposed constraint on the economy. What that means for the U.S. is because the Fed is causing the slowdown, they've at least got a fighting chance of backing off in time before they cause a recession. So that's one component. I think the other part to be made that's perhaps even more important is the difference between a recession or not at this point is almost semantic. We're looking at growth that's very, very close to zero. And if you're in the equity market, in fact, it's going to feel like a recession, even if it's not technically one for the economy. The U.S. economy is not the S&P 500. And so what does that mean? That means that the parts of the U.S. economy that are likely to be weakest, that are likely to be in contraction, are actually the ones that are most exposed to the equity market and so for the equity market, whether it's a recession or not, I think is a bit of a moot point. So where does that leave us? I think we can avoid a recession. From an economist perspective, I think we can end up with growth that's still positive, but it's not going to feel like we've completely escaped from this whole episode unscathed. Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. So I maybe want to close with talking about risks around that outlook. I want to talk about maybe one risk to the upside and then two risks that might be more serious to the downside. So, one of the risks to the upside that investors are talking about is whether or not China relaxes zero COVID policy, while two risks to the downside would be that quantitative tightening continues to have much greater negative effects on market liquidity and market functioning. We're going through a much faster shrinking of central bank balance sheets than you know, at any point in history, and then also that maybe a divided US government leads to a more challenging fiscal situation next year. So, you know, as you think about these risks that you hear investors citing China, quantitative tightening, divided government, how do you think about those? How do you think they might change the base case view? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think there are two-way risks as usual. I do think in the current circumstances, the upside risks are probably a little bit smaller than the downside risks, not to sound too pessimistic. So what would happen when China lifts those restrictions? I think aggregate demand will pick back up, and our baseline forecast that happens in the second quarter, but we can easily imagine that happening in the first quarter or maybe even sometime this year. But remember, most of the pent-up demand is on domestic spending, especially on services and so what that means is the benefit to the rest of the global economy is probably going to be smaller than you might otherwise think because it will be a lot of domestic spending. Now, there hasn't been as much constraint on exports, but there has been some, and so we could easily see supply chains heal even more quickly than we assume in the baseline. I think all of these phenomena could lead to a rosier outlook, could lead to a faster growth for the global economy. But I think it's measured just in a couple of tenths. It's not a substantial upside. In contrast, you mentioned some downside risks to the outlook. Quantitative tightening, central banks are shrinking their balance sheets. We recently published on the fact that the Fed, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank will all be shrinking their balance sheet over the next several months. That's never been seen, at least at the pace that we're going to see now. Could it cause market disruptions? Absolutely. So the downside risk there is very hard to gauge. If we see a disruption of the flow of credit, if we see a generalized pullback in spending because of risk, it's very hard to gauge just how big that downside is. I will say, however, that I suspect, as we saw with the Bank of England when we had the turmoil in the gilt market, if there is a market disruption, I think central banks will at least temporarily pause their quantitative tightening if the disruption is severe enough and give markets a chance to settle down. The other risk you mentioned is the United States has just had a mid-term election. It looks like we're going to have divided government. Where are the risks there? I want to take you back with me in time to the mid-term elections in 2010, where we ended up with split government. And eventually what came out of that was the Budget Control Act of 2011. We had split government, we had a debt limit. We ended up having budget debates and ultimately, we ended up with contractionary fiscal policy. I think that's a very realistic scenario. It's not at all our baseline, but it's a very realistic risk that people need to pay attention to. Andrew Sheets: Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, I always like getting a chance to talk to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for part two of this episode where Seth and I will discuss Morgan Stanley's year ahead. Strategy Outlook. If you enjoy thoughts of the market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share this podcast with a friend or colleague today.

With the Fed continuing to focus on inflation and the upcoming midterm elections suggesting market volatility, investors may be wondering, is the U.S. equity market rally really over?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 7th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week's pullback in major U.S. stock indices was not a surprise as the Fed remained committed to its mandate of getting inflation under control. However, if our tactical rally in U.S. stocks is going to have legs, 10 year U.S. Treasury yields will need to come down from current levels. Otherwise, it will be difficult to see higher prices for the S&P 500, given how sensitive this large cap growth index is to interest rates. Furthermore, we remain of the view that 2023 earnings forecasts are as much as 20% too high, so it will be difficult for stocks to move higher without valuations expanding. Does this mean the U.S. equity rally is over? We don't think so, but it's going to remain very noisy in the near term. First, we have two more important events this week to contend with: the Consumer Price Index release on Thursday and the midterm elections on Tuesday. On the former, we aren't that focused on it because it tells us little about the trajectory of inflation going forward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the bond market remains fixated on such data points and will trade it. Therefore, it's likely to keep interest rate volatility high through Thursday. If interest rate volatility falls with the passing of these data, equity valuations can then expand further. In terms of interest rate levels, we think next week's midterms could play a bigger role. Should the polls prove correct, the Republicans are likely to win at least one chamber of Congress. This should throw a wrench into the aggressive fiscal spending plans the Democrats would still like to get done. Furthermore, Republican leadership has talked about freezing spending via the debt ceiling, much like they did with the Budget Control Act in 2011. This would be a sharp reversal from the past few years when budget deficits reached levels not seen since World War II. In our view, a clean sweep by the Republicans on Tuesday could greatly raise the odds of such an outcome. Such a decisive win should invoke the kind of rally and 10 year Treasury bonds to keep the equity market moving higher. One caveat to consider is that the election results may not be clear on Tuesday night, given the delay in counting mail in ballots. That means we can expect price volatility in equity markets will remain high and provide fodder for bears and bulls alike. Bottom line, we remain tactically bullish on U.S. equities, assuming longer term interest rate levels begin to fall. This week's midterm elections provide a potential catalyst in that regard. If the Republicans win decisive control of both the House and Senate, as some polls and betting markets are suggesting. Because this is purely a tactical trading view and not in line with our core fundamental view which remains bearish, we will remain disciplined on how much leash to give it. Last week we said that 3700 on the S&P 500 is our stop loss level for this rally, and markets traded exactly to that level after Friday's strong labor report before recovering nicely. For this week, we think that level could be challenged again given the uncertainty around election results. Anxiety around the Consumer Price Index Thursday morning is another reason to think both interest rate and equity volatility will remain high. Therefore, we are willing to give a bit more wiggle room to our stop loss level for next week, something like 3625 to 3650, assuming the 10 year Treasury yields don't make a new high. Conversely, if 10 year Treasury yields do trade about 4.35% and the S&P 500 tests 3625, we would suggest clients to exit bullish trades at that point. In short, the bear market rally is likely to hang around for longer than most expect if it can survive this week's test. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

All over the world elections are taking place that will have profound effects on both local and global economies, so where are policy moves being made and how might investors use these moves to anticipate economic shifts? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about political economy and how elections have consequences. It's Tuesday, October 11th, at 8 a.m. in New York. Economics is a relatively new field, born in 1776 after the publication of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. But until the 1900s, everyone called it political economy. Politics and economics are still hard to separate. Fiscal policy is only sometimes the result of economic events, but almost always a driver of economic outcomes. And because of its power, uncertainty about policy can be a drag all by itself. Brazil has a second round ballot on October 30th between the incumbent Bolsonaro and former President Lula. Both candidates are likely to change or scrap an existing fiscal rule that caps government spending, but most observers think that Lula is likely to have a looser fiscal stance of the two. And so while our LatAm team questions not whether fiscal deficits will increase, but by how much, last week's congressional elections could lead to a split government which is taken to mean a smaller size of any deficit widening. So our LatAm team is pointing to a different risk that a possible President Lula, and he currently leads in most polls, that there might be an unwinding of recent reforms for state owned enterprises, the public sector and labor markets that were meant to enhance Brazil's competitiveness. As is often the case, politics here is more about the medium term than the immediate. In the U.K., it wasn't exactly the same thing. The newly appointed UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, announced an ambitious fiscal package, including an energy price freeze and the biggest set of tax cuts since the 1970s. The echo to 1980s supply side economics was plain in terms of politics. In terms of economics, boosting productivity might allow more growth and lower inflation at a time where the opposite of each is at hand. But in a country with a 95% debt to GDP ratio and following on fiscal expansion that drove inflation through demand, the lack of details on how to pay for the tax cuts and the energy subsidies elicited a sharp, immediate market reaction. The gilt curve sold off sharply, and the pound reached an all time low of 103 against the dollar. The Bank of England intervened, buying gilts to contain volatility and to lower rates. And in the wake of that turmoil, Chancellor Kwarteng scrapped the tax cuts for the top bracket but kept the rest, leaving about £43 billion a year of additional cost. The outcome now seems to be a faster pace of hiking by the bank and an awareness that the U.K. will not have the fiscal space needed to avoid a recession. Barring unorthodox moves like scrapping the remuneration of bank reserves at the Bank of England, the Chancellor is going to need to find 30 to £40 billion in spending cuts to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio over the next five years. In Italy, elections brought a center right populist coalition led by Giorgia Meloni to a majority in both the lower house and the Senate. The Coalition's stated policy goals are expansionary. More social spending and labor tax cuts are top priorities, along with increasing pension benefits. Our economists estimate that the proposed measures would increase the deficit by roughly 2 to 4 percentage points of GDP, boosting the debt to GDP ratio next year. Such policies will prove difficult during a time of rising interest rates and heightened market scrutiny about debt dynamics. So, Maloney recently expressed her willingness to respect the EU budget rules, but reconciling that view with the policy priorities is going to be a challenge. Our main concern is less a repeat of the U.K. experience, but rather medium term debt sustainability. So let me finish up back home. For the U.S. midterm elections polls have been shifting but most point to at least one house of the Congress changing hands, thus a split government. Our base case from my colleague Mike Zezas as a result is gridlock, but divided governments do not always lead to such benign outcomes. I was a Treasury official during a government shutdown. It was not fun. And in fact, following the 2010 midterms, divided government led to a debt ceiling standoff, government shutdown, and ultimately contractionary policy in the form of the Budget Control Act. Such an outcome is easily conceivable after this midterm election, and with inflation high, even with weak growth, we could easily see another installment of contractionary policy. With growth only expected to be barely positive, that's a real risk. Policy always matters. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Established in 2014 by the Budget Control Act, sequestration reduces Medicare payments to hospice and other health care providers by 2% across the board. Congress suspended the practice in 2021 through the CARES Act and has extended it several times since. Sheila Madhani provides an update on where things stand with Medicare sequestration as well as other issues facing physician providers as we head into the second quarter of 2022.

A history lesson with special implications for our current debt limit fight about to kick-off in Congress. In times like these, wild things can be agreed to. And in the case of the Budget Control Act of 2011, Congress agreed to all of them… and adhered to none of them.  Host Steve Ellis is joined by TCS Senior Analysts Josh Sewell and Wendy Jordan for an episode that respects the admonition that, “those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.” 

President Joe Biden's budget blueprint released late last month calls for hiring across much of the federal government, somewhat spurred from expiration of the 2011 Budget Control Act's 10-year caps. If Biden's budget is a priority document, a major priority for this administration is more civil servants into government. Dr. Reginald Wells was Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's Office of Human Resources for 15 years and is now an Executive in Residence at American University's Department of Public Administration and Policy. He joined the show to discuss how presidential budgets affect government human resources officials and their approaches to hiring.

