Where Things Stand: U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Libya, Says It’s ‘Time for Qaddafi to Go’

by Marian Wang, ProPublica

When we updated our overview of Middle East crackdowns last week, the situation in Libya was still in a state of flux, and the United States had vowed to "hold the Libyan government fully responsible" but had not yet announced any concrete steps to do so. Much has changed since--here's a look at what the United States has said, has done and is still considering.

What the United States has said:

The United States has begun calling publicly for Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi to step down. The first sign of this came over the weekend, when on a call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama stated that “when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” according to a readout of the call.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced that position again today, calling specifically for Qaddafi to go “now, without further violence or delay.” She told the UN Human Rights Council that the United States has been “reaching out” to the newly formed opposition government working to oust Qaddafi and is prepared to “offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the United States.”

The latest statements mark a shift since last Friday, when State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated that “what happens to the leadership of Libya is up to the Libyan people,” and “it is for them to decide who should leave.” President Obama in particular has faced criticism for failing to speak up sooner to personally condemn the actions of the Libyan government.

What the United States has done so far:

The U.S. announced it would be closing the American embassy in Libya and imposing unilateral sanctions. The announcement came just hours after the United States evacuated a final group of American citizens and embassy personnel on Friday.

“There has been great haste in moving to the point where we are today,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, defending the timing of U.S. sanctions against the Libyan government.

Those sanctions included a freeze on the assets of the Libyan government, the Qaddafi family and other high-level Libyan officials. It also ordered the suspension of “all existing licenses and other approvals for the export of defense articles and services to Libya.” (See the State Department’s responses to us when we asked about the licensing of exports to Egypt and other Mideast countries that engaged in suppression of protests.)

In coordination with the United States and the United Nations, the European Union announced on Monday it would be imposing its own sanctions [11]. The UN also instructed the International Criminal Court to decide whether the Libyan government committed crimes against humanity.

What’s still being considered:

The United States and its European allies have yet to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, though Secretary Clinton has said that it is “an option we are actively considering” and is under discussion. The BBC reported today that the UK is working on a plan to impose it.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

New TV Ads Target Senior House Republican To Curtail Legal Immigration

An organization that seeks to limit legal immigration says it has launched a new TV campaign aimed at a member of the House GOP leadership.

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) says it has begun running TV ads in the home district of House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), seeking to curb legal immigration. In a statement, CAPS says it is "calling for lower levels of legal immigration and temporary workers until Californians are working again.

"The ads are launching as the federal government continues to admit more than 1 million immigrants and temporary workers a year to take American jobs despite the country's highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression," the statement adds.

Serving in his third term in the House, McCarthy ranks in the House GOP leadership behind only Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Citing a double-digit jobless rate in Bakersfield, Calif., the group claims "new immigrants are landing American jobs while Americans are losing jobs."

"With Bakersfield unemployment at 16%, it's time for Congressman Kevin McCarthy to stand up for Bakersfield workers?" says CAPS Board Chairman, Marilyn DeYoung. "That means slowing the flow of legal immigration as well as illegal until Bakersfield and California are working again."

Other analysts, however, have pointed out that all immigrants -- legal and not -- have been a positive, not negative, force for the struggling U.S. economy.

"Immigrants contribute to competitiveness because they start businesses, pay taxes, and do seasonal agricultural jobs. We need to recognize their contributions to our economic, social, cultural, and culinary lives," says Darrell West, author of a book on immigration titled Brain Gain.
According to a description of the TV ad provided by CAPS, the new spot cites a lack of attention to legal foreign workers by first presenting the word "illegal," since illegal immigrants have been the primary media focus.

The spokesperson in the ad then separates the word "legal" out, saying, "But what about these workers; legal foreign workers?" The commercial ends by combining the letters to form the word "ill" to describe California's economy and joblessness, partly attributable to legal and illegal immigration.

CAPS says its ad campaign will continue for months "throughout various markets in California."


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Scott Walker Just One Governor Slashing Taxes Amid Big Budget Shortfalls, More Service Cuts

Although the central controversy surrounding Gov. Scott Walker revolves around his push to strip state public employees of collective bargaining rights, the Wisconsin Republican also is just one of several governors who want to cut taxes even as they face huge budget deficits.

"Governor Walker has not yet proposed a budget for the 2011-13 biennium, but he already proposed and signed into law in January three measures cutting corporate and individual taxes by $117 million over the 2011-13 biennium, increasing the shortfall that the state will need to close," says an analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

But Walker, who has faced large and sustained protests in his state, is not alone, according to CBPP, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

A number of other governors also want to cut state taxes even as most face mounting budget shortfalls that will require even deeper spending cuts into state services and programs, the analysis says.

"For the first time since the recession caused state revenues to plummet, some governors are proposing large tax cuts – mostly cuts to taxes paid by corporations and other businesses – in a misguided attempt to spur economic activity," it says. "Seven governors in states facing budget shortfalls propose (or have already enacted) major tax cuts that would reduce revenues in the coming fiscal year."

These state executives include such Republicans as Govs. Jan Brewer in Arizona, Rick Scott in Florida, Rick Snyder in Michigan, and Chris Christie in New Jersey. It also includes Democratic Gov. Bev Purdue in North Carolina.

These planned tax cuts would hurt, not help, state economies, now or in the future, the CBPP analysis says.

"Because states must balance their budgets, these tax cuts must be offset by increases in other taxes or additional service cuts. At best, the economy will lose as much as it gains. In practice, cutting corporate taxes likely will reduce in-state economic activity," it says. "That’s because some of the corporations’ tax savings would likely go to their out-of-state shareholders in the form of higher dividends – good for the shareholders but of no value to the state that cut the taxes. Plus, if spending cuts reduce the quality of the state’s human capital and physical infrastructure – its schools, universities, transportation systems, and courts, for example – businesses will be less likely to invest in the state in the future."

Moreover, continuing shortfalls means these same governors also will be further trimming their budgets, cutting into such state programs as education, healthcare and other key services.

Scott would impose a $700 per pupil, or 10 percent, reduction in state and local spending on K-12 education, while Snyder proposes a $470 per pupil cut, according to CBPP. Brewer of Arizona proposes cutting funding for public universities by one-fifth, or $170 million. This would add to deep previous cuts, the analysis says.

Brewer also proposes eliminating Medicaid coverage for 280,000 people, more than 4 percent of the state’s population, a cut which would result in the loss of $1.1 billion in federal matching funds next fiscal year.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage, another Republican seeking a state tax cut, also would reduce the income limit for accessing the state’s subsidized health insurance plan, MaineCare. "The proposal would mean that about 14,000 people currently enrolled in MaineCare would not be able to return to the program if they left it and many others would no longer have access to the program in the future," CBPP says.

LePage, too, would eliminate access to state-funded temporary cash assistance and healthcare for legal immigrants in the country less than five years, cutting about 2,500 people from these programs. Snyder of Michigan proposes reducing the lifetime limit on cash assistance for poor families to 48 months from 60 months and to eliminate before- and after-school programs, according to CBPP.

Nor is Walker the only tax-cutting governor taking aim at state workers.

Florida’s Scott would reduce the state workforce by 8 percent, requiring around 8,100 layoffs. Scott would also require $5,000 health insurance premium contributions from state employees, CBPP says.

Christie of New Jersey would increase the amount some public employees contribute to their retirement; for a portion of these employees, the increase would more than double the required contribution, the think tank says.

"He also would eliminate cost of living increases for current and future retirees, calculate pension benefits over more years of income, raise the normal age of retirement to 65 from 60, and rescind a 9 percent benefit increase enacted in 2001," the analysis says. "The Governor also would change the way public employees contribute towards their health insurance, requiring that they pay 30 percent of the cost of their health policy instead of making a 1.5 percent salary contribution. (The average state health insurance policy costs about $14,000, which means the average public worker would pay $4,200 instead of 1.5 percent of her or his salary.)"


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

The Wisconsin Fight: What People of Color Have at Stake

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Folayemi Agbede

Images of Latino, Native American, black, and Asian Wisconsinites are proving elusive in the media coverage of the fight for workers' rights beyond a week-old appearance by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Despite this visual absence it remains evident to many that people of color have much to lose in Gov. Scott Walker’s recently passed state “repair” bill. The bill unnecessarily eliminates workers’ collective bargaining rights while cutting state health care contributions, pensions contributions, and protected leave. This fateful move will especially affect people of color, as with all legislated inequalities. A blow to any group’s rights always hits those facing other structural disadvantages the hardest.

A look at some Wisconsin demographics underscores the state’s growing populations of color. Wisconsin is home to 135,058 Asian-descended people, 332,660 black people, and 276,244 Latinos according to American Community Survey estimates. The Latino community has grown 70 percent since 2000, from 192, 921. The number of Asian descendants in Wisconsin has also increased from 111,428 in 2000.

But the argument that much is at stake for people of color in Wisconsin is less about demographic statistics than what disadvantages these communities will face without workplace protections and fair, competitive benefits. The governor’s attack on workers’ rights is clearly an attack on all people in the public sector. But curbing the right of workers to bargain for better pay and working conditions will have a multiplier effect in communities of color.

Wisconsin’s employment prospects under repealed worker protections means that Wisconsin’s working-class and middle-class residents will be working longer hours with less job security and lower take-home pay. That means greater competition for jobs with little to no benefits. And it also means people who may have once been covered by pre-Walker bill benefits are at greater risk for economic stagnation.

Widespread economic stagnation caused by low working standards does not bode well for workers with lower levels of education, the least industry-specific training, linguistic barriers, and those belonging to groups that historically faced discrimination in hiring. It is well documented that Latino and black adults hold fewer degrees than their white counterparts, are less mobile in their careers, and are less likely to acquire or maintain quality employment in times of widespread economic strain.

If Gov. Walker’s applied cuts to workers’ collective bargaining, health care contributions, pension, and protected leave take hold at the end of their fiscal year in June, public-sector workers will face about 8 percent in lost income. The loss of real income caused by mandated employee-paid increases to health care coverage and pension programs would hit communities of color the hardest as less take-home pay means less assets for workers who statistically have less to fall back on than their white counterparts.

Workers of color already suffer due to less take-home pay, and these effects would only grow worse under Gov. Walker’s bill. A 2010 study by the Joint Center concluded that before the recession whites in Wisconsin held on average $116,246 in wealth while people of color averaged $5,706. The sustained economic downturn has meant that people of color, like whites, have been forced to liquidate what little assets they could access with little room for recovery, fewer financial resources, and increased debt.

The recession’s lost opportunities to earn substantial wages or retain savings means greater proportions of communities of color fell into debt than others. These losses led to the acceptance of lower employment and working standards out of financial desperation. Wisconsin’s dramatic curbing of workers’ rights will only cement the susceptibility of low-income and financially desperate employment seekers to workplace exploitation.

We haven’t seen many workers of color in Wisconsin protesting this legislative calamity. But we shouldn’t conclude that their absence is a result of exemption or ambivalence. Based on what we know about workers of color we can safely infer that many simply do not work jobs that allow them to take off work for legitimate reasons with the guarantee that they will still be employed upon return.

The landscape of protest could change over the weekend, however, as advocacy groups across the country mobilize around the essential right to organize to advance a common goal.

Unless our ire is stoked and something critical is done to protect the essential right to organize, the repercussions of Gov. Walker’s bill will undoubtedly begin first and end last with unprotected workers of color.

Folayemi Agbede is the Special Assistant for Progress 2050, a project of the Center for American Progress that develops new ideas for an increasingly diverse America.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

The Latest on Crackdowns in the Mideast and U.S. Responses

by Marian Wang, ProPublica

As protests—and crackdowns—have been rippling through the Middle East, the U.S. response has varied by country.

We’ve been tracking what’s happening and how the United States has responded in our overview of Middle East crackdowns. Here’s an updated version with the latest on developments in the region and how U.S. strategy is playing out:

LIBYA

Relationship status with United States: De-friended
Libya and the United States have been in a slow thaw over the last decade. The United States restored full diplomatic relations with its government in 2006, after the country showed signs of cooperation in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, though the United States has long considered the country’s dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, to be a bit strange and unpredictable, describing him as “notoriously mercurial” in U.S. diplomatic cables (more background on the U.S. relationship with Libya).

What’s been happening:
Though it’s difficult getting an exact figure on how many have died in the escalating violence in Libya, by most accounts hundreds of protesters have been killed by the regime of Muammar Qaddafi and his hired mercenaries.

As we noted this week, Qaddafi has clung to power, vowing to fight “until the last drop of my blood.” Qaddafi’s maintains a stronghold in Tripoli, the besieged capital city, while the opposition has taken control of eastern Libya. On Thursday, Qaddafi blamed the uprising on the influence of al-Qaeda. Libyan officials told the State Department that the government now considers journalists who entered the country “illegally” to be “al-Qaeda collaborators.”

U.S. response:
President Obama addressed the situation in Libya on Wednesday at length, announcing that Secretary Clinton would be traveling to Geneva on Monday to discuss the situation in Libya with international leaders.

“We will hold the Libyan Government fully responsible for this,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters this week. The U.S. has focused on getting American citizens in Libya to safety and said all options are on the table in terms of potential sanctions against the country. So far none have been announced, and the United States has not called for Qaddafi’s ouster, saying that “what happens to the leadership of Libya is up to the Libyan people.”

BAHRAIN

Relationship status with United States: BFF, though a bit awkward lately
The small oil-producing country and financial center has played host to a robust U.S. military presence as home of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Bahrain’s Sunni rulers—who rule over a majority-Shi’ite population—keep “close to their American protectors,” according to a 2008 WikiLeaks cable.

What's been happening:
Last week, government forces unleashed brutal attacks on crowds of protesters and mourners, wounding hundreds and killing seven after they had declared the protests illegal. Last Thursday, the Bahraini government defended the crackdown as “a very important step that had to happen” to prevent the country from falling into “a sectarian abyss."

The situation has recently calmed down, and security forces have been ordered off the streets. Though the opposition doesn’t agree on everything—some protesters have rejected the Sunni ruling family altogether—their core demands have included the release of political prisoners and a fully elected government, Reuters reported. The government has signaled intentions to begin a national dialogue and this week released hundreds of political prisoners.

U.S. response:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Bahrain’s leaders earlier this week for opening dialogue after last week’s violence. She called on the government to follow with “concrete actions and reforms.”

Last week, after days of issuing statements of concern about the violence, Clinton spoke by phone with Bahrain’s foreign minister and “stressed the need to seriously engage all sectors of society in a constructive, consultative dialogue.” She cited the need for continued reform and reiterated that Bahrain is a “friend and ally.” (Related: See our post about the praise that the United States lavished on Bahrain just two months prior to these attacks.)

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the U.S. government had used public encouragement and private pressure on the Bahraini government to end its crackdown on protesters. Adm. Mike Mullen arrived in Bahrain yesterday as part of a trip to the Middle East and met with the king and the crown prince. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon also spoke with Bahrain’s crown prince yesterday, expressing “strong support” for steps taken to open dialogue.

YEMEN

Relationship status with United States: Frenemies
In a press briefing earlier this month, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated, “Our relationship with the government of Yemen is incredibly important in addressing the counterterrorism threat that exists there.” As WikiLeaks cables revealed last fall, the country’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has allowed secret U.S. air strikes against suspected al-Qaeda sites and covered them up, claiming they were conducted by the Yemeni military. However, some analysts have said Yemen is playing a double game—diverting U.S. aid to not go after al-Qaeda and instead to fight domestic rebels.

What’s been happening: At least a dozen people are reported to have been killed since the protests began in Yemen. Though demonstrations appeared to be peaceful on Friday, some protesters last week were beaten by Yemeni security forces, according to Human Rights Watch. The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that nine members of parliament have resigned in protest of the government’s violence against demonstrators.

Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh said this week that he won’t step down but will open a dialogue with protesters. On Wednesday he instructed security forces to “thwart all clashes” between pro- and anti-government protesters—and to offer protection for demonstrators.

U.S. response:
Earlier this month, President Obama called Yemen’s President Saleh and “asked that Yemeni security forces show restraint and refrain from violence” against demonstrators. He also urged Yemen to take forceful action against al-Qaeda, according to the State Department. The State Department’s P.J. Crowley also tweeted about the necessity of foreign aid to Yemen, saying that potential cuts would “constrain our ability to help Yemen” confront al-Qaeda.

ALGERIA

Relationship status with U.S.: It’s complicated
As U.S. diplomatic cables show, relations between the United States and Algeria have warmed gradually in recent years. In a February 2008 cable, U.S. diplomats called Algerian military intelligence “a prickly, paranoid group to work with,” but noted that cooperation had paid dividends. A cable sent early last year noted Algeria’s strategic importance in the fight against al-Qaeda in the region.

What’s been happening:
According to the BBC, sporadic protests in Algeria have been continuing since early January, mostly triggered by economic conditions. Algerian security forces arrested dozens of protesters and police attacked some journalists in crackdowns, but the government has since promised reforms and lifted an emergency law that had banned protests and gave police broad powers to detain citizens.

U.S. response:
On Thursday the president made a statement commending Algeria’s government for taking “an important step forward” by lifting the emergency law, calling it a “positive sign” that Algeria is listening to the concerns of its people.

The State Department’s Crowley had previously released a statement noting the protests and calling “for restraint on the part of the security services.”

IRAN

Relationship status with United States: Enemies
The U.S. currently has sanctions against Iran and has a now 30-year history of tension.

What’s been happening:
Members of the Iranian Parliament called for the leaders of the protest movement to be executed. The government has also clamped down hard on protest organizers. At least three protestors have been reported killed.

U.S. response:
The U.S. response to Iran has been harsher than to some of the other governments suppressing protests. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement on Wednesday calling out Iranian security forces for having beaten, detained and killed peaceful protesters and for persecuting ethnic minorities, human rights advocates and political activists. “The steady deterioration in human rights conditions in Iran has obliged the international community to speak out time and time again,” Clinton said, while sanctioning two more Iranian officials for the abuses.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley had previously stated that the United States condemned the violence in Iran “in the strongest terms.” Asked in an early briefing why the State Department is “condemning what is happening in Iran” and not taking the same position on crackdowns elsewhere, Crowley said, “Well, actually, in the other countries there is greater respect for the rights of the citizens. I mean, we are watching developments in other countries, including Yemen, including Algeria, including Bahrain. And our advice is the same.”

STILL DEVELOPING:

IRAQ
At least nine protesters were killed in Iraq on Friday as protesters in several cities participated in “Day of Rage” demonstrations to call for an end to corruption, the Washington Post reports. Iraqi officials had urged the people to stay away, warning that the protests seem “suspicious” and could be infiltrated by terrorists, but tens of thousands turned out anyway—in some cities, police and security guards opened fire on the crowds.

SAUDI ARABIA
While some protests have been going on in parts of Saudi Arabia, in an effort to stave off larger protests, Saudi King Abdullah this week announced an estimated $37 billion in pay raises, unemployment benefits and housing help. Critics have warned that the gesture isn’t a substitute for meaningful political reform, the Guardian reported. The State Department said Thursday that it was “in touch with the Saudis” but did not have further comment.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Old Battle Begins Anew: Senators Want To Legalize Cheap Drug Importation

It's the can-Charlie-Brown-kick-the-football-this-time equivilent of Senate legislation, but an odd-bedfellows coalition of Democrats and Republicans are trying once more to cut drug costs for millions of Americans by allowing the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other countries.

With little fanfare, Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) this month introduced their Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, which would allow U.S.-licensed pharmacies and drug wholesalers to import FDA-approved medications from countries with tough safety standards, such as Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and pass along the savings to their American customers.

This approach would allow Americans access to more affordable drugs from these countries, which are 35 to 55 percent lower than they are in the United States, while still enabling consumers to get their medications at their local pharmacy, the senators say. The legislation would also allow individual consumers to purchase prescription drugs for their own personal use from safe, reliable, FDA-inspected Canadian pharmacies, they add in a statement.

The legislation applies only to FDA-approved prescription drugs produced in FDA-approved plants from countries with comparable safety standards, they say.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a similar bill introduced last Congress would save $19.4 billion for federal taxpayers, the lawmakers note in a statement.

Indeed, similar bills have been introduced -- and died -- in several past Congresses.

Last year, proponents tried to have reimportation included in the landmark healthcare reform law signed by President Obama. That measure was dumped from the final reform bill amid a hubbub of horse-trading to reach final passage.

When that failed, senators tried to move a standalone reimportation measure, but it, too, went nowhere.

In past years, President George W. Bush threatened to veto reimportation legislation. The issue is so old that Bush was asked about his anti-reimportation stance in a presidential debate when he sought re-election in 2004.

Stabenow and Snowe say they have 19 senators onboard as co-sponsors, including
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and David Vitter (R-La.).

The Senate this year, however, is without two stalwart Democratic supporters of drug reimportation, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Dorgan retired last year, and Feingold was defeated by Johnson.

The pharmaceutical industry opposes drug reimportation, and has lobbied hard against it.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Education Dept. Pledges to Overhaul Dysfunctional Disability Review Program

by Sasha Chavkin, ProPublica

This story was co-published with the Chronicle of Higher Education

After an investigation by ProPublica last week found that the Department of Education’s bureaucratic program for forgiving the federal student loans of disabled borrowers has kept many disabled applicants in debt, the department said this week that it will overhaul the troubled program.

"This system must work better for borrowers that become totally and permanently disabled,” said Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for the Education Department. “We've put in place a number of major changes to address many of the problems borrowers encountered, and will be making even more changes when we issue proposed regulations in the coming months."

The comments came after after our story—a joint effort with the Center for Public Integrity—found that although borrowers who develop severe and lasting disabilities are legally entitled to get federal student loans forgiven, the process for deciding who is eligible is dysfunctional, opaque and duplicates similar reviews conducted by other federal agencies. Many borrowers have been denied for unclear reasons and many others have simply given up.

The department said it’s going to quickly implement a number of fixes to be more responsive to applicants, and is also considering fundamental changes. In particular, it is weighing accepting the disability determinations that Social Security Administration and other federal agencies have made. The department also said it’s studying whether to bypass its bureaucratic program altogether and instead rely on Social Security or another agency to review all applications. As we reported last week, those same reforms have repeatedly been recommended to the department by its own ombudsman since 2008, but the department has so far declined to act on them.

The Education Department has long promised to improve the system, including pledges to cooperate more closely with Social Security and other disability programs. But this time, the department said it will write new regulations to address the disability discharge program, the first time in a decade it has done so without being directed to by Congress. In addition, the department said that it believes that it has the authority to make the necessary changes and does not require Congress to pass new legislation, removing an obstacle that it has cited in the past as preventing it from adopting these reforms.

Still, it’s an open question how far the department will go, or exactly when the changes will be implemented. The department said that is still examining its options and will release its proposed rules this summer. After that, it will likely be a year before the rules are set and go into effect.

The Education Department’s pledges of reform came as key lawmakers from both parties called on the department to fix the system that is currently in place.

“The current process is neither transparent nor efficient,” said Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., who sits on the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. “It¹s unconscionable that some people have been turned down for loan forgiveness not because they don't qualify, but because of simple paperwork errors that could be easily addressed.”

In the House of Representatives, the chairwoman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education demanded improvements to the program.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the subcommittee’s chairwoman, criticized the Education Department’s disability review as duplicative and said that the subcommittee would look into the issue.

"This looks like a classic example of government waste and bureaucratic inefficiency that not only wastes taxpayers’ money, but also their time,” Foxx said. "The Higher Education Subcommittee will be taking a closer look at this problem to determine a solution that will save taxpayer time and money."

Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Texas, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said he was concerned about the plight of disabled borrowers seeking loan forgiveness and that “our government should take all actions possible to make this process more streamlined for those who are suffering through these hardships.”

The Education Department said that while many of the problems will be addressed by their proposed rules, they are quickly implementing other fixes for disabled borrowers.

The department pledged to conduct a review of the procedures for disability discharge within the next 90 days to identify areas of “undue burden” to applicants, and act immediately to change practices that could be amended without new laws or regulations. It also said it would make it easier for borrowers to document that they are experiencing economic hardship, a finding that prevents the department from garnishing disability benefits to pay down student loan debt.

Though it will take more time, the department also said it will begin direct data sharing with other federal agencies to reduce the documentation burden on applicants, and will create a customer service group within the department to assist disabled borrowers with the loan discharge process.

