House Votes To Prevent Trump From Circumventing Congress To Sell Weapons To The Saudis

3 yes votes

Yesterday, the House passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act-- an amendment that Ted Lieu put together with Justin Amash (I-MI), David Cicilline (D-RI), Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) and Eliot Engel (D-NY). The purpose is to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates through a bogus emergency declaration that Pompeo and Trumpanzee have been cooking up to bypass Congress' authority. Since Trump realties Pelosi will protect him from impeachment no matter what he does, he's been moving more and more directly into violating the Constitution. Remember, last month the House passed Lieu’s amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill on a bipartisan basis to block the execution of these 22 emergency sales. Trump vetoed it. This NDAA amendment prohibits Trump from using funding from the previous year as a way to circumvent the stipulations in Congressman Lieu’s FY2020 Defense appropriations amendment.

Ted: "Trump’s fake emergency declaration to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates without Congressional oversight has been denounced on a bipartisan basis. Our arms sales process was designed to include congressional review specifically to ensure that each case served U.S. interests. This Administration cannot avoid Congress, no matter how hard it tries. There’s no indication that these sales benefit the American public and, if they do, the Trump Administration is required to make its case to Congress. Our NDAA Amendment is Congress putting its foot down. The people have had no say in this arms deal, which is why Congress won’t let it happen."

The amendment passed 246-180, every Democrat voting for it-- along with 13 Republicans plus Amash (now officially an Independent).

This was the "Dear Colleague" letter he sent to every member of the House:

We urge your support for the bipartisan Lieu/Amash/Cicilline/Malinowski/Engel amendment #24 to H.R. 2500.

On May 24, the Trump administration notified Congress that it was declaring an emergency to bypass congressional review of 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthis in Yemen has killed thousands of civilians, displaced tens of thousands more, and created a staggering humanitarian crisis. In May, Congress passed bipartisan, bicameral resolutions to end U.S. support for these hostilities and yet, the Administration is circumventing Congress to send more weapons and military training-- including precision guided munitions—to be used in that conflict. The decision to override Congress and push through unpopular arms sales is an affront to our institution and must be stopped.

If the Trump Administration believes that these sales-- including an unprecedented proposal to move production of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia-- can stand on the merits, they should make their case to Congress in the standard process outlined under the Arms Export Control Act.

In response to this abuse of emergency authority, the House approved an amendment to the FY20 Defense Appropriations bill by a bipartisan vote of 237 to 191 blocking the transfer of these 22 defense articles and services in the next fiscal year. However, it is uncertain how many defense articles the Administration would still be able to transfer using FY19 funding. Meanwhile, the Senate passed bipartisan resolutions of disapproval on June 20, which will likely face a presidential veto.

We must add language to the NDAA to fully block these 22 arms sales and cut off the Administration’s options for circumventing Congress again in the immediate future. The Lieu/Amash/Cicilline/Malinowski/Engel amendment will accomplish this by prohibiting any pending and future arms transfer to Saudi Arabia and UAE through FY20 unless it has gone through the standard review process under the Arms Export Control Act. Please join us in protecting the role of Congress in the arms sale process.

The Swamp Revisited by Nancy Ohanian

Congressman Lieu passed another amendment to the NDAA yesterday, his "swamp Amendment," which limits Defense funds from being used at Trump-owned properties. The amendment is meant to prevent Trump from profiting off of American taxpayers by forcing government employees to stay at his properties and subsidize his businesses. (The amendment enables funds to be used at Trump-owned properties if the President agrees to reimburse the Treasury Department for costs associated with his stay.) "It is crucial to our democracy," said Ted, "that the President acts in pursuit of the public’s best interest-- not his own. To date, Trump has spent 270 days at properties that he or his family owns. Every time he does, he profits. According to a February 2019 Government Accountability Office report, the President spends an average of $3.4 million taxpayer dollars every time he travels to Mar-a-Lago. You shouldn’t go into public service to benefit your private businesses. I’m glad this amendment passed so we can start to drain the swamp."

This one was closer, 223-205, since all Trump enablers voted against it-- every single Republican and 8 of the worst Trump-Democrats, the ones Pelosi and Cheri Bustos working hardest to reelect:

• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Conor Lamb (PA)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)

Amash (I-MI) abstained by voting "present."

With A Middle East This Roiled, Don't You Wish There Was A Steadier Hand On The Tiller Of The Ship Of State Now?

According to a late report last night at the NY Times, Trump first approved airstrikes against Iran, then called the planes back to their bases after they had taken off. It was widely leaked that “Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries. The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.”

Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked the New York Times to withhold the article.

The retaliation plan was intended as a response to the shooting down of the unmanned, $130 million surveillance drone, which was struck Thursday morning by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, according to a senior administration official who was briefed on the military planning and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential plans.

The strike was set to take place just before dawn Friday in Iran to minimize risk to the Iranian military and civilians.

…Trump’s national security advisers split about whether to respond militarily. Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region.

…Congressional Democrats emerged from the president’s classified briefing in the Situation Room and urged Mr. Trump to de-escalate the situation. They called on the president to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action.

“This is a dangerous situation,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “We are dealing with a country that is a bad actor in the region. We have no illusions about Iran in terms of their ballistic missile transfers, about who they support in the region and the rest.”

Iran’s destruction of the [$139 million] drone appeared to provide a boost for officials inside the Trump administration who have long argued for a more confrontational approach to Iran, including the possibility of military actions that could punish the regime for its support of terrorism and other destabilizing behavior in the region.

But in his public appearance, Mr. Trump initially seemed to be looking for a way to avoid a potentially serious military crisis. Instead of directly accusing the leaders of Iran, Mr. Trump said someone “loose and stupid” in Iran was responsible for shooting down the drone.

The president said he suspected it was some individual in Iran who “made a big mistake,” even as Iran had taken responsibility for the strike and asserted that the high-altitude American drone was operating over Iranian air space, which American officials denied.

While this was going on, the Senate voted to rebuke Trump by blocking arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Gulf area. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the ranking Dem on the Foreign Relations Committee is the lead sponsor of 22 resolutions disapproving of the $8 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and other countries, all of which were adopted Thursday in three separate votes with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats in support. The tallies of 53-45 for the first two votes, and 51-45 for the third, suggest that these measures are unlikely to get the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a Trump veto. Republicans jumping the fence were Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT), Lindsey Graham (SC), Todd Young (IN), Susan Collins (ME) and Jerry Moran (KS).

Members of both parties have criticized Trump’s use of an emergency declaration to push through the sales, and have urged stronger consequences for Saudi Arabia’s role in the killing of columnist Jamal Khashoggi last fall.

“There is no amount of oil you can produce that will get me and others to give you a pass on chopping somebody up in a consulate, and did MBS do it? Yes,” Graham said, referring to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

“Saudi Arabia doesn’t protect the United States from Iran,” said Graham. “To believe otherwise is just recasting conditions on the ground.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “In the wake of such monstrosity, the Trump administration is proposing another round of billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia.”

Lawmakers have also expressed concern about civilian casualties in the Saudi-led war on Yemen.

Also read: Senate to Vote on Blocking Saudi Arms Sale in Rebuke to Trump.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed the resolutions, calling them an “overly blunt tool” that would hurt key relationships in the Middle East. Referring to the downing of a U.S. drone by Iran, he said the Senate couldn’t have picked “a worse time” for the votes.

Every Senate Democrat was a yes vote, indicating the House will easily pass Menendez’s resolutions when they take them up next week. And on Tuesday, Ro Khanna (D-CA) is introducing a bipartisan resolution with right-wing crackpot and Trump ally Matt Gaetz (R-FL) to defund any war efforts in Iran if there is no congressional authorization. It’s critical every single Democrat rally around Khanna's amendment.

How Much Will The Trump-Putin Arms Race Cost American (And Russian) Taxpayers?

I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton's-- never. At least her husband's neo-liberal agenda was couched in a pleasant personality. Each time I've met her was-- literally-- disgusting. I was stuck with a monster. Once her whole retinue-- one by one-- abandoned her backstage before a speech and I was the only left to deal with her and it was excruciating. Once at a White House state banquet she was like the big downer in the otherwise festive event, bad vibing everyone. That said, there was never one moment of one day that I harbored any doubts that she would make a better president than Donald Trump. She was never going to be my idea of a great president, but any least she would break through the political glass ceiling for far better women politicians to come and at least she would not be the kind of politically-destructive and ignorant animal that there could never have been any doubt Trump would be.

David Sanger broke the story in the NY Times yesterday that the nuclear arms race is on again, compliments of Trump and Putin. Is that what the American people want? Is that what even the idiots who voted for him wanted when they voted for him? Sanger reported that Trump and Pompeo are "suspending one of the last major nuclear arms control treaties with Russia after heated conversations between the two powers recently failed to resolve a long-running accusation that Moscow is violating the Reagan-era treaty." ... [W]hile the United States has insisted Russia’s actions sank the treaty, the Trump administration’s real aim is to broaden its prohibitions to include China."

Constrained by the treaty’s provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying new weapons to counter China’s efforts to cement a dominant position in the Western Pacific and keep American aircraft carriers at bay. China was still a small and unsophisticated military power in the mid-1980s, and not a signatory to the treaty that was negotiated between the United States and a rapidly weakening Soviet Union.

By contrast, much of Beijing’s growing nuclear arsenal currently consists of missiles that fall into the distance ranges that are prohibited by the treaty that applies only to Russia and the United States.

“The issue now is whether the administration has a plan for what comes next,” said Pranay Vaddi, a fellow in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former State Department official until 2017 who worked on nuclear arms control issues. “There is no question that the Russians committed a violation. But it is not militarily significant because it doesn’t change the balance of power in Europe.”

With the treaty on its last legs, the question is whether Mr. Pompeo’s announcement will result in a flurry of last-minute negotiations with Moscow-- which seems unlikely-- or whether it will accelerate the Cold War-like behavior among the United States, Russia and China.

