April, 13 2009, 02:10pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone: (202) 223-4975,Email:,coha@coha.org
Summit of the Americas: Obama Goes to Trinidad
Obama’s Opportunity to Build a Coherent U.S.-Latin America Policy
WASHINGTON
Latin America took a back seat in U.S. foreign policy during the eight years of the Bush presidency, most likely due to the Iraqi distraction, when most of the administration's diplomatic capacity was expended on Baghdad, with little left over for the Americas. The region has to date remained largely unaddressed by the Obama White House, but there are several key policy areas which the U.S. president will be expected to comprehensively address in Port of Spain. Political orientation has altered, outside competition has grown more fierce, and attitudes towards the U.S. have shifted significantly since Washington last engaged to a serious extent with Latin America. Consequently, the scope - indeed, the need - for a new approach is pressing. In fact, many of the moves Obama ought to be considering are not costly in monetary terms, but could prove profitable in terms of diplomatic coinage. However, while the vacuum on Latin American issues which currently characterizes the Obama White House persists, it is unclear whether or not the U.S. president is prepared to come forth with big policy initiatives or has the capacity to grasp the importance of such measures to hemispheric relations.
Treading the Line between Listening and Lecturing
Much of the discussion in Washington in the weeks preceding the Summit has centered on the question of the role the U.S. president should play at the Port of Spain forum. Debates have largely been wasted by the vastly oversimplified question; should Obama go merely to listen to other countries' concerns, or should he arrive with a plan of action? Listening to the views of the rest of the hemisphere is a prerequisite for the kind of improved U.S.-Latin American relations that Obama has promised, and which was routinely ignored by his predecessors. On the other hand, a number of Latin American presidents have made it clear to him in no uncertain terms over the past two months what the region expects of him. Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, acted as Latin America's emissary when he visited Washington on March 14. Lula's message could not have been clearer. "I'm going to ask that the U.S. take a different view of Latin America," he said before meeting Obama. "We're a democratic, peaceful continent, and the U.S. has to look at the region in a productive, developmental way, and not just think about drug trafficking or organized crime."
The White House must now move to outline a plan of action based on the information it has accrued over the past three months in office. To date, Washington has failed to present a coherent strategy for its Latin America policy. This has widely been put down to the fact that the administration remains distracted by events elsewhere in the world and at home. However, this interpretation overlooks the relatively simple nature of the steps it would take for Obama to begin to formulate a consistent and effective policy for the hemisphere.
The administration's preoccupation with the welfare of domestic U.S. industries is certainly understandable, but the current state of the economy must not be used as an excuse for President Obama not to take action in the other crucial areas in which the U.S. shares interests with the rest of the western hemisphere. It seems inevitable that such economic factors will be at the top of the agenda in Port of Spain - and the countries of Latin America quite clearly have a vested interest in ensuring that the U.S. does not attempt to fix its economy in a fashion which may be detrimental to them - but the Obama administration has a whole set of important agenda items to address at the summit, and the approach it takes will dictate not only the direction of U.S.-Latin American relations, but will also have a significant bearing on other aspects of its foreign and domestic policy.
For example, action on Cuba will generate diplomatic repercussions worldwide; the way in which the U.S. addresses subjects which are urgent to Latin America will help dictate the future shape of its international trade; and the future stipulations of regional anti-drug policy will eventually have a direct bearing on hemispheric security, particularly along the U.S.' southern border. In short, arriving with a spelled-out and wide-ranging plan of action that is sympathetic to the grievances of Latin America's governments, may well hold untold benefits for Washington, and is the only way it can balance being considered sufficiently sensitive to its neighbors' most fundamental requirements.
The Cuban Question
President Obama will travel to Trinidad in the knowledge that the biggest diplomatic challenge he will face is most likely the question of U.S. policy towards Cuba. COHA, along with an ever-growing chorus of governments, media, Afro-American groups and church and business organizations, repeatedly have called for the Obama administration to sweep away the clutter and make a clean break with a shameful past by normalizing U.S. relations with Cuba. This would immeasurably improve the goodwill shown to the White House by the rest of the hemisphere and should be no more difficult to do than it was for the Bush administration to normalize ties with an essentially lawless society in the case of Libya. Praiseworthy steps already are being contemplated, like slackening the restrictions on travel and ability to send off remittances imposed on Cuban-Americans by President Bush, and Obama has promised to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo within one year. The administration will attempt to use these moves as bargaining chips. However, the fact that the decades-old trade embargo on the island remains in place - which was so effectively denounced by Richard Lugar (R-In), the minority ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - cannot be overlooked.