Radio Public|LibSyn|YouTube|Patreon|Square Cash (Share code: Send $5, get $5!) Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson, all those Hemsworths, David Waldman and… David isn’t saying. But, it is whomever’s birthday! Happy birthday! While we’re celebrating, thank you to all you out there sending in recurring contributions! We find that we rarely have to call you defectors to keep you in line. Stay healthy, keep the money coming, and never take the drug Ivermectin unless you are a horse with parasitic worms... but if you are, KITM is reaching a wider demographic than we anticipated. The Royal Family sure knows how to stick around. Patriarch of the British royal family for over 70 years, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is dead at 99. For a guy known as leader of the “Oath Keepers”, Stewart Rhodes’ marriage is quite unstable. So is the rest of his life, as US prosecutors begin to close in on “Person One” in the Capitol insurrection. Existing calls and texts point to Oath Keeper and Proud Boy involvement, as well as the empty spaces in their data point to where they attempted to cover their tracks. Roger Stone keeps appearing around the edges of everything. The White House tells Democratic investigators to check over at the National Archives and Records Administration for any Trump Capitol attack evidence. Michael Flynn is a spy, and prefered spying over his day job.  Flynn was warned about taking foreign money as far back as 2014, but that’s an integral part of the spy biz, so he ignored those warnings. Michael also a had a forbidden internet connection at the Pentagon, because you know, that’s what spies do. Ivanka Trump touted more rigorous standards for women's empowerment, but Ivanka was so slack that she didn’t get around to setting up her own graft. Little Marco is the big winner. Yale’s Tiger Couple haven’t put effort into anything but soaking Yale students. Ten years of spending caps under the Budget Control Act might have wasted $200 Billion in R&D costs. The Virginia Supreme Court says Charlottesville's Lee and Jackson statues can come down. What ball will idiots carry then? Joe Manchin sees no circumstance for voting to kill filibuster, but sure sounds open to guardrails, lanes, and such, so maybe infrastructure is the way to his heart. The filibuster was one of the many things Hillary Clinton warned you about. Matt Gaetz never paid for sex, possibly to avoid child labor laws, but actually, paying prostitutes is the pimp’s job, isn’t it? When going to the Bahamas, travel, hotel, drugs and women are part of the Gaetz package deal. One Republican has called for Gaetz to resign once he double-checked Matt’s last name to make sure it wasn’t “Trump”.

Like the other military services, the Navy is still digging out of a readiness hole in its aviation enterprise, brought on in part by the Budget Control Act. Bigger maintenance budgets over the last few years have helped – but money isn’t everything. The Navy’s also using data in new ways to help solve the problem. For more, Federal News Network’s Jared Serbu spoke with two people. Robert Smith leads the reliability control board data analytics team at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, Maryland. And Jason Thomas is the team’s principal analyst.

With the re-arrival of great power competition, there has never been a greater need to modernize Army capabilities. As a result of a preoccupation with wars in the Middle East, caps imposed by the Budget Control Act, and false starts in programs, Army equipment has lost its dominance. Army leaders have now set new priorities with modernizing precision fires at the top of the list. An impressive number of programs have been initiated: a new precision missile, a hypersonic missile, extended range artillery and advanced munitions. Good progress is being made.During this session we will explore how the programs stand today, how the Army plans to employ these systems in a joint warfight, and claims that development of long-range strike capabilities encroaches on other services' roles. We will look at the future funding needs and balance those against the anticipated resource environment. You won’t want to miss this engaging and provocative session. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

CQ Roll Call's Budget Editor Peter Cohn combed through the numbers since Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 and found something remarkable: the spending caps produced some results but most of the savings were because of factors out of Congress' hands. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Official Website https://joebiden.com/ Twitter @JoeBiden https://twitter.com/JoeBiden Joseph Biden Jr. Born November 20, 1942, is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. Biden also represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is a candidate for president in the 2020 election. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and lived there for ten years before moving with his family to Delaware. He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972, when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was re-elected six times and was the fourth most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009. Biden was a long-time member and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991, but advocated U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995. He voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. He also chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and in 2008. In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, Biden oversaw infrastructure spending aimed at counteracting the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His ability to negotiate with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation such as the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff. Obama and Biden were re-elected in 2012. In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 elections. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. He announced his 2020 run for president on April 25, 2019. Information link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

The president has signed a budget agreement that brushes aside the final two years of the Budget Control Act and delays a potential breach of the debt ceiling. But in order to avoid a government shutdown, Congress still needs to agree on the nitty gritty details of the 2020 appropriations bills. And once they get back from the August recess, they'll only have a few work weeks to get it done. For an update on where the appropriations process stands, Loren Duggan, the editoral director at Bloomberg Government, talked to Federal Drive with Tom Temin.

There's still no guarantee we won't have another government shutdown two months from now, but Congress and the president removed one of the biggest sources of budget uncertainty last week with the passage of a two year budget deal – a deal that also finally signals the sunset of the Budget Control Act. So what does it mean for contractors? For more on that, we spoke with Larry Allen, managing director of the Federal Market Access Group at BDO. Hear more on Federal Drive with Tom Temin.

The Budget Control Act has been a defining feature of the federal fiscal landscape for eight years. Suddenly, it's on the verge of disappearing for good. The House approved a two-year budget deal last week that does away with the last vestiges of the BCA caps, and the Senate is set to vote on the deal this week. David Hawkings is a veteran of Capitol Hill politics, now the editor-in-chief at The Fulcrum. He talked to Federal Drive with Tom Temin about the BCA and how it finally met its demise.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Lee Camp, a writer, comedian, activist, journalist, and host of the television show “Redacted Tonight,” on RT America, whose work is at www.leecamp.com.A new two-year spending deal passed by Congress on Thursday with President Trump’s support raises spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over current spending caps and allows the government to keep raising the debt ceiling. It also allows for yet greater military spending about $40 billion over current levels. Current spending on defense is more than the next eight largest countries combined. The deal also spells the death of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which sought, briefly, to rein in spending. Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has filed a federal lawsuit against Google, alleging that the tech giant illegally suspended her campaign’s advertising account after the June Democratic debate, obstructing her ability to raise money, and that it sent fundraising emails to the spam folder for those on her mailing list who use the company’s gmail service. Brian and John speak with Ted Rall, an award-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist whose work is at www.rall.com. The US on Thursday imposed sanctions on ten individuals and 13 companies associated with the Venezuelan government, accusing them of forming part of a sophisticated scheme that stole hundreds of millions of dollars from food import contracts associated with the CLAP program, which delivers heavily subsidized basic goods directly to Venezuelans and serves as a cornerstone of the Maduro government’s response to the country’s economic crisis. The Venezuelan government says that the new U.S. measures are targeted at the CLAP program itself and aim at intensifying the economic war by preventing the sanctioned companies from importing consumer goods. Brian and John speak with Paul Dobson, a writer for VenezuelAnalysis.com. Officials from Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and the United States met at the State Department yesterday to discuss a US-backed regional economic initiative in the eastern Mediterannean. The four countries are looking to expand cooperation on Cypriot oil drilling in the face of a challenge from Turkey, which has begun drilling for oil in Cypriot waters and has sent warships to the area. Massoud Shadjareh, the founder of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, joins the show. It’s Friday! So it’s time for the week’s worst and most misleading headlines. Brian and John speak with Steve Patt, an independent journalist whose critiques of the mainstream media have been a feature of his site Left I on the News and on twitter @leftiblog, and Sputnik producer Nicole Roussell. Friday is Loud & Clear’s weekly hour-long segment The Week in Review, about the week in politics, policy, and international affairs. Today they focus on Mueller’s testimony and the senate report that came out the day after claiming Russian interference in all 50 states without offering a shred of specific evidence, the protests in Puerto Rico that have forced the governor to resign, and Boris Johnson becoming the new Prime Minister of the UK. Brian and John speak with Sputnik News analysts and producers Walter Smolarek and Nicole Roussell.

On this Roundtable episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast, sponsored by Bell, a Textron company, our guests include Gordon Adams, PhD, American University professor emeritus and Stimson Center distinguished fellow, Byron Callan of the independent equity research firm Capital Alpa Partners, Bob Hale, former Pentagon comptroller (who now advises Booz Allen Hamilton — his thoughts are his own) and Chris Servello, founder of Provision Advisors (and team member of the Defense & Aerospace Report). Topics: — House Armed Services Committee markup of the Trump administration’s 2020 defense budget request  — Prospects for a bipartisan deal to life Budget Control Act spending caps — Tensions between White House and House Democrats — New attacks on tankers in Gulf of Oman — Rising tensions with Iran as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits Tehran — Congressional concerns with Trump’s use of emergency powers to clear arms and technology transfer to Saudi Arabia — Report that Trump is wavering on Pat Shanahan as next US defense secretary

On this Roundtable episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast, sponsored by Bell, a Textron company, our guests include Gordon Adams, PhD, American University professor emeritus and Stimson Center distinguished fellow, Byron Callan of the independent equity research firm Capital Alpa Partners, Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council, and Darrell Bricker, the CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs and co-author of “Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline."  Topics: — Outlook for a bipartisan Budget Control Act compromise — Budget hearings and programs recap — Prospect of shutting down the Office of Personnel Management — Trump administration declaration that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are a terrorist organization — Key takeaways from Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election to a fifth term as Israel’s prime minister  — A look at US demographic trends in the wake of President Trump’s claim that America “is full”

On this Roundtable episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast, sponsored by Bell, a Textron company, our guests include Byron Callan of the independent equity research firm Capital Alpa Partners, Bob Hale, former Pentagon comptroller (who now advises Booz Allen Hamilton — his thoughts are his own) and Steven Grundman of the Grundman Advisory and the Atlantic Council. Topics: — The Trump administration’s move to boost overseas contingency operations funding to $150 billion to skirt the Budget Control Act, increasing defense spending by 5 percent and cutting non-defense spending by 5 percent — Congressional deliberation on President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency to build a border wall by redirecting $3.5 billion in military construction funding  — Prospect that Navy would save money by skipping a refueling complex overhaul of USS Harry S. Truman and retire the ship 30 years  sooner than planned — Plan to acquire 80 new Boeing F-15X fighters for the Air Force — Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un in Hanoi

On this Roundtable episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Podcast, sponsored by Bell, a Textron company, our guests include Gordon Adams, PhD, American University professor emeritus and Stimson Center distinguished fellow, Bob Hale, former Pentagon comptroller (who now advises Booz Allen Hamilton — his thoughts are his own), Byron Callan of the independent equity research firm Capital Alpa Partners and Teri Schultz, a Brussels-based reporter for National Public Radio and Deutsche Welle. Topics: — Update on defense budget outlook — Expectations about Trump administration's 2020 budget request — Report that administration may ask for $174 billion Oversea Contingency Operations funding to skirt Budget Control Act spending caps — Military implications of Venezuela’s deepening political crisis — Look ahead to next week's NATO defense ministerial meeting in Brussels

