The administration wants to wait to release its war budget, but it might not get its way if some members of Congress have anything to say about it.
Pentagon officials have said that they are holding off on releasing the overseas contingency operations budget — which oversees war funds — until after a bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan is signed. If completed, it would determine U.S. military involvement in the country after 2014.
For now, the Pentagon has pegged the war budget — which isn’t subjected to congressional budget caps — at about $79 billion as part of its fiscal 2015 budget request. But acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox said that figure was a “placeholder.”
However, top members of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee stressed Thursday that a delay in turning over a concrete request would likely complicate Congress’s budget process.
“I think it’s impossible for us to go to the floor with a placeholder for $79 billion,” Democrat Peter Visclosky of Indiana said, while acknowledging to top Defense officials testifying before the subcommitteee that he is aware that it’s probably difficult for the administration to come up with a set of numbers for different possible outcomes.
Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen agreed, saying that “it’s difficult for us to put a bill together with that question open.”
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, responding to the New Jersey Republican’s comment that the placeholder is a “serious hole” in the budget, said that while military leaders want to remain involved in Afghanistan after 2014, Pentagon officials are trying to not “further complicate an already complicated budget process.”
“When we get an enduring presence decision, as soon as we can after that, we will get a formal budget amendment to you for OCO,” said Robert Hale, the Pentagon’s comptroller. “If that doesn’t work with the timing issue, then we’re going to have to look at other options, and we are thinking of them now, as to how we proceed if we don’t get an enduring presence decision.”
Hale acknowledged to Frelinghuysen that he realized his answer is “vague,” adding, “At the moment, I think it’s about the best I can do.”
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"