On his recent visit to Chile, Vice President Joe Biden restated the administration's muddled unwillingness to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba. "We think that Cuban people should determine their own fate and they should be able to live in freedom and have some prospect of economic prosperity," said Biden, using rather contorted logic to suggest that Washington still, after 47 years, believes that regime change is a prerequisite for the embargo's lifting. The regrettable maintenance of the status quo on this front means that Obama cannot be expected to "bring Cuba in from the cold," as the Guardian recently suggested he would use the Summit to do.
Whether or not the promises Obama makes on Cuba at the summit will placate his barrage of right- and left-wing critics or can be expounded upon in a respectable manner is a matter for the future, but the problem will not go away, just as it has not disappeared over the decades. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently called the U.S. embargo against Cuba "absurd and stupid," and has asserted that the issue "has to be discussed" in Port of Spain. The AP reported that the Venezuelan president went on to criticize Havana's exclusion from April's forum, saying, "Cuba is in Latin America ... With what right, for example, am I going to go to a summit where all of Latin America is there ... and Cuba isn't there? Why?" Chavez's ability to drum up sufficiently vociferous support for what the Economist has labeled "the ghost at the conference table" will likely dictate the intensity of the hostility Obama will have to face. In any case, the U.S. president certainly will be passing up the most cost effective method of healing the U.S.' image in Latin America. By doing so, he will lead his administration into an increasingly isolated position at a time when Costa Rica has recently repaired relations with Havana which were first broken off in 1961 and El Salvador has followed suit after the election of Mauricio Funes on March 15, which will make it the last Latin American nation to restore full relations with Cuba.
Taming Caracas
U.S. relations with Venezuela, which deteriorated drastically during the Bush presidency, remain strained. While President Chavez initially welcomed Obama's election, their subsequent exchanges have largely been tense and disagreeably unpleasant. Chavez said on March 18 of his government's preparations for April's summit, "Our artillery is being prepared. There's going to be good artillery." He went on to ask, "What will Mr. Obama come with? I don't know. We're going to see. We'll see what the pitcher throws."
Suspicion of Caracas remains unabated in the corridors of Capitol Hill. Chavez has hardly helped his cause lately by launching what it is hard not to see as a power grab since his impressive February 15 referendum victory, or at least an excess of activity that adds up to an antipathetic strategy that can only lose him more friends internationally and domestically. By seizing control of foreign-owned food manufacturers and a sizeable portion of Venezuela's aviation infrastructure, Chavez not only arms more of his enemies with bad as well as good arguments, but, even more importantly, fills his agenda with far too many items than he or anyone else can effectively address or properly administer. Nevertheless, it is imperative that Obama makes an effort to distance himself from the hostile rhetoric that continues to emanate from the Hill, and occasionally from within his administration.
Caracas seems almost certain to become a less important focus in U.S. foreign policy under an administration which is anticipated to be more attentive to the substantive issues Latin America faces. However, accepting the fundamental fact that Chavez is democratically elected, and taking a rational approach towards a creative engagement with Venezuela in the hope of diminishing its president's incentive to spout vitriol, will help pave the way for a calmer and more productive relationship between Washington and Latin America as a whole, both during and beyond the Summit. Recall that even under the Bush administration, the State Department had come up with a pro-dialogue tactic, which Chavez either cagily or foolishly rejected. But he now seems to be looking around for an honest broker like Lula to intercede with the White House, and one should also recall that constructive engagement was the habitual advice that Fidel had imparted to his protege. Whatever the source or the message, the surly, dismissive content of the Bush White House when it came to Venezuela had nothing to persuade Chavez, and hopefully will be replaced with wiser words and policy formulations under its new tenant.
Drugs and Violence: Looking Beyond Mexico
One aspect of the U.S.-Latin American relationship which has begun to be addressed by the Obama administration is the Mexican security situation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico on March 25 and 26, and the president himself will travel to Trinidad for the Summit via Mexico City on April 16 and 17. These trips, coupled with Mexican President Felipe Calderon's January visit to Washington, demonstrate the high value that the U.S. is placing in its relations with its southern neighbor.
During her visit, Secretary Clinton made several promising remarks that admitted, "what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity ... to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible." Moreover, she went on to accept U.S. culpability in exacerbating the violence, taking responsibility not only in failing to halt it, but acknowledging that, "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."
The true test for Washington will be whether or not it can find the answers to the questions Clinton has posed. How will the administration prevent the smuggling of weapons that at times are far more lethal than those the Mexican security forces possess? How will it quell the insatiable demand for drugs in the U.S.? Identifying the problems is a welcome and praiseworthy start, but until Washington stops merely analyzing, and begins implementing rational and effective policies to address those problems, any progress towards finding solutions will undoubtedly be highly limited.
In order to make a mark, Obama is going to have to adopt some imaginative, and inevitably controversial, policies. By far the best strategy - and perhaps the only effective way to prevent weapons from being smuggled into the hands of Mexican cartels - is to place greater restrictions on the sale of arms in the U.S. The demand for drugs in this country is only likely to be suppressed with a massive redirection of funds from crop eradication programs in the Andean nations towards domestic schemes, and it will likely take the adoption of a more serious approach towards the question of legalization - recently described by the Economist as the "least bad option" for governments to take - to make a significant dent in U.S. consumption.
Moreover, the common problems which U.S. and Mexican authorities face are symptomatic of a malaise which also affects much of the rest of Latin America. While Mexico, given its proximity, is naturally Washington's most pressing concern when it comes to drugs, violence and crime, the Obama administration cannot afford to ignore the rest of the chain of drug trafficking and associated violence, which stretches through Central America to the Andes and beyond, reaching as far as West Africa and then in the smuggling routes going into Europe.
The administration now has to reiterate that it comprehends the drug-related problems plaguing Latin America by publicly acknowledging the fact that President Calderon's crackdown in Mexico is pushing cartels, and the associated violence, not only into U.S. border cities, but also across Mexico's border with Guatemala and into Honduras. This forces all concerned to devote additional scarce resources to fight this expanded conflict which they are bound to lose. Achieving a reduction in violence and cartel influence in these embattled countries should be high on Washington's list of priorities: it must be concerned about the ramifications of Mexico's situation, but if it is serious about helping, it must show a willingness to embrace multilateral solutions, and throw a lot more funds into the kitty.
It is a brave American president who touches the issues of gun control and drug legalization, and Obama does not appear willing to break the mould of timidity regarding this subject. Speaking at a March 26 press conference, he made light of the legalization question, saying, "I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," to "laughter and applause," reported Politico. Obama will inevitably fail to broach such an unmentionable subject in Trinidad, despite its patent relevance. Action on stemming the cartels' activity in Central America is somewhat more likely - the upcoming forum certainly provides Obama with a perfect opportunity to talk to the region's presidents, and the election of a new administration in El Salvador may well spark a renewed dialogue with the area - but the results of any such progress will inevitably be limited due to a relative lack of executive bravery and a disinclination to throw more money at the problem.
Trade: Avoiding Another Mar del Plata
The last Summit of the Americas, at Mar del Plata, Argentina, in November 2005, was the scene of violent protests against President Bush, and culminated in his failure to gain hemispheric support for the U.S.' proposed region-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA has been a source of much contention throughout the history of the Summit, with negotiations beginning in 1994 in Miami, and violence marring Quebec City's turn at hosting in 2001. Indeed, the recurring presence of Bill Clinton's FTA at these meetings has led the Economist to argue that regional power Brazil regards the Summits as being "indissolubly linked to the doomed FTAA."