During President Obama's second term, the military was scaled back.  Brian talks about being impacted by the drawdown and what life is like after serving twelve and a half years in the Marines.   Additional resources Center for Strategic & International Studies, "What Has the Budget Control Act of 2011 Meant for Defense?" The Washington Post, "Obama announces new, leaner military approach" The New York Times, "Is It Wise to Cut Military Spending?" PBS News Hour, "Fact-checking GOP candidate claims on Obama’s military spending" PoliFact, "PolitiFact Sheet: Military spending under Obama and Congress" The Washington Post, "U.S. military budget inches closer to $1 trillion mark, as concerns over federal deficit grow"

Cold War: Part Duex In early February, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva testified to Congress about two recently released war strategy documents: The National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review. In this episode, hear some of the most powerful people in the world discuss their plans to reboot the Cold War, including an extremely expensive plan, which has already begun, to replace the United States entire nuclear weapons arsenal. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD067: What Do We Want in Ukraine? CD093: Our Future in War Short Story Long Podcast Appearance Additional Reading Article: Trump's favorite general: Can Mattis check an impulsive president and still retain his trust? by Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan, The Washington Post, February 7, 2018. Report: Beijing hits back at US defence strategy and 'cold war mindset' by Kinling Lo, South China Morning Post, January 20, 2018, Report: A top secret desert assembly plant starts ramping up to build Northrop's B-21 bomber by Ralph Vartabedian, W.J. Hennigan, and Samantha Masunaga, The Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2017. Article: Lockheed close to massive F-35 fighter jet deal with 11 nations by Thom Patterson, CNN Money, June 19, 2017. Article: Russian lawmaker: We would use nukes if US or NATO enters Crimea by Patrick Tucker, Defense One, May 28, 2017. Report: Russia is now the world's third largest military spender by Ivana Kottasova, CNN Money, April 24, 2017. Article: The F-35 may carry one of the US's most polarizing nuclear weapons sooner than expected by Alex Lockie, Business Insider, January 12, 2017. Article: Henry Kissinger's war crimes are central to the divide between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders by Dan Froomkin, The Intercept, February 12, 2016. Review: Hillary Clinton reviews Henry Kissinger's 'World Order' by Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Washington Post, September 4, 2014. Resources Congressional Budget Office: Approaches for Managing the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2017 to 2046 Congressional Research Service: Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress Defense.gov: 2018 Summary of the National Defense Strategy Indictment: Internet Research Agency Indictment Media.defense.gov: 2018 Nuclear Posture Review OpenSecrets.org: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Profile for 2016 Election Cycle OpenSecrets.org: General Dynamics Organization Summary OpenSecrets.org: Lobbyists Representing General Dynamics, 2017 OpenSecrets.org: Northrop Grumman Organization Summary OpenSecrets.org: Northrop Grumman Lobbying Info Book: World Order by Henry Kissinger Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: National Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review, C-SPAN, House Armed Services Committee, February 6, 2018. Witnesses James Mattis - Secretary of the Department of Defense General Paul Silva - Vice Chair of the Joints Chiefs of Staff 12:25 Defense Secretary James Mattis: To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harm’s way, in effect, signing a blank check payable to the American people with their lives. They do so despite Congress’ abrogation of its constitutional responsibility to provide sufficient stable funding. Our military have been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1,000 days during the past decade. These men and women hold the line for America while lacking this most fundamental congressional support: a predictable budget. Congress mandated—rightfully mandated—this National Defense Strategy—the first one in a decade—and then shut down the government the day of its release. Today we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as I testify before you this morning we are again on the verge of a government shutdown, or, at best, another damaging continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained, predictable appropriations, my presence here today wastes your time because no strategy can survive, as you pointed out, Chairman, without the funding necessary to resource it. 19:15 Defense Secretary James Mattis: Our second line of effort is to strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships. History is clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach to security and prosperity from the Greatest Generation, and it has served the United States well for 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies who carry their fair share is a source of strength. Since the costly victory in World War II, Americans have carried a disproportionate share of the global-defense burden while others recovered. Today the growing economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step up, as demonstrated by more than 70 nations and international organizations participating in the Defeat ISIS campaign and again in the 40-some nations standing shoulder to shoulder in NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. Most NATO allies are also increasing their defense budgets, giving credence to the value of democracies standing together. 24:33 Defense Secretary James Mattis: As Senator McCain said last week, since the end of the Cold War, we have let our nuclear capabilities atrophy under the false belief that the era of great power competition was over. As the new National Defense Strategy rightfully acknowledges, we now face the renewed threat of competition from Russia and China, and we cannot ignore their investments in nuclear weapons in addition to conventional forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the findings of previous reviews that the nuclear triad—comprised of silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber aircraft, and nuclear submarines—is the most strategically sound means of ensuring nuclear deterrence. To remain effective, however, we must recapitalize our Cold War legacy nuclear-deterrence forces, continuing a modernization program initiated during the previous administration. 27:05 Defense Secretary James Mattis: We need Congress to lift the defense spending caps and support the budget for our military of 700 billion for this fiscal year and 716 billion for next fiscal year. Let me be clear: as hard as the last 16 years of war have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act’s defense spending caps, worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. The Budget Control Act was purposely designed to be so injurious that it would force Congress to pass necessary budgets. It was never intended to be the solution. 34:50 General Paul Selva: Two supplemental capabilities recommended in the Nuclear Posture Review—the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile and a modification of a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads—would enhance deterrence by ensuring that no adversary under any set of circumstances can perceive an advantage through the use of a limited nuclear escalation or other strategic attack. Fielding these capabilities will not lower the threshold at which the U.S. would employ nuclear weapons; rather, it will raise the nuclear threshold for potential adversaries, making the use of nuclear weapons less likely. 35:45 General Paul Selva: It is important to note that the National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review both make the assumption that the military will receive timely, predictable, and sufficient funding to execute these strategies. As General Mattis has emphasized, we in uniform appreciate the support of this committee and the Congress, and we trust that the Congress will provide the funding needed to turn these strategies into reality. 1:03:05 Representative Joe Wilson (SC): Secretary Mattis, your Nuclear Posture Review, NPR, recommends that U.S. develop two supplemental nuclear capabilities: first, a low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, SLBM; and second, a sea-launched cruise missile. Why are these needed for deterrence and assurance? And following on that, some are arguing that they lower the threshold for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons. Do you believe that the addition of these capabilities to the U.S. nuclear arsenal is an increase or decrease the likelihood of a nuclear war? And another angle: why should we need a low-yield SLBM when we already have a low-yield nuclear gravity bomb? Are these capabilities redundant? Defense Secretary James Mattis: Congressman, I don’t believe it lowers the threshold at all. What it does, it makes very clear that we have a deterrent. If the Russians choose to carry out what some of their doctrine people have promoted, their political leaders have promoted, which would be to employ a low-yield nuclear weapon in a conventional fight in order to escalate to de-escalate; in other words, to escalate to victory and then de-escalate. We want to make certain they recognize that we can respond in kind. We don’t have to go with a high-yield weapon; thus, the deterrent effort stays primary. It is not to in any way lower the threshold to use nuclear weapons. On the sea-launched cruise missile, as you know, we have an ongoing issue with Russia’s violation of the INF. I want to make certain that our negotiators have something to negotiate with, that we want Russia back into compliance. We do not want to forgo the INF, but at the same time, we have options if Russia continues to go down this path. Discussion: Kissinger and Schultz on Global Challenges, C-SPAN, Senate Armed Services Committee, January 25, 2018. Witnesses: Henry Kissinger National Security Advisor & Secretary of State in Nixon & Ford Administrations George Shultz Secretary of State in Reagan Administration Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State in the first term of the George W. Bush administration 12:45 Henry Kissinger: The international situation facing the United States is unprecedented. What is occurring is more than a coincidence of individual crises. Rather, it is a systemic failure of world order, which is gathering momentum and which has led to an erosion of the international system rather than its consolidation, a rejection of territorial acquisition by force, expansion of mutual trade benefits without coercion, which are the hallmark of the existing system are all under some kind of strain. Compounding this dynamism is the pace of technological development, whose extraordinary progress threatens to outstrip our strategic and moral imagination and makes the strategic equation tenuous unless major efforts are made to sustain it. 19:45 Henry Kissinger: There is no doubt that the military capacity of China, as well as its economic capacity, is growing, and there have been challenges from Russia which have to be met, especially in Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria. And this raises these fundamental questions: What is the strategic relationship between these countries vis-a-vis the prospect of peace? Is their strength comparable enough to induce restraint? Are their values compatible enough to encourage an agreed legitimacy? These are the challenges that we face. The balance of power must be maintained, but it is also necessary to attempt a strategic dialogue that prevents the balance of power from having to be tested. This is the key issue in our relationship. 25:10 George Shultz: And I take the occasion to particularly underline one of the things that Henry brought out in his testimony, that is the concern we must have about nuclear proliferation. As you remember in the Reagan period, we worked hard. President Reagan thought nuclear weapons were immoral, and we worked hard to get them reduced. And we had quite a lot of success. And in those days, people seemed to have an appreciation of what would be the result of a nuclear weapon if ever used. I fear people have lost that sense of dread. And now we see everything going in the other direction, nuclear proliferation. The more countries have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is one’s going to go off somewhere, and the more fissile materials lying around—anybody who gets fissile material can make a weapon fairly easily. So this is a major problem. It can blow up the world. So I think we have to get at it. And the right way to start is what Henry said, is somehow to be able to have a different kind of relationship with Russia. After all, Russia and the United States have the bulk of all the weapons. 31:20 George Shultz: First, let me talk about the economy. What is happening as a result of these forces is de-globalization. This is already happening. This is not something for the future. The reason is that it’s becoming more and more possible to produce the things you want close to where you are. So the advantages of low labor costs are disappearing. And the more you produce things near where you are, the less you need shipping, and it has a big impact on energy, and it has a huge impact on the countries that are providing low-cost labor and a huge impact on places like ourselves which will wind up being able to produce these things near where we are. It’s a revolution. And a revolution in the economy has all sorts of security implications that need to be thought about. But this is a very big deal. 33:30 George Shultz: Robotics, 3-D printing, and artificial intelligence are driving manufacturers to reconsider not only how and what they make but where they make it. The world is on the very front end of a big shift from labor to automation. Robot sales are expected to reach $400,000 annually in 2018. This estimate does not account for the newly developed cobots, that is, collaborative robots. They assist human workers and, thus, dramatically increase human productivity. There are other things about all this that I won’t go into which underline it, but the new technologies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States. The United States has lost manufacturing jobs every year from 1998 to 2009, a total of 8 million jobs. Over the last 6 years, it regained about a million of them. With the cost of living no longer a significant advantage, it makes little sense to manufacture components in Southeast Asia, assemble them in China, and then ship them to the rest of the world when the same item can either be manufactured by robots or printed where it will be used. So this is a huge revolution taking place. It also underlines the enhanced ability to protect your intellectual property because you don’t have to ship it around. 35:35 George Shultz: You want to look at the dramatic improvements in nano-energetics, artificial intelligence, drones, and 3-D printing. They’re producing a revolution of small, smart, and cheap weapons that will redefine the battlefield. Open-source literature says nano-aluminum created ultra high burn rates which give nano-explosives four to ten times the power of TNT. The obvious result, small platforms will carry a very destructive power. Then you can put these small platforms on drones. And drones can be manufactured easily, and you can have a great many of them inexpensively. So then you can have a swarm armed with lethal equipment. Any fixed target is a real target. So an airfield where our Air Force stores planes is a very vulnerable target. A ship at anchor is a vulnerable target. So you’ve got to think about that in terms of how you deploy. And in terms of the drones, while such a system cannot be jammed, it would only serve to get a drone—talking about getting a drone to the area of where its target is, but that sure could hit a specific target. At that point, the optical systems guided by artificial intelligence could use on-board, multi-spectral imaging to find a target and guide the weapons. It is exactly that autonomy that makes the technologic convergence a threat today. Because such drones will require no external input other than the signature of the designed target, they will not be vulnerable to jamming. Not requiring human intervention, the autonomous platforms will also be able to operate in very large numbers. 38:48 George Shultz: I think there’s a great lesson here for what we do in NATO to contain Russia because you can deploy these things in boxes so you don’t even know what they are and on trucks and train people to unload quickly and fire. So it’s a huge deterrent capability that is available, and it’s inexpensive enough so that we can expect our allies to pitch in and get them for themselves. 40:10 George Shultz: The creative use of swarms of autonomous drones to augment current forces would strongly and relatively cheaply reinforce NATO, as I said, that deterrence. If NATO assists frontline states in fielding large numbers of inexpensive autonomous drones that are pre-packaged in standard 20-foot containers, the weapons can be stored in sites across the countries under the control of reserve forces. If the weapons are pre-packaged and stored, the national forces can quickly deploy the weapons to delay a Russian advance. So what’s happening is you have small, cheap, and highly lethal replacing large, expensive platforms. And this change is coming about with great rapidity, and it is massively important to take it into account in anything that you are thinking about doing. 54:10 George Shultz: Well, I read what I guess was an early version—somehow it was sent to me—of the national-security strategy. And I liked the beginning of it because it talked about our commitment to getting rid of nuclear weapons. But as you read on, it almost sounded a little bit as though there might be this or that occasion where we would use nuclear weapons. And this notion of using them that is spreading around is deeply disturbing to me. Video: Pinky and the Brain - The Really Great Dictator, March 6, 2011. Video: War on Iraq Breaking News - Shock & Awe Iraq, Sky News, October 20, 2006. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Not only is the GOP-controlled Congress screwing us on every issue, it is doubling down on the very policies in each issue portfolio that caused the problem to begin with. Both parties should change their symbol to that of a firefighter engaging in arson. Republicans are screwing us on immigration. You won’t believe McConnell’s new tactic of introducing a blank bill. It is the perfect metaphor for a leader of a party who has no convictions. We delve into a host of health care betrayals and give a vision for free-market health care that so many conservatives are failing to provide. Republicans are agreeing to expand the very programs that gave the insurance cartel a monopoly to gouge us.  Next, we tackle the budget betrayal, which is worse than you think. Which brings us to a long discussion about Pentagon spending and the crisis of innovation to rethink our strategic vision in the world and how it will solve the budget problem, in which Democrats hold military spending hostage for increased non-defense spending.  Key quotes: “The cruel irony of the GOP abolishing the Budget Control Act is that they are now undoing, with control of all three branches, what they accomplished with just one branch. Then again, they are Republicans, and perfidy is the main plank of their platform.” "If you are a non-illegal alien U.S. citizen who doesn’t want a handout, just a fair chance in a free market, you don’t exist — to either party." Show links: McConnell would support dog manure if it gets 60 votes 9 US tanks wind up in Iran’s hands Pentagon magically loses $800 million My 10 observations on GOP perfidy GOP’s disgraceful retreat on Obamacare     Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The exit of Stephen K. Bannon completes a restructuring of the West Wing that began almost as soon as the president took office and is now apparently complete. Like the physical renovation of the West Wing, it was noisy, not very attractive … but it was necessary.What is needed now are successes in cooperation with Congress—beyond confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the Veterans Affairs reform bill, and the 14 Congressional Review Act laws that were all enormously significant—but those were low-profile victories, and it seemed like Gorsuch was half a year ago. What is needed above all is either a tax bill or resurrection of the health-care fix. Slashing the corporate tax rate is probably the easiest (and perhaps most economically significant) bit of legislation to accomplish—but so too must arrive the repeal of the Budget Control Act, which has devastated national security via the “sequester” and hamstrung a key Trump promise, that of a 355-ship Navy.The staffing reset—along with a rhetorical reset from President Trump himself begun last week—can help get things moving.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The House passed a "minibus" of appropriations bill before leaving town for the August recess. The minibus has appropriations for the departments of Defense, Energy, Interior and Veterans Affairs, plus a few other agencies and the legislative branch. But the topline figures in the bill exceed the spending caps set in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Budget experts say the minibus has little chance of passing the Senate for several reasons. Federal News Radio's Nicole Ogrysko joins Jared Serbu on Federal Drive with Tom Temin to explain what these budget negotiations will sounds like when lawmakers get back in September.