Complicating that question is the American intelligence agencies’ warning this week that Russia and China are “more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.”

The fate of the treaty has quickly become a test of the continuing struggle inside the Trump administration, and with its allies, over how to handle an increasingly aggressive Russia.

Mr. Trump campaigned on remaking Washington’s relationship with Moscow; the open investigation by the Justice Department’s special counsel is, at its core, about whether he and his campaign aides promised to relieve sanctions and other impediments to Russia in return for financial or electoral benefits from Mr. Putin’s government.

But Mr. Trump has surrounded himself in the White House with hawkish advisers, including John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, who has been a major critic of treaties that he believes impinge the United States’ ability to counter new or rising foreign threats.

The decision to leave the nuclear arms treaty took American allies by surprise when word of the decision first leaked out in October and was quickly confirmed by Mr. Trump.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance that was created to counter the Soviet threat 70 years ago, acknowledged that Russia had violated the I.N.F. treaty and called on Moscow in December “to return urgently to full and verifiable compliance.”

But the alliance stopped short of agreeing that the United States should withdraw, declaring then that the “allies are firmly committed to the preservation of effective international arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation.”

The announcement by Mr. Pompeo came just ahead of the expiration, on Saturday, of a 60-day deadline he gave Moscow to come into compliance with the treaty. He had no expectation that the Russians would heed his warning.

Mr. Pompeo’s formal announcement begins a six-month clock that Trump administration officials believe will end with a full American withdrawal from the treaty. Starting on Saturday, the United States would be free to begin to test or deploy its own weapons.

It is not clear whether that will happen; there are no weapons in the American arsenal that could be quickly deployed. That was the point of the treaty: It banned an entire category of weapons-- land-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles-- that both the United States and the Soviet Union had deployed in the 1980s, and which at the time terrorized Europe.

For many years, the I.N.F. was considered a model arms control treaty. It allowed for on-site inspections and extensive exchanges of information-- exactly what the Trump administration now seeks from North Korea and other states.

But in 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia of turning out a missile that violated the treaty, and last fall, Dan Coats, the national intelligence director, published a detailed history of the Russian violations.

Experts cited Russian unhappiness with the treaty, going back at least 10 years, before Moscow focused on new generations of missiles that would extend its reach without costing it much money. Russian officials have charged that American missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe could be easily refashioned into offensive weapons, and that the rise of armed drones, which had not been invented when the treaty was signed, now threaten to provide the United States with similar intermediate-range ability without violating the precise wording of the treaty.

Ahead of Friday’s announcement, Russia had aggressively used social media accounts to portray the United States as the treaty-breaker and the aggressor. That argument has won some sympathy in Europe, where many critics portray the treaty’s demise as an example of the Trump administration putting its own agenda before Europe’s.

But the real action is likely to be in Asia. The Pentagon has already been developing nuclear weapons to match, and counter, what the Chinese have deployed.

Completing that effort would take years. Until then, officials said the United States is preparing to modify existing weapons, including its non-nuclear Tomahawk missiles, and is likely to deploy them in Guam, where the military maintains a large base and they would face little political opposition.

Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953) was an English mathematician, physicist, meteorologist and psychologist, who pioneered the scientific analysis of conflict, applying modern mathematical techniques he developed for weather forecasting to systematically study the causes of wars and how to prevent them. In 2003 David Bigelow wrote a paper, An Analysis of the Richardson Arms Race Model, pointing out that according to Richardson "the likelihood of two nations engaging in conflict can be determined by a set of differential equations. Richardson conjectured that a nation’s probability of entering into an aggressive war is based upon its stockpiles of available weaponry, and tempered by the resistance of the citizenry. In the Richardson model, the likelihood of a small dispute erupting into a full war is based upon these variables, and the current conditions. The model has three basic cases: both nations tending towards disarmament, both nations tending towards a runaway arms race, and both nations tending towards a stable equilibrium point.

”X” represents the amount of weaponry that country one has at time t. ”Y” is the same for the second country. Each constant has a specific meaning, and vary from system to system.

The constants ”a” and ”b” are known alternatively as ”fear” or ”reaction” constants. They represent the desire of a country to increase arms at a rate proportional to the amount of arms that their opponent possesses. The con- stants ”m” and ”n” are known as either the ”restraint” or ”fatigue” factors. They represent the desire of a nation to reduce arms stockpiles at a rate di- rectly proportional to what they possess. Finally, ”r” and ”s” are the grievance constants, and represent the ”leftovers.” These constants can contain ambition, external pressure, a revenge motive, and other factors not directly related to arms stockpiles.

William Hartung made noticed that the revolving door between the Pentagon and the arms industry is spinning faster inside the Trump Regime than ever before, particularly since Patrick Shanahan was appointed acting Secretary of Defense. "No secretary of defense in recent memory," wrote Hartung, "has had such a long career in the arms industry and so little experience in government or the military. For most of that career, in fact, his main focus was winning defense contracts for Boeing, not crafting effective defense policies. While the Pentagon should be focused on protecting the country, the arms industry operates in the pursuit of profit, even when that means selling weapons systems to countries working against American national security interests... Shanahan’s new role raises questions about whether what is in the best interest of Boeing-- bigger defense budgets and giant contracts for unaffordable and ineffective weaponry or aircraft-- is what’s in the best interest of the public."

