Grayson is an IDIOT and thank God his constituents voted him out of office....from the way he sounds you would think he was Nancy Pelosi's brother....How ANYONE could follow the Democrats is a puzzle to me....But I guess there are a certain percentage of Americans that are stupid.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Boehner is right.....IT IS Chicken Crap!
Boehner: Dem tax bill 'chicken crap'
CloseBy JAKE SHERMAN | 12/2/10 12:30 PM EST
On Wednesday, John Boehner (R-Ohio) said House Democrats were playing political games for forcing a vote on extending the lower- and middle-income tax rates while Obama administration officials were huddling with House and Senate lawmakers. On Thursday, Boehner took it a step further.
“I’m trying to catch my breath so I don’t refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right?” Boehner told reporters in the Capitol Thursday. “But this is nonsense. All right? The election was one month ago. We’re 23 months from the next election, and the political games have already started, trying to set up the next election. We had an honest conversation at the White House about the challenges that we face to get out of here and to take care of what the American people expect of us. And they roll this vote out today; it really is just what you think I was going to say anyway.”
Boehner is colorful, to say the least, and often finds ways to get in jabs of reporters and staff. Just today, he ribbed Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, who wore a three-piece, pinstriped suit.
“I told Mr. Bishop on the way in that just because he inherited a suit from his grandfather didn’t mean he had to wear it,” Boehner said. “But his hair looks good.”
But quips aside, his remarks illustrate the Republican view on the Democrats’ tax vote Thursday. Republicans see it as scuttling talks between Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). Democrats position it as a vote on a measure that garners wide support — keeping tax cuts steady for 97 percent of the American public.
CloseBy JAKE SHERMAN | 12/2/10 12:30 PM EST
On Wednesday, John Boehner (R-Ohio) said House Democrats were playing political games for forcing a vote on extending the lower- and middle-income tax rates while Obama administration officials were huddling with House and Senate lawmakers. On Thursday, Boehner took it a step further.
“I’m trying to catch my breath so I don’t refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right?” Boehner told reporters in the Capitol Thursday. “But this is nonsense. All right? The election was one month ago. We’re 23 months from the next election, and the political games have already started, trying to set up the next election. We had an honest conversation at the White House about the challenges that we face to get out of here and to take care of what the American people expect of us. And they roll this vote out today; it really is just what you think I was going to say anyway.”
Boehner is colorful, to say the least, and often finds ways to get in jabs of reporters and staff. Just today, he ribbed Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, who wore a three-piece, pinstriped suit.
“I told Mr. Bishop on the way in that just because he inherited a suit from his grandfather didn’t mean he had to wear it,” Boehner said. “But his hair looks good.”
But quips aside, his remarks illustrate the Republican view on the Democrats’ tax vote Thursday. Republicans see it as scuttling talks between Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). Democrats position it as a vote on a measure that garners wide support — keeping tax cuts steady for 97 percent of the American public.
Rangel Should have been Expelled!
This guy should have been expelled!!....he's on TV now talking to reporters and he's not remorseful at all...makes it sound like just some bad judgement...if this was me, I'd be in jail.....It's time to get some accountability in congress!
House censures Rangel for ethics violations on 333-79 vote
By Susan Crabtree - 12/02/10 05:50 PM ET
The House has voted to censure Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), the once-powerful chairman of the Ways and Means panel, for a string of ethics violations.
In a vote of 333-79, the House handed down its steepest form of punishment short of expulsion to one of the most senior and beloved members of the House.
Rangel is only the 23rd lawmaker to be censured in the history of the House and the fifth in the last 100 years.
A somber Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) immediately handed down the punishment.
The vote divided the caucus on racial and regional lines, with a majority of the black caucus and New York delegation voting against censure, as well as a handful of lawmakers who worked alongside Rangel on Ways and Means before he was forced to give up the gavel earlier this year. Some conservative Blue Dog Democrats also voted against censure.
Before the censure vote, an amendment to reduce the punishment to a reprimand was set aside in a 146-267 vote. More Democrats, 143-105, supported reducing the punishment to a reprimand.
Several lawmakers spoke against censure before the vote, including Rep. Peter King (N.Y.). He was one of three Republicans who voted for a reprimand just before the censure vote. The other two were Reps. Don Young (Alaska) and Ron Paul (Texas).
A reprimand would have allowed Rangel to avoid the humiliation of having to stand in the well of the House while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reads the charges and committee’s findings for C-SPAN cameras and the world to see.
The vote deals a serious blow to Rangel’s legacy after a 40-year career in the House where the silver-haired elder statesmen was known for his jocularity, sartorial splendor and celebrated gravelly voice.
A weary and battle-worn Rangel, who spent more than two years fighting the charges, gave a last-ditch plea for leniency on the House floor before the debate over the censure began before a packed House gallery. He spent the days leading up to the vote lobbying colleagues for a reprimand rather than censure.
RELATED ARTICLES
•House turns aside reprimand
•Rangel apologizes for putting House in awkward spot
In a brief statement on the House floor, Rangel apologized to the crowd of lawmakers “or putting you in this very awkward position today.”
Rangel admitted he has made mistakes and said rules are made to be enforced. But Rangel said his mistakes were not severe enough to warrant censure.
“I have made some serious mistakes,” Rangel said. “Senior members should act in a way as a model for new and less experienced members.”
But he pleaded with his colleagues: “If you are breaking new ground, I ask for fairness.”
Rangel argued “the humiliation of a censure” should not apply to him because the lead counsel on the ethics committee did not accuse him of corruption.
Rangel insisted that he was not corrupt and did not personally benefit from any of the activity. He also stressed that he was not convicted of a crime.
Rangel’s allies also insisted his mistakes did not merit a censure, in part because he did not benefit from his actions.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) said the last four censures, leveled over the last century, were for “despicable conduct” or acts of “dishonesty.”
“These are not acts of dishonesty,” he said. “What Rangel did was reckless and sloppy.”
Before Thanksgiving an ethics adjudicatory committee convicted Rangel of 11 counts of violating ethics rules. The charges include: improperly using his office to solicit donations for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York (CCNY), using a rent-stabilized apartment in Harlem for his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report, and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.
In his written statement submitted by his attorneys in July, Rangel said the investigative subcommittee that brought charges against him “acted beyond the scope of its authority” and did not give him enough time to provide a defense, violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. He called their findings “deeply flawed.”
House censures Rangel for ethics violations on 333-79 vote
By Susan Crabtree - 12/02/10 05:50 PM ET
The House has voted to censure Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), the once-powerful chairman of the Ways and Means panel, for a string of ethics violations.
In a vote of 333-79, the House handed down its steepest form of punishment short of expulsion to one of the most senior and beloved members of the House.
Rangel is only the 23rd lawmaker to be censured in the history of the House and the fifth in the last 100 years.
A somber Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) immediately handed down the punishment.
The vote divided the caucus on racial and regional lines, with a majority of the black caucus and New York delegation voting against censure, as well as a handful of lawmakers who worked alongside Rangel on Ways and Means before he was forced to give up the gavel earlier this year. Some conservative Blue Dog Democrats also voted against censure.
Before the censure vote, an amendment to reduce the punishment to a reprimand was set aside in a 146-267 vote. More Democrats, 143-105, supported reducing the punishment to a reprimand.
Several lawmakers spoke against censure before the vote, including Rep. Peter King (N.Y.). He was one of three Republicans who voted for a reprimand just before the censure vote. The other two were Reps. Don Young (Alaska) and Ron Paul (Texas).
A reprimand would have allowed Rangel to avoid the humiliation of having to stand in the well of the House while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reads the charges and committee’s findings for C-SPAN cameras and the world to see.
The vote deals a serious blow to Rangel’s legacy after a 40-year career in the House where the silver-haired elder statesmen was known for his jocularity, sartorial splendor and celebrated gravelly voice.
