I. Three Key Provisions in NDAA
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), along with 17 of her Senate colleagues, sent a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla) and Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) urging them to include three key nuclear weapons provisions in the final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2020. The provisions,which were included in the House-passed NDAA,would ban the deployment of the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead, urge the Trump Administration to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), and prevent an arms race by denying funding for certain types of intermediate-range nuclear missiles following the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
In their letter, the senators expressed support for a provision banning the deployment of the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead for the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile, a poorly conceived and ill-advised new nuclear weapon that would reduce the threshold for nuclear use and make nuclear escalation more likely. The senators argued that equipping a Trident missile with a nuclear weapon would put our nuclear armed submarines -- our most valuable strategic asset at risk, since firing such a missile from one of these submarines would risk disclosing their location to our enemies.
"This warhead is a dangerous, costly, unnecessary, and redundant addition to the U.S. nuclear arsenal," the senators wrote. "The W76-2 would reduce the threshold for nuclear use and make nuclear escalation more likely."
The senators also urged Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed to retain a provision expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should seek to extend New START, now the last remaining arms control treaty between the world's two largest nuclear-armed powers -- the United States and Russia. The provision calls for extending the treaty from February 2021 to February 2026, unless Russia is in material breach of he treaty or another arms control agreement with equal or more comprehensive limits and verification provisions supersedes it.
"Not only does New START provide much needed nuclear stability, it also affords the United States with invaluable insight into Russia's nuclear arsenal," the senators continued. "Extending the Treaty for another five years would provide a foundation for he Trump Administration to achieve its goal of negotiating more comprehensive follow on arms control agreements."
Finally, the senators called on Inhofe and Reed to include a provision that aims to prevent an arms race in the European or Asian theaters following the collapse of the INF Treaty. The provision denies funding for new INF-type missiles until pragmatic diplomatic and strategic planning steps are taken.
'The United States and its NATO allies can and must respond to Russia's violation of the INF Treaty, but we must do so in a way that does not contribute to a renewed arms race or drive a wedge in our existing alliances," the senators wrote.
Showing posts with label reneging on INF Treaty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reneging on INF Treaty. Show all posts
Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, November 1, 2018
President Trump: Toxic to the Nation and the World
Rick Wilson, Never-Trumpster and once a Republican pollster, has written a book in which he identifies Trump as the focal point where good ideas go to die. Recent developments show how toxic Trump is proving to be to the nation and the world.
I. Deficit Creator
The U.S. Treasury Department found that the budgetary deficit widened in FY 2018 to $779 billion, from $666 billion in FY 2017, or a 17 percent increase from year-to-year. The budgetary deficit is on pace to top $1 trillion a year before the next presidential election. The deficit for FY 2018 is the largest since 2012, when the economy and federal revenues were still recovering from the depths of the recession. Falling revenues were a far larger contributor to the rising deficit than higher spending. Corporate tax revenues fell more than a third from a comparable period a year before -- from $297 billion to $205 billion.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytic, has said: "There is noting to suggest the tax law is lifting investment in any substantive way, at least so far." Zandi says that a big chunk of the tax windfall has gone to shareholders in the form of fatter dividends and bigger share buybacks. According to Marketwatch, stock buybacks are up 22 percent this year. Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group, says business debt as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level ever in an expansion.
The bottom line is that businesses only expand when there is demand. Since wage growth has been stagnant for many years, and since wage growth in the past year has been equaled by the percentage increase in inflation, there is insufficient demand to spur business growth.
II. Birthright Under Attack
The 14th Amendment reads on citizenship, as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Donald Trump has wanted to strike birth in the United States as a condition for citizenship. He now contends that he can strike it through an executive order. His argument hinges on the phrase: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he apparently believes illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If an illegal alien commits a crime, he/she is subject to being prosecuted for that crime. The word "born" is not followed by any qualifier, such as "unless" and then given a condition in which being born would not be sufficient.
President Trump believes that he can do almost anything by executive order, citing a national security rational when pressed on his authority. Thus, he cites national security as the authority for imposing tariffs on imported automobiles. There is a high bar for amending the Constitution. Other presidents have not tried to challenge that high bar through specious reasoning.
III. Reneging on the INF Treaty
President Trump is proposing to pull the U.S. out of the INF Treaty, which prohibits the development and deployment of nuclear missiles in the intermediate range. Trump is a ferocious foe of international treaties, and he has pulled the nation out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris agreement on global warming.
Ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3's vote in the U.S. Senate. The ratified treaty becomes part of the "supreme law of the land," and can only be done by the Congress and the president, or at least by a vote of the Senate -- at least based on pre-Trump thinking. Thomas Jefferson said: "Treaties being declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded." If Trump can unilaterally withdraw from the INF, could he also withdraw from NATO, the NEW START Treaty, and the United Nations?
There are reasons other than legal ones not to kill the INF Treaty. U.S. withdrawal opens the door for Russia to deploy more missiles of concern. The U.S.does not need new and costly INF Treaty-noncompliant missiles. NATO does not support a new INF Treaty-range missile in Europe. U.S. withdrawal does not bring Russia back into compliance. Withdrawal would not counter China, which is not a party to the Treaty. The NEW START Treaty will expire in 2021 if not extended, and killing INF would make it harder to extend it.
The U.S. does not have clean hands in this matter, as its nuclear defense missiles could be used offensively.
I. Deficit Creator
The U.S. Treasury Department found that the budgetary deficit widened in FY 2018 to $779 billion, from $666 billion in FY 2017, or a 17 percent increase from year-to-year. The budgetary deficit is on pace to top $1 trillion a year before the next presidential election. The deficit for FY 2018 is the largest since 2012, when the economy and federal revenues were still recovering from the depths of the recession. Falling revenues were a far larger contributor to the rising deficit than higher spending. Corporate tax revenues fell more than a third from a comparable period a year before -- from $297 billion to $205 billion.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytic, has said: "There is noting to suggest the tax law is lifting investment in any substantive way, at least so far." Zandi says that a big chunk of the tax windfall has gone to shareholders in the form of fatter dividends and bigger share buybacks. According to Marketwatch, stock buybacks are up 22 percent this year. Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group, says business debt as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level ever in an expansion.
The bottom line is that businesses only expand when there is demand. Since wage growth has been stagnant for many years, and since wage growth in the past year has been equaled by the percentage increase in inflation, there is insufficient demand to spur business growth.
II. Birthright Under Attack
The 14th Amendment reads on citizenship, as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Donald Trump has wanted to strike birth in the United States as a condition for citizenship. He now contends that he can strike it through an executive order. His argument hinges on the phrase: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he apparently believes illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If an illegal alien commits a crime, he/she is subject to being prosecuted for that crime. The word "born" is not followed by any qualifier, such as "unless" and then given a condition in which being born would not be sufficient.
President Trump believes that he can do almost anything by executive order, citing a national security rational when pressed on his authority. Thus, he cites national security as the authority for imposing tariffs on imported automobiles. There is a high bar for amending the Constitution. Other presidents have not tried to challenge that high bar through specious reasoning.
III. Reneging on the INF Treaty
President Trump is proposing to pull the U.S. out of the INF Treaty, which prohibits the development and deployment of nuclear missiles in the intermediate range. Trump is a ferocious foe of international treaties, and he has pulled the nation out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris agreement on global warming.
Ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3's vote in the U.S. Senate. The ratified treaty becomes part of the "supreme law of the land," and can only be done by the Congress and the president, or at least by a vote of the Senate -- at least based on pre-Trump thinking. Thomas Jefferson said: "Treaties being declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded." If Trump can unilaterally withdraw from the INF, could he also withdraw from NATO, the NEW START Treaty, and the United Nations?
There are reasons other than legal ones not to kill the INF Treaty. U.S. withdrawal opens the door for Russia to deploy more missiles of concern. The U.S.does not need new and costly INF Treaty-noncompliant missiles. NATO does not support a new INF Treaty-range missile in Europe. U.S. withdrawal does not bring Russia back into compliance. Withdrawal would not counter China, which is not a party to the Treaty. The NEW START Treaty will expire in 2021 if not extended, and killing INF would make it harder to extend it.
The U.S. does not have clean hands in this matter, as its nuclear defense missiles could be used offensively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)