No one really knows what Donald Trump plans to do as US Commander in Chief, but the United States' most influential war mongers have a plan. In this episode, hear the highlights from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing - a hearing that was kept off of C-SPAN and had no one in attendance - and get some insight into the advice our next President will be given to direct our nation at war. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Hearing Highlighted in this Episode Emerging U.S. Defense Challenges and Worldwide Threats, Senate Armed Services Committee, December 6, 2016 Witnesses Robert Kagan Served in the State Department in the Reagan administration Co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, a think tank that laid out a plan for the United States to use our massive military to force a global order centered around American control. Served on the 25 member State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Hillary Clinton & John Kerry. Current: Senior Fellow, Project on International Order and Strategy, The Brookings Institution Current: Board of Directors for the Foreign Policy Initiative Family: "First Family of Military Interventionists” Married to Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State, European & Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration Father: Donald Kagan, Yale professor and co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century report outlining the global dominance plan Brother: Frederick Kagan, military historian & author, member of the American Enterprise Institute and Project for a New American Century. Was co-architect of the surge (with General Keane) Sister in law: Kimberly Kagan, President at the Institute for the Study of War General Jack Keane Chairman, Institute for the Study of War Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during the key Bush years, 1999-2003. Board of Directors at General Dynamics Shawn Brimley Executive Vice President and Director of Studies, the Center for a New American Century National Security Council from Feb 2011-October 2012 Research Associate at CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) from April 2005-Feb 2007 Columnist at War on the Rocks Council on Foreign Relations member *Clip transcripts below Sound Clip Sources YouTube: Julian Assange tells RT that the Russian government was not the source of Clinton campaign emails, posted November 5, 2016. YouTube: Julian Assange on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur to talk about the danger to their sources and the murder of Seth Rich, posted August 9, 2016. Local News Story: 27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot, Killed in Northwest DC by Pat Collins and Andrea Swalec, NBC Washington DC, July 11, 2016. Additional Reading Book: The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett, May 2005. Article: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House by Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller, December 9, 2016. Article: Army accelerates Active Protection Systems technology by Kris Osborn, Defense Systems, October 13, 2016. Press Release: Artis announces Army APS contract award, Business Wire (Berkshire Hathaway), September 28, 2016. Article: Seth Rich: Inside the Killing of the DNC Staffer by Jeff Stein, Newsweek, August 20, 2106. Twitter: Wikileaks offers $20,000 reward for information about Seth Rich's murder Article: Debbie Wasserman Shultz to Resign D.N.C. Post by Jonathan Martin and Alan Rappeport, New York Times, July 24, 2016. Article: Wasserman Shultz immediately joins Clinton campaign after resignation by Victor Morton, The Washington Times, July 24, 2016. Article: Army Pushes Missile Defense For Tanks: MAPS by Sydney Freedberg, Breaking Defense, April 25, 2016. Article: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk by Mark Landler, New York Times, April 21, 2016. Email: John Podesta & Staff email his username & password, Wikileaks document, February 9, 2015 Blog post: Iron Curtain: Active Protective System (APS), by the editors of RicardCYoung.com, May 30, 2013. Miscellaneous Sources Webpage: Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go Recommended Podcast Episodes CD108: Regime Change CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? CD093: Our Future in War Jen's appearance on The Sea Hawkers Podcast, November 16, 2016. Hearing Clip Transcipts {18:30} Chairman John McCain: Our next president will take office as the U.S. confronts the most diverse and complex array of global security challenges since the end of the Second World War. Great power competition, once thought a casualty of the end of history, has returned as Russia and China have each challenged the rules-based order that is the foundation of our security and prosperity. Rogue states like North Korea and Iran are undermining regional stability while developing advanced military capabilities that threaten the United States and our allies. Radical Islamist terrorism continues to pose a challenging threat to our security at home and our interests abroad, and the chaos that has spread across the Middle East, and on which our terrorist enemies thrive, has torn apart nations; destroyed families; killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children; and sent millions more running for their lives. But today—today—President Obama will deliver a speech in Florida, touting his counter-terrorism successes. I’m not making that up. Ugh. Yet, even a glimpse at the chaos enveloping the Middle East and spreading throughout the world reveals the delusion and sophistry of this president and his failed policies. In short, when our next president is inaugurated, just six weeks from now, he will look out on a world on fire and have several consequential strategic choices to make: how to address Russian or Chinese aggression, how to confront threats from North Korean, whether to alter our relationship with Iran, how to improve and quicken our campaign against ISIL, how to counter the instability radiating from Syria, how to ensure a victory in the war in Afghanistan, and I could go on, not to mention the overwhelming challenge of cybersecurity. Our next president will not have the benefit of time and cautious deliberation to set a new strategic course for the nation; that work begins with a series of decisions that will present themselves immediately on day one. That’s why it’s so important to get these things right from the outset. As we ponder these strategic questions, we must also consider our military posture around the world. We must decide the appropriate military presence in Europe and reverse reductions made by the Obama administration under the assumption that Russia was a partner. We also need a fresh look at further steps to enhance U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region. We need to uphold our commitments to allies and partners, including by finally providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and standing by the opposition in Syria. We need to push back against the spread of Iranian malign influence in the Middle East. This starts in Iraq where the eventual liberation of Mosul will intensify the sectarian struggle for power and identity. We need to finally give our troops in Afghanistan what they need to succeed—permanent and flexible authorities to engage the enemy and troop levels based on security conditions on the ground. Here at home we need to return to a strategy-based defense budget. Our next president would need more than $100 billion over and above the Budget Control Act caps just to execute our current defense strategy, which is insufficient since it predates Russian invasion of Ukraine and ISIL’s rampage across Syria and Iraq. This will require our next president to negotiate a broad bipartisan agreement on the budget that brings an end to the dangerous and misguided Budget Control Act. {30:50} General Jack Keane: I’m delighted to be here with Dr. Kagan, a good friend, and let me just say something about Dr. Kagan here and his family. His father, himself, his wife, his brother, and his sister-in-law all made— Sen. John McCain?: All have exceeded—Keane: —a great contribution to this country, believe me. {35:45} Gen. Jack Keane: The reality is we need more combat brigades. The reality is we need more ships. The reality is we need more aircraft. It’s indisputable. {37:20} Gen. Jack Keane: The United States has not fielded a single active protection system on a tank yet or any other combat vehic— But your committee has mandated they do it, and you put some money in there for them to do it. Now, listen, if you don’t know what active protection system is, let me take you through it for a second. You put sensors on a vehicle that track an incoming round to the vehicle, and as the round is about to hit the vehicle, you actually have a kill system on the vehicle that kills the round before it hits. Brilliant technology. Where do we get all of that from? Private sector. It has to do with microchip technology and incredible software programs. Out there on a private sector, smart guys, small-business guys, got it; DARPA had a program over ten years ago to look at this; technology’s proven, and the United States military ground forces still haven’t put it on anything. What’s wrong with that? It has nothing to do with money. It doesn’t have anything to do with the White House. It doesn’t have anything to do with Congress. It doesn’t have anything to do with OSD. You know what it is? It’s the damn bureaucracy inside the Army. They push back on new technology because they want to design it themselves because you give them money to do it. These are the laboratories and the tech bases. It’s the acquisition bureaucracy that stalls this. When I was vice chief of staff for the Army, I had no idea about all of that, and it took me a year or two to figure out what I was really dealing with—bureaucrats and technocrats that were stalling the advance of a great army. That’s out there, and you’ve got to bore into that with this committee. The military and Defense Department needs help to break down that bureaucracy. {43:20} Gen. Jack Keane: Let me just say something about the DOD business side of the House. Certainly, we are the best fighting force in the world; we are first rate at that. But we’re absolutely third rate at running the business-like functions of DOD because we’re not good at it; we don’t know enough to be good at it. We’re managing huge real estate portfolios. We’re managing huge lodging capabilities. We’re one of the biggest motel owners in the United States. We’re managing the largest healthcare enterprise in the world. The amount of maintenance that we’re doing from a pistol to an aircraft carrier is staggering. Those are all business functions. Business functions. They’re all non-core functions. And we’re also managing new product design and new product development, using business terms, and we don’t do well at this, and there’s a ton of money involved in it. We’ve got to get after that money, and we’ve got to do better at it. And I think we should bring in, as a number-two guy in the Department of Defense, a CEO from a Fortune 500 company in the last five years that’s done a major turnaround of a large organization. We need business people to help us do this. We need a CFO, not a comptroller, in DOD. That CFO has the background that’s necessary to look at business practices in the DOD, where cost-basis analysis and performance, internal-controlled auditing, rigorous financial reviews, cost efficiency, and dealing with waste, those are the kinds of things we need—desperately need them because the money is there. You want to do so much more—some of that money is sitting right there in the budget. {46:55} Gen. Jack Keane: ISIS is the most successful terrorist organization that’s ever been put together. We’re making progress against them in Iraq, to be sure. We do not have an effective strategy to defeat them in Syria, because we don’t have an effective ground force. And we have no strategy to deal with the spread of ISIS to thirty-five other countries. I’m not suggesting for a minute that we’re involved in all of that, but I think we can tangibly help the people who are. {47:35} Gen. Jack Keane: In Iraq, we will retake Mosul. How long will depend on how much ISIS wants to resist; they didn’t resist in Fallujah and Ramadi that much. But after we take Mosul, if we have sectarian strife in Mosul, where we do not have unity of governance and unity of security, then that is going to contaminate the political unity and the country as a whole, which is so desperately needed. And that is a major issue for us. The major geopolitical issue for the United States and Iraq is political unity with their government and diminishing Iran’s strategic influence on Iraq. That is what we should be working on. {48:52} Gen. Jack Keane: The Syrian civil war, a major human catastrophe, to be sure, is a tractable problem, I think as any of us have had to deal with. The reality is we squandered the opportunities to change the momentum against the regime—I won’t list them all, and you’re aware of it—but right in front of us, I still believe we could put safe zones in there to safe guard some of those humans up near the Jordanian and Turkish border and that de facto would be a no-fly zone. I think it would also aid the Syrian moderates and likely attract some others to that movement. {49:49} Gen. Jack Keane: Afghanistan—let me just say, the war is not winnable under the current policy. We cannot win. And that’s the reality of it. We’ve got sanctuaries in Pakistan. No insurgency’s ever been defeated with sanctuaries outside the conflict area. Pakistani-Afghan national security forces do not have the enablers they need to be able to overcome the Taliban, who have resurged. {55:55} Robert Kagan: I want to talk about a subject that we don’t like to talk about in polite company, and it’s called world order. We naturally focus on threats to the homeland and our borders, and we talk about terrorism, as we must, as something that is obviously of utmost importance, has to be a top priority to protect the homeland. But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated, and because the understanding was that while Americans believed very deeply in the 1920s and ’30s that they could be immune from whatever horrors happened out there in the world that it didn’t matter to them who ran Europe or who ran Asia or who did what to whom as long as we were safe, they discovered that that was not true and that ultimately the collapse of world order would come back and strike the United States in fundamental ways. And so Americans decided to take on an unusual and burdensome role of maintaining world order because the United States was the only power in the world that could do it, and the critical element of maintaining that world order was to maintain peace and stability in the two big cockpits of conflict that had destroyed the world and had produced repeated conflicts from the late nineteenth century onward, and that was Europe and Asia. The United States accomplished something that no other power had been able to accomplish before. It essentially put a cork in two areas that had been known for the constant warfare, put an end to an endless cycle of war between France and Germany, between Japan and China; and that was the stable world order that was created after World War II, that America gradually thrived in, that produced the greatest era of great-power peace that has been known in history, the greatest period of prosperity, the greatest period of the spread of democracy. {1:01:24} Robert Kagan We especially cannot take our eye off what I believe is ultimately the main game, which is managing these two revisionist powers and understanding what they seek. We cannot be under any illusions about Russia and China. We will find areas of cooperation with them—they both partake and benefit from and, in some case, sort of feed off of the liberal world order the United States has created—but let us never imagine that they are content with this order, that they do not seek fundamentally eventually upend this order, especially on the security side, to create a situation which they think ought to be the natural situation which is they being hegemonic in their own region. China has a historical memory of being hegemonic, dominant in its region. Russia has a historical memory, which Putin has expressed on numerous occasions, of restoring its empire, which stretched right into the heart of Central Europe. As far as they are concerned, the order that the United States has created is unfair, disadvantageous to them, temporary, and ought to be overturned. And I can only say that in the process of overturning that the history teaches that overturning does not occur peacefully. And so it should be our task both to prevent them from overturning it and to prevent them in a way that does not produce another catastrophic war. {1:04:00} Robert Kagan: It’s unfortunate that after these eight years in which this signal has been sent that during this political campaign, the president-elect comments during the campaign as well as those of his surrogates have only reinforced the impression that the United States is out of the world-order business—comments about whether the United States really should support NATO allies; comments about Estonia being in the suburbs of St. Petersburg; complaints about the need to defend Japan and is that an equitable thing; the fact that both candidates came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is really, in my eyes, a strategic deal more than a trade deal, designed to pull the United States and its Asian partners together. All the elements of this campaign have only sent even greater shockwaves throughout the world about what the United States stands for. So, in a certain sense, yes, the next administration has a big hole to dig out of; it also has to dig out of a hole, to some extent, of its own making. And so we need to see, in the early stages, in the very early stages, I would say, a clear repudiation of all that rhetoric; some clear signs that this new administration understands the importance not only of reassuring allies but a willingness to bolster our commitment to those allies, because after all, the challenge from the revisionist powers is increasing; therefore it’s not enough to say we’re committed to the defensive allies; we have to show that our capacities are increasing along with those of the increasing threat which, of course, gets to the defense budget, which I don’t have to talk to this committee about. {1:22:00} Robert Kagan: I’m very dubious that unless you actually increase the top line that you’re going to get what you need, because I just think, you know, you can only squeeze so far and be as brilliant as you can be. Brilliant is never going to be your answer, so I think the answer is there’s going to have to be more spending, and, you know, I’m not a budget expert at large either, but I would say we have to do whatever we need to do. We have to—if we need to raise taxes or we need to have some package that does that, if we need to find other ways of, you know, dealing problems like entitlement spending to do it, we have to do it. I mean, I lived through the Reagan years. There were increases in defense budget, which were offset by political bargains of one kind or another that required increases in domestic spending which led to increased defense budgets. We survived the—I mean, in overall deficits. We survived the deficits and won the Cold War. So I would say we are going to have to, as a nation, take this seriously enough to pay for it. {1:46:45} Senator Angus King: So selection of leaders is a crucial element, looking for innovative and willingness to move. Let me— Gen. Jack Keane: You’ve got to force the R&D effort, and you’ve got to talk to civilian—you’ve got to talk to defense industry on a regular basis because the defense industry is spending their time thinking about your function. They’re all also spending research dollars on it. You have to have regular communication with them. Let them know where you’re trying to go, bring them into it to help contribute to it, drive your own people to work with them as well. We can accelerate this process rather dramatically. King: And I would suggest that we have to. {1:50:00} Senator Joni Ernst: I would like to get your thoughts on ISIS in Southeast Asia because I do think it’s something that we haven’t spent a lot of time focusing on—we’re not talking about it nearly enough—and Islamic extremist groups in Southeast Asia, like the Abu Sayyaf group, they are all coming together under the flag of ISIS, and it’s a bit concerning. {1:52:20} Shawn Brimley: One of the tangible second-order benefits that we get from forward deploying our troops and capabilities overseas is we have that daily connectivity, and we have that daily deterrent prowess in places around the region. One of the debates that you see and hear inside the Pentagon, or one of the debates that we had inside the Pentagon as pertains to, say, the Marines in Darwin, for instance, is, you know, you start to break apart these larger entities, like a Marine Air-Ground Task Force, for instance, and you start to put a company here in Southern Philippines and put a task force of some kind in Australia. And there’s a tradeoff between doing that, which gives you that kind of daily interaction with local communities, the ability to do a counter-terrorism operations, for instance. But there is some risk that it becomes more difficult to quickly bring those capabilities back together for a larger threat, responding to a larger threat. And that’s the balance that DOD, particularly OSD, has to grapple with every day. {1:53:50} Senator Joni Ernst: General Keane, could you talk a little bit more about militarily what we could be doing in that region and the use of forces? * General Jack Keane*: Yeah, absolutely. And ISIS has expanded into 35 countries, and we don’t really have a strategy to deal with any of that. We’re focused on the territory that they took, certainly in Iraq and Syria, and I’m not saying that’s not appropriate—that should be a priority—but commensurate with that priority, we should be addressing these other areas as well. And a lot of the identification with ISIS is aspirational but they also have affiliates in these countries—this is one of them—and with an affiliate, they actually sign a document together to abide by certain ISIS principles and rules. And in some cases they direct, some cases they provide aid, but in most cases there’s no direction, and that’s largely the case here. But I believe what the United States can do with its allies is, you know, we’ve been at war with organizations like this now for 15 years, and our reservoir of knowledge and capability here is pretty significant, and it far exceeds anybody else in the world, but we have allies that are participating with us. There’s much we can do with them in sharing intelligence and helping them with training and also helping them with technology—not expensive technology, but things that can truly make a difference with those troops, and I don’t think we necessarily have to be directly involved in fighting these forces ourselves, but aiding and supporting these forces and having a strategy to do that— {1:57:55} Senator Jeanne Shaheen: You also talked about taking retaliatory action against Russia for what they’re doing. What kinds of efforts would you suggest we look at in terms of trying to retaliate or respond to what Russia’s doing in the United States? Robert Kagan: Well, I’m sure there’re people better equipped to answer that question than I am, but I would, you know, publish the Swiss bank accounts of all the oligarchs around. I mean, there are all kinds of things that you could do that would cause— Shaheen: Yeah, keep, keep saying a few— Kagan: Well, I mean— Shaheen: A few more of those because I think those are helpful. Kagan: You know, you could talk about all the ways in which you could reveal stuff about the way Putin has manipulated his own elections. I mean, there’s all kinds of stuff out there, which, if you were of a mind to do it, you could do that would be embarrassing of one kind or another. I mean, these people have money stashed all over the world. They have dachas, they have villas, etc. This is a kind of a Mafia organization where part of the game is everybody holding together. There are ways to create divisions and difficulties. I mean, I’m sure, as I say, there are people who could, if you put them to the task—and for all I know they have been put to the task—you could come up with a whole list of things. And, by the way, I wouldn’t make an announcement of it; they would understand what had happened. But until we do something like that, it’s just open season for them to do this, and so I think we need to treat this like any other weapons system that’s being deployed, because they are treating it like a weapons system. {2:00:32} Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: One of the things, General Keane, that you pointed out is that there is a predilection to try and kill some of the innovative programs so that the Pentagon can actually do those themselves. We had this experience with the Small Business Innovation Research program as we’re going into this NDAA because the initial effort was to try and increase the amount of money that DOD is making available to small businesses to do innovation, and I think we’ve heard from a number of panelists previously that this is one of the best research programs that still exists within—for small businesses to produce innovation that’s used by the Department of Defense. So, is this the kind of initiative that you’re talking about that there may be, for whatever reason, efforts to try and keep it from putting more money into that small-business effort to produce innovation?* Gen. Jack Keane*: I certainly encourage that. You know, the active protection system that I was talking about and that when DARPA made a call to the people to come forward and they knew that this would be an advanced technology that could actually change warfare, the contractor that the United States Army has gone to is a small-business contractor. So here’s this small-business contractor, conceptualized this capability themselves, and it will revolutionize combat warfare as we go forward. They also have technology, interesting enough, and they’ve brought military leaders out to see it, they can stop a bullet. In other words, a 50-caliber bullet, they can kill a bullet. And it’s all because of everything—all of this is available in the private sector. Microchip technology, as I mentioned, and unbelievable software apply to that technology. Well, that’s revolutionary technology that I just mentioned to you. It changes warfare. And so that is something we should be investing in. We should put money behind this. I have no affiliation with this organization—let’s get that straight. {2:05:27} Senator Mike Lee: For several decades, Congress, quite regrettably in my opinion, has deliberately abdicated many of its constitutional responsibilities, and it’s just sort of handed it over to the executive branch, being willing to take a backseat role—a backseat role, at best—in determining America’s role around the world and how we’re going to combat threats that face us. The result ends up being a foreign policy that is made primarily within the executive-branch bureaucracy and Washington-insider circles, informed, as they tend to be, by the interests and the aspirations of the so-called international community. This is a circle that increasingly becomes untethered from any clear lines of accountability, connecting policy, policy makers, and the American people. For instance, the U.S. military is currently operating in the Middle East under a very broad, I believe irresponsibly broad, interpretation of a 15-year-old authorization for the use of military force, using it as justification to engage in a pretty-broad range of actions, from intervening in two separate civil wars to propping up a failing Afghan government. Meanwhile, the executive branch seems increasingly inclined to choose and identify and engage threats through covert actions, and that further helps the executive branch to avoid the scrutiny that would be available if stronger Congressional oversight existed, and they avoid that kind of scrutiny and public accountability. This may be convenient for members of Congress who want nothing more than to just have someone else to blame for decisions that turn out to be unpopular or unsuccessful, but it’s an affront to the Constitution. And it’s more than that; it’s more than just an affront to a 229-year-old document—it’s an affront to the system of representative government that we have dedicated ourselves to as Americans, and I think it’s an insult to the American people who are losing patience with a foreign policy that they feel increasingly and very justifiably disconnected from, notwithstanding the fact that they’re still asked from time to time to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way to defend it. So as we discuss these emerging threats to our national security, I’d encourage this committee and all of my colleagues to prioritize the threat that will inevitably come to us if we continue to preserve this status quo and to exclude the American people and their elected representatives, in many cases ourselves, from the process. So I have a question for our panelists. One of the focuses of this committee has been on the readiness crisis within the military, brought about by the conflicts we’re facing in the Middle East and by a reduction in the amount of money that the Pentagon has access to. The easy answer to this is often, well, let’s just increase spending. That’s not to say that that’s not necessary now or in other circumstances in particular, but setting aside that, that is one approach that people often come up with. But another option that I think has to be considered, and perhaps ought to be considered first, is to reexamine the tasks and the priorities that we’re giving to our military leaders and to ask whether these purposes that we’re seeking readiness for are truly in the interest of the American people, those we’re representing, those who are paying the bill for this, and those who are asked to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way. * Sen. John McCain: Senator’s time has expired. *Lee: So,-- McCain: Senator’s time has expired. Lee: Could I just ask a one-sentence question, Mr. Chairman, to— McCain: Yes, but I would appreciate courtesy to the other members that have—make one long opening statement, it does not leave time for questions. Senator’s recognized for question. Lee: Okay. Do you believe that the Congress, the White House, and the executive branch agencies have done an adequate job in reaching consensus on what the American people’s interests are and on calibrating the military and diplomatic means to appropriate ends? {2:10:43} Robert Kagan: I don’t accept this dichotomy that you posited between what the Congress and the President do and what the American people want. I mean, when I think of some of the—first of all, historically, the executive has always had tremendous influence on foreign policy—whatever the Constitution may say, although the Constitution did give the executive tremendous power to make foreign policy. If you go back to Jefferson, the willingness to deploy force without Congressional approval, you can go all the way through 200 years of history, I’m not sure it’s substantially different, but in any case, that’s been the general prejudice. The Founders wanted energy in the executive and particularly in the conduct of foreign policy. That was the lesson of the Revolutionary War. That’s why they created a Constitution which particularly gave power to the executive. But also, I just don’t believe that the American people are constantly having things foisted on them that they didn’t approve of. So one of the most controversial things that’s happened, obviously, in recent decade that people talk about all the time is the Iraq war, which was voted on; debated at length in Congress; 72 to 28, I think was the vote, or something like that. The American people, public opinion, was in favor of it, just as the American people was in favor of World War I, the Spanish-American War later. These wars turn out to be bad or badly handled, the American people decide that it was a terrible idea, and then people start saying, well, who did this? And the American people want to find somebody to blame for doing these things; they don’t want to take responsibility for their own decisions. I don’t believe we have a fundamentally undemocratic way of making foreign-policy decisions; I think it’s complicated, I think mistakes are made. Foreign policy’s all about failure. People don’t want to acknowledge that failure is the norm in foreign policy, and then they want to blame people for failure. But I think the American people are participants in this process. {2:22:26} Senator Lindsay Graham: We’re talking about important things to an empty room. Just look. Just look. So, Iran with a nuke. Number one—I’m going to ask, like, 45 questions in five minutes. Give brief answers if you can. If you can’t, don’t say a word. Do you believe that the Iranians in the past have been trying to develop a nuclear weapon, not a nuclear power plant, for peaceful purposes? Shawn Brimley: Yes. Gen. Jack Keane: Nuclear weapon, yes. Graham: All right, three for three. Do you believe that’s their long-term goal, in spite of what they say is to have a nuclear weapon? Keane: Yes. Brimley: [nods] Robert Kagan: [thumbs up] Graham: Okay. Do you believe that’d be one of the most destabilizing things in the world? Brimley: Yes. Graham: Do you believe the Arabs will get one of their own? Brimley: Yes. Kagan: [nods] Graham: Do you believe the Iranians might actually use the weapon if they’d gotten one, the Ayatollah? Brimley: [nods] Keane: Well, I think that—before I answer that, I think there’s just as great a chance that the Arabs would use their weapon as a first right to take it away. Graham: Okay, then, so, we don’t know—well, let’s have— Bob, you shook your head. If you’re Israel, what bet would you make? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: Okay, but what if he wants to die and he doesn’t mind taking you with him? What does he want? Does he want to destroy Israel, or is he just giddy? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: When the Ayatollah says he wants to wipe Israel out, so it’s just all talk? Kagan: I don’t know if it’s all talk, and I don’t blame people for being nervous. We lived under—the United States, we all lived under the shadow of a possible nuclear war for 50 years. Graham: Yeah, but, you know, on their worst day the Russians didn’t have a religious doctrine that wanted to destroy everybody. Do you believe he’s a religious Nazi at his heart, or you don’t know? And the answer may be you don’t know. Kagan: I believe that he clearly is the—believes in a fanatical religion, but— Graham: Here’s what I believe. Kagan: I’m not—okay, go. Graham: Okay, I believe that you ought to take him seriously, based on their behavior. Number one— Keane: I think we should take him seriously. Whether they’re religious fanatics or not, I don’t think is that relevant. Clearly, their geopolitical goals to dominate the Middle East strategically, to destroy the state of Israel, and to drive the United States out of the Middle East, they’ve talked about it every single year— Graham: Well, do you think that’s their goal?Keane: Yes. Graham: Okay, so do you- Keane: Of course it’s their goal. And not only is it their goal, but they’re succeeding at it. Graham: Do you think we should deny them that goal. Graham: Good. North Korea—why are they trying to build an ICBM? Are they trying to send a North Korean in space? What are they trying to do? Brimley: They’re trying to threaten us. Kagan: To put a nuclear weapon on it— Graham: Do you believe it should be the policy of the United States Congress and the next president to deny them that capability? Brimley: I believe so. Graham: Would you support an authorization to use military force that would stop the ability of the North Koreans to develop a missile that could reach the United States? Do you think Congress would be wise to do that? Brimley: I think Congress should debate it. I remember distinctly the op-ed that Secretary William Perry and Ashton Carter— Graham: I’m going to introduce one. Would you vote for it if you were here? Kagan: Only if Congress was willing to do what was necessary to a followup—Graham: Well, do you think Congress should be willing to authorize any president, regardless of party, to stop North Korea from developing a missile that can hit the homeland? Kagan: Only if Congress is willing to follow up with what might be required, depending on North Korea’s response. Graham: Well, what might be required is to stop their nuclear program through military force; that’s why you would authorize it. Kagan: No, but I’m saying that if I’m—the answer is yes, but then you also have to be willing, if North Korea launched—Graham: Would you advise me— Kagan: —that you’d have to be willing to— Sen. John McCain: You have to let the witness. Graham: Yeah, but he’s not giving an answer, so here’s the question. Kagan: Oh, I thought I— Graham: Do you support Congress—everybody’s talking about Congress sitting on the sidelines. I think a North Korean missile program is designed to threaten the homeland; I don’t think they’re going to send somebody in space. So if I’m willing, along with some other colleagues, to give the president the authority—he doesn’t have to use it—but we’re all on board for using military force to stop this program from maturing, does that make sense to you, given the threats we face? Keane: I don’t believe that North Korea is going to build an ICBM, weaponize it, and shoot it at the United States. Graham: Okay, then, you wouldn’t need the authorization to use military force. Keane: Right. And the reason for that is— Graham: That’s fine. Keane: The reason—Senator, the reason they have nuclear weapons is one reason: to preserve their regime. They know when you have nuclear weapons we’re not going to conduct an invasion of North Korea. South Korea’s not going to do it; we’re not going to do it. Graham: Why are they trying to build ICBM? Keane: They want to weaponize it. Graham: And do what with it? Keane: I don’t bel— Kagan: Preserve their regime. Graham: Okay, all right. So, you would be okay with letting them build a missile? Kagan: No, but— Graham: Would you, General Keane? Keane: They’re already building a missile. Graham: Well, would you be willing to stop them? Keane: I would stop them from using it, yes. Graham: Okay. Keane: I’m not going to stop them from— Graham: Assad—final question. Do all of you agree that leaving Assad in power is a serious mistake? Brimley: Yes. Keane: Yes, absolutely. Graham: Finally, do you believe four percent of GDP should be the goal that Congress seeks because it’s been the historical average of what we spend on defense since World War II?Kagan: Pretty close. Graham: Thanks. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

The next administration will face tough choices in aligning strategy, programs, and resources. Strategy has stretched to counter an aggressive Russia, an assertive China, and a ruthless Islamic State while resources have been constrained by the Budget Control Act and competition from domestic programs. Alternative Defense Strategies in a Cost-Capped Environment examines options for strategy and forces in a cost constrained environment. The study identifies five alternative strategies and, using CSIS's Force Cost Calculator, builds a cost-capped force structure, modernization program, and readiness profile for each strategy. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy against plausible conflict scenarios. The study explores potential ways to mitigate the fiscal pressure forcing these strategic trade-offs. It concludes by making recommendations for the FY 2017 defense budget and the next Quadrennial Defense Review.

Ostrolenk speaks with Nan Swift, Federal Affairs Manager at the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). Swift speaks about the projects she works on through the NTU to achieve legislative outcomes favorable to taxpayers. Her recent work includes collaboration with Taxpayers for Common Sense on defense spending. Swift also elaborates on the Budget Control Act and the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund. Lastly, she discusses how throwing more money at the Pentagon does not make us more safe and how beneficial an audit would be. To learn more about Swift's work and NTU, visit www.ntu.org

https://nv1-offload-media.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20123055/omnibusFINAL.wav   Omnibus is a Latin word that means “for all.” In legislation it means cramming everything into a bill that you think can pass. That's what we're doing with this edition of Trahant Reports. First up: A deal in Congress has lifted the caps from the Budget Control Act, or the sequester, and it raises the debt limit until March 2017. This deal ends distractions such as new government shut downs or a defunding of Planned Parenthood until well after the election. Unfortunately the details, such as the actual budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, still have to be written,  between now and Dec. 11 The politics of this deal are stunning, but, unfortunately, probably only temporary. More Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans. So the Republican Leadership actually picked a bipartisan course. Any budget that passes with more Democrats than Republicans is considered awful. Even the new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the process stinks. But the deal will make it easier for Ryan to govern his caucus because it takes away the threat of government shutdowns and general chaos. Ryan's goal will be to unite the Republicans so that what ever measures come forward next will be debated within the party. At least that's the theory. Second item: This week there is an important race in Seattle. Debora Juarez is a candidate for Seattle City Council. She's a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, grew up in the Seattle-Tacoma area, and is campaigning on neighborhood issues. That means things people care about: more sidewalks, better bus service, and affordable housing. The Seattle Times said in its endorsement editorial: “In a crowded field, Debora Juarez stands out. … She would bring intellectual rigor and ideological independence to the council.” It doesn't get any better than this. Of course great candidates make all the difference in elections. They bring experience and poise to the campaign. That's why so many eyes are watching Montana right now. The only Native American to hold a statewide office, Denise Juneau, is considering a run for the U.S. House. She's currently Montana's Superintendent of Public Instruction and a member of the Mandan and Hidatsa Tribes. She grew up in Browning on the Blackfeet Reservation. Two years ago there was a lot of interest in Juneau running for an open U.S. Senate seat. I thought it would have been an interesting race, but it would have been a long shot. The problem is the type of voters Juneau would need only vote in presidential election years and that race would have been a low-turnout election. So she opted to stick with the job she loves, running public education. Juneau is now at her term limit. Her schools' job will end. And since it's a presidential year, the House seat is awfully tempting. It's a  seat that can be won. Stay tuned.

Low-lights of the Ryan budget are described after we run down the bills passed by the House this week. We also look into an eighteen-year emergency continued this week by President Obama. H.R. 749: Eliminate Privacy Confusion Act The banks currently have to send out a notice regarding their privacy policies every year. This bill would change the law so the banks only have to send the privacy notices out when they change their privacy policies. The privacy policies will be posted online. HR 890: Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act This bill extends the the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, which is welfare, through the end of this calendar year. The bill also prohibits the Obama administration from following through with a plan to give states waivers which would allow them to operate their own welfare programs, so long as there is a proven 20% increase in the number of welfare recipients who find work. This bill would effectively make sure the Federal government has a one-size-fits all approach to welfare. HR 803: SKILLS Act [caption id="" align="alignright" width="159"] Grandma Foxx of North Carolina sponsored the SKILLS Act[/caption] Would be effective for fiscal year 2014 Most significant effect: It would change the make up of local boards that decide how our taxpayer money would be spent on welfare-to-work and job training programs. The local boards would effectively be in corporate control. Currently: The boards are already required to be a majority of people from the business community, specifically business owners. This bill would change it so that a 2/3 majority of the boards would be business owners. Also, the seat for representatives from labor organizations would be eliminated. The boards are required to come up with a plan for the states on how they run their work programs, including how the state will spend taxpayer money. The boards would also be able to award government funded contracts to the entities that provide training services. It would effectively allow businesses to tell states how to govern. It also prohibits the government job training centers from competing with private employment agencies. The bill would also consolidate 35 different programs into one giant program. The bill would order an accounting of the number of federal workers who administer job training programs and within one year, fire all the federal workers whose positions were gobbled up in the merge. President Obama and the Senate Democrats have already said they don't support it; it won't become law. Ignored Subpoenas Ted Poe (TX) informed Congress that he intends to ignore a subpoena sent by Orly Taitz, a lawyer from Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. Orly Taitz is part of the Defend our Freedoms Foundation and her website proclaims to be the "World's Leading Obama Eligibility Challenge Website". Taitz filed a temporary restraining order to prohibit President Obama's inauguration because they claim that he's using a fake social security number and his birth certificate is forged. US Attorney's filed an opposition on behalf of Congress to stop Taitz's restraining order. Now she's sending subpoena's to members of Congress to try to get them to say they didn't support the US Attorney's effort to squash her restraining order against the President. Ted Poe's response: "After consultation with the Office of Gen-eral Counsel, I have determined under Rule VIII that the subpoena seeks information that is not ‘‘material and relevant'' and that it is not ‘‘consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.'' Accordingly, I intend to move to quash the subpoena. God and Texas, TED POE" Another subpoena was ignored this week by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The subpoena was issued for a criminal trial being prosecuted by the US District Court for the District of Arizona. The stated reason the subpoena was ignored was because the "documents sought are not material and relevant" and that subpoena is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the House." No more information could be found. Continuing Emergency from 1995 National Emergencies Act automatically ends a National Emergency after 90 days unless the President informs Congress that the emergency needs to continue. President Clinton signed an Executive Order on March 15, 1995 that puts sanctions on Iran's nationalized oil industry. The sanctions prohibit any United States citizen or company from entering into a contract to develop Iran's oil resources, either by physically managing the development or financing it. President Clinton enacted these sanctions after Iran opened their petroleum resources to foreign investment, allowing our corporations to get their invested money back, but not take home profits. Obama Emergency Notification sent to Congress on March 12, 2013: "The actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United St ates in the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have deter-mined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and to maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against Iran to deal with this threat." The Ryan Budget  Taxes * Change the tax structure from seven brackets to two. The rate for poor people would be 10% * Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax * Lower the top tax rate to 25% for individuals and corporations Education * Remove regulations in higher education to allow more online classes * Freezes cap on Pell grants for college at $5,645 per year (currently $5,500) * "Eliminate ineffective & duplicative federal education programs. Health Care * Repeal ObamaCare bit by bit * Repeal the Federal expansion of Medicaid (100% paid by Fed gov't, down to 90% in 2016) * Repeal the health-care exchanges * Repeal the entire health-care law. * Want to make sure that "not a penny goes toward implementing the new law." * Ban on denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions would remain illegal. * Choice program that would allow workers to devote their employer's health-coverage contribution to purchase a health plan that works for them.. if their employer allows it. Medicare * For people born in 1959 or later, Medicare would be privatized. You would have to choose between private plans or a fee for service, go bankrupt if you get really sick, plan. Taxpayer money in the form of a voucher would pay for the private insurance for people whose savings has been drained. * Medicare would have exchanges, just like the ones that would be defunded for the rest of us. * Seniors would get gov't money only for the "second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service" plan, whichever costs less. If the senior wants a better plan, they pay the difference out of pocket. Prohibiting Lawsuits * Limits on noneconomic and punitive damages in medical liability lawsuits. Retirement *  Make federal workers pay more towards their pensions so that their benefits come closer to sucking as much as the private sector * "The CBO estimated that, on average, federal employees make 16% more in total compensation than their private-sector counterparts. This reform would begin to rectify that imbalance." Federal Workforce Cuts * Reduce the federal workforce by 10% by 2015. * Reduce the federal workforce "not through layoffs, but via a gradual, sensible attrition policy." Energy * Defund renewable projects; "The budget aims to roll back federal interventional and corporate-welfare spending across energy sectors." * Open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling * Sell off "millions of acres federal land" to oil & gas companies. "The federal government owns nearly one-third of the land in the country… substantial volumes of oil and gas are known to lie under these government lands." * Prohibit the government from buying land. Right now, proceeds from land sales need to go towards buying other parcels of land. The Ryan budget would take 70% of that and put it towards deficit reduction. * "The sale of billions of dollars' worth of federal assets would… remove economic distortions by reducing public ownership." * Limit the amount of money the Department of Interior could collect from the fire sale to $60 million per year. Transportation * Eliminate funding for high-speed rail projects * "High speed rail and other new intercity rail projects should be pursued only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial services" Defense * $560.2 billion for 2014, $6 trillion over the next decade = spending increases. * "It is approximately $500 billion more than will be available absent changes in the Budget Control Act. Our security is the federal government's top priority. The budget must reflect that fact."

No one really tried to avert the sequester, the House of Representatives travels in style, and something good actually happened this week in Congress.   Sequester Here is a rundown of what kind of effort each division of Congress put forth to try to avert the sequester. Senate Democrats offered S. 388: The American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013 Freezes the sequester, keeping the budget the same for 2013. Lowers the spending caps from the Budget Control Act, totaling $39 billion in future spending (not a cut) Eliminates direct payments to farmers for peanuts, sugarcane, and sugar beets Protects other agricultural programs by making them mandatory spending, extending their funding, or exempting them from sequestration. Increases taxes on earnings over $1,000,000 to 30% starting in 2014 Eliminates tax deductions for business expenses relating to moving a business out of the United States Defines bitumen products (tar sands) as oil so that it can be taxed as oil This bill failed to pass the Senate; Republicans don't like it. Senate Republicans offered S. 16: Sequester Replacement Gives the President until March 15th to create a sequester replacement plan Caps defense cuts at $42.7 billion Prohibits amendments to the the President's bill when it comes up for a vote in Congress Enacts the President's cuts if there is no Congressional vote of disapproval This bill failed to pass the Senate; Senators were uncomfortable giving the President the authority to do Congress' job. House Democrats wanted to vote on H.R. 699: The Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act Cancels the 2013 sequester Repeals a 2% sequester cut to veteran's medical care Eliminates direct payments to farmers for wheat, corn, barley, oats, cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, soybeans, and peanuts. Eliminates tax deductions for oil and natural gas companies Increases taxes on earnings over $1,000,000 to 30% starting in 2014. The House Republicans leadership wouldn't allow this bill to come up for a vote. House Republicans... did nothing. House Committee Travel Report, Oct 1 - Dec 31 2012 Examples of airfare we paid to send our Representatives on trips: $15,037 to send Todd Platts (R-PA) to India/Afghanistan for 4 days. Orbitz: $6,800 $19,743 to send Steven Pearce (R-NM) to Egypt/England for 4 days. Orbitz: $3,400 We paid similar costs per person for him to bring along 3 staff members. $8,023 to send Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on a weekend trip to Germany. Staff member on same trip flew for $1,821. $10,200 each for Robert Wittman (R-VA), Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam delegate) and two staff members to spend 3 days in Taiwan and Japan. Orbitz: $1,900 per person. $13,575 for Bill Flores (R-TX) to go on the same trip on the same days $21,063 to fly Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to Afghanistan for a day. Orbitz: $8,800. Military transportation: Free. Total spent on House of Representatives travel in 3 months: $855,743.25 Good News: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Passes Congress ... Despite an attempt by House Republicans to eliminate protections for lesbians, immigrants, Native Americans, and college students.

House Republicans tried hard during their week off to label the huge March 1 cuts as "the President's sequester", but was President Obama really the cause? We go back to August 1, 2011, the day sequester was born, to see who was celebrating the cuts and how they passed the House. August 1, 2011: The House of Representatives passed the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act: Raised the debt ceiling for 18 months, allowing the United States to pay its bills until the fiscal cliff crisis in January 2013. Mandated a vote on the Tea Party's Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Enacted spending caps until 2021 designed to reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion. Stopped graduate students from getting student loans from the government. Created the SuperCommittee tasked with agreeing on $1.2 trillion of additional government cuts. Created across-the-board, percentage based cuts - 50% to discretionary spending and 50% to defense spending- to take a effect if the SuperCommittee failed. This is "sequester". So far, we know that if if the sequester goes into effect on March 1... Air traffic controller offices will be closed across the country. See the list. Defense Department will furlough civilian workers. Active duty members are protected from cuts. Contractors are also going to be shielded from cuts, not by law but by choice. Unemployed people can expect a 9.4% cut to their benefits. 700,000+ people will lose their jobs. People mentioned in the podcast: @BillTaylor2: Came up with "sequester finger-pointing week". Funny Boston dude. Follow him. Political DisContent: A conversational, educational, and funny podcast I just discovered and enjoy. Give 'em a try. New episode next week! Congress comes back from vacation. Will they stop the sequester?  

The House passes a surveillance bill masked as pediatric research and then wastes our time. Also, highlights from the leaked legal justification for the Obama Administration's "lawful" drone bombing of American citizens. H.R. 225: National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013 Introduced by Democrat Lois Capps of Northern California. The bill says the Director of the National Institutes of Health (a gov't agency) can create a network of up to 20 groups of public or private non-profits to work together to do pediatric research. As a condition of accepting an award, the groups need to agree to help the Centers for Disease Control with the establishing patient registries and "other surveillance systems as appropriate and upon request by the Director of the Centers." The bill establishes a "Data Coordinating Center" to... 1. Distribute scientific findings 2. Help design and conduct research projects and to manage the resulting data 3. "To organize and conduct multi-site monitoring activities" But the bill doesn't give the NIH any money to do this. Congressional Budget Office Analysis NIH already supports many research networks that support research and training focused on pediatric health care needs and operates data coordinating centers for those networks. Those networks perform essentially the same activities as the groups described in the bill. The existing networks are not helping the CDC to establish surveillance systems. ...CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 225 would have "no effect on the number" of research groups or data coordinating centers that NIH would support. "CBO expects that CDC would request assistance from a few networks to establish surveillance systems." H.R. 444: The Require a Plan Act The President generally begins working on a budget in Nov/Dec The fiscal cliff deal wasn't done until January 2 meaning we didn't know how much revenue the United States would be collecting until then. President Obama will be submitting his budget late. Require a PLAN Act requires the President to give Congress another budget if the President's budget for fiscal year 2014 is not balanced. Not later than April 1, 2013, the President shall submit to Congress an addition to his budget that includes— * An estimate of the earliest fiscal year in which the additional budget will eliminate the deficit (Ryan budget was around 2030) * A detailed description of additional policies to be implemented in order to achieve such result (would have to be extreme measures) * An evaluation of what agency functions can be eliminated or consolidated. (Fleming Amendment) * An explanation of the differences between the President's original budget for fiscal year 2014 and the extra budget referred to in this subsection. * An estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit for each year until the budget is balanced. (Messer Amendment) Republicans seem to believe that creating a budget is an Executive Branch responsibility. "It is astounding that the President has shirked his responsibility to submit a budget on time for 4 of the last 5 years." - Rep. Roger Williams (TX) It isn't. "The fact of the matter is it is our responsibility. Not a nickel can be spent in America unless the Congress authorizes it to be spent. The President can't spend money on his own. Not a nickel can be raised in this country, of revenue, without the Congress acting on it. The President can't do that. It is the Congress of the United States, under article I, that has this responsibility. We're not taking that responsibility. We're trying to shove it off on somebody else, in this case, the President of the United States." - Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) What's really happening is the House is wasting almost all of February and to let the sequester crisis come down to the last minute. A deal needs to be done by Friday, March 1. Republicans are trying to re-write history and pretend President Obama created the sequester. "To add to the uncertainty, the President's proposed sequestration is set to take effect this March…." -Rep. Austin Scott (GA) "President Obama's sequester is an important issue." -Rep. Tom Price (GA) "What we should do is replace the President's sequester with responsible reforms that will help balance the budget in 10 years." -Rep John Boehner (OH), Speaker of the House Reality: In 2011, the GOP was refusing to raise the debt ceiling. In order to pay our bills, the President and Senate had to promise the GOP House that they would get $2 trillion in government cuts. $1 trillion in cuts were in the Budget Control Act. The second trillion was supposed to be decided on by the SuperCommittee. The sequester was the painful-for-everyone-so-it'll-never-happen penalty that was supposed to bring everyone to the bargaining table. "We put sequester in place thinking it was so irrational and would have such a negative effect that clearly we would address the matter in the last 14 months. We didn't…. It was a silly bill. The Senate passed it and the President signed it because it was the only way we could make sure that we did not put the creditworthiness of the United States at risk." -Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) Now, Republicans are actually considering letting the sequester happen! "I, for one, felt that the delay in the sequester on January 1 was not in the country's best interest. These were the cuts that the Congress promised to the American people. When the debt limit was raised in August of 2011, this was the promise that was made, and it was a promise that was made by the President. It was pro-posed by people within the administration. The bill was signed into law by the President... Every line in every appropriations bill has a constituency somewhere that cares deeply about that language being retained. So, when all else fails, an across-the-board cut may be the only way that you can ever achieve that spending restraint." Rep. Michael Burgess (TX) The House will be in session for only 8 days before the sequester takes effect. The Leaked "White Memo": Authorizes Drone Strikes on American Citizens Highlights (or lowlights, if you prefer)... "Sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida." "A targeted killing of a U.S. citizen who has joined al-Qa'ida or its associated forces would be lawful under U.S. and international law." Three conditions must be met: # 1: "An informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determine that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." But... "The condition that an operational leader preset an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." "A decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of al-Qa'ida are continually plotting attacks…the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur." #2: Capture must be "infeasible". "Capture would not be feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation." #3: The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. (Necessity, distinction proportionality, and humanity) "There is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict- such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs- as long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war." What about due process guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution? "In these circumstances, the "realities" of the conflict and the weight of the government's interest in protecting its citizens from and imminent attack are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to such a U.S. citizen before using lethal force." How is this justified? "Congress's authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida under international law." The memo specifically names the Authorization for Use of Military Force from 2001, signed in the days following 9/11. Doesn't targeting a certain person for death count as an assassination? "It is a lawful act of self defense." "A lawful killing in self defense is not an assassination." But Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son (who was never considered associated with al-Qa'ida) were in Yemen when they were blown up by United States' drone strikes. Wasn't the Authorization for Military Force for hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan? "The United States is currently in a non-international armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and its associated forces… Any U.S. operation would be part of this non-international armed conflict, even if it were to take place away from the zone of active hostilities." "The AUMF itself does not set forth an express geographic limitation on the use of fore it authorizes." This sounds unconstitutional. Maybe the courts should decide this? "The Department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutionals considerations."  

The Budget Control Act passed by Congress directs that on January 2, 2013, the Obama administration must cut the defense budget by at least $55 billion and cut the same amount from domestic discretionary spending. Some observers assert that such reductions will damage the economy and increase unemployment. Even many who view excessive government spending as economically counterproductive oppose Pentagon cuts. These concerns are overblown, Cato scholars explain. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been visiting military leaders in South America, affirming military-to-military relationships and discussing security issues on the continent. General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also been traveling. He has visited troops in Afghanistan and is taking part in a NATO conference in Brussels, Belgium. At the NATO conference General Dempsey and other NATO defense leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. April is Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month in the Department of Defense. Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno released a message to soldiers and their families about the Army's Sexual Harassment, Assault Response and Prevention, or "SHARP" program. The Budget Control Act has asked that the Marine Corps downsize by 20-thousand marines for a post Afghanistan environment and the Marine Corps has accepted the challenge. Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos said that even though the Marine Corps will be smaller, it will remain just as capable.

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler reviewd the current fiscal situation and important dates contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011. This is Part 1 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

In this PodCast, Bob Keebler focuses on the tax issues raised by the Budget Control Act of 2011, along with what Congress might do in in the future. Bob also reviews the things advisors should be doing to help their clients. This is Part 2 of 2 This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com