A weary and battle-worn Rangel, who spent more than two years fighting the charges, gave a last-ditch plea for leniency on the House floor before the debate over the censure began before a packed House gallery. He spent the days leading up to the vote lobbying colleagues for a reprimand rather than censure.
RELATED ARTICLES
•House turns aside reprimand
•Rangel apologizes for putting House in awkward spot
In a brief statement on the House floor, Rangel apologized to the crowd of lawmakers “or putting you in this very awkward position today.”
Rangel admitted he has made mistakes and said rules are made to be enforced. But Rangel said his mistakes were not severe enough to warrant censure.
“I have made some serious mistakes,” Rangel said. “Senior members should act in a way as a model for new and less experienced members.”
But he pleaded with his colleagues: “If you are breaking new ground, I ask for fairness.”
Rangel argued “the humiliation of a censure” should not apply to him because the lead counsel on the ethics committee did not accuse him of corruption.
Rangel insisted that he was not corrupt and did not personally benefit from any of the activity. He also stressed that he was not convicted of a crime.
Rangel’s allies also insisted his mistakes did not merit a censure, in part because he did not benefit from his actions.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) said the last four censures, leveled over the last century, were for “despicable conduct” or acts of “dishonesty.”
“These are not acts of dishonesty,” he said. “What Rangel did was reckless and sloppy.”
Before Thanksgiving an ethics adjudicatory committee convicted Rangel of 11 counts of violating ethics rules. The charges include: improperly using his office to solicit donations for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York (CCNY), using a rent-stabilized apartment in Harlem for his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report, and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.
In his written statement submitted by his attorneys in July, Rangel said the investigative subcommittee that brought charges against him “acted beyond the scope of its authority” and did not give him enough time to provide a defense, violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. He called their findings “deeply flawed.”
If Rangel doesn't get Censure at least, I've lost all faith in Washington!!!
This is just NUTS!!!!!....If Rangel was in business his ASS would be fired in a matter of minutes and if this was you or I we would be in jail for not paying our taxes...and now all these liberals are talking about reducing his punishment from censure.....No wonder Washington does't work...there are NO consequences for bad actions...This guy needs to be sent home....but a very least censure....Where Obama with his leadership????? what a bunch of crooks....Go Nancy...drain that swamp!
Rep. Rangel braces for punishment; censure likely
WASHINGTON – Offering an apology and a plea for leniency in the sunset of his career, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York on Thursday agreed he broke congressional rules but said the censure proposed by the House ethics committee was unfair.
Facing his colleagues, the 80-year-old Harlem Democrat spoke shortly before the House was to decide his punishment for financial and fundraising misconduct. Rangel was likely to become the 23rd House member to be censured.
The dapper Rangel, wearing a blue suit, blue tie and a blue handkerchief, faced his colleagues and told them, "I have made serious mistakes" including filing misleading financial disclosure forms and failing to pay all his taxes. But he pleaded with the House to be "guided by fairness."
Censure is the most serious House punishment short of expulsion. Rangel would have to appear at the front of the chamber while Speaker Nancy Pelosi read the resolution adopted by the House. His supporters asked instead for a reprimand, which would eliminate that humiliating appearance.
Before Rangel spoke the chairman of the House ethics committee, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, said the censure her committee recommended was consistent with a Democratic pledge to run "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."
She said Rangel "violated the public trust" while serving in influential positions including chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel, who brought up his combat experience in the Korean War in making his case, did not specifically propose a lesser reprimand. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said censure has been reserved for lawmakers who enriched themselves or were otherwise corrupt.
Rangel was at times contrite, saying that members of Congress "have a higher responsibility than most people" for ethical conduct and that senior lawmakers like himself "should act as a model" for newer lawmakers.
"I brought it on to myself," he said of his troubles.
Yet, the 40-year congressional veteran insists he did not intend to break any House rules, and he walked out of the ethics committee's deliberations last month because, he said, he had been treated unfairly for "good faith mistakes." The panel found him guilty on 11 of 13 charges and overwhelmingly recommended that he be censured.
It's a difficult sunset for Rangel's long career. A jovial backslapper with a distinctive gravelly voice, Rangel was re-elected in November with more than 80 percent of the vote despite being under an ethics cloud for more than two years. He has argued that censure is reserved for corrupt politicians — and he's not one of them.
He also has been making a more personal plea, asking colleagues to remember that he won a Purple Heart after he was wounded in combat in Korea, to focus on his efforts for the underprivileged and to understand that he has great respect for the institution he has served for so long. He's tied for fourth in House seniority.
The House ethics committee painted Rangel as a congressman who ignored rules of conduct and became a tax scofflaw despite his knowledge of tax law from his long service on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel chaired that panel until last March, when he stepped down after the panel — in a separate case — found that he improperly allowed corporations to finance two trips to Caribbean conferences.
Rangel shortchanged the IRS for 17 years by failing to pay taxes on income from his rental unit in a Dominican Republic resort. He filed misleading financial disclosure reports for a decade, leaving out hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets he owned.
He used congressional letterheads and staff to solicit donations for a monument to himself: a center named after him at City College of New York. The donors included businesses and their charitable foundations that had issues before Congress and, specifically, before the Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel also set up a campaign office in the Harlem building where he lives, despite a lease specifying the unit was for residential use only.
He has paid the Treasury $10,422 and New York state $4,501 to fulfill an ethics committee recommendation. The amounts were to cover taxes he would have owed on his villa income had the statute of limitations not run out on his tax bills.
The last previous House censure was in 1983, when two members, Reps. Gerry E. Studds, D-Mass., and Daniel Crane, R-Ill., were disciplined for having sex with teenage pages. Nine House members have been reprimanded, the latest last year when Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. was punished for a breach of decorum.
Wilson had yelled "You lie" at President Barack Obama during a nationally televised speech to Congress.
The objective for the House is to make the punishment fit the ethics violation. In past cases, a censure usually was reserved for congressmen who enriched themselves personally.
Rangel was not charged with lining his pockets. But the ethics committee found that his violations went on for so long that the pattern of misconduct deserved a censure.
Rep. Rangel braces for punishment; censure likely
WASHINGTON – Offering an apology and a plea for leniency in the sunset of his career, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York on Thursday agreed he broke congressional rules but said the censure proposed by the House ethics committee was unfair.
Facing his colleagues, the 80-year-old Harlem Democrat spoke shortly before the House was to decide his punishment for financial and fundraising misconduct. Rangel was likely to become the 23rd House member to be censured.
The dapper Rangel, wearing a blue suit, blue tie and a blue handkerchief, faced his colleagues and told them, "I have made serious mistakes" including filing misleading financial disclosure forms and failing to pay all his taxes. But he pleaded with the House to be "guided by fairness."
Censure is the most serious House punishment short of expulsion. Rangel would have to appear at the front of the chamber while Speaker Nancy Pelosi read the resolution adopted by the House. His supporters asked instead for a reprimand, which would eliminate that humiliating appearance.
Before Rangel spoke the chairman of the House ethics committee, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, said the censure her committee recommended was consistent with a Democratic pledge to run "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."
She said Rangel "violated the public trust" while serving in influential positions including chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel, who brought up his combat experience in the Korean War in making his case, did not specifically propose a lesser reprimand. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said censure has been reserved for lawmakers who enriched themselves or were otherwise corrupt.
Rangel was at times contrite, saying that members of Congress "have a higher responsibility than most people" for ethical conduct and that senior lawmakers like himself "should act as a model" for newer lawmakers.
"I brought it on to myself," he said of his troubles.
Yet, the 40-year congressional veteran insists he did not intend to break any House rules, and he walked out of the ethics committee's deliberations last month because, he said, he had been treated unfairly for "good faith mistakes." The panel found him guilty on 11 of 13 charges and overwhelmingly recommended that he be censured.
It's a difficult sunset for Rangel's long career. A jovial backslapper with a distinctive gravelly voice, Rangel was re-elected in November with more than 80 percent of the vote despite being under an ethics cloud for more than two years. He has argued that censure is reserved for corrupt politicians — and he's not one of them.
He also has been making a more personal plea, asking colleagues to remember that he won a Purple Heart after he was wounded in combat in Korea, to focus on his efforts for the underprivileged and to understand that he has great respect for the institution he has served for so long. He's tied for fourth in House seniority.
The House ethics committee painted Rangel as a congressman who ignored rules of conduct and became a tax scofflaw despite his knowledge of tax law from his long service on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel chaired that panel until last March, when he stepped down after the panel — in a separate case — found that he improperly allowed corporations to finance two trips to Caribbean conferences.
Rangel shortchanged the IRS for 17 years by failing to pay taxes on income from his rental unit in a Dominican Republic resort. He filed misleading financial disclosure reports for a decade, leaving out hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets he owned.
He used congressional letterheads and staff to solicit donations for a monument to himself: a center named after him at City College of New York. The donors included businesses and their charitable foundations that had issues before Congress and, specifically, before the Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel also set up a campaign office in the Harlem building where he lives, despite a lease specifying the unit was for residential use only.
He has paid the Treasury $10,422 and New York state $4,501 to fulfill an ethics committee recommendation. The amounts were to cover taxes he would have owed on his villa income had the statute of limitations not run out on his tax bills.
The last previous House censure was in 1983, when two members, Reps. Gerry E. Studds, D-Mass., and Daniel Crane, R-Ill., were disciplined for having sex with teenage pages. Nine House members have been reprimanded, the latest last year when Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. was punished for a breach of decorum.
Wilson had yelled "You lie" at President Barack Obama during a nationally televised speech to Congress.
The objective for the House is to make the punishment fit the ethics violation. In past cases, a censure usually was reserved for congressmen who enriched themselves personally.
Rangel was not charged with lining his pockets. But the ethics committee found that his violations went on for so long that the pattern of misconduct deserved a censure.
Federal workers will still receive raises despite pay freeze | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Here's another case where Obama says one thing, but we get something totally different....the Federal Employee Pay Freeze he recently proposed really will NOT keep federal employees from getting raises...just from getting cost of living increases which they probably wouldn't have gotten anyway.....Obama just lies, lies, lies...he never tells the whole truth......I can't wait until 2012 when we can get him GONE and take control of both the White House and the Senate....Nothing would please me more than get Senile "Dirty" Harry Reid out of the Senate Majority position......
Federal workers will still receive raises despite pay freeze | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Federal workers will still receive raises despite pay freeze | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
House Republicans need to Stand Tall on Thursday!
House Republicans need to stand tall and not vote for this proposal on Thursday....they need to force the House to propose a bill that extends the Bush Tax Cuts to ALL.....
House to vote on Bush Tax Cuts ONLY for the middle class on Thursday!
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:14 PM 12/01/2010 | Updated: 2:14 PM 12/01/2010
After months of rhetoric about the Bush-era tax cuts, House Republicans will finally be put to the test on whether they will vote down a measure to extend them for the middle class.
House Democratic leadership will force a vote on extending the tax cuts only for households earning less than $250,000 Thursday, Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer said.
“We have common ground on that issue,” Hoyer said. “I don’t know of anybody in the House of Representatives, Republican, Democrat, conservative, moderate, liberal, who believes that we ought to increase taxes on those folks.”
That may be true, but Republicans have made clear they will only support a measure that extends the current tax structure for all income earners. Aside from one instance in September when Republican Minority Leader John Boehner said he would vote for such a bill if given no other choice, GOP leadership has remained staunchly committed to keeping all tax rates at their current level into the next year.
In response to the announcement, Boehner said that if Democrats do not hold a vote on extending all of the tax cuts, the Republican-led House will take it up in January.
“This vote is a Washington stalling tactic with job-killing implications for employers and entrepreneurs gripped by uncertainty over the looming tax hikes,” Boehner said. “Instead of holding a vote to raise taxes, Congress should vote immediately to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes. If the lame-duck Congress is unwilling to cut spending and permanently stop all the tax hikes, the new House majority will act in January.”
Hoyer said he is “hopeful” that the House will pass the bill, but it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to convince enough members from either side to push it through. More than thirty House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in September voicing their support for extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Hoyer said he expects the House to remain in session until Dec. 17, but could not speak for the Senate, which held a vote on Christmas Eve last year.
House to vote on Bush Tax Cuts ONLY for the middle class on Thursday!
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:14 PM 12/01/2010 | Updated: 2:14 PM 12/01/2010
After months of rhetoric about the Bush-era tax cuts, House Republicans will finally be put to the test on whether they will vote down a measure to extend them for the middle class.
House Democratic leadership will force a vote on extending the tax cuts only for households earning less than $250,000 Thursday, Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer said.
“We have common ground on that issue,” Hoyer said. “I don’t know of anybody in the House of Representatives, Republican, Democrat, conservative, moderate, liberal, who believes that we ought to increase taxes on those folks.”
That may be true, but Republicans have made clear they will only support a measure that extends the current tax structure for all income earners. Aside from one instance in September when Republican Minority Leader John Boehner said he would vote for such a bill if given no other choice, GOP leadership has remained staunchly committed to keeping all tax rates at their current level into the next year.
In response to the announcement, Boehner said that if Democrats do not hold a vote on extending all of the tax cuts, the Republican-led House will take it up in January.
“This vote is a Washington stalling tactic with job-killing implications for employers and entrepreneurs gripped by uncertainty over the looming tax hikes,” Boehner said. “Instead of holding a vote to raise taxes, Congress should vote immediately to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes. If the lame-duck Congress is unwilling to cut spending and permanently stop all the tax hikes, the new House majority will act in January.”
Hoyer said he is “hopeful” that the House will pass the bill, but it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to convince enough members from either side to push it through. More than thirty House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in September voicing their support for extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Hoyer said he expects the House to remain in session until Dec. 17, but could not speak for the Senate, which held a vote on Christmas Eve last year.
The Truth About the Start Treaty....It's a Bad Deal
This New START Is A Bad Deal At Any Time
Speaking to the French Minister of Defense this February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates purportedly said that “Russian democracy has disappeared” and that “the government was an oligarchy run by the security services.” Fast forward to a CNN broadcast scheduled to air tonight, where the Batman of Russia’s oligarchy, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, threatened the U.S. with a new arms race unless Senators acquiesce to President Barack Obama’s New START treaty. Putin tells CNN it would take “a very dumb nature” for the Senate not to pass the treaty and that if they don’t give in, “then we’ll have to react somehow,” including the deployment of new nuclear missile technology.
Putin’s statements come on the back of news that, in defiance of pledges made to the U.S. in the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of the 1990s, Russia moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near NATO borders earlier this spring. And according to U.S. intelligence, Iran recently received 19 BM-25 missiles from North Korea that are capable of reaching European cities. Don’t worry though, Putin also tells CNN about Iran: “But such a threat, as of now, doesn’t exist.”
Putin and President Obama believe that New START is a great deal for our national security. But not everyone agrees. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman have all argued that New START actually weakens our defenses. The Heritage Foundation has identified twelve flaws of New START, including the following:
Unacceptable Limits to Missile Defense. The Obama Administration claims that New START contains no limits or constraints on our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense. This is false. There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.
Inadequate Verification Regime. Edelman and Joseph warn: Those who are pushing a rush to judgment appear willing to ignore the long-held standard “trust but verify” by overlooking the monitoring gaps created by the treaty. While the on-site visits and data exchanges allowed under the treaty are valuable, New START abandons on-the-ground monitoring of Russia’s missile-manufacturing facility and permits Russia to withhold telemetry of some of its missile tests, undermining our ability to know both what is being produced and what is being developed.
Tactical Nukes Ignored. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons like the ones moved close to our NATO allies this spring. Proponents of the treaty argue that New START is essential for keeping nukes away from terrorists. There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!
Rail-Mobile ICBMs Exempted. The definitions of rail-mobile ICBMs and rail-mobile ICBM launchers established in the expired START, which applied to the associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in New START. The Obama Administration asserts that rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers are captured by the treaty under generic definitions of deployed ICBMs. But Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee, has stated the opposite.
New START is great deal for Russia. But while Vladimir Putin can be sanguine about the threats posed to the U.S. by Iran and North Korea, U.S. Senators cannot. As Woolsey explains, rushing this treaty to appease Russia is just a bad deal for U.S. security:
A number of years negotiating arms-control agreements with the Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian counterparts, don’t appear eager—friendly yes, eager never. Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to have become eager for a deal in its negotiations on the follow-on treaty to the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). Hopes for a boost in efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, and for progress toward the president’s dream of a world without nuclear weapons, apparently combined to trump prudent negotiating strategy. As a result, concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty, known as New Start, as it currently stands.
Speaking to the French Minister of Defense this February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates purportedly said that “Russian democracy has disappeared” and that “the government was an oligarchy run by the security services.” Fast forward to a CNN broadcast scheduled to air tonight, where the Batman of Russia’s oligarchy, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, threatened the U.S. with a new arms race unless Senators acquiesce to President Barack Obama’s New START treaty. Putin tells CNN it would take “a very dumb nature” for the Senate not to pass the treaty and that if they don’t give in, “then we’ll have to react somehow,” including the deployment of new nuclear missile technology.
Putin’s statements come on the back of news that, in defiance of pledges made to the U.S. in the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of the 1990s, Russia moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near NATO borders earlier this spring. And according to U.S. intelligence, Iran recently received 19 BM-25 missiles from North Korea that are capable of reaching European cities. Don’t worry though, Putin also tells CNN about Iran: “But such a threat, as of now, doesn’t exist.”
Putin and President Obama believe that New START is a great deal for our national security. But not everyone agrees. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman have all argued that New START actually weakens our defenses. The Heritage Foundation has identified twelve flaws of New START, including the following:
Unacceptable Limits to Missile Defense. The Obama Administration claims that New START contains no limits or constraints on our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense. This is false. There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.
Inadequate Verification Regime. Edelman and Joseph warn: Those who are pushing a rush to judgment appear willing to ignore the long-held standard “trust but verify” by overlooking the monitoring gaps created by the treaty. While the on-site visits and data exchanges allowed under the treaty are valuable, New START abandons on-the-ground monitoring of Russia’s missile-manufacturing facility and permits Russia to withhold telemetry of some of its missile tests, undermining our ability to know both what is being produced and what is being developed.
Tactical Nukes Ignored. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons like the ones moved close to our NATO allies this spring. Proponents of the treaty argue that New START is essential for keeping nukes away from terrorists. There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!
Rail-Mobile ICBMs Exempted. The definitions of rail-mobile ICBMs and rail-mobile ICBM launchers established in the expired START, which applied to the associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in New START. The Obama Administration asserts that rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers are captured by the treaty under generic definitions of deployed ICBMs. But Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee, has stated the opposite.
New START is great deal for Russia. But while Vladimir Putin can be sanguine about the threats posed to the U.S. by Iran and North Korea, U.S. Senators cannot. As Woolsey explains, rushing this treaty to appease Russia is just a bad deal for U.S. security:
A number of years negotiating arms-control agreements with the Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian counterparts, don’t appear eager—friendly yes, eager never. Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to have become eager for a deal in its negotiations on the follow-on treaty to the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). Hopes for a boost in efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, and for progress toward the president’s dream of a world without nuclear weapons, apparently combined to trump prudent negotiating strategy. As a result, concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty, known as New Start, as it currently stands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)