The question of trade is also set to feature prominently in the proceedings in Port of Spain. Obama is being pressed by many policymakers on Capitol Hill as well as in Colombia and Panama to achieve progress on the U.S.' pending FTAs with those two countries at the upcoming summit. The president must take on board two considerations while deciding on his course of action on this front. Firstly, he should realize that there are good reasons why the Colombian agreement is being held up in Congress, and that similar reasons could justifiably preclude a deal with Panama. Secondly, he needs to, unlike his predecessor, acknowledge that the notion of free trade with the U.S. on Washington's terms is not an attractive proposition for a good portion of the hemisphere's governments.
Colombia's record on human rights, along with the endemic corruption which is a disturbing feature of President Uribe's government, has stalled the progress of the U.S.-Colombian FTA in Congress since 2007. Despite Bogota's recent attempts to revive the process by dispatching its ministers to Washington in February, as part of a huge PR blitz put on by Uribe, events in Colombia continue to provide Congress with good reasons not to proceed in a positive direction. The recent exposure by the Colombia's illustrious news magazine Semana of the Colombian security service DAS's wiretapping practices is just the latest evidence of unremitting government corruption and human rights abuses that have become synonymous with the Uribe administration. Similarly, COHA recently warned the Obama administration against engaging with another "toxic partner," in the form of Panama. The Central American country's murky financial establishments, and the whirlwind of obvious lies and corrupt practices surrounding its upcoming presidential election, should make Obama think twice about promising the FTA enactment which Panama craves but unfortunately, ill deserves.
The Obama administration additionally should realize that the enthusiasm shown by these two countries to sign up to trade deals with the U.S. is not a universally held desire in Latin America. Since the failure of the FTAA under Bush, the region has developed its own vision of regional trade cooperation. Bodies like Chavez's Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) have emerged, alongside the Brazilian-led UNASUR, and all have in common a focus on supplementing trade with other forms of cooperation, be it political in the case of UNASUR, or social among the ALBA countries. Obama must seek to detach the Summit of the Americas - which clearly has the potential to be an invaluable forum - from the ball and chain of the failed FTAA. By reassuring Latin America that the Summit is not merely a vehicle for the U.S. to realize unadulterated free trade, he may succeed in achieving more in Trinidad than his predecessors have managed at previous hemispheric meetings.
Bringing Latin America to the White House: The Case for a Special Envoy
The agenda for U.S. action in Latin America that the U.S. delegation will be taking to Mexico and then to Trinidad, could ultimately be realized, given a sensitive and highly responsive approach from Washington. There is, however, a question mark hovering over the administration's ability to do this while its current staffing and planning configuration continues unmodified. Former President Bill Clinton revived the role of White House Special Envoy to Latin America when he appointed Mack McClarty to the post in 1994, and Otto Reich subsequently served a grossly undistinguished tenure in a similar role under George Bush. Previously, Reich narrowly escaped being prosecuted in the Iran-Contra affair along with former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American affairs Elliot Abrams. However, the then-president abolished the special envoy position in 2004, leaving the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the State Department as the highest ranking administration representative charged with dealing with the region on a daily basis. This role has been filled since 2005 by Tom Shannon. Shannon remains in his post under Obama at least through Trinidad, and while he is a well-respected and a seemingly moderate figure, this still means that there is no Obama appointee prominently positioned in either the White House or State Department tasked with specifically addressing U.S.-Latin American relations.
Jeffrey Davidow, a career Foreign Service officer who served as Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere during the Clinton administration, and has been the U.S. ambassador to both Mexico and Venezuela, was recalled by the Obama White House to act as the president's special advisor at the Summit. However, a permanent Obama-appointed special envoy is a necessity, and would go a long way towards rectifying what could be described as underrepresentation when it comes to having a major spear carrier to do the new administration's work. A bona fide Latin Americanist would be a welcome addition to his administration. After all, Washington must still come up with a specific methodology to implement any measures or program of action it announces at the summit. At the very minimum, it needs to establish some kind of consistent means of engaging with regional leaders beyond episodic gatherings at a conference hall. The uncertainty over Latin American policy that has characterized the first three months of Obama's presidency, and the schizophrenic nature of U.S. relations with the left-leaning leaders of Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as some of the equally populist members of ALBA, is not something that many of those whose interest is centered in the region wish to see continue. Establishing an influential, and consistent and focused link between Washington and the region is an essential way of stabilizing relations, even if difficult ones.
An Opportunity Not to Be Missed
This coming weekend's Summit of the Americas has long been anticipated as the meeting at which the Obama administration would reveal its grand plan for U..S.-Latin American relations. Indeed, the president must clarify his position on at least some of the range of policy issues across the region, if he is to take advantage of the optimism and good will which has to date characterized most of the assembled governments' positive attitudes towards his election.
Ending the uncertainty surrounding the administration's policy thrust in Latin America should be seen as a priority. The White House has made it clear that Tom Shannon is very much an interim member of the administration, but has shown no signs of having considered his replacement. Announcing the appointment of a successor - ideally someone with a strong background in Latin American relations and not some warmed-over Clintonite who gave us NAFTA - to a post in the administration, as well as outlining a strategy which addresses some of the key policy areas set out above, would send the strongest possible positive message to the rest of the hemisphere that the U.S. is back, but this time is ready and willing to establish mutually cordial and gracious relations, and is ready to become literate in such issues as poverty abatement and the promotion of social justice. After all, those values that the U.S. shares or should be sharing with Latin America are either too pressing, or too dangerous, to be neglected.
However, even if Obama does defy expectations by announcing the appointment of an envoy who is bold and dashing, and not some centrist wannabe, the shape his administration's policy has begun to take, suggests that the region's anticipation may remain largely unsatisfied by this week's Summit. Latin America has never been more looking to the left than it is today. But the limited engagement with which the president has taken on the all-important question of Cuba will delight few, though it may placate those who still believe that the voiding of the extra layer of restrictions that President Bush laid on Cuba earlier in the decade was sufficient to masquerade as a new and enlightened Cuba policy. When it comes to Havana, the U.S. should normalize relations across the board, and then negotiate whether these are to be warm or chilly ties. Regarding Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman, he almost certainly holds less sway today than he did in the earlier part of the decade. Nevertheless, he still is vital and has some good ideas. What he now must do is reflect more and speak less. But he has much to contribute to the hemisphere.
Any movement on the 'drug war' will have to see more aid directed at Central America in addition to the current focus on Mexico. In short, the administration's approach will hopefully assuage some of Latin America's immediate concerns, but is unlikely to solve anything like its litany of problems. These signs suggest that some luster might come off the significance of Obama's emergence in Latin America from the region's unique perspective. The president is now expected to trade in the concept of 'change' for the specific policies on which he will be judged, such as immigration, drugs, trade and protectionism, national security, Cuba, Venezuela, economic and pluralism in Latin America. Of course, Obama's record on the ground will ultimately be the determinant of his status, defined by the Economist, of being "as widely admired in Latin America as Mr Bush was disliked."
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Guy Hursthouse
Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.
LATEST NEWS
Union Decries GOP Subpoena Over Gaza Resolution as 'Attack' on Free Speech
"We stand by our resolution in support of a free Palestine, which was passed overwhelmingly after a full membership vote."
Mar 11, 2024
Free speech defenders on Monday condemned Republican North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx's subpoena of a labor union after its members overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution calling for a Gaza cease-fire and condemning Israeli genocide, apartheid, and other crimes in Palestine.
The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) Local 2325 of the United Auto Workers (UAW) voted 1,067-570 in December to approve a sweeping resolution endorsing the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and condemning Israel's "occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide" in Palestine. The measure called for an end to these and other human rights violations as well as "an immediate cease-fire" in Gaza and an end to the Israeli siege on the embattled Palestinian territory.
According toHuffPost, several of the measure's organizers are Jewish. On Monday, ALAA president Lisa Ohta told the outlet that "we stand by our resolution in support of a free Palestine, which was passed overwhelmingly after a full membership vote."
"This is a transparent attack on our union's democratic processes and freedom of speech," Ohta said of Foxx's move.
Foxx—who chairs the House Committee on Education and the Workforce— said she was serving the subpoena because the union was "obstructing" an inquiry into the "divisive, antisemitic resolution."
The congresswoman previously accused the union of supporting a resolution that "calls for an economic boycott of Israel, fails to acknowledge the horrific actions committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and puts Jewish union members in a compromising position."
Foxx further charged that the measure "alienated a sizeable portion" of the union's membership while forcing Jewish members "to take a position critical on their faith, Israel, and Israel's sovereignty."
ALAA had originally planned to vote on the resolution on November 17. However, four union members filed a lawsuit in state court that resulted in a temporary restraining order blocking a vote. In December, a federal judge lifted the order, in part because it violated union members' First Amendment rights.
Foxx, who is 80 years old, has gained national prominence since the October 7 attacks and Israel's genocidal retaliation for
leading congressional probes into antisemitism on college and university campuses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden 2025 Budget Would Offer 'Welcome Relief,' But Not Enough
One expert said that enacting his reforms "will begin to reverse the 40-year one-way ratchet of falling taxes for the wealthy and corporations and instead invest in workers and families."
Mar 11, 2024
On the heels of delivering the latest State of the Union speech and signing a package of funding bills, U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday unveiled his budget blueprint for fiscal year 2025, a proposal praised by congressional Democrats and progressive advocates who want him to go even further.
The $7.3 trillion budget comes as the divided Congress is still sorting out funding for the current fiscal year. Given those divisions—and that the Republican House majority is already advancing its own budget resolution for the fiscal year that begins in October—the Democratic president's plan is widely seen as a statement of priorities going into the November election.
"Biden used his official budget request as a campaign leaflet, taking a first-term victory lap and calling out Donald Trump by name," Politicoreported, referring to the former president who lost reelection in 2020 and is now the presumptive Republican nominee.
"This budget demonstrates a commitment to ensuring corporations pay more of their fair share."
One key issue is Social Security and Medicare. The GOP blueprint unveiled last week includes a fiscal commission that critics call a "death panel" designed to fast-track cuts. As Common Dreamsreported earlier Monday, Trump made televised comments taken as "support for cutting Social Security and Medicare," which his campaign later claimed were about cutting "waste" in the programs.
Meanwhile, according to a White House fact sheet, Biden's new budget demonstrates his desire to "protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security for this and future generations," including with improvements to drug price negotiations.
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, said Monday that the Republican candidate's latest remarks are "consistent with Trump's record as president" and Biden is presenting "a very different vision for Social Security's future" with his proposal to protect the program by boosting taxes on the ultrarich. She emphasized that "Social Security is on the ballot this November."
Raising taxes for the wealthy and corporations—which would not only fund initiatives but also cut an estimated $3 trillion from the national debt over a decade—is a major focus of Biden's blueprint, which takes aim at provisions from Trump's 2017 tax law. Biden calls for imposing a 25% minimum tax for individuals with wealth of more than $100 million, as well as ending capital income tax breaks and closing other loopholes.
BREAKING: President Biden's 2025 budget raises trillions by making the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share\n\n\u201425% minimum tax on billionaires\n\u2014Raise corporate tax rate\n\u2014Close tax loopholes for corporations\n\nTHIS is how you grow the economy and boost the middle class.— (@)
The blueprint also advocates for setting the corporate tax rate at 28%, raising the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) minimum rate on billion-dollar corporations to 21%, denying deductions for compensation over $1 million for any C corporation employee, and "reforming the international tax system to reduce the incentives to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions," as the fact sheet details.
Other tax-related proposals include restoring the full IRA investment in the Internal Revenue Service and providing new funds to crack down on rich tax cheats, as well as reviving the expanded child tax credit that led to a historic drop in youth poverty.
"The White House budget's across-the-board increases would be a welcome relief to agencies and programs across the government that have seen their funding cut," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, in a statement Monday. "This budget demonstrates a commitment to ensuring corporations pay more of their fair share."
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also welcomed the plan, saying that "President Biden's 2025 budget lays out a sound approach to key decisions that need to be made next year, regardless of the outcomes of the elections: a fairer tax code that raises more revenues from wealthy people and profitable corporations to invest in people, communities, and the economy and to improve our fiscal outlook."
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens offered similar praise, asserting that "the tax reforms in President Biden's 2025 budget are the critical unfinished business of Bidenomics. Enacting the reforms in his budget will begin to reverse the 40-year one-way ratchet of falling taxes for the wealthy and corporations and instead invest in workers and families."
Other priorities for the president include lowering childcare costs, increasing the affordable housing supply, expanding access to homeownership and affordable rent, cutting home energy and water bills, reducing the cost of higher education, investing in family planning services, implementing paid family and medical leave, enabling universal pre-K, and confronting the climate emergency.
The budget includes $23 billion for climate adaptation and resilience; nearly $10 billion to address air pollution, radiation exposure, and legacy waste and contamination in communities nationwide; $3 billion for the international Green Climate Fund; $1.6 billion to support the clean energy workforce and infrastructure projects; and mandatory funding to expand the
American Climate Corps.
"This budget only has a shot at becoming a reality if Biden and Dems win big this November. Biden needs to deliver for young people, otherwise many young people are going to end up staying at home," said the Sunrise Movement, which last week partnered with three other youth-led groups to put forth a sweeping agenda that they believe can energize younger voters.
On the voting front, "the budget provides state and local election officials with $5 billion in new, sustained election assistance funding over 10 years," pointed out Public Citizen's Gilbert. "This follows on essential commitments made by the White House in the State of the Union address to prioritize the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."
Stand Up America's senior associate of policy and political affairs, Sunwoo Oh, also welcomed the proposal saying that "election funding is critical to ensuring every voice is heard and every eligible vote counted. It's long past time that Congress invest in America's election infrastructure to give states and localities the consistent resources they need to keep our elections, and those who administer them, safe and secure."
However, not all parts of the budget were welcomed by progressive advocacy groups. For example, Gilbert declared that "it's impossible not to comment on the $895 billion defense topline. War hawks squealing that a 1% increase to defense spending is 'meager' or 'catastrophic' lack perspective altogether. The true catastrophe is the existing scale of U.S. military spending."
"The Pentagon is a three-quarters-of-a-trillion dollar agency that has never once passed an audit," she stressed. "It's infamous for waste, fraud, and bankrolling defense corporations. Roughly half of the total... goes to contractors each year. Reallocating billions away from the Pentagon and into direct human needs instead would benefit everyday Americans far more."
The Environmental Working Group criticized another aspect of the Pentagon budget, warning that $1.6 billion is too low for Department of Defense (DOD) cleanup of contaminated sites, including those impacted by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as "forever chemicals."
"The cost of cleaning up the backlog of contaminated sites continues to grow and now exceeds $38 billion, per estimates provided by the Pentagon in 2022," noted John Reeder, the group's vice president for federal affairs. "It's clear that incremental increases in funding cannot possibly catch up to the DOD's rising cleanup obligations. Service members, military communities, and farmers need the cleanup of toxic PFAS pollution to move much more quickly‚ they have waited far too long."
"Reallocating billions away from the Pentagon and into direct human needs instead would benefit everyday Americans far more."
The budget includes a $4.7 billion emergency fund for border security—a top issue in Congress and the presidential contest.
American Immigration Lawyers Association executive director Ben Johnson said that his group supports additional resources for U.S. Customs and Border Protection "to increase capacity at ports, the hiring of 1,600 more asylum officers, efforts to reduce the 3 million-case backlog plaguing the immigration courts, and the targeted use of more than $1 billion to combat cartels and stop fentanyl and other contraband smuggling."
"Lacking in the president's request, but which he has called for in every previous budget, is funding for legal representation that is critical to ensure both fairer and more efficient hearings for people seeking asylum or other legal protection," Johnson added. "More funds could and should also be directed to improve the entire immigration system which will reduce yearslong visa backlogs and help American families, businesses, and the economy."
Another policy that garnered swift criticism was the proposed 2% pay raise for federal civilian employees, which is lower than the president's previous budgets and contrasts with the 4.5% pay raise for military service members.
"We applaud President Biden for taking steps in his proposed budget to ensure corporations and the ultrawealthy are paying their fair share in taxes, to extend the solvency of Medicare, and to increase budgets for critical federal programs," said American Federation of Government Employees National president Everett Kelley. "However, we are extremely disappointed in the way this budget turns its back on the long-standing practice of pay raise parity for civilian and military employees of the federal government."
"Civilian federal workers right now are working for 27.5% less than their private-sector counterparts. A paltry, 2% raise for civilian federal employees will do very little to close that widening gap," the union leader emphasized. "Ultimately, until we are able to address lagging pay for federal workers, other efforts to recruit, hire, and retain top talent will never be successful because of the albatross of low pay."
As Republicans in Congress widely complained about Biden's proposal, top Democrats celebrated it. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that "just as he did in his State of the Union address, President Biden's budget lays out a bold, optimistic, and responsible path for the nation."
"The budget highlights the sharp contrast between Democrats' positive, proactive vision and the Republican negative, regressive vision for our country. Democrats want to grow our economy in a responsible way, while making smart investments in our future," he continued, challenging all of his colleagues looking to succeed outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to "lay out their plan... for all Americans to see."
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said, "Put simply, this budget tells working people and families: 'We have your back—and we're going to keep building a stronger future together."
"As we work to finish negotiating and passing the final six appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024, I look forward to digging into the details of the president's budget request for fiscal year 2025 and working with my colleagues to begin the process of writing serious, bipartisan spending bills that will move our nation forward and continue to build a brighter future for American families," she added.
While that work is still underway, Office of Management and Budget director Shalanda Young is set to testify about Biden's 2025 proposal before the Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday. The panel's leader, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Monday that the president "has released a fiscally responsible budget that puts the middle class first and lays out a vision for a stronger, safer, and more prosperous America."
On the other side of Capitol Hill, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, also applauded Biden's budget, specifically highlighting the child tax credit and paid leave policies. She said that "I look forward to working with President Biden in shaping a federal budget that delivers a more prosperous future for everyday Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bill Demanding Justice for Breonna Taylor Would Ban No-Knock Warrants Nationwide
"We know it was Breonna Taylor's dream to save lives," said one rights advocate, "and this proposed legislation would do just that."
Mar 11, 2024
Rights advocates on Monday applauded U.S. Rep. Morgan McGarvey for taking a "bold step toward healing and justice" by introducing the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, which would ban nationwide the kind of no-knock warrants that led to the 26-year-old woman's death in 2020.
Nearly four years to the day after Taylor was killed by police officers who forcibly entered her home in Louisville, Kentucky without warning, after allegedly lying to obtain the no-knock warrant, McGarvey (D-Ky.) joined Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in proposing the bill.
Louisville and Kentucky policymakers have both prohibited or severely restricted no-knock warrants since Taylor's killing.
"Louisvillians remember Breonna Taylor and are still grieving the tragedy of her inexcusable killing by police. After Breonna's death, we passed a ban on no-knock warrants at the state and local level—if we can do this in Kentucky, we can do this nationally," said McGarvey. "The Justice for Breonna Taylor Act is going to protect people and keep our communities safe."
Under the proposal, federal law enforcement and state and local police departments that receive federal funding would be prohibited from executing no-knock warrants.
"After Breonna's death, we passed a ban on no-knock warrants at the state and local level—if we can do this in Kentucky, we can do this nationally."
Amber Duke, executive director of the ACLU of Kentucky, denounced no-knock warrants as "legalized home invasions that put lives at risk on either side of a door."
In Taylor's case, police officers used a battering ram to break down the door to the Louisville apartment shortly after midnight on March 13, 2020.
They had been investigating two men for suspected drug dealing, including one who had previously been romantically involved with Taylor and who they believed had used Taylor's apartment to receive packages.
"We know it was Breonna Taylor's dream to save lives," Duke said of the emergency room technician, "and this proposed legislation would do just that. We applaud Congressman McGarvey and the bill's co-sponsors for taking this bold step toward healing and justice."
The legislation was introduced as federal authorities announced former Officer Brett Hankison will face a jury for a third time in the case.
None of the officers involved in the shooting have ever been charged with killing Taylor, but Hankison was charged by the state of Kentucky for endangering Taylor's neighbors. He was acquitted in March 2022 and the U.S. Justice Department then charged him with civil rights violations. A federal jury deadlocked in that trial.
"He shouldn't be the only one charged," attorney Lonita Baker, who represents Taylor's mother and sister, toldThe Washington Post."But the reality is that's where we stand and that's better than nothing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular