[Peace-discuss] Re: Call Congress - defeat war supp - WE ARE CLOSE!! focus: Schakowsky, Gutierrez, Jackson

Thu Jun 11 10:39:27 CDT 2009

	The war over IMF funding
	Obama's plan to give $108bn to the IMF may be thwarted
	by anti-war Democrats in Congress
           o Mark Weisbrot
           o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 June 2009 19.30 BST

The Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress can't seem to muscle
the votes they need to pass a $108bn appropriation for the IMF. The stakes are
high for both the administration and the world. The battle is taking place
primarily under the radar, but the details are very interesting for what they
reveal about politics in the United States.

The cast of characters: the US Treasury, an opaque institution that is kind of a
permanent government; the anti-war movement, which has more clout and
representation in Congress than you would know from reading the newspapers;
groups concerned about global justice and the IMF's abuses; the Republican
congressional leadership, which hopes to score some political points in opposing
the IMF funding; and the various members of Congress and their personal beliefs
and constituencies.

The plot: the Obama administration is trying to get $108bn for the IMF as part
of a commitment that Obama made at the G20 meeting in April, led by the G7
(high-income) countries, to raise $500bn for the IMF from member countries.

But, from the beginning, the administration has faced tremendous obstacles to
getting a majority members of the House of Representatives to vote for the money
in an up-or-down vote. This is because many members of both parties are afraid
that it would be seen as another taxpayer bailout for the financial industry –
and foreign banks at that.

Which it appears to be, actually. This unprecedented increase in the Fund's
resources, with a goal of $1tn, is vastly higher than anything the institution
has ever seen. It happens to coincide with huge expected losses by western
European banks in eastern Europe, where these banks have at least $1.4tn in
exposure. To make the issue even more delicate, some of these banks, like
France's Societe Generale, have already received US taxpayer dollars through AIG
under the Tarp programme.

Some of these taxpayer handouts to domestic and foreign financial institutions
have been difficult to justify, not least the billions that have ended up as
dividends for shareholders or bonuses for executives who helped crash the
economy. So it is easy to see why the administration wanted to avoid an up or
down House vote on the IMF money.

This was done by attaching the IMF money to a supplemental war spending bill in
the Senate. The House had already passed its war spending bill without the IMF
money. But the normal procedure is for the two chambers to reconcile their
differences and present a bill – which would presumably include the IMF money –
to both houses, with the idea that "funding for the troops" must be passed.

Enter the anti-war movement: 51 House Democrats had already voted against the
war spending when it passed the House. Should they now vote in favour of it in
order to give the IMF money? The Democratic leadership says yes, but anti-war
Dems are saying no. They want to see some indication that the occupation of
Afghanistan is not permanent.

Jim McGovern of Massachusetts had proposed an amendment to the war spending bill
that would have required the Pentagon to submit a report by December outlining
an exit strategy from Afghanistan. (It now has 86 sponsors). The House
leadership, presumably on behalf of the Obama administration, rejected this
moderate proposal.

Then there are the Democrats who actually know what the IMF does. Forty-one of
these (with much overlap with the anti-war Dems) signed a letter asking the US
Treasury – which is the principal overseer of the IMF – to commit to some modest
reforms of the Fund in return for the money. They want the IMF to stop requiring
countries that are suffering from economic downturns to cut spending, raise
interest rates or take other measures that worsen their decline. They want
parliamentary approval in recipient countries for IMF agreements, and to
increase debt cancellation for poor countries. But the Treasury has refused to
offer any concessions.

Now come the Republicans, who supplied 168 votes for the war spending in the
House. If you attach the IMF money, they say, we will vote against it this time.
"Against funding for the troops?" asks the Democratic leadership, daring them.
That's right, say the Republicans, unless you put the IMF money to a separate vote.

Interestingly, the Republicans are not trying very hard to get the IMF money
removed. They are not saying anything on television or in the media. This
indicates that they may want this money to pass with only Democratic votes, so
that they can attack the Dems – especially those in conservative districts –
when the money ends up bailing out the European banks in eastern Europe.

So far, the Obama administration has failed to peel off enough anti-war or
pro-social-justice Democrats to get a majority for a bill which includes IMF money.

What is at stake here? For the anti-war movement and the world, it would be a
small but significant step forward if this legislation failed because a sizeable
group of Democrats want an exit strategy from Afghanistan. For those who want
reform of the IMF, and favour economic progress generally, there is perhaps even
more at stake.

Ten years ago the IMF was one of the most powerful institutions in the world,
and the main avenue of influence for the US government in developing countries
during a period in which the vast majority suffered long-term economic growth
failure. Most of the IMF's power has been lost over the last decade. The US
Treasury wants to use the current economic crisis to regain that power, without
reforming the institution or its policies or granting a significant voice to
developing countries. We will see what happens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/10/imf-congress-funding-war-supplemental

Robert Naiman wrote:
> We're extremely close. The private list of Democratic no commits is 25-30. We
>  need 36 to be absolutely sure of victory.
> 
> It's all about Democrats now. Tim Johnson is a sure no vote.
> 
> Using Firedoglake's Citizen Whip tool, you can call any Member of Congress:
> 
> http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental
> 
> and you can report results there.
> 
> I particularly call your attention to three Illinois Democrats:
> 
> *** Jan Schakowsky - leaning no. She voted against the war supplemental in 
> May. She has been good on IMF reform - a champion, actually - and signed the 
> Waters IMF letter. Washington rumor has it that Rahm has threatened her over 
> her planned Senate race. This is the best case for folks in C-U to call out 
> of district - because she plans to run for Senate statewide, and will be 
> looking for support in Champaign County in the primary. But also, folks on 
> this list know folks in Jan's district in Evanston. Make sure your friends 
> have called.
> 
> ** Luis Gutierrez: represents Pilsen, just west of the University of Illinois
>  at Chicago. Many folks at UIC live in Pilsen (I lived there when I was at 
> UIC.) Voted no on the war supplemental in May. Signed the Waters anti-IMF 
> letter.
> 
> * Jesse Jackson Jr.: represents south side and south suburbs. voted yes on 
> the supplemental in May. signed the Waters anti-IMF letter. Highly critical 
> of the IMF in the past.
> 
> Pass it on. This is history in the making...
> 
> Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu> 
> wrote:
>> "Put Wars and Banksters on PAYGO" http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/43454
>>  By David Swanson
>> 
>> On Tuesday President Obama proposed that any increases in federal spending
>>  on anything useful, such as healthcare or retirement security, must be 
>> balanced by cuts and savings to something else useful, such as healthcare 
>> or retirement security.
>> 
>> "The pay-as-you-go rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only 
>> spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere." Except that it's not so 
>> simple. Obama would make an exception to allow Bush's tax cuts for 
>> millionaires to be extended past their 2010 expiration date, as well as to
>>  prevent the alternative-minimum tax from impacting the overclass. Still, 
>> the White House insists that everything is very simple:
>> 
>> "PAYGO would hold us to a simple but important principle: we should pay for
>>  new tax or *entitlement* legislation. Creating a new *non-emergency* tax 
>> cut or *entitlement* expansion would require offsetting revenue increases 
>> or spending reductions."
>> 
>> But, guess what? War supplementals and bankster bailouts are "emergencies"
>>  and the Pentagon and regular budget war funding are not "entitlements." 
>> (Someone will have to explain this to the CEOs over at Boeing, BAE, 
>> Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, but it's
>>  true). With roughly half of every dollar of income tax going to the 
>> military and wars and debt for military and wars, we again have a public 
>> discussion of "government spending" that ignores the military and wars. 
>> Contrary to popular myth, by the way, team Obama just increased -- and 
>> therefore did not decrease -- what had been the largest military budget in 
>> world history. And let's not forget the Bush-Obama bankster bailouts that 
>> suddenly made military spending look /small/.
>> 
>> As it happens, however, there is a perfect vehicle available right now for
>>  an expansion of PAYGO: the war supplemental cum IMF bailout now being 
>> debated in the House. Here's an extra $97 billion for wars and military 
>> that was not included in the regular budget. This is an expansion of 
>> spending, and nobody has explained where the money can come from. Then 
>> there's a $5 billion gift accompanied by $100 billion in loans to bailout 
>> European banksters through the IMF. Nobody has suggested where that money 
>> could possibly be found. And then there are the gimmicks being added in to 
>> bribe unscrupulous congress critters to vote for the thing: cash for 
>> clunkers programs and so forth. The drafters of the bill have not been 
>> reducing the money for airplanes the Pentagon doesn't want or for the wars 
>> in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to cover the cost of buying clunkers. 
>> Everything is just piled on top.
>> 
>> Now, in reality, the idea that you have to pay for what you purchase is as
>>  close as one comes to a "law" of economics that will take effect
>> eventually whether or not it's made into what passes for a "law" in
>> Washington, D.C. Every trillion dollars we throw at banksters and bombers
>> is a trillion dollars we cannot use to provide free quality education from
>> pre-school through college, high-speed trains, green energy, or healthcare.
>> But, as long as we're making things explicit, it might be worth phoning
>> Democrats in the House 
>> <http://www.democrats.com/progressives-and-bluedogs-can-defeat-war-supplemental>
>>  and asking them what they are going to cut to pay for the war 
>> supplemental. What useful "entitlement" or, for that matter, military waste
>>  are they prepared to slash by $97 billion plus all that money for the IMF 
>> to use in ruining other people's economies? If one word characterizes the 
>> responses you're likely to get (and please report on them 
>> <http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/supplemental>) that word is: 
>> "elusive."
>> 
>> "Paying for what you spend is basic common sense," says President Obama. 
>> "Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it's been so elusive."
>> 
>> But note that 15 House Democrats thus far have said they will vote No, and
>>  with all the Republicans voting No we only need a couple dozen more 
>> representatives of the party we keep electing to end the wars. We CAN win 
>> this one.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the 
>> Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories 
>> Press.  You can pre-order it for a discount price at 
>> http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook
>> 
>> To receive updates from After Downing Street register at 
>> http://afterdowningstreet.org/user/register
>> 
>> To subscribe to other lists go to
>> 
>> http://davidswanson.org/node/921
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list
>>  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss