Connect with us

Politics

Biden’s defense budget is big. Democrats will vote to make it bigger

Published

on

Biden’s defense budget is big. Democrats will vote to make it bigger

Final week, President Biden despatched Congress his proposed protection funds for the following fiscal 12 months: an $813-billion want listing, nearly $60 billion greater than he requested a 12 months in the past — extra army spending than any president, together with Donald Trump, has requested since World Battle II.

As soon as Congress approves the request — and, in all chance, makes it greater — U.S. protection spending will probably be bigger in inflation-adjusted {dollars} than it was on the peak of the Vietnam Battle or President Reagan’s Chilly Battle buildup.

Solely two years in the past, when Biden was operating for president, progressives within the Democratic Celebration hoped disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan would produce a “peace dividend” — financial savings on protection that might be plowed into home priorities.

Advertisement

You would possibly suppose it was the Russian invasion of Ukraine that sank that prospect — and reasonable Democrats are positive to quote the warfare in Europe once they argue for extra protection spending.

However Biden, who grew up as a Chilly Battle Democrat, by no means promised deep protection cuts. As an alternative, he mentioned, he’d search for methods to steer army spending towards “sensible investments in applied sciences and improvements” in concord along with his home insurance policies.

And the Pentagon wrote most of its funds proposal lengthy earlier than Russian tanks crossed the border.

As a share of the funds, spending on Ukraine is “pretty minimal to date — solely slightly over 1% of the request,” William D. Hartung, a protection funds knowledgeable on the dovish Quincy Institute for Accountable Statecraft, instructed me.

In Biden’s eyes, the most important menace is China — simply because it was within the view of his predecessor.

Advertisement

China stays “our most consequential strategic competitor … [with] the army, financial and technological potential to problem the worldwide system and our pursuits inside it,” a high Pentagon official mentioned.

Biden’s protection funds spends extra on nuclear weapons, house expertise, analysis and improvement and makes solely modest trims to costly and controversial weapons methods just like the F-35 fighter.

Progressives aren’t completely satisfied.

“At a time once we are already spending extra on the army than the following 11 international locations mixed, no, we don’t want a large enhance within the protection funds,” Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont thundered.

However reasonable Democrats, together with Home members from districts with protection trade jobs, say they’ll be part of with Republicans to assist extra army spending — simply as they did final 12 months, when an enormous bipartisan majority handed record-breaking protection payments.

Advertisement

Lots of them agree with Biden about the necessity to counter China’s rising energy. And in a congressional election 12 months, Democrats in intently divided districts don’t need to depart themselves open to GOP expenses that they’re comfortable on protection.

Another excuse for the spending enhance is extra mundane: inflation. Rising civilian wages are forcing the army to hike its pay charges to draw certified recruits.

Even with its huge enhance, the Biden funds received’t maintain tempo with inflation if costs maintain rising on the present 7% or extra. Republicans have seized on that as their strongest argument; they’re demanding an actual enhance of 5% on high of inflation, and so they’ll most likely get a part of it.

The controversy amongst Democrats will probably be passionate, pitting progressive funds cutters in opposition to reasonable deal-makers, plus susceptible Home members from districts with a number of protection jobs.

A type of, Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia, weighed in final week with a sequence of salty tweets.

Advertisement

“I’ve delayed placing out an announcement concerning the protection funds as a result of frankly it could have been largely filled with phrases you would possibly anticipate from a sailor, however right here goes: It sucks,” wrote Luria, a retired Navy officer. “If you wish to develop the Navy, cease decommissioning extra ships than you construct.”

Luria’s district consists of Norfolk, website of the world’s largest naval base.

The result of the controversy, nevertheless, just isn’t a lot doubtful. Along with protection supporters like Luria, different Democrats are keen to assist extra protection spending partly as a result of they see it as a bargaining chip they’ll provide Republicans in alternate for extra spending on their home priorities.

“Most Democrats have already given up on cuts,” famous Todd Harrison, a protection funds knowledgeable on the Heart for Strategic and Worldwide Research. “They’ve adopted a technique of parity as an alternative: ‘OK, you get extra for protection, however give us extra for home spending in alternate.’”

Furthermore, elements of Biden’s funds request reinforce his home financial proposals: elevated spending on manufacturing, local weather change, analysis and improvement.

Advertisement

All these parts have mixed to ship huge bipartisan majorities for protection spending, even within the Democratic-led Home of Representatives. Final month, the Home voted down a sequence of progressive amendments to chop protection applications and accredited an enormous spending enhance by a lopsided bipartisan tally of 361 to 69.

Backside line: The times of anticipating a peace dividend are gone.

In the event you’re on the lookout for proof that we’ve entered a brand new model of a Chilly Battle, bipartisan assist for greater protection spending must be all of the proof you want.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Dem leader condemns Thanksgiving bomb threats against liberal lawmakers after Team Trump targeted

Published

on

Dem leader condemns Thanksgiving bomb threats against liberal lawmakers after Team Trump targeted

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned several threats, mostly focused on lawmakers from Connecticut, targeting members of his caucus, just days after numerous threats were made against President-elect Trump’s cabinet selections.

Jeffries, D-N.Y., confirmed in a statement Friday that several Democrats were targeted with threats ranging from pipe bombs in their mailboxes to “swatting” — or filing a false police report on another person’s behalf that often results in a SWAT team being dispatched.

All of the threatening messages were signed “MAGA,” Jeffries said, adding law enforcement found no ordnance at any of the targeted lawmakers’ homes.

“America is a democracy. Threats of violence against elected officials are unacceptable, unconscionable and have no place in a civilized society. All perpetrators of political violence directed at any party must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” he said.

TOP DEM: ‘UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION’ IS A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Advertisement

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

“House Democrats will not be deterred or intimidated from serving the people by violent threats. We have been in close communication with the Sergeant at Arms office and it is imperative that Congress provide maximum protection for all Members and their families moving forward.”

After Jeffries spoke out, Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Democrat from neighboring Rhode Island, announced on Friday afternoon that his home had been targeted, as well. Magaziner said Providence police responded quickly and no one was harmed.

Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., had his home targeted by a bomb threat. A spokesperson said it appeared to be part of a “coordinated effort.”

Five other Democrats from the Constitution State received similar threats, including Reps. Joe Courtney, John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Jahana Hayes and James Himes.

Advertisement

CT DEM SAYS IT’S CLEAR HUNTER BIDEN BROKE THE LAW

“There is no place for political violence in this country, and I hope that we may all continue through the holiday season with peace and civility,” said Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who replaced Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Prior to that spate of threats, Trump’s U.N. ambassador-designate Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said she was traveling home to her North Country district for Thanksgiving when she was informed of a threat against her home.

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. — Trump’s initial choice for attorney general — also received a threat.

Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y. — Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency — said his home was subjected to a “pro-Palestinian-themed” pipe bomb threat. Zeldin is Jewish.

Advertisement

Former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, R-Ore., whom the president-elect tapped for Labor secretary, said her Oregon home was targeted, as was that of former San Diego Chargers cornerback Scott Turner, whom Trump named to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Trump nominees including Cantor-Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick, America First Policy Institute President Brooke Rollins and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth also received threats.

In a statement, the FBI said it is aware of “numerous bomb threats and swatting incidents targeting incoming administration nominees and appointees, and we are working with our law enforcement partners.”

“We take all potential threats seriously and, as always, encourage members of the public to immediately report anything they consider suspicious to law enforcement,” it said.

Advertisement

Fox News’ Kevin Ward contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Capitol rioter's defamation suit against Fox News is dismissed

Published

on

Capitol rioter's defamation suit against Fox News is dismissed

A Delaware court judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News filed by a Jan. 6 rioter who said the network falsely identified him as an FBI informant.

U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Hall granted Fox News’ motion to dismiss the suit filed last year by Ray Epps.

Now based in Utah, Epps alleged his life was upended after former Fox host Tucker Carlson repeatedly described him as a federal agent who helped instigate the attack on the Capitol, which was an attempt to stop the certification of the election of Joe Biden.

Carlson described Epps as a principal in a false flag operation in which the government incited the Jan. 6 riot, an unfounded conspiracy theory. He made the false comments about Epps on his program over a period of nearly two years and in a series called “Patriot Purge” that streamed on Fox Nation in 2022.

In her remarks from the bench, Hall said Carlson did not act with malicious intent.

Advertisement

Fox News welcomed the judge’s decision, which is the third consecutive defamation case to be decided in favor of the network after the record $787-million settlement it paid to Dominion Voting Systems in April 2024.

Dominion said its business was damaged by false claims Fox News presented regarding voting fraud in the 2020 election. Fox News chose to settle the case rather than have its executives and on-air talent take the witness stand in a trial.

A separate defamation suit filed by Nina Jankowicz, the former head of the federal Disinformation Governance Board, was dismissed in July. Another case brought by Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, was thrown out on Tuesday.

“Fox News is pleased with these back-to-back decisions from federal courts preserving the press freedoms of the First Amendment,” the network said in a statement.

Epps was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and pleaded guilty in January to a misdemeanor charge for his role in the riot.

Advertisement

Former prime-time host Tucker Carlson is seen in the studio on the set of his show on Fox News in New York in 2018.

(Jennifer S. Altman / For The Times)

Epps testified under oath to the House committee investigating the attack that he had no involvement with the FBI, which has also stated publicly that he had no association with the bureau.

The lawsuit claimed Epps and his wife received threatening voice mails, emails and text messages because of Carlson‘s comments. Epps told the CBS news magazine “60 Minutes” that the lies ruined his Arizona-based business and led to death threats.

Advertisement

Carlson’s prime-time program was pulled from the Fox News lineup on April 24, 2023, the day after Epps appeared on “60 Minutes.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Political betting markets still have plenty of action despite end of election season

Published

on

Political betting markets still have plenty of action despite end of election season

The end of the election season does not mean the end of political betting, with many platforms allowing users to place wagers on everything from the 2028 election to who will be confirmed to President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet.

“Some people will be amazed by this, but people are already betting on 2026 and 2028,” Maxim Lott, the founder of ElectionBettingOdds.com, told Fox News Digital. “There’s been about a quarter million dollars bet already.”

The comments come after the 2024 election produced plenty of betting action, with users across multiple platforms wagering over $2 billion on the outcome of the latest race. 

WHAT ARE ELECTION BETTING ODDS? EXPERT EXPLAINS WHY TRUMP IS CURRENT FAVORITE

President-elect Donald Trump, right, welcomes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the stage at a Turning Point Action campaign rally at the Gas South Arena on Oct. 23, 2024 in Duluth, Georgia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Advertisement

While mega sporting events, such as the Super Bowl and the recent Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul fight, gives gamblers plenty to wager on after the election, those looking for something political to bet on will still have plenty of options.

One of the most popular topics is who will be the nominees for both major parties in 2028, with ElectionBettingOdds.com showing California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Vice President-elect JD Vance being the current leaders for Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

Other names with a significant amount of attention for betters include Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for the Democratic nomination, while Vance is trailed by names like entrepreneur and future head of the new Department of Government Efficiency Vivek Ramaswamy and Donald Trump Jr. on the Republican side.

“The big Democratic governors are favored to be the next nominee,” Lott said, noting that Vance currently holds a sizable lead over other options on the GOP side.

Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

TRUMP OPENS UP LARGEST BETTING LEAD SINCE DAYS AFTER BIDEN’S DROPOUT

Advertisement

Vance is also the current betting leader on who will win the 2028 presidential election, ElectionBettingOdds.com shows, followed by Newson and Shapiro as the next two likely options.

However, Lott warned it is still too early to tell what the future holds, noting that the markets will start to provide more clarity as more information becomes known over the next few years.

“As the future becomes clearer… as we get closer to 2026, 2028, these odds will change,” Lott said. “So if the Trump administration is doing really well, the economy is booming, inflation is not out of control, wars are ending, Vance’s odds will certainly go up.”

Bettors also are not limited to wagering on elections, with platforms such as Polymarket allowing users to place bets on Trump’s picks to serve in his Cabinet and whether they will be confirmed. Bettors can also place wagers on questions such as if they believe the war in Ukraine will end in Trump’s first 90 days or if there will be a cease-fire in Gaza in 2024.

Sen. JD Vance

Vice President-elect JD Vance. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Advertisement

According to Lott, taking a look at the current betting odds for many scenarios can help inform you about what is going on in the world, even if you do not place bets yourself.

“People often ask… is there any value to this… it’s just gambling. It’s silly,” Lott said. “But actually it’s very useful… if you want to know what’s going to happen in 2028 or if the Trump administration is going to be a success, you could read 100 news articles on it. Some will misinform you. Or, you can just go to the prediction markets and see… is Vance a 20% chance of becoming the next Republican nominee or is he a 90% chance? That tells you a lot.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending