1NC
European Reassurance Initiative funding wont pass now tentative coalitions preventing.Gould 2/10[Joe, Defense News, GOP Lawmakers Rip DoD Budget Request, http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/09/gop-lawmakers-rip-dod-budget-request/80065394/, MM DA 2/12/16]WASHINGTON The White Houses federal budget landed on Capitol Hill with a thud on Tuesday, and key Republicans in Congress lined up early to bash it.Reaction to Pentagons $523.9 billion base budget request for the Pentagon, and $58.8 billion wartime budget, comes amid a brewing fight to rewrite the 2017 budget in line with, or spite of the Bipartisan Budget Actof 2015, depending on whom you ask.Fiscal hawks want to plus-up defense through the wartime overseas contingency operations (OCO) account, which Democrats would be expected to seek to match in non-defense spending, while some lawmakers on the GOPs right flank want to restore budget caps, a politically tricky maneuver that would in effect cut $30 billion from the budget.House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and other Republicans in Congress have argued the defense budget should be raised as much as $23 billion via an increase in OCO funding based on threats facing the US and other developments since the budget deal was struck in 2015. They claim the budget deal permits such a hike, though there are hints key Democrats disagree."I am disappointed that this request does not adhere to the budget agreement made just last fall, Thornberry said in a statement Tuesday. Last year, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which establishes a minimum level of funding for our military. I hoped such an agreement would provide some budget stability and begin to rebuild our military. Unfortunately, this Administration continues to play budgetary games with our countrys security and diminishes what credibility it had left."Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters Tuesday he would raise hell to increase the Pentagon budget and invoked the Islamic State-inspired attack on San Bernardino, Calif.I just think the numbers are wrong, McCain said of the Pentagon budget. Its $17 billion short of last year, and in the intervening time, weve had attacks on the United States. When will these people wake up? There will be more attacks on the United States of America, this is not the time to be cutting defense spending.The SASC's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jack Reedof Rhode Island, lauded the president's proposalas a "solid blueprint to help grow our economy, expand opportunity, and keep Americans safe."It also proposes significant funds for readiness needs of our military and focuses on future threats," Reed said in a statement Tuesday. The President also commits needed resources for the fight against ISIS and the European Reassurance Initiative to counter Russia."The HASC's ranking member, Rep. Adam Smith, of Washington, did not immediately wadedeep into the debate.As Ranking Member of HASC, I know that the primary responsibility the House Armed Services Committee is to support our military with predictable funding that enables our Armed Services to provide for our national defense," Smith said in a statement Tuesday. "I want to fully understand the Presidents budget proposal before making any decisions on overall funding levels or individual programs, and I welcome a debate about the appropriate funding for FY17 for the Department of Defense to ensure that our military has the resources that it needs.Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Republican efforts to upendthe budget agreement, implying a new fight would risk animpasse and agovernment shutdown."They must be living in a time warp," Reid told reporters Tuesday. "We're already been through that. I don't think they want to close government again. The law's in effect and we're going to stick with what we did last December.House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, in panning President Obamas overall $4.23 trillion request to Congress as disconnected from the nations budgetary constraints, vowed to produce bills that abide by the budget caps eased by last years agreement an apparent rebuke to his partys staunchest fiscal hawks.But most importantly, they will be fiscally responsible, reflecting the needs of our federal government and the American people while protecting our financial future, Rogers, R-Ky., said of the bills in a statement.House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Md., hammered Obama for an overall $2.5 trillion budget increase, claiming the budget will raise taxes by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. Price said House Republicans will offer an alternative to the presidents stale, big government policies, that meets the fiscal, economic and national security challenges of the 21st Century.We will be presenting a positive vision for Americas future with a plan to strengthen our economy, rebuild confidence in our country, give our military the resources they need to carry out their missions, save and strengthen vital programs that will ensure health and retirement security for millions of Americans, and balance the budget. We refuse to accept the status quo, Price said.
McConnell holding the party lines now any votes jeopardize congressional GOP coalitions against Obamas budget.Marty 2/8[Robin, Obamas Last Budget May Be Ignored by the GOP, http://www.care2.com/causes/obamas-last-budget-may-be-ignored-by-the-gop.html#ixzz403g3suL9, MM DA 2/13/16]According to Earnst this is the first time in 16 years that the Director hasnt been invited to brief Congress a period leading back into the Bill Clinton presidency, and shows that the Republican party has essentially shut the door to any attempts at making the government function as long as President Obama is in office. That statement may not be far from the truth, either. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear just last week that when it comes to any major policy issues, as far as the GOP is concerned everything is done until President Obama is out of office.For anyone who thought Congress might accomplish something in 2016, this dose of cold water comes fromthe Hills Alexander Bolton, who reports that probably aint happening, reportsVox.com. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), seeking to protect his majority in a tough cycle for Republicans, is leaning toward holding back several measures that have bipartisan support but are divisive in his conference. So, for example, that bipartisan criminal justicereform billthat looked so promising, the one Republicans and Democrats hadworked so hard onto reach a compromise. Yeah, the Senate wont be voting on that. Or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Or the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Or really anything. Because why force anybody to take tough votes?The GOPs refusal to actually try to govern for the next 11 months or longer shows exactly what a dangerous predicament the entire Republican party is in. A vote on literally any issue could either anger their base, or anger the moderates they need to get reelected, depending on which way they cast their ballots. Either possibility appears to spell disaster for a conservative movement so dramatically split in two.Of course, if the GOP cant govern and can only block legislation, its the American people who will suffer from a government that grinds to a halt. The budget battle is just the first sign of a crisis just waiting in the wings.
European arms deal goes nuclearFisher 2/9[Max, Vox, The risk of an unintended war with Russia in Europe, explained in one map, http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10949894/russia-europe-war-map, MM DA 2/12/16]Russia's aggression in Europe its invasion of Ukraine, its military flights up the noses of NATO states, itsnuclear saber rattling has faded from the news. But it's still very much a threat, which is why the US is planning toquadrupleitsmilitary spendingin Europe, something NATO's European members have welcomed, to deter Russia.In other words, the dynamics that brought Cold Warstyle military tension to Europe in 2015 are still with us. And that tension can be dangerous.This summer, I wrote about a small but alarmed community of analysts and experts in the US, Europe, and Russia who earnestly worried thatthe risk of an unintended war had grown unacceptably high. A survey of100 policy expertsyielded an aggregate assessment of 11 percent odds of war and 18 percent odds that such a war would include nuclear weapons. (A subsequent, larger surveybacked this up.)Since then, my informal check-ins with my sources have led me to believe that this concern has not dissipated. And, in late January, scholars with the Zurich-basedCenter for Security Studiesproduced a map, as part ofa longer report that you can read here, that helps show why this is still a real issue:The map shows military exercises held by Russia and by NATO in 2014 and 2015. Each circle represents an exercise, and the larger circles mean more troops participated.Obviously, both Russia and European states have been holding military exercises since before tensions spiked last year. And that's exactly the point: Military volatility is baked into Eastern Europe, such that when tensions do spike it has the capability to make the continent suddenly much more precarious.I want to call your attention to the Baltic Sea, the body of water tucked between Sweden and the NATO-allied Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. (Recall that all NATO members, including the US, have pledged to go to war to defend any other NATO member that is attacked.) That little region is the focus of all this.The geography of the Baltics make it enormously insecure for both Russia and for NATO, and this is why nearly every expert I spoke to warned thatit is a potential tinderbox, where some unforeseen accident, miscalculation, or provocation could, in an unlikely but real worst-case scenario, send both sides careening into a conflict that neither wants.The Kaliningrad problemLook at the little red spot sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania: That's a part of Russia called Kaliningrad, which Russia took over after World War II. Kaliningrad is heavily militarized, partly because Russia uses it as a base for projecting power and partly because Moscow's conspiratorial-minded leaders fear that Europe is bent on retaking Kaliningrad.Russia worries that in the case of any conflict small or large, Europe and the US would exploit it as an excuse to seize and pacify Kaliningrad. (If that sounds crazy to you, it doesn't to Russian leaders, who after alljustseized and annexed part of a foreign country, and who earnestly believe the US isbent on Russia's destruction.) So it has built up Kaliningrad's defenses.But Kaliningrad iscompletely isolatedfrom the rest of Russia; it's surrounded by NATO states. And after Ukraine, NATO began putting a lot more troops and tanks in those NATO states. This was meant to defend the Baltics from a possible Ukraine-style provocation, but it also ended up cutting off Kaliningrad even more. There's other stuff happening as well for example, the Baltics are moving onto aseparate power grid, which could make Kaliningrad more reliant on Europe to power itself.Russia clearly feels it needs a plan to defend Kaliningrad in the case of a conflict. So it's done two things, which are likely meant as defensive but also have offensive capability hence their destabilizing danger.First, Russia has installed a kind of weapon that it's been very good lately at developing: area-denial weapons, such as anti-air missiles, that give Russia the ability to shut down an entire region and prevent NATO from moving in. These are indicated on the map with blue-line circles around Kaliningrad.Second, Russia has conducted exercises near the Baltics that look at leastpotentiallylike they're designed to, if necessary, open a ground corridor from mainland Russia to Kaliningrad. This includes, for example, Russian military flights across or into Baltic airspace, which appear meant to test NATO response times.The idea would be to prevent NATO from overrunning or isolating Kaliningrad by opening basically a giant military highway to it. But that would mean cutting through the Baltic states that separate them. In other words, it would mean invading them.The Baltics problemThe dynamic here is that even if Russia's agenda here is purely a worst-case-scenario defensive plan to protect Kaliningrad, it also looks exactly like a plan to invade and seize the Baltic states. As NATO sees Russia building up around the Baltics, it is doing the same.It's not that US and European leaders think Moscow is going to just up and occupy Latvia out of the blue. Rather, they are in the same situation as Russia is with Kaliningrad: The Baltic states are insecure in ways that require NATO to build them up, and this looks offensive to Russia.The Baltic states are physically isolated from the rest of Europe. Baltic militaries arevery weak compared with Russia's much larger force. And Baltic leaders are convinced,not without reason, that Moscow has designs to launch some sort of Ukraine-style hybrid quasi-war against them not an all-out invasion, but some sort of potentially violent meddling.This is why the US has been conducting military exercises in the Baltics and part of why it is quadrupling military investment in Europe: to build up the Baltics as a deterrent against Russia. But the effect of this buildup is to further isolate Kaliningrad, potentially increasing Moscow's paranoia and helping to motivate its own buildup, and so on.The Eastern Europe security dilemma and the potential for warThese Baltics dynamics are, taken together, a classic example of what political scientists call a security dilemma, in which each side feels insecure and builds up to reach parity, which prompts the other side to do the same.Because neither side can know the other's intentions for sure, defensive measures are seen as at least potentially offensive, and buildups lead to buildups, which can lead to war.This is especially dangerous in Eastern Europe because both sides are developing not just stronger but faster military measures, such as air-launched cruise missiles, meant to fight and win any conflict as quickly as possible. This drastically reduces response time, meaning that in case of some provocation or accident that could be misread as something bigger, both sides could have only minutes to decide whether to escalate or deescalate.The scenarios that could lead to war are discussed ingreater depth here. But an accident or misstep is not impossible, given that Russian military jets are already flying in or near NATO airspace with some regularity.And, yes, this is made all the more dangerous by the presence of nuclear weapons particularly given Russia's development of small-scale "battlefield" or "tactical" nuclear weapons, and its nuclear doctrine that sets a lower bar for launching warheads than does America's.CArdsUQLink
Ryan will pass a budget nowMcCarter 2/11[Joan, JOAN MCCARTER Blog Stream Groups Following Profile The House Republican fiscal fight kicks into gear, with Paul Ryan stuck in the middle, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/11/1483437/-The-House-Republican-fiscal-fight-kicks-into-gear-with-Paul-Ryan-stuck-in-the-middle, MM DA 2/13/16]House Speaker Paul Ryan had a brief respite from kissing up to the maniacs that drove out his predecessor, John Boehner, in the form of a budget agreement negotiated by Boehner last fall and a couple of long holiday breaks. But that's all over nowasRyan tries to figure out how to pass spending bills based on that budget agreement and get it all done by August, the deadline in an election year.Good luck to himon that.House conservatives are threatening to vote against the annual budget resolution if it includes a $30 billion spending increase that was agreed to by congressional leaders late last year. The disagreement is threatening to derail House Speaker Paul D. Ryan's plan to quickly move spending bills this year in an effort to show Republicans can effectively handle the basic responsibilities of governing.Some Republicans are now suggesting one way to avoid a messy intra-party fight is to skip drafting a broad budget framework and jump directly to writing the annual spending bills based on last year's funding agreement."Yes, I think so," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said Wednesday when asked if he would support this plan.Those House conservatives are still pissed off that Boehner thwarted their worst efforts last year, and that they werebeguiled enoughby the promise of Ryan to go along with it. Now they want to reject that agreement after the factand start over from scratch. "Let's write a Republican budget, a budget that actually lowers spending," said Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, who apparently was notmollifedby having Ryan headline his birthday fundraiser this week.If House leaders decide to spurn the maniacs and forego the budget bill writing, then Ryan is going to be in a position that Boehner found himself in time and time again: Needing to negotiate with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to get the Democratic votes necessary to get spending bills passed. Thats the verything that the maniacs hated the most about Boehner.Ryan needs to make this happen. He needs to demonstrate, in an election year, that Republicans can actually govern and he needs this personally and politically to show thathecan lead. Once againgood luck with that.That scenario is a real possibility as the Wisconsin Republican struggles to unite the warring factions of his 246-member GOP conference.Conservatives are revolting against higher top-line spending levels negotiated last fall by President Obama and Ryans predecessor, then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). GOP centrists are digging in on the other side, pledging to kill any budget that deviates from the two-year, bipartisan budget deal.Ryan has been listening to all sides and hopes his party can work out its differences internally, insisting hes not the micromanager or dictator of the House. But the former Budget Committee chairman still believes sticking with the current figures gives the House the best chance to return to regular order and a more traditional appropriations process.That would put the power of the purse back in the hands of Congress, hes argued, so lawmakers can hold the Obama administration accountable.I was the chair of the Budget Committee. I feel very strongly about budgeting, Ryan told reporters Thursday. I feel very strongly about getting a real, working appropriations process so that that we can reclaim the power of the purse.When Ryan huddles with fellow House Republicans in the Capitols basementFriday, hell lay out several options on the budget. But none of them are perfect:Lower budget numbers to appease fiscal conservativesThe far-right House Freedom Caucus gave migraines last year to Boehner, ultimately pressuring him to resign and blocking Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from succeeding him.Now, the nearly 40-member bloc of conservative hard-liners is causing headaches for Ryan.In group meetings and one-on-one conversations, Freedom Caucus lawmakers have been pressing the new Speaker to abandon the higher Obama-Boehner spending levels and return to lower numbers from the 2011 sequester.I am not one of those people who will be constrained by the number from last year. There are a growing amount of people will not do that, said a defiant Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), a Freedom member who recently told constituents back home that Ryanfolded like a cheap suitwhen he voted for the catch-all omnibus spending bill last December.Theres even chatter that Budget Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) might not be able to get a budget out of his committee given that its stacked with six Freedom Caucus members: Reps. Dave Brat, (R-Va.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), Rod Blum (Iowa), Alex Mooney (W.Va.) and Gary Palmer (R-Ala.).It may be a heavier lift in committee than getting it off the floor, quipped one leadership source.But if Ryan, Price and other GOP leaders agreed to go back to the lower sequester levels, theyll risk a separate revolt from centrists in their party. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), co-chairman of the centrist TuesdayGroup, said he and other Republicans are prepared to vote down any GOP budget resolution that scraps the Boehner-Obama deal.
Collapsed conference means moderates will compromise and increase military spendingByas 2/11[Steve, New American, Republicans Divided in Response to Obama's Budget, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22527-republicans-divided-in-response-to-obama-s-budget, MM DA 2/13/16]One of the problems faced in the Republican caucus is the battle between "budget hawks" and "defense hawks." Budget hawks are Republicans who simply want to cut spending, across the board. Defense hawks generally are in agreement with cutting domestic spending, but are staunch advocates of increased military spending. In order to get Democrat votes for increased defense appropriations, these Republicans tend to cut deals with the Democrats and go along with social spending favored by the Democrats. Thus, federal spending continues to rise, year after year.Republican leadership Ryan now, and Boehner before him tends to argue that in a divided government situation, with the president wielding the veto pen, there is only so much Republicans can do. This argument is beginning to wear thin with members of the Freedom Caucus and the Republican grassroots, who are generally much more conservative than Republican members of Congress. The passage of the Omnibus Budget of late last year remains a sore point for many conservatives, in and out of Congress. That budget continued full funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization revealed to having been involved in the sale of baby body parts. Sanctuary cities localities that ignore federal immigration law and harbor illegal aliens will continue receiving federal funds uninterrupted. Visas for foreign workers, which lead to the displacement of American workers, received an increase in funding. Democrats won extensions for tax credits for solar and wind production. Efforts to block Obamas executive actions on immigration were not included in the bill.Ryan is wooing conservative members of the House, no doubt noting the fall of John Boehner last year. He has included many of Boehners opponents in weekly informal meetings, and seeks the advice of these more conservative members on major legislative issues. He has turned over more authority to the chairmen of committees.
Matishak 2/12[Martin, Fiscal Times, Why Paul Ryan's Budget Deal Could Go Down in Flames, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/02/12/Why-Paul-Ryans-Budget-Deal-Could-Go-Down-Flames, MM DA 2/13/16]One week after the Republican-controlled Congress broke with over 40 years of tradition by denying the White House budget director a chance to explain the administrations annual budget request, the GOP is coming precariously close to not being able to come up with its own spending blueprint.A group of hardcore House conservatives has seized on two recent developments the U.S. national debt reaching a record $19 trillion and a Congressional Budget Office report that the deficit will spike in 2016 for the first time in seven years to demand $30 billion in spending cuts before a vote can happen on a budget resolution whose topline numbers were determined by congressional leaders late last year.We need to write a budget that reflects the environment were in, House Freedom Caucus chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Thursday during a Capitol Hill press conference, specifically citing the debt figure and the CBO report. To me, thats what drives it.Were still pretty firm on the number, said Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).The conflict has been brewing since last September, when former House Speaker John Boehner (OH) helped forge a two-year deal that lifted looming budgets caps by raising discretionary spending by $50 billion in fiscal 2016 and $30 billion in 2017.The agreement was the final achievement for Boehner, who was driven out of office by his increasingly public brawls with the Freedom Caucus, and conservatives gave his successor Paul Ryan (WI) a pass as he worked to pass the deal. However, 179 House Republicans voted against the deal, a clear sign of deep-rooted conservative anger.Now Ryan -- a former House Budget Committee chair who has spent months promising that Republicans will no longer just be the party of no and give the American public a clear contrast with Democrats in a presidential election year -- faces a fork in the road that could open him up to the same criticisms that hounded Boehner into retirement and prompt new complaints from the minority that the GOP cant govern.Congressional budget resolutions dont become law but they do serve as a fiscal roadmap that lays out in detail the majority partys spending priorities for the year. If Ryan cant quiet his right flank, he could be forced to ditch the budget process all together and skip straight to drafting the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government.Such a move would violate his promises to return the chamber to regular order and take up the spending bills individually.That route could also be problematic for conservatives because without the budget blueprint to guide appropriators there is less incentive to write the 12 separate spending bills, thereby greatly increasing the chances of a free-spending, catch-all omnibus bill to keep the governments doors open.Meanwhile, mainstream Republican might revolt if Ryan buckles under conservative demands and reneges on the budget agreement. He also would face new opposition from defense hawks, who already want to see the topline number increased by over $20 billion.Freedom Caucus members argue the choice is simple: a smaller budget is in line with conservative values and therefore meets Ryans goal of contrasting with the Democrats.Labrador said billionaire Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide earlier this week because the American people dont trust the Republican Party to do the things we promised to do.We are $19 trillion in debt and weve got a whole town that wants to ignore that, said Tea Party Caucus chair Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). Were talking about $30 billion. ***Rep. David Brat (R-VA), who dubbed the two-year deal a crap sandwich, said he could support higher spending if Ryan made commitments in writing to find savings quickly on other issues the Wisconsin lawmaker has highlighted, like welfare reform.Jordan rejected the idea that just because the two-year budget deal set the topline numbers, lawmakers must adhere to it.He noted that the budget panel passed a blueprint last year only to see it grow on the chamber floor after defense hawks won more money for the Pentagon and grew again in the final bargain after leaders promised Democrats to match every new dollar in defense with one on the domestic side.The logic that we have to follow that number We have never done that. Are you kidding me?! he asked.Tensions could come to a head on Friday when Ryan, who has spent the last few weeks casually meeting with members, reveals the path forward to the entire House GOP Conference.If Republicans and Democrats cant find a way to trim $30 billion from a $4 trillion budget, then none of us deserve to be here as members of Congress, said Labrador.We should hang our heads in shame.
Congressional schism Rasley 2/11[George, CHQ, Memo to House Republicans: Ryans Agenda Will Help Trump and Cruz, http://www.conservativehq.com/article/22323-memo-house-republicans-ryan%E2%80%99s-agenda-will-help-trump-and-cruz, MM DA 2/13/16]Speaker of the House Paul Ryan gave a speech recently in which he admonished conservatives not to rebel against his agenda as they did against that of the feckless John Boehner.And now that Ryans budget strategy has become public the reason for his preemptive strike against those conservatives seeking to keep him and the House GOP true to their campaign promises and theRepublicanParty principlesis pretty clear.Ryans oft quoted promise to make Republicansthe partyof proposition, not oppositionis simply code for the establishment Republican aims of growing government and making it more efficient managers of the money the Leviathan extorts from producers.Last fall, on his way out the door, former Speaker John Boehner forced through a budget deal that would fund the government until the end of September, right before the Election.Ryan wants no change in the increased spending in that Budget and no fight with Obama about spending right before the Election.But some conservatives have other ideas.Conservatives in the House who mostlygave Ryan a pass back then now say they want to pass their own budget with far tighter spending restrictionsnow that President Obama has released his final budget.If we are going to pass a Republican budget, it should reflect Republican ideals, said Representative MickMulvaney,(SC-5)a member of the Freedom Caucus that is leading the charge. That means lower spending.This apparently did not sit well with Speaker Ryan.AsThe New York Timesreported, Mr. Ryan, himself a former budget chairman, looked away, like a mildly embarrassed father stationed near the sandbox where his kids are throwing sand.But rather than backing an alternative based on conservative principles Ryan simply offered more talk.This isnt even a budget, so much as it is a progressive manual for growing the federal government at the expense of hard-working Americans, Mr. Ryan said of Obamas budget.Gee Paul, Obama is a progressive in favor of growing government, who knew?Ryan, like the establishment Republican presidential candidates,offers commentary, but no alternatives, because he and his leadership team dont really want to give up the power and potential favors for cronies that all that spending provides.At least some House conservatives are not buying Ryans plan.The New York Timesreports that ata recent meeting backhome in Arizona,Representative PaulGosarsaidRyan had foldedlike a cheap suit on thevote for the omnibus spending bill.And more importantly in this historic presidential election year, overwhelming numbers of grassroots conservative voters arent buying it either.A recentFedUpPAC online pollfound89%of those responding to the poll thoughtRyans position is a betrayal of conservatives. Fighting Obama in Congress with a conservative agenda is very important to 93%. The possibility that the Republican Congress will fail to stop Obamas agenda is a matter of great concern to 92%. Ryans comments were seen by 89% as an attack on presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.Abandoning conservative principles would mean giving up winning issues according to 65%of those polled. Many conservatives remember how opposition toObamaCare, amnesty, gun control and skyrocketing Federal spending helped Republicans in 2010 and 2014. Ryans distaste for opposingObamas amnesty programs is a major point of disagreement, with 92% noting that it is a betrayal of the Republican platform.In a telling comment on the political futures of House and Senate Republicans, the poll found thatHouse and Senate Republicans who line up with Ryan could find themselves in political trouble. Only 5% of conservatives are more likely to vote for a congressman who supports Ryans budget plan, while 89% say they would be less likely. Removing Ryan as Speaker has 84% support.CHQ Chairman Richard A. ViguerieattributedDonald Trumps yuuge win in New Hampshireto the white hot anger of grassroots conservative voters at the betrayals and surrenders of Washingtons Republican establishment leaders.Here are my quick takeaways from yesterday's New Hampshire Primary election," said Mr. Viguerie, First, congratulations to the fathers of Trump's victory - Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Reince Priebus.Also let's not forget the many other architects of Trump's victory - all Big Government GOP politicians, consultants and lobbyists whose love of power, corrupt government and manipulation of the rules fueled the voters' anger.Speaker Ryans reaction to RepresentativeMulvaneyscall for a budget that reflects Republican principles shows Ryan is completely tone deaf to what is driving the outsider candidacies of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump they are not winning the Republican Primaries by campaigning against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders they are winning by campaigning against Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Reince Priebus and the rest of the feckless, principle-free Capitol Hill Republican leaders and Ryans plan for this years budget will only fuel their candidacies.
No one is locked in maintaining the status quo is crucialSherman and Bresnahan[Jake and John, Politico, Ryan faces moment of truth with House Conservatives, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/paul-ryan-congress-house-republicans-fever-219109#ixzz404FPvKTpd, MM DA 2/13/16]Speaker Paul Ryan has sat quietly in budget meetings during the past few weeks, as lawmakers munch on snacks and nurse beers and sodas. Attendees say hes been in listening mode.But with a stubbornly large pocket of conservative Republicans hellbent on reversing recently increased spending levels, Ryan (R-Wis.) finally has a chance to change the governing dynamic thats stunted progress in the House for a half-dozen years.Ryan sees the 2017 budget logjam in starkly simple terms and hes expected to lay them out Friday morning at a closed party meeting. Either conservatives will support the spending blueprint at levels agreed to last year by former Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama, or they could be forced to skip the appropriations process altogether.The cuts conservatives seek could never garner the votes to pass the House. And if the party cant clear appropriations bills, conservatives will be forced to swallow something they despise even more: a catchall omnibus later this year.In other words, in the GOP leaderships view, the dream of a House that operates under regular order is about to meet the reality of what it takes to make that happen.Whats most important is you do not want to relinquish power to the White House, the spending authority from Congress, by not doing a budget resolution, said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whos been working with Ryan. Then you dont have the appropriations process. If we want to make real change, weve got to be able to look long-term to see what we will be able to achieve.If would be a real embarrassment for Ryan a former Budget Committee chairman to be forced to abandon the budget process. Many in GOP leadership nonetheless say its a distinct possibility. But the speaker wants to get out of the game of setting unrealistic expectations, and move back to reality. After all, the increase in discretionary spending in last years plan is a mere $40 million, a fraction of a percent of the annual $4.1 trillion federal budget.Ryan wants members to be very clear on what they are advocating and its possible repercussions. And the GOP leadership is moving in a very deliberate manner, trying to avoid complaints of a top-down solution imposed on the rank and file that marked the Boehner era.Thats not to say Ryan isnt willing to compromise. Aides say hes been open to a multitude of suggestions to take the sting out of the higher spending: a vote on new work requirements for welfare, a deficit-reduction package, or a promise for entitlement reform. But members must be willing to pass a budget at the agreed-to spending level or else, its all just a game.Ryan has begun to walk lawmakers through this reality during the late-night meetings in the Capitol. On Friday, hell put it in starker terms for lawmakers before they leave town for more than a week.No one is locked in, said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who serves as chief deputy whip. Everybody is working in good will. Everyone sees the goal weve got to achieve.Its not a rubber-meets-the-road moment just for the House Republican Conference; its also one for Ryan. So far, his straight-talking, no-more-overpromising attitude has worked.He cleared a government funding bill late last year that also removed the threat of any legislative calamity until after the 2016 election. Lawmakers caught flak when they were back in their districts, but in Washington, Ryan quickly pivoted to crafting a new agenda. He set up lawmaker-led task forces designed to produce legislation to strengthen defense, help end poverty and rein in what the GOP considers regulatory overreach.Ryan also quietly hired an outside law firm to examine filing a lawsuit against the Obama administration for its policy on releasing detainees from the Guantnamo Bay prison. Ryan has dramatically lowered the barriers between leadership and the rank and file, holding weekly advisory meetings with conservatives and moderates in the conference. And hes been reaching out to the conservative movement, speaking recently at The Heritage Actions policy summit.On Wednesday afternoon, Ryan even headlined a pair of fundraisers for Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rod Blum of Iowa, members of the House Freedom Caucus.But all of that work cant solve the tough task ahead or paper over the continuing divisions in the GOP conference. Passing appropriations bills is at the heart of Ryans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells (R-Ky.) promise to restore regular order. They even ensured that Reid would not block consideration of spending bills a big concession for the top Democrat.But conservatives think they are being asked to pass a spending blueprint at a level far too high for a conservative majority. Theyre backed by groups such as Heritage Action, whose leaders have been quietly strategizing with top House conservatives.Its a tall task for Ryan, McCarthy, Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and McHenry. And time is short. First, they have to clear the measure out of the Budget Committee, which is filled with hard-line Republicans. Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who sits on the budget panel, said hes trying very hard to find a way to vote yes in committee and on the House floor.If he promises, Hey, we are going to do [entitlement reform], something for sure, not just a vision. Lets make a promise that bold vision is for real, Brat said in an interview on Wednesday.The process has been helped a bit by Ryans close relationship with Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price of Georgia. Last year, under Boehners leadership, McHenry, Scalise, McCarthy and the speaker had to twist arms to get the measure to clear the panel, and Price was upset at leaderships heavy hand. That wont be repeated this year: A committee vote is expected the last week of the month.If Republicans can get their proposed resolution out of the committee not a sure thing by any means it faces a tough vote on the House floor. GOP leaders believe they have a minimum of 150 votes to start. But that means they still have to woo 68 more Republicans to ensure passage, since no help will come from Democrats.
Steinhauer 2/10[Jennifer, NYT, Paul Ryans Budget Strategy Collides With Conservatives Demands, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/us/politics/paul-ryans-budget-strategy-collides-with-conservatives-demands.html, MM DA 2/13/16]WASHINGTON Competing with the din of a nasty presidential primary, the House speaker,Paul D. Ryanof Wisconsin, has essentially been begging Republicans to unite and become the party of proposition, not opposition.But after a brief period of geniality after Mr. Ryan was drafted into his current job, he is facing some of the same pressures that brought down his predecessor,John A. Boehner, over how the government spends its money.The release of President Obamas eighth and final budget on Tuesday has forced into the open the seething tensions that never really went away after a spending agreement was reached last year, in part to ease Mr. Ryans transition into the speakers suite. That deal set spending until the end of October of this year, at levels that the president adhered to and Senate Republicans hope to make stick.
But a core group of House Republicans who gave Mr. Ryan a pass back then now say they want to toss those numbers out like so much flotsam and pass their own budget with far tighter spending restrictions.If we are going to pass a Republican budget, it should reflect Republican ideals, said Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South Carolina and a member of the Freedom Caucus that is leading the charge. That means lower spending.Mr. Ryan does not support the plan, knowing that a tighter budget and conforming appropriations bills will not go very far. Further, Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees have declared that the presidents budget director will not be welcome to testify at their budget hearings, a highly unusual and monumentally partisan snub.Mr. Ryan, himself a former budget chairman, looked away, like a mildly embarrassed father stationed near the sandbox where his kids are throwing sand.But rather than proposing alternatives, Republicans offered a torrent of invective for the presidents budget.This isnt even a budget, so much as it is a progressive manual for growing the federal government at the expense of hard-working Americans, Mr. Ryan said.As a practical matter, drafting a budget everyone can agree on is not essential to governing. Spending can be set at the current levels, and would expire just a few months before a new Congress started and the next inhabitant of the White House moved in.But passing a budget something that Republicans long mocked Democrats for failing to do sets the stage for pondering the appropriations bills, which Mr. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, said was their main priority this year.Mr. Ryan is also trying to set a policy agenda, one that he hopes the Republican presidential nominee will take cues from this year.Another impasse between the speaker, who labors within the reality of divided government, and the most conservative members of the House, who do not abide that reality, highlights the fact that while the congressional elections of 2010 gave Republicans a sturdy hold on the House, their inability to reach internal consensus continues to limit their ability to leave a significant imprint on governing and public policy.The leadership team knows that number must be adhered to and would be an act of bad faith on behalf of the House if we were to renege, said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania and a member of the House Appropriations Committee.It seems some are insistent about carrying on and setting unrealistic expectations. This is another example of members who are creating a lot of drama when there is absolutely no need to do so.For now, Mr. Ryan may not care much about the crabbing. He is focused more on messaging principles and plans for a potential Republican president than on the current practicality of governing.But the tensions are rising to the surface in ways that may not be helpful to either focus.Ata recent meeting back home in Arizona, for instance, Representative Paul Gosar said Mr. Ryan had folded like a cheap suit on a vote for the omnibus spending bill.Others are tired of the struggles. As it is, the class of 2010 which delivered scores of new Republicans to the House is slowly being winnowed. About half of the 87 Republican newcomers elected that year are gone or on their way out the door.Although their reasons vary, the constant conflagrations, ones that pit old-fashioned defense hawks who approve of some increased spending against the growing class of deficit hawks, have loomed. It is a complicated process because the former speaker, as he walked out, decided he was going to cut a two-year deal knowing full well they would not have full support of the majority of Republicans, said Representative Reid Ribble, Republican of Wisconsin, who will retire this year.As such, he said, Mr. Ryan is in the identical box that Speaker Boehner was in.Mr. Ryan has tried hard to make inroads with the conservative members who felled Mr. Boehner.He has included some of them in his informal kitchen cabinet, which meets weekly, and seeks their counsel on big legislative moves. He has tried to cede as much authority as possible to committee chairmen and expanded the Republican conference to include more of the conservative members.Last week, he gave a speech at a policy meeting at Heritage Action, a policy group that has long poked at Mr. Boehner and Mr. Ryan, pleading for Republican unity.But he also took a few shots of his own.We cant let how you vote on an amendment to an appropriations bill define what it means to be a conservative, because its setting our sights too low, he said.The reception was roughly akin to the popularity of lemonade that has been warming for hours on the porch.We were excited that Speaker Ryan was able to kick off the conservative policy summit, said Dan Holler, a spokesman for the group.But he added, If our goal as conservatives is to put forward a blueprint that contrasts with Hillary and Bernie, we must start with the budget and continue throughout the spring and summer with ambitious and aspirational policy reforms.
Herb 2/11[Jeremy, Politico, Congress eyes changes to new DoD budget, http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-defense/2016/02/congress-eyes-changes-to-new-dod-budget-carter-meets-on-isil-in-brussels-senate-passes-north-korean-sanctions-212651, MM DA 2/13/16]BUDGET BLOWBACK CONGRESS SEES LOTS TO CHANGE ABOUT THE PENTAGONS SPENDING BLUEPRINT:Lawmakers are wasting little time mounting their opposition to several of the Pentagons spending priorities in its fiscal 2017 budget request along with others that have been in the works for some time. Therell be both parochial and ideological opposition to many of the Pentagons proposals not to mention the fight over the defense budget topline. Here are some brewing battles to watch as the new defense appropriations and authorization bills move through Congress: GOP LAWMAKERS SLAM PLAN TO NIX CARRIER AIR WING:Republicans are already throwing out resistance to the Navys proposal to cut one of its aircraft carrier air wings. House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas.) told reporters Wednesday the notion was a little disturbing, but wants to study the Pentagons proposal in more detail before offering an official position. And Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) says it seems like a non-starter.For Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, the proposal is just another attempt from the Obama administration to cut the Navy. So far, weve been pretty successful in putting all that back, he told Morning D. When you look right now and we have gaps with our carriers currently, and theyre going to take out an air wing? I mean, it really doesnt make good military sense. Forbes subcommittee is holding ahearingon the issue this afternoon. CONGRESSMEN READYING BILL TO HALT ARMY CUTS: Members of the House Armed Services Committee, led by Rep. Chris Gibson of New York, are planning legislation to halt end-strength reductions in the active-duty Army. Gibson and Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, who chairs the House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, told reporters Wednesday the Army is taking on too much risk by shrinking the force as worldwide threats increase. "Our bill will essentially stop this drawdown," Gibson said.But any congressional move to halt planned troop reductionsin the Army would impact virtually every aspect of the service's new budget proposal, according to its top budget official. The Army is in the process of trimming down from 490,000 to 450,000 active-duty troops, which military leaders have said is a bare minimum for accomplishing national security goals. "We are on a ramp right now," the Army's budget chief, Maj. Gen. Thomas Horlander, told reporters Wednesday, saying training, recruitment and the proper mix of equipment would have to be reevaluated. CONCERNS OVER F-35 PROGRAM CUTS:Members of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee didnt raise any explicit opposition at a hearing Wednesday to the Air Forces plans to reduce its F-35A purchases by five planes in fiscal 2017. But there were several questions to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh about the negative implications, such as whether the reduction will raise individual unit costs for the fighter.James said that would not be the case, telling the spending panel that foreign military sales of the F-35, along with increased purchases from the Navy and Marine Corps, will help keep the cost of the fighters down. We believe this will allow us to still have a stable unit price, she said. We dont believe costs will go up, at least not substantially, in this case. Nevertheless, the move could be a tough sell for the Air Force, as Congress has strongly supported the F-35 with extra aircraft added to the annual appropriations bills in recent years.
Budget wont pass, but republican pushback is disorganized - disagreements means they will cave to defense spending.Stanek 2/12[Becca, The Week, Paul Ryan: 'The sky won't fall if we don't do a budget', http://theweek.com/speedreads/605872/paul-ryan-sky-wont-fall-dont-budget, MM DA 2/13/16]With House Republicans still divided on how to move forward with plans to pass the budget, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) reminded lawmakers Friday that there's always the optionto just skip the budget altogether. "It would be a shame, but the sky won't fall if we don't do a budget," Ryan said to members at a closed-door meeting. Because of a two-year deal struck last fall between then-Speaker John Boehner and the Obama administration, Ryan contends Congress is not "staring down a cliff" that would force them to make a final call.However, Ryan warned members, this choice would not come without repercussions. If House Republicans decided against doing a budget, Ryan said the Republican Party would essentially be missing out on a chance to "do big things" in 2017. The GOP would not be able to present their fiscal solutions to the public ahead of the presidential election, nor would they be able to pass all 12 appropriations bills, essentially forcing Congress back into its "crisis-driven cycle of passing spending bills" that Ryan has been trying to avoid,The Hillreports.Republicans are at an impasse over the prospect of passing a budget that sticks to the previously agreed upon$1.07 trillionspending level. Others are pushing for increased military spending, which Ryan pointed out could only increase by $40 million within current spending levels. "Are House Republicans willing to give up appropriations bills, a balanced budget, entitlement reform, and reconciliation for $40 million?" Ryan asked Friday.
Ukraine
Samp and Cancian 2/9[Lisa Sawyer, Mark F., The European Reassurance Initiative http://csis.org/publication/european-reassurance-initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies, MM DA 2/13/16]Q2: What has the administration requested in FY 2017, and how is this different from previous years?A2:The presidents budget requests $3.4 billion. Most is for the Army, but there are pieces for the other services as well. The request is broken down across the same five categories as previous years, though with greater emphasis on equipment: Presence ($1,050 million): Continuing and expanding the program of deployments and exercises begun in 2015. The addition of another armored brigade combat team (BCT) in the rotation means there will be an armored brigade on the ground continuously. With the two existing brigades in Europe, there will thus be a total of three U.S. BCTs on the continent at all times, and four during times of handover. A BCT is the Armys basic deployable maneuver unit consisting of 4,000 to 5,000 troops. Exercises and training ($163 million): ERI increased the number and size of exercises and partnership engagements in 2015, and this will continue. Prepositioned Equipment ($1,904 million): The largest amount of the ERI request funds the maintenance and expansion of prepositioned sets of war-fighting equipment (known as Army Prepositioned Stock). The United States has long had a program in Europe whereby it stores equipment in warehouses ashore to allow rapid reinforcement of the forces already in theater. In an emergency, the United States need only fly the personnel from wherever they are to Europe, which is relatively easy, and link up with the prepositioned equipment. The extensive prepositioned sets of the Cold War in Europe have been reduced over the years, greatly slowing U.S. reinforcement capacity in an emergency. To shorten this timeline, the United States will add additional equipment sets, including tanks, heavy artillery, weapons, ammunition, and other gear, in Western Europe, as well as maintaining the training set already spread across the Baltic states and elsewhere in the east. Infrastructure ($217 million): The ERI requests funds for improving air fields and bases in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. Improvements, such as for training ranges, make the bases more useful for training of U.S. and allied forces. Improvements to airfields make them more capable of not just training, but also of receiving reinforcements during an emergency. Building Partner Capacity (86 million): A small portion of the ERI request will be allocated to increasing the resilience of allies and partners through institutional development and training. In addition to the Defense Departments ERI request, the State Department cites $953 million in its budget for critical support for Ukraine and surrounding countries in Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia to counter Russian aggression.
Total war if US arms UkraineFaal 2/8[Sorcha, Putin Warns Europe: Total War If Obama Arms Ukraine, http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1836.htm, MM DA 2/13/16]A new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report prepared for the planned'Normandy Four'meetingthat may be held in the Belarus capital of Minsk as early as Wednesday, with President Putin, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, warns that should this effort fail, total war remains the Federations only option to resolve the Ukraine crisis.According to this report, during his5-hour meeting Friday with Merkel and Hollande, Putin privately warned his European counterparts that he would not allow the Obama regime to arm the fascist-aligned Ukrainian government, and should the US attempt to do so in spite of the Federations warning, total war within a few weeks would be the result.During a visit to Sochi on the Black Sea yesterday, this report continues, Putin further publically warned the Obama regime against their reckless actions by stating:There is an attempt to perturb the existing world order... with one incontestable leader [Obama] who wants to remain as such thinking he is allowed everything while others are only allowed what he allows and only in his interests. This world order will never suit Russia.Putins grim warning of total war, this report notes, was heeded by Merkel whowarned her Western counterparts yesterday not to try to scare Russias leader, and by Hollande who stated,If we don't find not just a compromise but a lasting peace agreement, we know perfectly well what the scenario will be. It has a name, its called war.Adding to Putins growing anger against the Obama regime over the Ukrainian war, this report says, was a German intelligence document provided to him by Merkel at Fridays meeting estimating thetrue total of deaths in this conflict at 50,000, ten times the officially announced figure which has repeatedly been cited in thepropaganda-filled Western press.However, as this report despairingly notes, while the current Merkel-Hollande peace bid is the last chance to avoid all-out war as fighting intensifies in Ukraine, the Obama regime is intent upon making it worse as US Vice President Joe Biden yesterdayvowed to arm the Ukrainian government to defend itself.Not being told to the American people about their governments deadly plan though, this report warns, is that if the use of US weapons in the killing of ethnic Russians continues, the Kremlin has stated that it would support alarge-scale military offensive from the east that would involve taking Kiev.Necessitating the need for total war in an attempt to stop the Ukrainian conflict, this report states, is predicated upon the fact that along with ethnic Russians being under attack by Obama regime supported forces, this conflict also involves Federation citizens who havepoured across the border by the thousandsinto this war to protect their families and relatives.As Ukrainian President Poroshenko haslost control of the military situation in eastern Ukraineat the same time his nationscurrency has collapsed and his government has gone broke, this report further warns,nearly 100,000 rebel forcesarecurrently massingfor what in all terms would be the final battle that would nearly totally destroy whats left of the Ukrainian army.Important to note, MoFA experts in this report say, is that Ukraine currently has onlyaround 41,000 regular combat troops plus perhaps 20,000 Ukrainian irregularswho joined volunteer battalions to fight against these nearly 100,000 rebel forces, and haslost a staggering 220 tanks, or a quarter of its total, and more than 480 armored vehiclesthrough August of last year through combat, breakdown or capture by the rebel forces.Also to note, this report says, is that by the beginning of this war in March 2014, Ukraine hadjust 6,000 troops ready for combatand only a sixth of its aircraft and anti-aircraft systems were functional and only four of the Ukrainian navys vessels were combat-ready prior to the conflict, and to make matters worse for them, at least 16,000 former Ukrainian military personnel in Crimeadefected to the Russian armed forceswhen Russia annexed the territory in March.The rest of Ukraines 100,000 or so troops and equipmentwerent ready for combat, this report shockingly continues, so in order to keep their forces fighting, Kiev established what are called barrier squads and sent them to the front lines tofire on any of their soldiers who attempted to retreat.With US Special Forces troopsalready filmed being a part of this conflict, and US General. Ben Hodges, Commander of the US Army inEurope,handing out medals to wounded Ukrainian soldiers, this report also warns, the Federation is already in a de facto war with the Obama regime.As to the outcome of these latest dire events it should be noted, and as we had previously reported on,Putins Shock of March battle planremains a grave option on this bloodied table of war that may soon engulf us all.
Impact
Dejevsky 2/9[Mary, the Guardian, The Pentagon has fired the first shot in a new arms race, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/pentagon-new-arms-race-us-military-spending-russia-europe, MM DA 2/13/16]
As the voters of New Hampshire braved the snow to play their partin the great pageant of American democracyon Tuesday, the US secretary of defence was setting out his spending requirements for 2017. And while the television cameras may have preferred the miniature dramas atthe likes of Dixville Notch, thereorientation of US defence prioritiesunder the outgoing president may turn out to exert the greater influence and not in a good way, at least for the future of Europe.In aspeech in Washington last week, previewing his announcement, Ash Carter said he would ask for spending on US military forces in Europe to be quadrupled in the light of Russian aggression. The allocation for combating Islamic State, in contrast, is to be increased by 50%. The message is unambiguous: as viewed from the Pentagon, the threat from Russia has become more alarming, suddenly, even than the menace that is Isis.If this is Pentagon thinking, then it reverses a trend that has remained remarkably consistent throughout Barack Obamas presidency. Even before he was elected there was trepidation in some European quarters that he would be the first genuinely post-cold war president too young to remember the second world war, and more global than Atlanticist in outlook. And so it proved.From his first day in the White House, Obama seemed more interested in almost anywhere than Europe. He began his presidency withan appeal in Cairoaddressed to the Muslim world, in an initiative that was frustrated by the Arab spring and its aftermath, but partly rescued by last yearsnuclear agreement with Iran. He had no choice but to address the growing competition from China, and heended half a century of estrangement from Cuba. But Europe, he left largely to its own devices. When France and the UK intervened in Libya, the US led from behind. Most of the US troops remaining in Europe, it was disclosed last year, were to be withdrawn.Nor was such an approach illogical.Europewas at peace comparatively, at least. The European Union was chugging along, diverted only briefly (so it might have seemed from the US) by the internal crises of Greece and the euro. Even the unrest in Ukraine, at least in its early stages, was treated by Washington more as a local difficulty than a cold war-stylestandoff.Day to day policy was handled (fiercely, but to no great effect) by Victoria Nuland at the state department; Sanctions againstRussiawere agreed and coordinated with the EU. All the while despite the urging of the Kiev government Obama kept the conflict at arms length. Congress agitated for weapons to be sent, but Obama wisely resisted. This was not, he thereby implied, Americas fight.In the last months of his presidency, this detachment is ending. The additional funds for Europes defence are earmarked for new bases and weapons stores in Poland and the Baltic states. There will be more training for localNatotroops, more state-of-the-art hardware and more manoeuvres.Now it is just possible that the extra spending and the capability it will buy are no more than sops to the frontline EU countries in the runup to the Nato summit in Warsaw in July, to be quietly forgotten afterwards. More probably, though, they are for real and if so the timing could hardly be worse. Ditto the implications for Europes future.By planning to increase spending in this way, the US is sending hostile signals to Russia at the very time when there is less reason to do so than for a long time. It is nearly two years since Russia annexed Crimea and 18 months since thedowning of MH17. The fighting in eastern Ukraine has died down; there is no evidence of recent Russian material support for the anti-Kiev rebels, and there is a prospect, at least, that theMinsk-2 agreementcould be honoured, with Ukraine (minus Crimea) remaining albeit uneasily whole.In Syria, Russia has signed up to the war against Isis; it has helped orchestrate the only diplomatic process there is, and has acquiesced in principle to the eventual departure of President Bashar al-Assad. Moscows continued support is also crucial to the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. The first real prospect of improved Russia-west relations since the ill-fated reset of 2009 looks as though it has been scotched almost before it has begun.Worse still, by attaching the new spending specifically to Poland and the new Nato states, the US is sending two more linked messages. The first is that Washington is prepared to take direct responsibility for the security of these countries. Not only does this leave them with no incentive whatsoever to normalise relations with their giant neighbour. It will inevitably heighten Russias own sense of insecurity, and prompt a new spiral in what we once called the arms race. New nuclear deployments cannot be ruled out.The second is that once again the EU and the European Nato countries will be able to postpone the self-reliance that must surely come. Obamas detachment, it seemed, was just starting to have an effect: the understanding that Europe would have to get its defence act together, increase spending, talk seriously to Russia about mutual security, and generally behave like a grownup, seemed finally to be percolating through to Brussels and other European capitals. Now they will be able to revert to their old divided, neglectful ways, confident that whoever becomes the next US president is unlikely to be less Atlanticist than Obama and will surely bail them out, if need be, one last time.
Van Auken 15[Bill, WSWS, The US-Russian clash in Syria and the threat of war, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/01/pers-o01.html, MM DA 2/13/16]The initiation of air strikes by Russian warplanes against Islamist militia targets inside Syria, followed by Washingtons bellicose denunciations, threatens not only to escalate the slaughter in Syria, but create the conditions for a far more dangerous military confrontation between the worlds two largest nuclear powers.Both the Obama administration and the Putin government claim that their militaries have been sent into Syria to wage war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as part of a broader fight against terrorism. Both are lying.Washington, which spawned ISIS, has intervened in Syria to further the aims of US imperialism and its key regional allies--Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Persian Gulf oil monarchies and Israel. They seek to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a puppet government subordinated to their interests.Moscows main aim in Syria is not to eliminate terrorism, but to keep the Assad regime in powerwith or without Assad as its presidentand thereby maintain its sole ally and foothold in the Middle East. Syria is the site of Russias one naval port outside the former Soviet Union.Two major foreign military forces, each claiming to be combating the same enemy, are, in fact, fighting for diametrically opposed aims. Scores of warplanes of hostile powers are carrying out military operations in a country barely larger than the US state of Missouri. The potential for armed clashes between them is undeniable.The reasons for the Putin governments intervention in Syria are clear. It fears that if Washington succeeds in its campaign to overthrow Assad, that will serve only to escalate the US drive to encircle, weaken and ultimately dismember Russia itself. Thousands of Islamist fighters who have poured into Syria from Chechnya and other parts of the Caucasus will be sent home to lead separatist uprisings against Moscow, undoubtedly with backing from the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. Moscows brutal suppression of the Chechen population in the course of two wars has created fertile soil for such an operation.The ouster of the Assad regime, moreover, would further Washingtons drive to assert US hegemony over the entire oil-rich Middle East, while clearing the way for a new gas pipeline route that would provide Qatar with more direct access to the Western European market, undermining the interests of the Russian energy conglomerates.While there is a defensive character to Russias military intervention in Syria, it is nonetheless thoroughly reactionary. It is directed not at defending the people of Syria, or, for that matter, protecting working people in Russia itself. Rather, it is aimed at upholding the interests of the Russian ruling elite, which Putins regime represents.This class of criminal oligarchs, who enriched themselves through the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the theft of state property, and the impoverishment of the Soviet working class, is organically incapable of carrying out any progressive action on the world stage. A comprador regime, it is unable to maintain any genuine independence from imperialism.The reactionary character of Moscows intervention was neatly summed up Wednesday by the Russian Orthodox Church, which proclaimed it a holy battle.That being said, Washingtons denunciations of Russias actions are beyond hypocritical. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter denounced Russia on Wednesday, charging that its air strikes amounted to pouring gasoline on a fire.The fire was set by Washington, the Saudi monarchy and the other reactionary oil sheikdoms that constitute the principal allies of US imperialism in the region. The Islamist militias the US claims to be fighting are their own creations, armed, funded and supported to serve as proxy ground troops in the war for regime-change in Syria, just as they did in Libya.Carter and other US officials have indicted Russia for not restricting its air strikes to ISIS targets, but instead hitting other militias fighting against the Assad regime. They attacked places where (ISIS) is not present, said Carter. His odd diction was aimed at covering up US concern for who was presentthe al-Nusra Front, Al Qaedas affiliate in Syria. The so-called vetted rebels the US military has trained, armed and sent back into Syria have repeatedly turned over their weapons and joined al-Nusra soon after their arrival. So much for the war on terrorism.The US is engaged in a policy of endless war on a global scale that has destroyed one country after another, a fact that was driven home this week with the Talibans seizure of the Afghan city of Kunduz and the announcement that some 10,000 US troops will remain there, 14 years after the US first invaded.The prospect of this policy of global militarism spilling over into a direct confrontation with Russia is real and present. Last April, the Pentagon announced that it had altered the US rules of engagement in Syria to allow military action against any force that attacked US-backed rebels. Washingtons allies, meanwhile, have issued similar threats, with the Saudi regime threatening direct military intervention, and France, which began its own bombing campaign this week, declaring that its air strikes would be aimed not just at ISIS, but also at the Syrian regime, alongside which the Russians are fighting.Meanwhile, the US and NATO have dramatically escalated their military presence and battle readiness across Eastern Europe in the wake of last years Western-backed coup in Ukraine. Russia has also beefed up its forces near the countrys western borders.A quarter century after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat of a military confrontation igniting a nuclear war is greater than it has ever been in history.The international working class must oppose the slaughter in Syria and the threat of world war by its own means. It cannot give the slightest support to the intervention of Russia or any other capitalist power. It is necessary, in the words of Trotsky, to follow not the war map, but the map of the class struggle.Workers must fight for the withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Iraq, Syria and the entire Middle East. The defeat of imperialist interventions like those carried out by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria can be secured only by uniting the working class across religious, ethnic and national boundaries in a common struggle for the international socialist revolution.
A2: Republican Collapse Good
Collapse causes right wing takeover - incumbents will be painted as weak in primary ensures GOP victory in elections Lewis 15[Matt K. 3/17, The Week, http://theweek.com/articles/544494/gop-better-nominating-conservative-moderate-2016, Is the GOP better off nominating a conservative or a moderate in 2016?Much of the American left and middle takes it as conventional wisdom that the GOP must "move to the center" to survive and thrive in national elections that without backing a "safe" "establishment" "moderate" like Jeb Bush, half of America will flee in terror from the supposedly-too-conservative-for-our-open-minded-liberal-times GOP.At the same time, much of conservative America believes in an almost opposite trope: That not only must the GOP stay true to its conservative principles, but that the only Republicans to win presidential elections are conservatives. For obvious (and self-serving) reasons,Ted Cruz is the most forceful current advocateof that latter theory.So, which is true?Well, it's complicated.Ronald Reagan was the first and only movement conservative ever elected president. He won two landslides. One could argue that Reagan was so popular that George H.W. Bush essentially won the Gipper's third term, and that Bush only lost after betraying conservatives and raising taxes (this deserves several asterisks, but it's not an absurd theory).Then again, other movement conservatives haven't exactly crushed it in presidential elections. Looking at you, Barry Goldwater.As for the moderates: Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney lost in '96, '08, and '12, respectively. It's probably not fair to blame McCain's moderation; it's unlikelyanyonewould have defeated Obama in 2008. But one could certainly argue that Romneymighthave won in 2012 had he fired up and turned out more of the conservative base.TheWashington Examiner'sPhilip Kleinrecently endorsed the theory that conservatives win modern presidential elections while moderate Republicans lose them. But he posited an ironic reason: It's best for Republicans to nominate true conservatives because moderates are forced toactmore "severely" conservative than someone who is authentically a right-winger. "When base voters implicitly trust a candidate, they're more likely to give that candidate the benefit of the doubt when he or she tries to communicate a message to appeal to the broader electorate, because they assume that deep down that candidate 'gets it' and is 'one of us,'" Klein writes.This is key. It doesn't necessarily matter how conservative the nominee is; what matters is that the base accepts the nominee, believes in who he or she really is, and is willing to tolerate centrist flirtations, real or perceived, from this candidate in the general election.And that brings us to the modern GOP nominee that I overlooked above. As Dave Weigel has noted, George W. Bush hardly a movement conservative, despite what Democrats screechingly claimed during the Bush years presents a problemfor the theory that only truly conservative Republicans win general elections.You might try to revise history to explain this away: "George W. Bush ran as a real conservative in 2000, but only later squished out with things like Medicare Part D, immigration reform, and No Child Left Behind." But this is essentially nonsense. Bush ran for president as a "compassionate conservative" (in the dog whistling of partisan politics, this is supposed to sound like "not conservative," or at least "nice conservative," to blue and purple America). Bush said, "Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River." His convention featured speakers like Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger,and Condi Rice. And he openly criticized House Republicans,saying of their plan to save $8.7 billion, "I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor."Can you imagine a Republican candidate today saying and doing those things? He would be crucified by the conservative base.But in 2000, base voters were largely willing to overlook this "hippie" talk. Maybe it was becauseDubya had swagger or maybe it's because conservatives were so desperate for a winner, and helooked like he could beat Al Gore. Either way, like Bill Clinton, Bush was given the leeway by his base to appeal to the center, and it worked.Since the base doesn't seem likely to grant much leeway this time around, and doesn't appear to be in the mood to ascribe to the "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" philosophy, the GOP had better choose someone that conservatives find at least seem minimally acceptable.Are Republicans better off with a conservative candidate in '16? We rate this one "mostly true."
Bad CardsModerates up for re-election dont want to vote on the aff, have to defect to budget.Cornwell 2/10[Susan, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-budget-idUSKCN0VJ2A8, Republicans' feud threatens to reignite fiscal battles, MM DA 2/13/16]A senior House Republican warned on Wednesday that differences among lawmakers over a spending increase could threaten plans for a more orderly budget process under House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been basking in a honeymoon period.The comments from House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers came as Ryan was facing the first big challenge of his speakership, with some conservatives wanting to back out of a deal made last year increasing spending by $80 billion over two years.Many Republicans did not vote for the two-year budget framework negotiated in former Speaker John Boehner's waning days in office. Ryan was elected to replace him late in October.Conservative veterans of past budget battles see little reason why they should now support a budget for fiscal 2017 that incorporates the spending hike."The new number isnt something that I could vote for unless I have a compelling reason to do so, and I havent been given that reason," said Representative Matt Salmon, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.Democrats are unlikely to welcome changes to the fiscal deal, especially cuts, and could leave Ryan only fellow-Republicans to negotiate with on a new plan.Rogers warned that if the House tries to change the deal, the Senate might balk, which could ultimately lead to the need to pass a massive "omnibus" spending bill to fund the entire government."So weve got to consider carefully what we do here," Rogers said after a Republican caucus.An omnibus would be the opposite of the better-functioning appropriations process Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Republican, seek this election year.They want Congress to pass a dozen separate spending bills instead of voting on one huge piece of legislation that, if it fails, results in a government shutdown.The first move would normally be for the House to pass a budget blueprint, which leaders hope to do soon. Rogers thought lawmakers could "deem" a budget resolution as having passed already because of last year's deal. But such a procedural workaround could upset conservatives.Some Senate Republicans are also wondering where the votes will come from to pass a budget resolution embracing higher spending levels.Congress already agreed (to the spending numbers) and did the tough choice of raising spending, a senior Senate Republican aide said. Why put our members who are in-cycle (up for re-election this year) through this again?"