It is also planning to streamline the process so borrowers only have to submit a single application to the Education Department, rather than having to apply to lenders and guarantors that hold government-backed loans before being considered by the department.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Think Again: The Contours and Context of the Conservative Class War in Wisconsin

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Eric Alterman

When Ian Murphy of the online newspaper Buffalo Beast prank-called Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, he was, as he admitted, “wildly unprepared.” But it didn’t really matter. All he had to say were the words “David Koch” and Walker was running off at the mouth about his plans to trick the missing Democrats from the legislature into returning for a phony-baloney negotiating session while the Republicans push through Gov. Walker’s bill to destroy the unions’ collective bargaining rights. (The Murphy/”Koch” suggestion that troublemakers be placed in the crowd is the newsmaker here, but not necessarily the most interesting news.) But whatever the eventual outcome of the Wisconsin struggle there’s no question that it represents a turning point in the shape and contour of American politics.

I warned in two recent Nation columns of the onset of a new “class war” here and here. Conservatives and their billionaire allies, having won enormous victory in shifting the tax burden from the rich to the rest of us, would now seek to use state financial difficulties to destroy public unions who were among the last bastions of money and people-power for progressive candidates.

ACORN was taken down with remarkable ease with the help of a cowed mainstream media as I discussed here and here. Right-wing billionaires such as the Koch brothers were behind almost all of these efforts, among others. They funded phony organizations as well as directed their actions, often unbeknownst to the people holding the signs and chanting.

Eric Lipton of The New York Times notes that the Koch-financed Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of a union protest, “We are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation.” But he failed to mention that a Koch-funded organization was planning to make this happen.

Koch was also a major funder of Gov. Walker, and sent his executives “to try to encourage a union showdown," as Phillips himself explained.

The desire by a coterie of wealthy right-wing activists to gin up conflict for the purpose of rewriting laws to destroy the power of any and all who oppose them on the national stage will set the terms of debate for the final two years of the Obama presidency. The biggest question is whether what remains of the mainstream media will be able to report these stories in context, as Mr. Lipton did.

In an extremely useful Think Progress post we see the long tail of these decades-long investments by wealthy right-wingers to redirect the entire course of American politics toward the power of the wealthy. It notes that:

• Much of Gov. Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement.
• The MacIver Institute is a conservative nonprofit that has provided rapid-response attacks on those opposed to Gov. Walker’s power grab. MacIver staffers produced a series of videos attacking anti-Walker protesters, including one mocking children. Naturally, the videos have become grist for Fox News and conservative bloggers.
• The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is a major conservative think tank helping Gov. Walker win support from the media. The institute has funded polls to bolster Gov. Walker’s position, and like MacIver, produced a flurry of attack videos against Gov. Walker’s political adversaries and a series of pieces supporting his drive against the state’s labor movement. Over the weekend, the institute secured a pro-Walker item in The New York Times. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is supported with over $10 million in grants from the Bradley Foundation.
• As Think Progress has reported, the powerful astroturf group Americans for Prosperity not only helped to elect Gov. Walker but bused in Tea Party supporters to hold a pro-Walker demonstration on Saturday. The Bradley Foundation earmarked funds in 2005 to help Koch Industries establish the Americans for Prosperity office in Wisconsin. The foundation gave about $200,000 to Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin (also called Fight Back Wisconsin) from 2005 to 2009.

What’s more, I also learned from yet another Think Progress post:

• The Koch-financed Club for Growth is involved in the alleged “counterprotest” movement as well.
• The American Legislative Exchange Council, another Koch-funded group, advised Gov. Walker and the GOP legislature on its antilabor legislation and its first corporate tax cuts.
• American Majority is a Virginia-based front group founded by organizers and funded by millionaire investor Howie Rich.

The Tea Party folks are ready, too. As yet another Think Progress post notes:

National tea party groups like Americans for Prosperity have been bussing conservative activists to Madison, WI to confront protesters there standing up to Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) union busting. But Tea Party Nation and Mark Williams, the disgraced former chairman of Tea Party Express, who was forced to resign after making offensive racial comments, are calling for a more radical approach. In an email alert to supporters sent last night, Tea Party Nation promotes Williams’ “great idea” to impersonate SEIU organizers at upcoming labor rallies in an attempt to embarrass and discredit the union.

The memo suggested “plants” to sign up on the SEIU website to be organizers for an upcoming rally, dress up in SEIU shirts, and to then make outrageous comments to reporters covering the events in order to “make the gathering look as greedy and goonish as we know that it is.” (Americans for Prosperity has launched a new website and petition called http://www.standwithwalker.com/. The new site attacks all collective bargaining, not just for public-sector unions. Koch's front group also declares: "In fact, every state should adopt Governor Scott Walker's common sense reforms.")

In finding all this useful information on the Think Progress website, I found myself wondering if the well-documented research would be likely to affect the shape of the public debate over the coming conservative class war in light of the campaign of hysterical lies perpetrated not only on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and The Wall Street Journal, among others, but also finding their way into the most impressive heights of the mainstream media. (Really, Mr. Santelli? Wisconsin public pensions are the equivalent of Al Qaeda’s murder of 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11?)

The constant refrain in the media is that Fox, as well as the entire far-right conservative media borg, is somehow offset by the three hours of liberal programming that appears on MSNBC each evening. How odd, therefore, to learn from yet another Think Progress post that Joe Scarborough, the guy to whom MSNBC gives two hours of airtime every morning—and who may be considering a run for the Republican nomination for president—is speaking out of the Walker/Koch/Bradley playbook. The MSNBC host insists that these “greedy” folks are demanding a “free-ride” from taxpayers despite the fact that the unions have already agreed to make the economic concessions necessary to help close the budget gap—while retaining their constitutional right to collective bargaining.

The mainstream media is under threat from two forces simultaneously. One is economic and the other ideological. Together they invite the exploitation of an ill-informed public, as the pundit Walter Lippmann predicted, by “the quack, the charlatan, the jingo and the terrorist.”

My Think Progress colleagues have done yeoman’s work in seeking to ferret out the relevant facts and context to make sense of what is really at stake in the current crisis in Wisconsin. Whether these facts are central in mainstream media reports, however, will prove the blueprint of a constant battle begun by the right decades ago.

But this battle appears to be reaching a kind of culmination as conservative class warriors launch what they hope will be a final assault on the hard-earned rights of working people and their families to fight for themselves and their families against the forces of combined wealth and influence amassed to crush them. The coming weeks may provide our answer.

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is also a columnist for The Nation, Moment, and The Daily Beast. His newest book is Kabuki Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama.

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Capitol Idea: The Protests Are No Surprise; The Wonder Is Why They Didn't Happen Sooner

By Scott Nance

When the public employee protests erupted back in his home state of Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan now-famously mused that it was "like Cairo has moved to Madison these days."

While Ryan, a conservative Republican, certainly didn't have it in mind when he spoke, there is something of a romantic quality to revolt breaking out in the American midwest in the immediate aftermath of the Egyptians' courageous toppling of strongman Hosni Mubarak.

The real question, though, is why the heck the worker protests — which have now spread like wildfire through America's midsection — didn't start much sooner. After all, it took decades of repression and deprivation for Egyptians to finally decide to risk standing up against Mubarak, who until the end would tolerate no public dissent, and routinely would use brutal force to knock it down.

And yet, the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the right to peacefully assemble and protest any time we want, and where have we been?

Where were the throngs in the street two or two-and-a-half years ago, as Wall Street melted down and unemployment began it's long, painful climb? Where were they as the foreclosure crisis began to mushroom, even before that? I admit that I'm not the first one to ask these questions.

The venerable academic on the left, Frances Fox Piven, has wondered the same thing. She published a piece in The Nation back in late December titled, "Mobilizing The Jobless":

So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs? After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn't the unemployed be on the march? Why aren't they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?

Musings such as these prompted right wing commentator Glenn Beck to launch such vicious and unrelenting attacks on Piven that she became the target of death threats.

And, of course, it's not just the unemployed who should be out on the streets, just as the protests sweeping the nation are really about more than just union rights.

"There are a lot of folks out there who say, ‘It doesn't impact me, I`m not a union guy, I`m not a teacher, I'm not a civil servant.' Let me tell you how it does matter to you," says Sen. Bernie Sanders, another stalwart defender of workers and the middle class. "Wages are going down in this country for everybody. When you destroy unions there will be no standard at all, nobody left to negotiate decent jobs for the middle class."

Piven, too, understands this, given, as she notes in her piece, the "decades of stagnating worker earnings, high consumer indebtedness, eviscerated retirement funds and rollbacks of the social safety net."

Everyone who is middle class, used to be middle class, or aspires to be a part of the middle class, should all to be descending on their state capitals, and Capitol Hill too, to fight for basic fairness and quality-of-life. Conservatives like to rail against "class warfare," except that it often has been the wealthy, and politicians who support them, who have been waging a war on the rest of us. It's about time we fought back.

Piven closed her piece saying, "We should hope for another American social movement from the bottom—and then join it."

Now, finally, it's here. Get out there and join it.

Scott Nance has covered Congress and the federal government for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington. This article was first published as The Protests Are No Surprise--The Wonder Is Why They Didn't Happen Sooner on Blogcritics.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Invoking ‘State Secrets’: Still the Status Quo?

by Marian Wang, ProPublica

Earlier this week, we flagged an interesting piece in the New York Times about the U.S. government invoking the state secrets privilege to block evidence in lawsuits against a contractor who had duped the U.S. government into spending millions on what many now consider to be fake counterterrorism technology.

According to another recent report, the U.S. invoked state secrets to block a personal injury lawsuit by a CIA employee who alleged that environmental contamination in his home made his family sick. That got us wondering about what else the U.S. has invoked state secrets for—particularly under the Obama administration, which had pledged to end abuses of the privilege.

"Numbers aside, there is a great deal of continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations,” Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists, told us. “And there is no case where the Obama administration has rescinded a claim of state secrets privilege that was advanced by the Bush [administration]."

Here’s a quick review of some of them:

To block a lawsuit seeking to prevent the U.S. government from killing Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen accused of having ties to al-Qaeda. The Times noted that while the U.S. government did not confirm that Awlaki was on its “targeted killings” list, it invoked the state secrets privilege, arguing that the case “cannot be litigated without risking or requiring the disclosure of classified and privileged intelligence information that must not be disclosed.”

To block evidence in lawsuits against government contractors involved in the government’s extraordinary rendition program. Months after President Obama took office, his Justice Department surprised federal judges by invoking the state secrets privilege again in a case filed by five detainees who said they were abducted and flown to other countries—where they allege they were tortured—on flights arranged by a Boeing subsidiary.

To block lawsuits over the Bush administration’s domestic wiretapping program. In one case inherited from the Bush administration, Obama’s Justice Department continued to argue that classified records of eavesdropping on an Islamic charity were state secrets. That evidence was excluded, and the case was allowed to proceed. Wired magazine noted that the two wiretapped lawyers were awarded $20,400 each, a ruling that last week the Obama administration indicated it would appeal.

In another case, Attorney General Eric Holder said the department “specifically looked for a way to allow this case to proceed while carving out classified information, and ultimately concluded there was no way to do so.” As a candidate, Barack Obama had previously called the surveillance program “unconstitutional and illegal.”


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Dems Fire Back At Boehner's 'So-Called Compromise'

Senate Democrats Wednesday rejected House Speaker John Boehner's "so-called compromise" for solving the federal budget stalemate that threatens to shut down the government.

Earlier in the day, the GOP speaker offered to "pass a short-term bill to keep the government running – one that also cuts spending," except that House Republicans are looking to slice about twice as much out of domestic programs than Democrats have been willing to accept.

Democrats and Republicans have to agree on some sort of spending plan soon to keep the government operating beyond March 4. If they don't, most of the government would be forced to close.

“The Republicans’ so-called compromise is nothing more than the same extreme package the House already handed the Senate, just with a different bow,” says Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “This isn’t a compromise, it’s a hardening of their original position. This bill would simply be a two-week version of the reckless measure the House passed last weekend. It would impose the same spending levels in the short term as their initial proposal does in the long term, and it isn’t going to fool anyone. Both proposals are non-starters in the Senate.”

The House bill could result in 870 fewer border patrol agents guarding the nation’s borders, Democrats warn. A group of three Democratic senators called the GOP cuts a “giant step backward in securing our border” and say that they could effectively repeal the emergency bipartisan border security bill passed last Congress. The proposed cuts would also reduce funding for border security fencing, infrastructure and technology by $272 million, the Democrats add.

Democrats already have proposed $41 billion in cuts and "are eager to sit down with Republicans to find more," Summers adds.

"But Republicans are refusing to negotiate," he says. "Instead of working with Democrats to find more cuts, they are threatening to shut down the government and drawing lines in the sand. Their recklessness could send our economy into a tailspin. It is time for cooler heads to prevail in the House, and for Republicans to come to the table.”

Democrats have warned that a government shutdown could damage the slow, fragile recovery of the U.S. economy.

Summers also cited a new, nonpartisan study by Goldman Sachs which finds that the Republicans’ proposal to enact deep cuts in a swath of domestic programs "would drag our economy back into a recession, cutting U.S. economic growth by as much as two percentage points in the second and third quarters.

"Enacting these draconian cuts over two weeks would mean immediate, devastating impacts to the health of our economy and the safety of our communities," he says of enacting GOP budget levels, even in the short term.

Reid has proposed passing a "clean continuing resolution" designed to give both sides to negotiate a path forward.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:



Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Capitol Idea: Reid, Not Pelosi, Emerges As Dems' Budget Warrior

By Scott Nance

If electing Nancy Pelosi as minority leader last year was supposed to provide Democrats with a rough-and-tumble foil against Republican Speaker John Boehner, things haven't quite worked out as planned.

In the looming battle over federal spending, and the growing real possibility of a government shutdown, Pelosi's been relegated to a bit part. Of course, Barack Obama will play a starring role, but in Congress, the face of the Democrats will be that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In the majority-rules House, Pelosi only could watch powerlessly as Boehner's conservative majority passed its deep budget cuts over the heads of her minority Democrats. That leaves Reid as the only Democrat with any power in Congress to stand in the way of Republican plans to cut an array of domestic programs back to ineffectual nubs.

It's an odd reversal of roles. Pelosi is the more partisan scrapper; Reid, by nature, is more the bipartisan deal-cutter. Time was when, as speaker, Pelosi would fight for Democratic priorities like the health care public option, while Reid sought compromise to pass legislation.

Fresh off his tough re-election fight last fall, however, Reid seems to have cottoned to his new assignment. The Nevadan and his top Senate lieutenants have, for weeks, been pushing Boehner to explicitly renounce a government shutdown and negotiate a new budget in good faith.

Reid has brought $41 billion in budget cuts to the table, roughly half of what Republicans want. Other than that, the majority leader appears to be standing his ground. He and his fellow Senate Democrats continue to reject accepting the GOP level of cuts wholesale, saying that they would put at risk too many national priorities such as education, border security, and job creation.

Reid seems to understand that it's up to him to prevent massive layoffs, cuts to food safety inspections, and other programs upon which millions of Americans rely. He also appears to know that public opinion is on his side. Nearly half of Americans continue to say that the economy and jobs are their top concern, while just 7 percent say the same of the federal deficit. Further, a recent poll shows that most Americans disagree with many of the cuts Boehner and his tea party-fueled majority are pushing. And yes, Reid happens to be backed up by that Democrat in the White House who holds a veto pen. And we know what happened the last time a Democratic president faced down irresponsible GOP budget-cutters: he was re-elected in a landslide.

So Boehner may be listening too much to his tea party friends, and flying headlong into a political buzzsaw in the process. Perhaps he counted on Harry Reid to tremble and fold. So far, though, Reid has shown nothing but spine, and the new Republican speaker could find himself in for a world of political hurt.

Boehner would do well to understand this, and get himself to the bargaining table quickly.

Scott Nance has covered Congress and the federal government for more than a decade. Capitol Idea is his regular column from Washington. This article was first published as Reid, Not Pelosi, Emerges As Dems' Budget Warrior on Blogcritics.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Americans Oppose GOP Effort To Handcuff EPA, Polls Show

A strong majority of registered voters across the United States – including those in all 19 key congressional districts polled – oppose the U.S. House votes last week to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating clean air safeguards and regulating the emissions that cause global climate change, according to major new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey results released Wednesday by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The survey results show that all 19 of the House members –- including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Tea Party leader Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) -– who supported blocking the EPA are out of step with their constituents.

Nationwide, about six out of 10 Americans (58 percent) -– including 55 percent of independents and roughly half (48 percent) of Republicans -– oppose the U.S. House vote to "block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution," according to the survey of 784 registered voters conducted February 18-20, by PPP for NRDC, a prominent Washington environmental advocacy group. Additionally, more than two thirds of Americans (68 percent) –- including 54 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents –- say that the EPA should move ahead to "reduce carbon pollution without delay."

In separate surveys conducted in 19 congressional districts, PPP asked registered voters if they agreed with their member of Congress' decision to vote for legislation barring the EPA from updating clean air safeguards. In all 19 districts polled, respondents across the political spectrum said they oppose their representative's votes to handcuff the EPA and think instead that Congress should let the agency do its job of protecting public health and the environment.

The average level of public opposition to the anti-EPA votes across the 19 districts was 66 percent – including 45 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of independents.

The poll was timed to ask several questions about positions lawmakers took during last week's debate over the federal budget. During that debate, House members cast a number of votes that would severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect public health from water and air pollution. The continuing resolution (CR) itself would cut 30 percent of the EPA's budget. The CR, which would fund federal operations at dramatically reduced levels through September, also contained policy provisions to block EPA from setting limits for carbon dioxide pollution.

Republicans want to block the EPA from moving ahead with its plans to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change. The agency is doing so under existing authority through the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court in 2007 found that EPA has that authority.

Congress last year failed to approve a bill which would regulate carbon emissions legislatively, through a national cap-and-trade plan.

In addition, several amendments were passed that also would block the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health, including Rep. Ted Poe's (R-Texas) amendment to bar the EPA from taking any actions to reduce carbon dioxide for any reason, Rep. John Carter's (R-Texas) amendment to prevent the EPA from reducing toxic pollution such as arsenic and mercury from cement kilns and Rep. Mike Pompeo's amendment to prevent EPA from collecting data about carbon and other pollution.

"Americans are clearly persuaded that their health needs should take priority over the profits of polluters," says Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. "Political affiliation doesn't appear to count for much when constituents are asked whether their representatives in Congress should be siding with the public's health or the political clout of polluters."

In keeping with tradition, Boehner, as speaker, did not actually vote on the bill or the amendments, but supported the bill's passage as amended. Every other member whose district was polled voted for the EPA-blocking amendments, and every member except for Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) voted for the final package.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

Boehner Points Finger Back At Reid

GOP House Speaker John Boehner says that he doesn't want to close the federal government over the emerging budget stand-off, but he essentially told Democrats, "Do it my way."

It's the latest in the back-and-forth over funding federal operations through September once the current spending measure expires March 4.

The government would shut down without agreement on a new spending bill, which could throw the nation back into economic recession, Democrats warn.

"Struggling families in Nevada and across the country cannot afford the consequences of a shutdown, which could mean no Social Security checks for seniors, fewer agents on the border and no paychecks for our troops," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says. "I hope cooler heads will prevail, and Republicans will come to the table to work with Democrats on a responsible path forward that cuts spending without sacrificing more than a million jobs.”

Reid on Tuesday signaled that he wants to introduce a short-term measure to "give us time to negotiate a responsible path forward," but on Wednesday, Boehner seemed in no mood to compromise.

The speaker notes that the House last weekend approved a long-term spending resolution that would keep the government running, but that legislation includes deep cuts to an array of domestic programs which Democrats object to.

“If Senator Reid refuses to bring it to a vote, then the House will pass a short-term bill to keep the government running – one that also cuts spending,” Boehner says. “Senate Democratic leaders are insisting on a status quo that has left us with a mountain of debt and a stalled economy with unemployment near 10 percent. That is not a credible position. Republicans’ goal is to cut spending and reduce the size of government, not to shut it down. Senator Reid and the Democrats who run Washington should stop creating more uncertainty by spreading fears of a government shutdown and start telling the American people what – if anything – they are willing to cut.”

On Tuesday, Reid noted Senate Democrats would accept $41 billion in budget cuts, whiche says is roughly half the cuts House Republicans approved.

Reid says Democrats want to make "smart cuts," not reductions that he says would lead to eliminating 65,000 educators, 800 border security agents, and other losses of government services.

Democrats on Wednesday also touted the publication of an independent analysis by financial services giant Goldman Sachs, which finds the House Republicans’ funding measure would reduce U.S. economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of this year.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) calls the GOP proposal "a recipe for a double-dip recession."

Senate Democrats also have proposed trimming about $20 billion in federal spending by eliminating federal tax breaks to big oil companies which are in the midst of posting record profits.

President Obama also has called for eliminating the oil tax breaks, which conservatives defend.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.

As U.S. Rebuilt Ties With Libya, Human Rights Concerns Took a Backseat

by Marian Wang, ProPublica

The brutality in Libya has prompted the State Department to issue several statements in recent days strongly condemning the Libyan government and calling the bloodshed “completely unacceptable”—though it stopped short of threatening sanctions.

The country’s dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, said on Tuesday that the protesters who have been killed “deserved to die,” and he vowed to fight “until the last drop of my blood.”

The U.S. and Libya have a complicated history. Under the recent Bush administration, the U.S. lifted sanctions and formally restored full diplomatic relations with Libya after its government renounced terrorism and dismantled its nuclear weapons program in 2003. At the time, the shift was heralded by State Department officials as “a success in our foreign policy.” A BBC correspondent went so far as to call it a “fairy tale.”

The State Department said that normalizing relations with Libya would “enable us to engage with Libyans more effectively on all issues,” naming human rights as one of the top priorities. A 2010 Congressional Research Service report described the U.S. rationale this way:

From 2004 onward, Bush Administration officials argued that broader normalization of U.S.-Libyan relations would provide opportunities for the United States to address specific issues of concern to Congress, including the outstanding legal claims, political and economic reform, the development of Libyan energy resources, and human rights.

Critics, however, said that as the U.S. restored diplomatic ties with the repressive regime, it put narrow strategic interests ahead of democracy and human rights.

“The State Department continues to engage Arab dictators at the expense of dissidents who support transitions to peaceful, modern societies,” Libyan-American activist Mohamed Eljahmi wrote in a Washington Post column in 2008. Eljahmi’s brother, Fathi Eljahmi, was a prominent Libyan democracy activist who died in 2009 after years of persecution and imprisonment by the Libyan government. As a U.S. senator, Joe Biden interceded on Eljahmi’s behalf, leading to his release, but it was temporary—Eljahmi was abducted again two weeks later.

“It’s tricky,” Tom Malinowski, Washington Director of Human Rights Watch, told me. Malinowski said that Human Rights Watch was not against diplomatic normalization, but said that “at times during that period, human rights were downplayed more than we felt appropriate to smooth the path to more normal relations.”

“Dealing with Qaddafi’s Libya was never easy,” he said. “The judgment was made that Libyans did not react well to public pressure. I think in retrospect that was a misjudgment.”

A U.S. embassy cable from 2008 noted the disappointment of “a number of Libyans” that the United States did not “more publicly and directly urge greater respect for human rights” immediately after diplomatic relations were re-established.

“Absent a clear message that engagement on human rights will be a necessary adjunct of an expanded U.S.-Libya relationship, meaningful progress in this area is unlikely,” read the cable, which was released as part of the WikiLeaks cache.

American oil companies eager to tap Libya’s oil reserves had also put pressure on the U.S. to normalize its relations with the country. David Goldwyn, a longtime State Department official and then head of the U.S.-Libya Business Association—a trade group founded by oil companies—told Bloomberg in 2007 that American companies were losing business because the U.S. wasn’t courting the country as aggressively as other European countries were. Goldwyn currently works as the State Department’s Coordinator for International Energy Affairs. His official bio lists that he was president of his own energy consulting firm, but does not mention his work with Libya.

The trade group’s website, which happens to be down at the moment, describes it as the “only U.S. trade association focusing on the United States and Libya” and says it was “organized to enhance the US-Libya relationship.” (See the cached version from four days ago.)

We’ve asked the State Department for comment on Goldwyn’s work for the U.S.-Libya Business Group but have not yet received a response. The White House said on Tuesday that it was “looking at” a proposal by Sen. John Kerry to re-impose sanctions on Libya.


Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark The Washington Current and drop back in for more news from the nation's capital.