Nice. Parroting a talking point of their fellow conservative parties all over the world.
No idea but there should be a way to claim it on your taxes when you file for 2020 (the 600 you missed).
1 Like
What a ■■■■
Let’s see if the auto-censor works
https://twitter.com/repdonbeyer/status/1369048039894233091?s=21
https://twitter.com/mzanona/status/1369047681990066186?s=21
Suggest reading the whole Beyer thread
1 Like
I know a ‘clever’ opinion is that the DoD is actually the US’s social welfare, providing much needed jobs and investment that might otherwise not happen. So here’s some good news.
A senior Pentagon official confirms … that the Biden defense budget (due for release on May 3), will come in at just over $696 billion (total national security outlays, including those to the Department of Energy, could total more than $735 billion), a figure comparable to the base funding provided to the Pentagon in 2021.
Fun bit near the end
Other services have also questioned the purchases they’ve made over the last years: Navy officers have argued that the Ford class aircraft carrier presents too high a profile in a contest with China, the Marines have already recast their role as America’s primary expeditionary force, and a recent article from the Modern War Institute at West Point recommended that the army reduce its force structure (and save $7 billion), by jettisoning three infantry brigade combat teams.
Now it appears none of that will happen. Rather, after the president rolls out his defense budget in May, the debate inside the Pentagon will not be how to make do with less money, but how to distribute with more than they need.
This is the first time in American history that the military has signaled that it’s willing to cut its own budget — and the first time in our history that a president has said “no.”
Personally I think the paragraphs above might be over-egging it. I’m sure some bit of the Pentagon is always considering how to do certain things more cheaply, and criticising particular procurements is probably more attributable to in-fighting than a desire to cut the budget overall.
That said a point that article makes elsewhere, that if Biden was ever going to cut the budget meaningfully then now was the time, seems very solid.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/03/05/joe-biden-waves-the-white-flag-on-the-pentagon-budget/
(Might have missed this or something like it being posted, standard apologies if so.)
1 Like
Wow Bernie fans aren’t like trumpists and dem-e cultists where they fall in line with what their leaders say? I’m shocked
8 Likes
And the Court going after a modern voting law would be one of the few areas that could lead to them legitimately getting packed imo (along with abortion).
1 Like
Agreed. If we get hr1 law 53+ senators is way more possible, maybe even likely
May need adjudication on this.
The $738b included:
Spending includes $635 billion for the base Pentagon budget, $23.1 billion for Energy Department nuclear weapons programs, $71.5 billion for war operations and $5.3 billion in emergency disaster recovery for military bases.
“(total national security outlays, including those to the Department of Energy, could total more than $735 billion)” for the Biden proposal? - may be a squeaker. Anyway, the budget isn’t out yet.
If you’re eligible you will get the 600 by filling out a line on your 2020 return.
1 Like
One reason I am hopeful there could be filibuster movement on voting rights is that it can be framed as Dems trying to protect a fundamental part of the system (the right to vote) rather than blowing it up. The “conservative” party are the ones trying to make waves here (eg criminalizing waiting in line to vote after church), and it’ll be hard for them to simultaneously act radically and hide behind a fundamentally conservative institution. I am under no illusions that they won’t try, I just think it’s a tougher sell than usual.
By the same token, it pisses me off that Dems talk about not using the filibuster here like it’s some luxury. This is not optional and they don’t have the luxury of observing anachronistic niceties over protecting their voters. It’s non-negotiable people continue to be able to vote and power can justly be wielded to protect that. Hopefully they get there eventually.
4 Likes
Ungrateful poors
2 Likes
GOP is making it easier for Dems to message by including absolute horseshit provisions that have zero even potential connection to voter fraud.
Making it a crime to give water to someone standing in line to vote? Come on.
2 Likes
They don’t care.
“Standing in line to vote” isn’t something that suburban white people have to deal with.
2 Likes
Right, but if you’re some shitlib centrist asshole, its pretty hard to stand up for the greatness of the filibuster in defense of…criminalizing handing out water to people trying to vote.
Democrats are basically Pete Campbell after his father in law fires him for being in the same whore house. Alright buddy, if you fire me I guess I have to tell your daughter now. “Hey assholes, we were perfectly willing to let you block all our super popular shit but you had to go and do Merrick Garland like that and pass a bunch of heinously racist voter suppression laws, so I guess we have to actually do something now.”
3 Likes
That is actually a pretty big appointment. As we have experienced, the FTC can have substantial impact in a lot of areas, especially the internet.
Someone who is anti big tech could help create some interesting decisions.
I am just glad Ajit is gone.
1 Like
Merrick Garland is still not attorney general.
3 Likes
This is insane at this point.
1 Like