His former company is one of two finalists to build a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Critics of such weapons systems like Clinton administration Secretary of Defense William Perry point out that ICBMs are the most dangerous and unnecessary leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, since in a potential war they might need to be launched on only minutes’ notice, lest they be lost to incoming enemy nukes. Even some of their supporters have questioned the need for a brand-new ICBM when older ones could be upgraded. Nuclear hawks might eventually be persuaded to adopt such a position, too, since the cost of the Pentagon’s across-the-board $1.5 trillion “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (including the production of new nuclear bombers, missiles, and warheads) will otherwise begin to impinge on department priorities elsewhere. But how likely is Shanahan to seriously entertain even such modest critiques when they threaten to eliminate a huge potential payday for Boeing?

Former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson mentioned to me this morning that "The Trump Administration has budgeted $494 billion on nuclear weapon 'modernization,' which is $100 million per nuke. Those nukes are burning a hole in Trump’s pocket; let’s hope they don’t explode... Trump should have tried to enforce the deal, not suspend it. If you breached a contract with me, my reaction wouldn’t be, 'well, then, I’ll just tear it up.'"

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)-- who serves on both the Armed Services Committee and on the subcommittee for National Security of the House Financial Services Committee-- took a minute out of her presidential campaign to tell us that she feels the "heightened tensions with Russia and China are sending us into a new Cold War. We need to be stepping up nuclear nonproliferation agreements, not rolling them back. Trump's actions threaten our national security and the future of our planet."

Early this morning, the BBC reported, exactly what everyone expected: Putin said Russia would start developing new missiles. Another gift from Trump. "Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the treaty, and we are suspending it too," Mr Putin said on Saturday. Meanwhile, the worldwide merchants of death and popping champagne bottles everywhere. The half dozen American companies that have spent the most in bribing members of Congress last year and their stocks' performance on Friday:

• Boeing- $4,011,579- (up 0.5%)
• Northrop Grumman- $3,943,199 (down 0.9%)
• Lockhead Martin- $3,422,998- (up 0.38%)
• General Dynamics- $2,279,136- (down 1.25%)
• Raytheon- $2,217,783- (up 0.73%)
• United Technologies- $1,182,114 (up 0.77%)

And who got the biggest slices of the pie from the weapons manufacturers? These are the half dozen worst who are still in Congress (just from the last cycle-- and keep in mind not one of them had a serious reelection race, although McSally ran for the Senate in a very heavily contested race-- and lost):

• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- $339,250
• Kay Granger (R-TX)- $322,840
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)- $290,742
• Adam Smith (D-WA)- $276,550
• Rob Wittman (R-VA)- $274,500
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)- $266,241

Is Selling The Saudi Dictator $110 Billion Worth Of Very Deadly Advanced Weaponry A Good Idea?

Señor Trumpanzee is already bragging about how historic and profitable his failed and embarrassing trip abroad was. For me the lasting image will be the fast food-eating, exercise-free, out of shape 71 year old (June 14) slob in Golf Cart One, following behind all the international leaders out for a nice invigorating stroll through Taormina. What a clown! He wants to think his trip generated millions of jobs. He's just catering to the easily-duped morons who still support him. Presumably the "millions of jobs" will come, in part, from selling even more advanced weapons-- $110 billion worth-- to the oppressive Saudi dictatorship. But Congress is already starting to wonder how bad of an idea that is for America.

Michigan Republican Justin Amash is leading an effort to stop the sale-- and he's been joined by a strong bipartisan coalition that initially was made up of Mark Pocan (D-WI), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Jim McGovern (D-MA). Federal law gives Congress 30 days to review arms deals to non-NATO countries and Amash and his colleagues are focussing in on the sale of precision-guided munitions and other advanced offensive weapons in the deal. They proposed a joint resolution of disapproval (H.J. 102).

Many in Congress are concerned that there will be nothing left of Yemen if the Saudis get these weapons. On Thursday Amash said in a statement that "Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records and has supported many of the extremists terrorizing the people of the Middle East and the world. These arms sales extend a reckless policy from the Obama administration and prior administrations, and they come at a time when the Saudi government is escalating a gruesome war in Yemen."

Madison, Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan is the lead Democratic co-sponsor. He added that "Trump's proposed $110-billion weapons sale sends the wrong message to Saudi Arabia. In addition to regularly dropping U.S. bombs on Yemeni civilians, Saudi Arabia appears to have every intention of using the U.S. weapons from this sale to enforce a blockade on Yemen that prevents food and medicine from reaching millions of people on the brink of starvation. For months, my colleagues and I have been demanding answers to the most basic questions on the U.S. role in the disastrous war in Yemen and have been met with deafening silence from the White House. As we introduce a resolution of disapproval against this unprecedented weapons sale, we are concerned about U.S. complicity in the world’s largest humanitarian crisis now consuming Yemen. Our bipartisan group of lawmakers will be urging our colleagues to take seriously our constitutional duty to vigorously debate the merits of arming the Saudis even further."

Amash, who was very outspoken in his opposition to Obama selling the Saudis one billion dollars worth of these deadly weapons, noted that Trump's deal is a hundred times bigger (and more deadly).

A bipartisan companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Rand Paul (R-KY), Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Al Franken (D-MN). We asked two of our favorite southern California congressional candidates, Katie Hill in a district just north of L.A. and Doug Applegate in a San Diego/Orange County district he nearly won against Darrell Issa (1,600 vote gap) in 2016. Katie asked a key question we all need to ask ourselves-- even if Trump and her opponent, Steve Knight won't: "This deal goes against our values as a country. How can we be fighting a war on terrorism and then provide weapons that we know will be used against civilians-- all in the name of profit?"

Doug Applegate, was a Marine colonel and is a very savvy national security expert who worries about Trump's lack of experience and chops in this crucial area. He told us this morning that "U.S. weapons should come with binding obligations to adhere to the Law of War and Geneva Conventions. That contingency should also include appropriate training of Saudi armed forces. To do otherwise makes America the world’s arms dealer no different than Russia. Once again Darrell Issa is MIA despite having Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in the middle of his Congressional District. What do you say to the Marines, Darrell?"

Bonus: Jimmy Kimmel has been ON FIRE lately:

Two Ways of Looking at U.S. Industrial Policy

U.S. industrial policy, as practiced (click to enlarge; source)

by Gaius Publius

I was of two minds,
Like a tree
In which there are two blackbirds.
    (with apologies to Wallace Stevens)

Much of the debate around U.S. trade policy — or "trade" policy, since so much of it really concerns capital flow and "investor rights" than it does actual trade — is really an attempt to define and direct U.S. industrial policy.

Here's one definition of "industrial policy":

The industrial policy of a country, sometimes denoted IP, is its official strategic effort to encourage the development and growth of part or all of the manufacturing sector as well as other sectors of the economy.[1][2][3] The government takes measures "aimed at improving the competitiveness and capabilities of domestic firms and promoting structural transformation."[4] A country's infrastructure (transportation, telecommunications and energy industry) is a major part of the manufacturing sector that often has a key role in IP.

Ignore the part about "aimed at improving the competitiveness of domestic firms," since industrial policy can have other, more pernicious goals, as you'll see shortly. Industrial policy certainly promotes "structural transformation" when it acts. In the same way, by inaction industrial policy leaves in place structures it prefers not to disturb.

In short, "industrial policy" is what a nation does or does not do to structure its manufacturing capability — its ability to produce good domestically, with domestic labor — as it wishes. In other words, the goal of a nation's industrial policy is to enable the wishes of the nation's leaders, whatever they are, even when those wishes are other than "improving the competitiveness of domestic firms."

Let's look at two definitions of current U.S. industrial policy, in particular, mine and Marcy Wheeler's. While quite different, these definitions are not mutually exclusive, since, as the piece quoted above points out, "Industrial policies are sector-specific." One (mine) deals largely with manufacturing for the privately financed consumer-based economy. Wheeler's deals largely with the publicly financed and supposedly military-based economy.

First my own definition, then Wheeler's.

U.S. Industrial Policy — Beggar the Nation to Enrich the Few

If you consider the effect (i.e., the goal as practiced) of U.S. industrial policy, you can't in good conscience say it's "aimed at improving the competitiveness of domestic firms," since what would improve that competitiveness (that is, bolster the competitiveness of goods manufactured domestically) is the kind of protectionism practiced during the first 200 years of the nation's history, explicitly argued by Alexander Hamilton and adopted under the George Washington administration.

The Washington administration, and every administration until Reagan's, had as a goal to increase the competitive success of the domestic manufacturing sector, the sector powered by U.S. labor, relative to both domestic (U.S.) markets and world markets. Under Reagan, and under every president since — Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama — the U.S. manufacturing sector, or that part of it that services the consumer economy, has been systematically dismantled. (The arguments that this is true are legion, but for the short version, think NAFTA.)

Thus my definition of U.S. industrial policy as practiced:

Current U.S. industrial policy is to move our consumer manufacturing capability out of the country at the fastest possible rate and to hand the (untaxed) savings to billionaires, using corporations as a pass-through.

That is, the people who control U.S. government policy vis-à-vis the manufacture of consumer products make sure that the nation's manufacturing worker class is made poorer so that the savings in labor cost can go into the pockets of the corporate ownership and financier classes. They do this to the greatest extent possible, and at the fastest rate allowable under current conditions.

They do this by action — through treaties like NAFTA, for example, as well as numerous bilateral agreements — and by inaction, through tax policies that don't interrupt, or in many cases accelerate, the wealth drain out of the worker class (including white collar workers) into the pockets of the international wealthy.

Regarding U.S. industrial policy for the consumer manufacturing sector, a person would be hard put, I think, to disagree. Which is why I wrote at the start of this piece that the "wishes" or goals of a nation's policy don't necessarily have to be beneficial to its manufacturing sector. In this case, the U.S. beggars (dismantles) its manufacturing sector for another goal — the enrichment of those who control the political and political-messaging processes.

The F-35 As U.S. Industrial Policy

Marcy Wheeler takes another approach to determining what U.S. industrial policy is, and hits the nail on the head, at least as regards the military-industrial-congressional sector. Wheeler discusses that here (my emphasis):

Our Industrial Policy Is the F-35

...I actually think the [Carrier] deal ought to elicit a more interesting discussion of industrial policy — the kind of systematic intervention that [economist Jared] Bernstein talks about that might actually do something about the hollowing out of America’s manufacturing base.

Such a discussion has long been forbidden in American political discourse, in part because the same economists pretending such whack-a-mole bribes haven’t become the norm in American political life also pretend that an unfettered “free” market (always defined to include mobile capital and goods, but not labor) will benefit everyone.

Yet even during the period when any discussion of industrial policy has been forbidden, we’ve had one.

Our industrial policy consists of massive US [taxpayer-financed] investments in manufacturing war and intelligence toys that we then sell to foreign governments. When done with Middle Eastern petro-states like Saudi Arabia, that trade goes a long way to equalize our foreign trade deficit, but it contributes directly to instability that then requires us to intervene and build more war toys. That investment in war leads, in turn, to a disinvestment in publicly funded infrastructure that could also provide jobs in the heartland.

The most obvious symbol of our unacknowledged industrial policy is the F-35...

Wheeler goes on to add:

Our current industrial policy, you see, feeds so few prime contractors that they are virtually immune from the competition that might pressure them to deliver quality goods. Which leads, in turn, to rework, contract overruns, and contractors walking out of the building with our government’s most closely guarded secrets, all with no consequences.

Let’s stop pretending (as this piece does) that America’s manufacturing, increasingly dominated by the production of war toys, exists in a a real market, shall we?

Which is where our views converge:

Once we do that, we might begin to address the diseases of our defense contracting and — more importantly — rediscover the value of investing in other kinds of manufacturing that our country needs to have. Justify these investments by some future defense need, I don’t give a damn (though there are military officials who will soberly explain the risks of the hollowing out of our manufacturing base). But invest in the technologies the US needs to stay competitive and retain a manufacturing base.

And there it is, two definitions of "U.S. industrial policy," one for manufacturers in the privately financed consumer sector and one for manufacturers in the tax-payer financed military-industrial-congressional sector.

Interesting how the source of the money used — whether it comes from the public pocket (yours and mine) or the pocket of those who own the business — determines where the manufacturing occurs. It probably helps a lot that publicly financed manufacturing includes a very generous profit guarantee (which Wheeler also discusses), a guarantee not available to private corporations.

These must guarantee their profit — and their mahogany suite compensation and "golden parachutes" packages — by taking from tax-payers in another way. They take from them directly, in other words, in the form of lost wages, since they can't use the IRS as an extraction tool.

GP
 

Coalition Of The Shilling

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, says Germany isn't sending men or planes to fight in Iraq, which is significantly different from what President Obama is asserting. Instead, says Steinmeier, let Iran do the heavy lifting. At Friday's UN Security Council session on ISIS, he said that "[d]espite the difficulties that we have with Iran and its nuclear ambitions, I am of the opinion that all of the neighbors of Syria and Iraq should be included… I sincerely hope that Iran will be considered, for only then will we be able to get control of the threat posed by IS."

Over the weekend the editors of the NY Times wondered about an Iranian role in the battle against ISIS, The Unlikeliest of Coalitions. In fact, they're casting a great deal of doubt on America's ability to put any kind of effective coalition together in the Middle East, and they ran down the obstacles, country by country.

TURKEY

More than any other Sunni Muslim state, Turkey, a NATO member with one of the region’s largest armies, should be a strong ally. Yet it ruled out a front-line role, citing concerns for the safety of 49 Turkish diplomats who had been taken hostage by ISIS (they were returned to Turkey on Saturday). It also fears that efforts to arm Kurdish fighters in Iraq to fight ISIS could embolden Kurdish separatist militants in Turkey.

The Turkish government, determined to see Mr. Assad overthrown, has been supporting insurgent groups in Syria since the start of the civil war and allowing them to pass freely across the Turkish border into Syria. But even though ISIS has now proved itself a threat to Turkey and beyond, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, has failed to take aggressive measures to stop the cross-border flow of foreign fighters, weapons and oil trade benefiting ISIS. In fact, Turkey’s open-border policy early on in the Syrian war was central to the rise of ISIS…

SAUDI ARABIA AND THE GULF STATES

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were among 10 Arab states that recently promised to “do their share” to defeat ISIS. Many of these states have for a long time aided rival Islamist and militant groups, including in Syria. For example, although Qatar hosts the largest American military base in the region, it has supported a range of Islamist groups (including Islamic radicals in Syria) with safe haven, financial aid and weapons. Saudi Arabia has allowed sheikhs linked to Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch to raise funds openly, and the United Arab Emirates backed a faction in Libya against Islamic militias supported by Qatar.

Against this backdrop, however, some productive commitments have been made. Saudi Arabia has agreed to host a major base for training Syrian opposition forces. And Jordan, already a site for rebel training, is expected to provide intelligence.

While American officials say some countries, which they have not identified, want to join American forces in making airstrikes against militants in Iraq, the United States must carefully incorporate participation by Muslim countries so it does not further inflame sectarian tensions and anti-American feeling.

IRAN AND SYRIA

Both the United States and Iran, adversaries since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, consider ISIS a threat. But Iranian leaders have ruled out direct cooperation in repelling the extremist group. Iran, one of the Assad regime’s strongest allies, is worried that American airstrikes in Syria and expanded support for Syrian rebel forces could further damage Mr. Assad’s hold on power. American leaders have been cool to cooperating with Iran because that would anger Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim states. Negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, now at a critical point, are also affecting these calculations.

Whether the Obama administration can bring all of these and other conflicting agendas into a coherent military and political alliance against the Islamic State is far from certain. So far, the focus has mostly been on what military-related assistance such partners can offer.

What is certain is that there can never be real success against ISIS without some kind of political settlement in Syria, an inclusive government in Iraq and some reduction in the Sunni-Shiite tensions that created space for ISIS to grow. In this regard, Saudi Arabia’s decisions to reopen its embassy in Baghdad, invite Iraq to the recent coalition meeting in Jidda and invite an Iranian official for talks in Riyadh were unheralded but potentially important steps toward a united front.

At the same time the NY Times was fretting about putting together a coalition, The Telegraph was writing about the duplicitous role American regional "ally" Qatar has been-- and still is-- playing. Remember, Qatar, an oil-rich peninsula that juts out into the Persian Gulf from Saudi Arabia is just 4,467 square miles of waterless desert (bigger than Delaware and smaller than Connecticut). The country is a feudal Wahhabi monarchy with 278,000 Qatari citizens and about a million and a half foreign workers, many of whom are, in effect, slaves. Materially very rich and, socially, very backward. David Blair and Richard Spencer, writing for The Telegraph make the point that the cash (and weapons) for the Islamist extremists-- Libya Dawn-- who have taken over Libya's capital and forced the pro-Western government to flee was provided by Qataris.

The remarkable truth is that few in the Middle East would be shocked. From Hamas in the Gaza Strip to radical armed movements in Syria, Qatar's status as a prime sponsor of violent Islamists, including groups linked to al-Qaeda, is clear to diplomats and experts.

Qatar's promotion of extremism has so infuriated its neighbours that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all chose to withdraw their ambassadors from the country in March.

Take Syria, where Qatar has been sponsoring the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad's regime. In itself, that policy places Qatar alongside the leading Western powers and much of the Arab world.

But Qatar has deliberately channelled guns and cash towards Islamist rebels, notably a group styling itself Ahrar al-Sham, or "Free Men of Syria". Only last week, Khalid al-Attiyah, the Qatari foreign minister, praised this movement as "purely" Syrian.

He added that its fighters had suffered heavy losses while combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), the group behind the murder of David Haines, the British aid worker, and which is holding John Cantlie and Alan Henning hostage.

Far from being a force for moderation, Ahrar al-Sham played a key role in transforming the anti-Assad revolt into an Islamist uprising. Its men fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, during the battle for Aleppo and they were accused of at least one sectarian massacre.

Instead of fighting Isil, Ahrar al-Sham helped the jihadists to run Raqqa, the town in eastern Syria that is now the capital of the self-proclaimed "Caliphate." This cooperation with Isil happened for some months until the two groups fell out last year.

Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a "global terrorist." The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to "al-Qaeda's representative in Syria," named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.

Suri has also been a senior commander of Ahrar al-Sham. If America was right to describe him as "al-Qaeda's representative," then there was an overlap between the leadership of the two groups.

Mr Nuaimi is also accused by the US treasury of transferring as much as $2 million per month to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" and $250,000 to al-Shabaab, the movement's affiliate in Somalia. Mr Nuaimi denies the allegations, saying they are motivated by his own criticism of US policy.

…Last month, Gerd Müller, the German international development minister, implicated Qatar in the rise of Isil. "You have to ask who is arming, who is financing Isil troops. The keyword there is Qatar," he said.

Yet a state endowed with large reserves of gas and oil and one of the world's biggest sovereign wealth funds can wield immense influence, even over Berlin. Qatar was duly able to secure a formal withdrawal of this charge from the German government.

The following day The Telegraph ran an unsigned editorial whose first sentence was "Enough is enough," Funding Terrorists Is Not What Friends Do.

Finally, politicians are starting to ask who is financing the people who do these terrible things. Vernon Coaker, the shadow defence secretary, has called on ministers to press states in the Arab region to cease sending funds to the “brutal” jihadists. “These are dangerous people and we have to defeat them and one of the ways to do that is to cut off their source of funding,” Mr Coaker told this newspaper.

Indeed, an investigation for The Telegraph discovered that while oil-rich Qatar denies ever financing Isil, it did become the main patron for an extremist group fighting in Syria called Ahrar al-Sham and that Qatari weapons and money may have reached the Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate. Meanwhile, Western diplomats believe that Qatar supplied arms to the Islamist coalition that captured Tripoli in Libya last month. And Qatar is a longstanding backer of Hamas, the radical Palestinian movement in Gaza. In 2012, Hamas’s political leaders moved their headquarters from Damascus in Syria to Doha, the Qatari capital.

Stephen Barclay, a Tory MP, has suggested that British diplomats might be unwilling to confront the Qataris for fear of frightening away their cash investments in the UK. But speak up they must. Security and the safety of British citizens is priceless-- and it cannot be right that a state such as Qatar can, on the one hand, support radical groups and, on the other, enjoy such a lucrative partnership with the West. It should be compelled to do the right thing.

UPDATE: So It Begins… Again

BOOM! Obama started bombing ISIS bases in Syria tonight. Supposedly, warplanes from Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and even Qatar took part. The main target was Raqqa which is about 100 miles east of Aleppo, Syria's biggest city-- or at least it was Syria's biggest city until it was much diminished by war. The population of Raqqa is somewhat under a quarter million people-- smaller now since the 10% of the population that was Christian has fled. It was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate (796 to 809) and ISIS uses it as their "capital" now, although probably not for long.

Hatred-Fueled GOP Obstructionists Join Syria, North Korea And Iran In Opposing An International Arms Treaty

Earlier today someone was reporting about Obama's troubles getting a climate change agenda through Congress. They quoted the president saying, "The politics of this are tough." Maybe he should have thought of that before he decided to be a Black president with a Congress filled with obstructionist racist dogs who detest him and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of his leadership, like the four rotten, bitterly ambitious galoots above.

And this isn't just about Obama being unable to make headway on dozens of national priorities (like job creation, gun safety and immigration reform) nor just about his inability to get his judicial nominees confirmed. A UN Treaty that basically spreads American standards on international arms shipments to the rest of the world-- and which was opposed by terrorist outfits like Iran, Syria, the NRA and North Korea-- is also being opposed by the 4 galoots above and their Senate cronies. 35 Republican senators have already announced they're against it. Since it needs a 2/3s majority in the Senate to be ratified... well, maybe Hillary will pull in enough Democrats in 2016 for it to come up again.

Rand wants to be president

Right-wing extremists in the U.S. are against it because they claim it's a cover for a UN black helicopter gun grab, something that may play well in rural areas of the ole slaveholding states and the Mormon states but... has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of reality. The treaty, which took 7 years to negotiate is meant to force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. American arm sellers, which pay massive bribes to conservative politicians in the U.S. are alarmed, although America already has stricter standards than the treaty does. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons to rogue states that use them to kill civilians. Obviously there's something about that that bothers fascists like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Miss McConnell, etc., even if they can't quite put their fingers on what it is.

The treaty calls for sales to be evaluated on whether the weapons will be used to break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, abet terrorism or organized crime or slaughter women and children.

...Among the opponents is Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican. In a statement last month, he said that the treaty contained “unnecessarily harsh treatment of civilian-owned small arms” and violated the right to self-defense and United States sovereignty.

In a bow to American concerns, the preamble states that it is focused on international sales, not traditional domestic use, but the National Rifle Association has vowed to fight ratification anyway. The General Assembly vote came after efforts to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran, North Korea and Syria blocking it. The three, often ostracized, voted against the treaty again on Tuesday.

So far the only Democratish senator coming out against it is conservative Max Baucus of Montana. The rest are a bunch of Republican dead-enders determined to prevent Obama from governing or solving America's problems. This is the kind of garbage paranoid Republicans are hearing, concerned that it means a national firearms registry-- which it doesn't-- in any way:



UPDATE: Not Every Senate Crackpot Is A Republican

Oklahoma sociopath James Inhofe offered this as a Budget Amendment at 4:30 AM on Match 23 and it passed 53-46, confusing easily confused senators-- especially so at that time of the day-- by stating that the purpose was "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." Every single Republican and 8 confused Democrats voted for it. The confused Democrats, who, apparently, should never be allowed up that late without careful supervision:

• Mark Begich (AK)
• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Kay Hagan (NC)
• Martin Heinrich (NM)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• John Tester (MT)

UPDATE: Catholic Bishops Want Peace

The U.S. bishops want Obama to sign the treaty but their conservative allies are blocking it. What will they do? How important is it to them?

America's top Catholic body on Thursday urged the Obama administration to sign the United Nations arms trade treaty.

“In light of the position of the Holy See, I urge the Administration to expedite a thorough review of the Treaty so that the President can sign it in early June,” Des Moines Bishop Richard Pates, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops's Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry. “As a world leader and a major arms exporter, our nation should set a positive example for other nations to follow in efforts to reduce the flow of weapons into situations that violate human rights and cause terrible suffering.”

Is Rick Santorum weeping bitterly? What about Rubio? Is he back to being a Catholic again? I know Vitter makes believe he is.