All Blog Posts from Political Hotsheet

A leading human rights organization today harshly criticized President Obama for failing to sign on to the Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty, which has been signed by 156 countries, bans the use, stockpiling, production or transfer of land mines.

"President Obama's decision to cling to antipersonnel mines keeps the U.S. on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of humanity," Steve Goose, Arms Division director at Human Rights Watch, said in a released statement.

The international campaign against land mine use drew attention in part thanks to the efforts of Princess Diana of Wales, who died in 1997. Since its introduction in December of that year, 158 countries have signed on to the Mine Ban Treaty, including all but two Western Hemisphere countries and all but one NATO member.

Read full post…

A number of retired military generals who now work for private defense firms are still advising the military -- with no obligation to disclose their ties to the defense contractors to the government, according to a report from USA Today published Wednesday. That needs to change, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the newspaper in an interview published today.

USA Today's investigation found that 80 percent of the retired generals and admirals who now serve as "senior mentors" for the military have financial ties to defense contractors. Not only are they not obligated to report those ties, the senior mentors are also exempt from ethics rules that apply to part-time federal employees because they are hired as independent contractors.

McCain told the newspaper that those paid by defense contractors should be barred from mentoring at war games that present a conflict of interest. Furthermore, he said, they should have to disclose their financial ties.

"I'm sure most of them would have no problem with that," he said. "The important thing is that they avoid the appearance of conflict."

McCain is the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Two Democratic senators on the committee, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jim Webb of Virginia, also said there should be new disclosure rules. Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), chair of the defense subcommittee for the House Appropriations Committee, said he has asked the Defense Department to immediately provide his panel with justification and criteria for the work of the "senior mentor" program.

The ties between the public and private sectors go beyond the military. The Huffington Post points to a 2004 study that found 291 former high-ranking government officials serving as lobbyists, board members or executives at contracting firms that benefit from federal contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Read full post…

During the presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama promised to end "Don't ask, don't tell" - the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military - and promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports that because the president has yet to deliver on the promises he made to the gay community, gay rights advocates are concerned.

"He says all of the right things, but now it's time for him to put his money where his mouth is," said actress Cynthia Nixon.

Read full post…

Updated 1:03 p.m. ET

President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have won a standoff over funding the creation of new F-22 fighters.

The Senate voted 58-40 Tuesday to take out $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense appropriations bill that would have gone toward building seven new F-22s.

Mr. Obama immediately hailed the decision, saying it will "better protect our troops."

"I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure," he said. "…And that's why I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need."

"At a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money," the president added. "Every dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to support our troops or prepare for future threats or protect the American people."

The president and defense secretary have strongly opposed the creation of new F-22s, $140 million fighter jets which have not performed a single mission in the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. The military already has 187 F-22s at its disposal.

Before the vote, the president said he would veto the $680 billion defense bill if the final version included the F-22 funding, stating flatly, "we do not need these planes."

Gates has pushed for the military to spend money on tools better suited to fight the unconventional wars in which the U.S. is now engaged. He calls the F-22 "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."

But members of Congress, led by Republicans Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, have been pushing to keep the $1.75 billion for the planes in the bill. They have argued that more F-22s are needed and that many jobs depend on them being built.

Even as politicians decry pork barrel politics and complain of wasteful federal spending, both Democrats and Republicans have requested to insert billions of dollars in earmarks into a defense spending bill for companies that gave them millions in campaign contributions.

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense approved (PDF) the fiscal-year 2010 defense appropriations bill. The bill includes 1,080 earmarks worth $2.7 billion dollars requested from the full House of Representatives.

Before the subcommittee approved the bill, its members specifically requested more than $1.6 billion in earmarks for their campaign contributors, according to the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The group reports that all 18 members of the subcommittee requested funds for companies and organizations that donated money, either through employees or a political action committee, to their campaigns. Those entities donated nearly $1 million to the members.

Read full post…

President Obama's reiterated Wednesday that he is prepared to veto the 2010 defense appropriations bill if the version that crosses his desk authorizes $1.75 billion in funding to continue building F-22 Stealth Fighters, also known as Raptors.

With the cost of building one new F-22 coming in at just under a quarter billion dollars, that's enough for seven more planes.

As the White House notes in a statement, "the collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments determined that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements."

Though some Air Force leaders have suggested that more F-22s are needed, the White House's point seems difficult to argue: As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in February, "the reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater."

On Monday, the president wrote a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee stating flatly, "we do not need these planes."

"To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops with weapons that they actually do need," he wrote.

Gates, who would prefer to build F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, has been pushing for a shift in focus of military spending toward counterinsurgency preparedness. He calls the F-22 "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."

Yet members of both parties in Congress are pushing through funding for the F-22s. The reason? Jobs. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plane, says 95,000 jobs would be lost in a variety of states if F-22s stop being built. The company has spent millions lobbying to keep the airplane in production, according to National Public Radio.

Read full post…

Congress is moving forward with plans to fund the construction of additional Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets, even though the Obama administration has said the president would veto such a move.

A Senate panel on Thursday approved $1.75 billion to build seven more F-22s and the House of Representatives voted in favor of a Defense Department funding bill that would allocate more funds for the planes, the New York Times reported. Both chambers are also asking for a report from the administration on possibly exporting the planes to Japan and other allies.

On Wednesday, the Obama administration made it clear it opposes the extra funding. The Office of Management and Budget said the funding for more F-22 fighters runs counter to the "collective judgment" of the military's top leaders. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said production of the jets should stop after 187 have been built. Last week, he called the funding boost a "big problem." He said the jet does not fit well into 21st century warfare.

Read full post…

The Obama administration's decision to file a controversial brief on behalf of the Defense Of Marriage Act appears to have been the last straw for many gay and lesbians who were once enthusiastic supporters of the administration as well as the Democratic party.

Politico reports that the National Stonewall Democrats is the latest group to pull out of a June 25 Democratic National Committee fundraiser because of the Obama administration’s defense of DOMA and lack of action on gay issues.

The group said is "incredibly disappointed" in the party for a variety of reasons, including a perceived lack of support.

"The DNC has traditionally provided materials for the many Pride parades and festivals around the country to help educate the LGBT community about why the Democratic Party is the Party for full LGBT equality," National Stonewall wrote in an e-mail, according to Politico. "This year, we were informed that we would not be receiving any materials or support for producing materials for the various nationwide Pride activities. These decisions were very disappointing."

The e-mail also cited the DOMA brief as a reason to pull out of the fundraiser.

"The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels," National Stonewall wrote.

Read full post…

The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over.

On Monday, Joe Solmonese, the president of the establishment gay rights group The Human Rights Campaign, sent an angry letter to the president objecting to the decision by the Obama Justice Department to file a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

"I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours," Solmonese wrote. "I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."

The Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, mandates (1) that the federal government not recognize same-sex marriages and (2) that states not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Mr. Obama vowed to repeal DOMA as a presidential candidate but he has not taken any action to do so since becoming president. The Justice Department brief calls the legislation a "valid exercise of Congress' power" and says it is "reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage."

Read full post…

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed "we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," which says states are not required to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a "valid exercise of Congress' power" that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state "shall be required" to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any "right or claim arising from such relationship."

Two married California men, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, sued the federal government to overturn DOMA. They claim that it violates their constitutionally-protected rights to travel, their rights to free speech, and their due process rights.

The U.S. Justice Department's brief doesn't address the morality of same-sex marriage. Instead, it makes the narrower legal argument that DOMA "merely permits each state to follow its own policy with respect to marriage" and the law "does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental." It also says that it saves money by not paying out marriage benefits under federal law, a move that "preserves scarce government resources."

Read full post…