Mediaboss Marketing

An influential House committee chairman will press his case on Monday for a $705 billion defense budget in 2018, more military spending than at any point during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a level even a number of his Republican colleagues don't support.

Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, who heads the Armed Services Committee, argues the sharp increase is badly needed to repair a military that's been at almost continuous combat for a decade and a half. He'll unveil a blueprint that proposes $37 billion above the $603 billion than President Donald Trump requested for core Pentagon operations along with another $65 billion for warfighting missions.

But Thornberry is at odds with fellow Republicans over how much the Pentagon should get in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Conservatives who dominate the Budget Committee agreed last week on a budget outline that promises $620 billion for the core military budget that pays for weapons, training and troop salaries. That's $20 billion less than Thornberry wants.

The two committees, along with senior GOP members of the appropriations panel, have been meeting behind closed doors in hopes of breaking the impasse. Thornberry said he's willing to accept a lower number, but only if he's assured the Pentagon will no longer be hamstrung by a herky-jerky budgeting process that leaves the armed services unsure of how much they'll get each year and when the money will arrive.

Squarely in the sights of Thornberry and other defense hawks on Capitol Hill is a 2011 law that strictly limits defense spending. If the budget caps mandated by the Budget Control Act are breached, automatic spending reductions known as sequestration are triggered. They've been pushing for the law to be repealed, but that won't happen without help from Democrats who want limits on domestic spending erased.

"If we can get to a point where we don't have these draconian cuts hanging over our head there is value to that," says Thornberry, whose committee will craft the sweeping defense authorization bill this week.

Thornberry criticized Trump's maiden Pentagon's budget as inadequate, but he refused to blame the president for the shortcomings. The defense budget sent to Congress last month was essentially what former President Barack Obama would have proposed, he said.

"There wasn't anybody at DOD to write a Trump budget request," according to Thornberry. "I have no doubt that our president wants to repair and rebuild our military."

Yet the Trump administration is almost entirely responsible for the skeleton crew at the Pentagon. There are dozens of top-level jobs that require Senate confirmation before they can be filled, but Trump, in office since late January, has nominated just 20 so far. Six have been confirmed, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, while a dozen or so others await approval, according to figures maintained by the Senate.

Thornberry's blueprint recommends an increase of just over 18,000 active-duty troops for the Army, Air Force and Navy. The Army, with 10,000 new service members, would be the largest beneficiary of the boost. Overall, the plan envisions a full-time fighting force of 1.3 million.

The plan provides a 2.4 percent pay raise for the troops, which is slightly higher than the wage hike the Pentagon had proposed. Mattis defended the lower amount during a committee hearing earlier this month, telling lawmakers that the salaries of U.S. service members are competitive with the private sector.

"We probably have a better benefits package than most places," Mattis added.

But Thornberry told reporters last week that U.S. troops are entitled to a "full" pay increase. He also had grappled with the Obama White House over pay levels. The Obama administration had maintained that boosting troop salaries even a half-percentage point would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and upset the balance between fair pay and the ability to provide cutting-edge equipment and training.

The plan aims to reverse the $340 million cut made in the Trump budget to missile defense programs. Thornberry said he was "astonished" by the proposed reduction, citing the potential threat the U.S. faces of a missile strike by North Korea or Iran. He's seeking more money for interceptors that can bring down incoming missiles and money for investment in missile defense research.

Thornberry's committee rejects Mattis' bid to begin a new round of base closings in 2021, a move the Pentagon chief said would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama administration had sought to shutter excess bases too, but also was rebuffed by Capitol Hill. Military installations are prized possessions in congressional districts.

Lawmakers have questioned the data and the analysis the Pentagon has used to make its arguments for fewer facilities. They're also skeptical of the alleged savings, noting that there are substantial up-front costs required to close bases down.

Contact Richard Lardner on Twitter: http://twitter.com/rplardner

Read the rest here:
Top Republican to press for $705 billion defense budget - ABC News

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellDoctors can do messaging on Republican healthcare reform OPINION: Trump's right GOP health bill is mean, mean, mean Conway: ObamaCare 'robbed people of choices' MORE (R-Ky.) has said a vote will take place this week on the Senates newly proposed healthcare legislation.

Its a risky strategy. If he fails to get the votes it will demonstrate that after seven years of complaining about ObamaCare, the GOP cant pass a replacement. If it does pass, theres no guarantee the House will support it.

The biggest risk is the political one. If President Trump signs a new health law, the Republicans will own the healthcare space. They can reap the benefits, but the Democrats will, no doubt, pick apart and blame the GOP for anything that could otherwise be blamed on ObamaCare.

Republicans may face the same fate as Democrats in 2010 on Election Day next year if they cant deliver this week, and then show that their policy can do better by patients, small business owners and doctors.

Ultimately the final legislation must deliver on four major problems patients and employers face: costs, access, choice and quality. This is difficult but not impossible as long as the GOP members find compromise that will allow them to show voters they can at least make progress toward these issues.

Most importantly for doctors, the committee bill must address the increasing presence of insurance companies and government entities that have created an ever-growing wedge between the doctor and patient -- the relationship that nearlythree-quartersof doctors say is the most satisfying part of their job.

While agreeing on an exact policy is difficult, messaging from the 30,000 foot view is not. This is good because most voters respond to 30,000 foot messaging, not intricate policy debates -- as long as it is carried by the right messengers: doctors.

Consider: Polls show that just17 percentof the public supports the House proposal. Does anyone believe that more than a few percent of the population has even read the bill? Of course not. People are forming their opinions based on 30,000 foot messaging even if that messaging is fully false. Even before the House voted, seemingly every major media outlet predicted calamity.

This is the message that Democrats want average voters to hear to turn the focus away from the massive failures of ObamaCare.

Doctors can help. As someone who has organized doctors for the past three election cycles and has witnessed the humanity, the professionalism, and the deep understanding of the doctor-patient relationship of these healthcare professionals, I know there is no doubt doctors are ready to help message a better healthcare alternative.

While they may not agree on every single thread that tries to untie the healthcare Gordian knot,doctors will supporta patient-focused reform that returns medical decisions to them and their patients.

Given their high public esteem --a recent Gallup pollshows healthcare professionals are the most trusted people in the country, with two-thirds of respondents rating doctors ethical standards as very high or high doctors support could make the difference in generating the public support necessary for the final bill to pass.

The White House and congressional Republicans should enlist those trained, organized, and caring doctors who are willing to help. Their authority on the issue can cut through the misinformation, sensationalism and faux outrage that define much of todays media.

In short, President Trump and congressional reformers dont need to spend too much time crafting the message or finding the messengers. Doctors are here and ready to help. Focus on policy; get it done. As long as that plan includes more choice and more protection for the doctor-patient relationship while protecting the neediest, doctors will have reformers backs. And that might just save their political necks.

Joel L. Strom DDS MS is a Fellow at the Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

View post:
Doctors can do messaging on Republican healthcare reform - The Hill (blog)

By Anna Lhrmann, Valeriya Mechkova and Matthew Wilson By Anna Lhrmann, Valeriya Mechkova and Matthew Wilson June 26 at 6:00 AM

Recent events such as the election of Donald Trump as president and the rise of right-wing extremists in Europe have led to gloomy commentary about the state of democracy. For example, people have argued that liberal democracies are at risk of decline, that support for democracy is being eroded by the conflict between values and expertise, and that democratic backsliding has already occurred in a number of countries.

Is this pessimism warranted? Not quite. Although the average level of democracy in the world has declined to where it was 10 to 15 years ago, the decline is moderate. The world remains more democratic today than it was before the end of the Cold War. A nuanced look at the data suggests that the declines are limited to certain countries and even to certain domains within those countries.

[Worried about a decline in democracy? Worry about politicians, not the public.]

There are still reasons to be worried, though: The quality of democracy has declined in more countries than it has improved in over the past five years.

Heres how we did our research

These conclusions are based on new data released by the Varieties of Democracy Project. The V-Dem Project surveys about 2,800 experts and asks them to assess the nature and development of democracy in more than 177 countries from 1900 to 2016. The value of experts is that they can distinguish between real and fake democracies. For example, most countries today hold elections, but some of these elections are free and fair while others merely legitimize dictators.

Of course, expert assessments are necessarily subjective. Therefore, V-Dem normally asks five experts to evaluate each country on each of many characteristics that characterize democracy. V-Dem then aggregates the expert assessments using a statistical model. V-Dem also provides an estimate of uncertainty that reflects how much the experts disagree. When we speak of significant changes in democracy, we refer to changes that are visible even after taking this uncertainty into account.

[No, people really arent turning away from democracy]

In its first report, V-Dem dissected and evaluated global trends based on several indices created from these data. Here, we focus on the Liberal Democracy Index, which captures whether there are free and fair elections, leaders are constrained by the rule of law, parliamentary and judicial oversight and civil liberties are protected.

The global trends in democracy

The trends in the Liberal Democracy Index are presented in the graph below:

As the graph shows, the average level of democracy grew considerably between 1970 and 2010, especially after the end of the Cold War. There has been only a slight decrease in recent years.

The overall trends conceal some important developments in specific countries. Since 2013, there have been more countries whose scores on this index were declining than countries whose scores were increasing. In 2016, 21 countries declined relative to 2011, while only 13 countries improved.

One example of a country whose score declined is Thailand, in which the military staged a coup in 2014 and suspended the constitution. Another is Poland, where the Law and Justice Party is blatantly undermining the constitution. A third is Turkey, which has seen President Recep Tayyip Erdoan purging the ranks of opposition members and establishing a stronghold over the country.

Among the countries whose scores have increased is Tunisia, in which a popular revolution led to elections and a peaceful transfer of power. It is arguably a success story of the Arab Spring. There were also increases to above the world average in Georgia, which implemented economic reforms aimed at tackling corruption, and in Sri Lanka, where a new government reportedly is committed to transitional justice and restoring rule of law.

Worrying trends among established democracies

A concern of commentators is that democracy is declining even where it was thought to be firmly established: in Western Europe, the United States and Canada. Below is the trend in the Liberal Democracy Index in these 22 countries.

After a steep decline during World War II, democracy recovered quickly and surged above 80 points with the expansion of civil liberties and the fall of Southern European dictatorships in the 1970s. But since 2012, there has been a significant decline, from 84 to 80 points.

This decrease is present in every country except Canada, although in most countries it is not significant either because the decline is small or because experts disagree.

The United States, however, is the only advanced democracy that has experienced a significant decline in five years a drop of nine points.

This appears to support claims that U.S. elections are the worst among other Western democracies or that the United States is a flawed democracy. But we think these claims go too far. The level of liberal democracy in the United States remains high, with a score of 78 points, which puts the United States 17th in the world.

What has changed in the United States

A deeper look at the status of liberal democracy in the United States suggests that three things have suffered in recent years: the quality of elections, media reporting and government oversight. We can break down the Liberal Democracy Index into its two components: (1) the Electoral Democracy Index, which captures clean elections, freedom of association and expression, and whether there are alternative sources of information; and (2) the Liberal Component Index, which captures equality before the law, individual liberties, and legislative and judicial constraints on the executive.

[A new expert survey finds warning signs for the state of American democracy]

From 2011 to 2016, most of the significant declines involved electoral democracy. Experts rated the United States less favorably in the freedom and fairness of its elections, the intimidation of opposition parties by government officials, media bias in coverage of political candidates, the range of perspectives in the media and media self-censorship. Anecdotal evidence that supports these declines concerns voter ID laws, media censorship and gerrymandering practices.

In terms of the liberal principles of democracy, experts rated the U.S. less favorably in freedom of religion, compliance with high court decisions, and the extent to which the executive is held accountable by oversight agencies. Note that these assessments predate the Trump administration, but the drop in freedom of religion in 2016 probably reflects his electoral campaign. The results, however, suggest that any challenges with U.S. democracy are not simply a function of Trump himself.

But all this warrants caution, not alarmism

Clearly liberal democracy is facing challenges in some countries in particular in the United States. Therefore, U.S. political scientists are right to be on alert and continuously monitor the weak points of their democracy. In some places, it is even worse: Countries such as Turkey or Venezuela have experienced serious breakdowns.

But the V-Dem data suggests that alarmist reports about a global demise of democracy are not yet warranted. For one, the average level of democracy in the world is still close to the highest recorded level, even if a slight decline is detectable over the last few years. And there are real success stories, like in Tunisia, even if those do not make as many headlines.

[The wave of right-wing populist sentiment is a myth]

Although the declines in democracy in places such as Europe and the United States deserve our attention, the V-Dem data suggest that political institutions in these countries are relatively resilient. Recent examples include the electoral victory of Emmanuel Macron against Marine Le Pen in France and judicial challenges to the immigration ban proposed by President Trump.

Ultimately, citizens in advanced democracies should remain vigilant against democratic backsliding but we should also celebrate major gains in the quality of democracy among less democratic countries.

Anna Lhrmann is a postdoctoral research fellow at the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg. From 2002 to 2009, she was a member of the German National Parliament.

Valeriya Mechkova is a PhD candidate at the V-Dem Institute/University of Gothenburg.

Matthew Wilson is an assistant professor at West Virginia University and will be a visiting researcher at the V-Dem Institute in 2018.

Originally posted here:
Is democracy on the decline? Not as much as some pundits want you to believe. - Washington Post

BANGKOK (AP) A Thai court on Monday heard year-old charges against a pro-democracy activist arrested over the weekend, as the military government sought to discourage commemorations of the anniversary of the countrys 1932 transition from an absolute to constitutional monarchy.

Bangkoks military court released Rangsiman Rome on bail on the conditions that he not incite unrest or leave the country without the courts permission.

He was arrested Sunday to prevent him from attending a pro-democracy forum critical of the military government, said his lawyer, Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen of the legal aid group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. She said he also planned to petition the government on Monday to disclose details of a 179 billion baht ($5.27 billion) Thai-Chinese rail project for which the prime minister used special powers to override normal regulations.

Other activists reported being harassed on Saturday, the anniversary of the end of absolute monarchy and the birth of Thai democracy.

This government pledges to lead Thailand toward a democratic transition. It is the juntas main theme that they would eventually return power, said Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch. It is ironic that on the day that marks the 85th anniversary of the first democratic transition, that very same junta was harassing and intimidating activists and academics from publicly commemorating the June 24th event.

Rangsiman was arrested last year for violating a ban on political gatherings of more than five people and for handing out leaflets urging people to vote against a junta-imposed draft constitution. Critics said the constitution, which passed a referendum, limits the power of elected politicians and gives the military continued influence over the government after elections are held. The army took power in 2014 after staging a coup against an elected government and has delayed plans several times to hold new polls.

The military has actively suppressed critics and political opponents.

Sirawith Seitiwat, a student activist who is facing prosecution on charges of lese majeste defaming the monarchy said on his Facebook page on Saturday that police officers appeared at his house and volunteered to drive him around the city for the day. Sirawith said he rejected the offer and instead took a public bus, but spotted a police car following him.

Seri Kasetsart, a student democracy advocacy group, said last week that police had made pointed inquiries about its plans for Saturdays anniversary.

We want to condemn the actions of the government that is destroying and overthrowing democracy, which belongs to the people, the group said in a statement posted Saturday on its Facebook page. To express political opinions is something that all Thais should be able to do. The government should protect such actions, not destroy them.

___

This story has been corrected to show that Sunday forum was a discussion of democracy not railway project.

Go here to see the original:
Thai democracy activist indicted on year-old charges - The Seattle Times

For David Moss, author of Democracy: A Case Study, history provides a guide for coping with disagreement in a nation as vast as the United States. Robust faith in the democracy itself has the power to transform our differences from a potentially grave weakness into a precious source of strength, he writes, drawing on an insight that great American statesmen have expressed from the beginning:

In 1776, not long after the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin plucked the Latin words E Pluribus Unum from the cover of a literary magazine and recommended them as a motto for the nation. E Pluribus Unum out of many, one.

It was a remarkable aspiration for a collection of colonies perhaps more notable for their differences than for what they had in common. But Franklin was, as usual, extraordinarily insightful and foresightful. He saw from the republics first breath that the unique promise of America lay in harnessing difference toward a common purpose through self-governance.

Fraught eras are not new.

Across the nations history, the practice of democracy has always been rooted in conflict, including plenty of bare knuckle politics stemming from intense partisan, ideological, and sectional differences, Moss observes. The critical question is what makes this conflict productive rather than destructive. How can we distinguish the political conflict of the late 1850s that ultimately deteriorated into the violence of the Civil War from the political conflict of so many other periods that allowed for the peaceful resolution of differences and fostered immense progress over time?

As he ponders the present moment, he urges a renewed faith in what he calls democratic values:

In the past, political conflict has often proved productive when citizens shared a strong common faith in the democracy, along with a deep commitment to sustaining and strengthening their democracy. This common faith and commitmentwhat might be called a vibrant culture of democracyhas long been the glue that held Americans together, despite their many differences. Sadly, common faith in national democratic governance had largely broken down by 1860, ripped apart by the evils of slavery, as intense political conflict quickly descended into rancor and violence. This was a rare moment of political collapse in America, but also a potent warning of how dangerous our differences can become when they overwhelm our common commitment to democratic principles.

Today, there is mounting evidence that our culture of democracy has atrophied over recent decades. Although the problem is sharply different from that of 1860, there is still reason to be concerned. Whats needed is not less political conflict, but rather more productive conflict; and that means strengthening our culture of democracy, even as we continue to do battlepeacefullyin the political arena. Fortunately, Americans have revitalized their culture of democracy many times before, and we can do it again.

But we cant lose sight of the fact that a strong culture of democracya profound and unwavering commitment to republican values and processesis the foundation of productive political conflict and, in turn, the essence of a healthy republic. Ultimately, it is whats most needed to ensure that Franklins noble vision of E Pluribus Unum remains alive and well in America.

David Moss is the Paul Whiton Cherington professor at Harvard Business School. He is speaking about James Madison this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. Email conor@theatlantic.com with your own answer to the question of how Americans can live together in peace and prosperity despite our many differences in values, political beliefs, ideologies, and temperaments.

Continue reading here:
Finding Faith in Democracy at Moments of National Conflict - The Atlantic