Biden dumps budget onus on House Republicans in debuting $1.7T plan

President Joe Biden’s third budget and likely campaign blueprint — if and when he announces a reelection run — proposes tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, the most funding ever for the military and $3 trillion in deficit-slashing policies over a decade.

The government funding proposal, unveiled Thursday by the White House and which has no chance of passing Congress, marks both a campaign pitch and an opening shot at House Republicans who have demanded significant spending cuts. Democrats have been daring Republicans to put their demands in writing as the GOP seeks fiscal concessions in return for helping to lift the debt ceiling later this year.

Biden went the opposite direction, instead proposing a 7 percent increase over current non-defense spending levels in addition to tax increases. And emphasizing that the document has become more a political message than policy, the president is rolling out his funding proposal in Philadelphia, giving him a swing-state backdrop after accepting an invitation from Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, the Budget Committee’s top Democrat.

Overall, the president seeks more than $688 billion in non-defense funding for the fiscal year that will kick off in October. Biden is calling for a lesser increase for the military and national security programs, requesting about $886 billion for those efforts, about a 3 percent boost.

Democrats were quick to emphasize Biden's plan to reduce the deficit, given Republican vows to unveil a proposal — which they've still not revealed — that would balance the budget within 10 years. House GOP leaders have said they'd do it without touching popular programs like Medicare and Social Security, which make up the bulk of federal spending.

“Congressional Republicans keep saying they want to reduce the deficit, but they haven’t put out a comprehensive plan showing what they’ll cut,” said Shalanda Young, the director of the White House budget office. “Will it be Medicare or Social Security? The Affordable Care Act? Veterans benefits? We don’t know until they put out a plan.”

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said Wednesday night that Republicans have “no timeline” for introducing that plan, and that they're committed to studying Biden’s proposal, which “will take weeks.”

“We are making good progress on our budget resolution,” Arrington told POLITICO.

In the Senate, Democrats are undecided on whether to introduce their own budget, arguing that the onus is on House Republicans to detail their preferred cuts.

“I think we’re going to want the caucus to take a good, hard look at the president’s budget and see if there’s any reason to recommend anything different,” Senate Budget Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said earlier this week.

“The ball is … in the Republicans’ court on that because they’re the ones threatening the economic security of the country with the debt limit antics,” Whitehouse said.

As Republicans wrestle over how to approach entitlements, Biden’s proposed budget aims to extend Medicare’s life by at least 25 years by upping the tax rate on the program for Americans making more than $400,000. It also would close a loophole that has shielded some wealthy business owners and high earners from paying that tax.

The budget would also allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of more prescription drugs, funneling about $200 billion in savings into the program.

Biden’s plan doesn’t offer a similar fix for Social Security, noting that the administration “looks forward to working with the Congress” to ensure “that high-income individuals pay their fair share,” ostensibly by expanding payroll taxes on the wealthy, although Biden hasn’t officially embraced that idea. The budget would provide a $1.4 billion boost, or 10 percent increase, for the Social Security Administration.

Boyle, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, said Republicans’ “biggest opponent … is not any Democrat. The biggest opponent they have is math.”

“Everything else that the federal government does would have to be completely zeroed out and eliminated for them to balance the budget and not touch Social Security, Medicare, defense and veterans,” he said in an interview.

Biden’s third budget is a sharp departure from his first, when he proposed trillions of dollars to buoy the faltering economy amid the pandemic. Now, facing a divided Congress for the remainder of his first term, Biden said he’s looking to build on the major spending legislation that defined his first two years in office — like Democrats’ signature climate, health and tax bill and the bipartisan infrastructure package.

For the Pentagon, the president is calling for $842 billion, a $26 billion or roughly 3 percent hike. The White House is also asking Congress to provide another $121 billion to fund medical programs for veterans, about a 2 percent increase over current spending.

Meanwhile, Republicans are zeroing in on Biden's proposed funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is a 1 percent decrease compared to current levels, given the constant pressures of increased immigration levels at the border. A GOP aide said the president's budget “fails to adequately fund the Department of Homeland Security."

“As the agency with lead responsibility for protecting our nation’s borders, transportation systems and cyber security, this is an unacceptable proposal,” the aide said.

With government funding set to expire in just over six months, lawmakers are already talking about approving military spending levels that go far higher than Biden’s ask. Even when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during the president’s first two years in office, Congress backed tens of billions of dollars in additional defense funding above the White House’s request.

Selling his policy ideas as a way to drive massive deficit reduction, Biden aims to shave off $3 trillion from the federal budget gap, proposing a new 25 percent tax on billionaires, an increase in the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and a quadrupling of the 1 percent tax on stock buybacks that took effect earlier this year.

Democratic leaders also lauded Biden’s proposed restoration of the expanded Child Tax Credit ushered in by the $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid package that Congress passed during his first year in office. That popular credit expired at the end of 2021, amid resistance from Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Biden’s fiscal 2024 proposal would also fund a federal-state partnership aimed at expanding free preschool, provide national paid leave and invest $500 million in a new grant program aimed at providing free community college.

Jennifer Scholtes and Burgess Everett contributed to this report. 

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/qcG3xF0
via IFTTT

Read More

French surveillance system for Olympics moves forward, despite civil rights campaign

The government wants to better monitor suspicious or dangerous behavior, but campaigners fear privacy violations.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/9FeiJYx
via IFTTT

Read More

Southwest withholding details on holiday meltdown, senator charges

The top Democratic senator responsible for overseeing the airline industry said Wednesday that Southwest Airlines is withholding information from her committee about how it's handling refunds for customers caught up in its December holiday meltdown, where some 16,000 flights were canceled.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, has been seeking details from Southwest since February, including how many passengers were involved, how many were issued cash refunds versus vouchers for future flights, how many were rebooked and when the airline plans to upgrade its internal systems that caused the debacle. And while Southwest has provided some information, Cantwell says it hasn't been enough.

"We still need Southwest to be more forthcoming with information about refunds," Cantwell said Wednesday, following a meeting with Southwest CEO Bob Jordan. "The follow-up meeting today brought some information up but we still want more information from them.

"We had constituents where it basically took every ounce of us intervening to get refunds. We want a sense of how many more people are there like that," she said. She added later that she isn't interested in "proprietary information."

Jordan, who was speaking at an industry luncheon in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, said he and Cantwell had a "good meeting" and pledged that his staff will "go deeper" to satisfy her concerns.

"I don't want to go through the details. It was a private meeting," Jordan told reporters after the lunch. "And I shared a lot of information with her about where we are in our process. We have time with a senator and her staff, I believe, on Friday, to talk further and understand -- go deeper in terms of the numbers. And I'm hopeful for progress there."

Jordan said that "basically anybody" who dealt with flight issues between Dec. 24 and Jan. 2 was "basically refunded or [we] gave you a travel credit." He said that as "a gesture of goodwill" Southwest gave out free tickets to many passengers affected by delays and cancellations and that the airline is reimbursing customers who had to buy another airline ticket, stay in a hotel, buy a meal or buy a taxi.

"We are covering all those expenses," Jordan said, adding that the total cost was "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars." (The airline said in January it has so far lost $220 million and that it expects more to come due to the residual effects of reimbursements and refunds owed to passengers.)

Southwest plans to release a comprehensive report this month on what led to the meltdown. Jordan said Wednesday that an internal investigation and external investigation by the consulting company Oliver Wyman are "wrapping up" and should be made public in a few weeks.

Cantwell also added that the fallout from the scheduling meltdown "is going to be a big part of" a major aviation policy bill lawmakers are working on, which is due in September.

"Obviously the public is very disgruntled over this issue of cancellation fees and timelines," Cantwell said. "Here's one of the biggest examples of the flying public being let down so we want to know what are the resolutions to this. Did they get their expenses reimbursed and did they get a refund? Or did somebody just shove some frequent flyer miles at them? So we're just digging a little bit more to get those answers."

The Transportation Department is also investigating the matter.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3E1nheD
via IFTTT

Read More

D.C. crime rollback energizes House GOP efforts to squeeze Dems

Emboldened by their successful bid to block a progressive D.C. crime law, House Republicans are ready to keep testing how tightly they can squeeze Democrats.

While the D.C. rollback might seem to affect only voters in the capital’s metro area, it marks an unexpected triumph for Republicans who've gotten to revive the attacks on rising crime that helped propel them to the majority. And the House GOP has no plans to back off — it will force more tough votes on the Democratic Party in the near future, including a President Joe Biden rule on water regulations.

“If we don’t pick that fight, we don’t win that fight," said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.).

Democrats insist the effort turned to their advantage, since plenty of their incumbents welcomed the chance to distance themselves from President Joe Biden. Still, Wednesday’s vote ends weeks of Democratic angst over D.C.’s liberal crime bill, a particularly potent subject after their party’s humiliating losses in deep blue New York that ultimately cost them control of the House last November.

In the initial House vote in February, the vast majority of the House Democrats stuck with Biden — only to have him reverse his position, with Senate Democrats lining up behind him. And even as Senate Democrats emphasize that the circumstances surrounding the D.C. bill are unique, they’re also resigned to the reality that there are more disapproval votes to come.

“Unfortunately, the agenda on the Republican side is to just look for division and have investigations,” said Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the No. 3 Senate Democrat. “I would expect them to continue to look for ways to divide people and play politics.”

They won’t have to wait long. Republicans plan to use the same playbook to symbolically reject other Biden administration moves — including a vote this week on a wonky water rule that would cement broad authority for federal agencies to regulate streams and wetlands, an extremely unpopular policy in farm-heavy states.

For much of the House GOP conference, it’s seen as a win-win: A chance to declare their policy position, while putting vulnerable Senate Democrats on the spot in a campaign cycle that heavily favors the GOP. Unlike most bills, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer can't block GOP-led policy statements from reaching the floor and they require only a simple majority for passage. That means the chamber's Republicans only need two Democrats to join them to send it to Biden’s desk under full attendance.

On the water rule, for instance, several Republicans have been eagerly predicting they’ll win over Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), two of the most endangered senators up this cycle who both hail from rural states. Manchin, who has not yet said whether he's running for reelection, has already indicated he’ll support the measure, while Tester said Monday he is undecided.

With Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) out due to a medical issue and Manchin a “yes” vote, it’s expected to pass the Senate next week, assuming full GOP attendance. And this time, Biden has threatened to whip out his veto pen, after declining to do so on the crime bill.

"Our farmers and ranchers will be pissed about that," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). Summing up the GOP approach generally, he added: “It’s an area that we can have some success. I don’t think it can be our only strategy. But we’re happy."

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she is optimistic about her chamber passing the water resolution, even if it won’t have the degree of Democratic support that the D.C. crime bill disapproval resolution is expected to garner.

“I would expect Democratic support, I wouldn’t expect it as a lot,” she said.

And there are more disapproval resolutions in the works. Sens. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala) and John Boozman (R-Ark.) have introduced a resolution that would repeal a recent rule from the Department of Veterans Affairs that offered abortion counseling and services in certain cases. Manchin has already signed onto that effort as well.

Manchin and Tester were also the only two Senate Democrats to support a resolution disapproving of a Biden administration policy that enables managers to consider climate change and social goals in retirement investing decisions. But it’s the D.C. crime bill that has drawn the most ire within the Democratic Party.

Biden’s surprise decision to go along with the GOP’s push infuriated many House Democrats who voted against the repeal, some of whom will almost certainly face soft-on-crime attacks from Republicans in their reelection cycles. And it's prompted some in the caucus to wonder if they should support future GOP-led measures even if the White House opposes them.

“Like in any house, in any office, and any household, there can always be better communication,” Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters, though he stressed an otherwise “unified” relationship with the White House. Democrats had to “navigate what is a hostile environment” with Republican control of the House, he added, noting the potential political potency of the legislation undoing Biden administration policy.

Still, it’s clear some are still feeling burned by the White House.

When House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) brought up the Biden administration's threat to veto the Obama-era water rule measure during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, there were some audible groans in the room, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Across the Capitol, many Senate Democrats largely blame the discord between the D.C. Council and the city’s mayor for the dramatic back-and-forth. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser vetoed the measure, only to have the city council override the veto — and then attempt to withdraw its plan earlier this week, in the face of congressional backlash.

“The mayor and the police chief both opposed it, the head of the D.C. Council said, 'OK guys, don’t vote on it, we’ll go back to the drawing board,'” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “So, unfortunately, the whole process has been flawed.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/QTqlthR
via IFTTT

Read More

Trump’s CDC director says Fauci shut down debate on Covid’s origin

Trump administration CDC Director Robert Redfield told a congressional committee Wednesday that his former colleague, Anthony Fauci, and former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins froze him out of discussions on Covid-19’s origins.

The accusation came during a politically charged hearing Wednesday of the House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and stoked Republican claims that Fauci in early 2020 promoted the view that an infected animal spread the virus to humans to divert attention from research the U.S. sponsored at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“It was told to me that they wanted a single narrative and then I obviously had a different point of view,” Redfield told representatives.

Redfield said Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time, and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected the coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab.

Fauci, who was not at the hearing, dismissed Redfield’s accusation as “completely untrue.”

“No one excluded anyone,” he told POLITICO after the hearing.

“And the idea of saying that he was not wanted there because he had a different opinion … there were several people on the call who had the opinion that it might have been an engineered virus,” said Fauci, who retired from his government post at the end of last year.

Collins, who is now a science adviser to President Joe Biden, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he shares Fauci’s view that the virus likely came from nature, but that a lab leak was possible.

Redfield thought the highly infectious nature of the virus distinguished it from other coronaviruses and made it unlikely to have evolved naturally, he told representatives.

Fauci and others said it most likely came from a natural spillover from animals, as was the case with other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS, Redfield said.

The former CDC director said he later found out he was excluded from a Feb. 1, 2020, conference call with Fauci and Jeremy Farrar, a U.K. scientist who at the time led the Wellcome Trust, and other conversations that resulted in the publication of an article in Nature in March 2020 dismissing the possibility of the virus originating in a lab. Farrar is now the World Health Organization’s top scientist.

Fauci told POLITICO he was not involved in the drafting of the article.

But Republican representatives at the hearing accused Fauci of having orchestrated it to deflect attention from U.S. funding research at the Wuhan lab.

“I think Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They got caught supercharging viruses in an unsecured Chinese lab,” said James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Fauci has repeatedly denied that the NIH financed so-called gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. That research aims to make viruses either more lethal or more transmissible or both to find ways to combat them.

Some Democratic representatives at the hearing warned that accusing Fauci of ill motives would further erode trust in government health officials, threatening public health.

“I want the facts, but I hope and say to my colleagues on the other side: We cannot go down a dangerous path by pushing unfounded conspiracies about Dr. Fauci and other long-serving career public health officials,” said Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.).

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/EZLq9sY
via IFTTT

Read More

House GOP plots crypto overhaul

House Republicans are ramping up work on a comprehensive plan to revamp cryptocurrency regulation, a key lawmaker in the effort said Wednesday.

What's happening: GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee have started to float smaller, more targeted crypto proposals that may get a vote later this month. But Rep. French Hill, the Arkansas Republican who leads the panel's digital assets subcommittee, said in an interview that the longer-term plan is to go bigger.

“We’re working on a comprehensive regulatory framework that goes beyond the bills," Hill said. "We're going to spend March and April in a significant effort on listening to stakeholders in the digital assets arena [and] considering other legislative proposals. So that'll be our principle work plan for the next two months."

Why it matters: It's unclear what the committee will propose, but the effort comes as federal banking and markets regulators ramp up enforcement of traditional financial regulations in the crypto space. Digital asset firms are urging Congress to carve out a specialized rulebook for crypto, as some jurisdictions like the European Union have started to do.

The recent crackdown by U.S. agencies will be the focus of a subcommittee hearing that Hill will lead Thursday. It will feature testimony from Paul Grewal, chief legal officer of the U.S.-based crypto exchange Coinbase.

"Europe, the U.K., Australia and Singapore — just to name a few — are putting in place regulatory frameworks that are creating high standards for crypto,” Grewal said in prepared remarks. “It is truly a race to the top, and the U.S. is already behind.”

Fed Chair Jerome Powell, testifying on Capitol Hill this week, suggested it would be a good idea for Congress to weigh in. Hill pressed him on it Wednesday.

"I do think it would be important for us to have a workable legal framework around digital activities," Powell said Tuesday. "That is important, and something Congress in principle needs to do because we can't really do that."

Hill dropped some possible hints Wednesday about the GOP's direction on a crypto regulation plan.

During the hearing, he asked Powell if a U.S. digital asset framework would help banks, brokers and custodians understand how they could participate in the market safely. He also asked if it should preserve the role of state regulators in overseeing the industry.

Republicans signal crypto support: Thursday's digital assets subcommittee hearing will showcase a handful of Republican-led crypto bills that are generally supportive of the industry and its customers. The legislation may get a committee vote at a markup planned for March 28.

“I’m not sure that we’ll mark them up there, but we’re talking about it,” Hill said. “We may have some other ones introduced, so we may have some other priorities.”

The bills include proposals that would express congressional support for blockchain tech and digital assets, exempt blockchain developers from some reporting and licensing requirements and scale back tax reporting requirements for crypto firms.

The Senate: Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has floated her own crypto regulation plan, said Wednesday she has "had some conversations" with her House counterparts.

"There's certainly, I think, a general belief that this is an area that needs to be regulated, so [as] to protect consumers," she said.

Asked whether she expected lawmakers to reach agreement, she replied: "I'm actually optimistic. I think the hard part is the farm bill."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2ofqWzT
via IFTTT

Read More

There’s a new push to create a Space National Guard. Lawmakers say the price is right.

Lawmakers from both parties have failed — twice — to give the Space Force its own Space National Guard, which they say the new service needs in order to draw on skilled personnel, just like the Army does with the National Guard.

Now, supporters of creating the Space Guard have mounted a fresh pressure campaign with a revised pitch to win over the Biden administration and other opponents: it's not as expensive as you think.

It’s the latest round in a cross-party turf war that pits members of Congress and National Guard leaders against fellow lawmakers and an administration wary that standing up a separate Space Guard — which would see some current members of the Air National Guard transfer over to the new service — will result in more expensive bureaucracy.

Lawmakers from seven states and one U.S. territory that contain National Guard units with military space missions are banking that this year they'll sway the administration and skeptical senators that a Space National Guard is the best way to provide part-time forces to the fledgling Space Force. But they still have a high hurdle to clear.

Advocates are aiming to convince cynics the true cost is much lower than administration estimates that drove the initial opposition. They’re also banking on a long-delayed report from the Air Force that outlines how to best structure the space guard and reserve mission. And one top proponent is making the case directly to the Space Force’s top officer.

"I think momentum is building," Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said in an interview. He argued that the current structure, in which members of the Air National Guard with space-related duties would stay in the Air Guard, is "not workable in the long term."

The Space Force has a complex mission, which includes keeping an eye on missile warnings, monitoring space launches and detecting nuclear detonations. So it will likely rely heavily on part-time personnel, who bring high-tech experience from their day jobs and who don't want to commit to the military on a full-time basis. But those weekend warriors are now in the Air National Guard, an arrangement that proponents of a new outfit argue complicates training and staffing of the Space Force.

Several prominent lawmakers from both parties support creating a separate Space Guard. Crow and Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn, who chairs the House Armed Services panel that oversees military space issues, are reintroducing a Space Guard bill, while Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are spearheading legislation in the Senate. National Guard brass are also on board. Several state Guard leaders have publicly called for the shift and Guard Bureau Chief Gen. Daniel Hokanson supports the move.

The White House and the Pentagon aren’t sold, however, and neither is much of the Senate, as many prefer to wait and see what Air Force and Space Force leaders propose.

Crow plans to make his case directly to Space Force brass. The Colorado Democrat said he's spoken to Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman about the issue several times, including at the Munich Security Conference last month.

"We're going to follow up," Crow said. "He agreed to take a meeting with me to discuss it."

Fear of a budget blowup

The biggest hurdle for proponents — which includes space-heavy states such as Colorado, Florida, California and Hawaii — is convincing the Biden administration that creating a new Guard branch out of the current space missions housed in the Air National Guard won’t be as expensive as they fear.

Administration officials “strongly oppose” creating a separate Space National Guard, the White House declared last July, citing the “additional overhead” that would come with a new component.

The Congressional Budget Office assessed the costs of creating smaller and larger models for a Space National Guard in a 2020 report.

A smaller Space Guard — based on transferring 1,500 personnel from existing Guard units with space missions in Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Guam, New York, Ohio and Wyoming — would result in $100 million in additional annual operating costs, the nonpartisan scorekeeper assessed.

The CBO also examined a larger model in which a Space National Guard is a size proportional to the Air National Guard relative to the active-duty Air Force, and could have a presence in every state and territory. CBO estimated doing so would balloon the hypothetical organization to 5,800 personnel.

The nearly $500 million annual price tag is a figure that OMB cited when arguing against creating the organization. The nonpartisan analysis group is not currently working on an update to the 2020 report, a spokesperson said in a statement.

That sticker shock is a concern that mired a push to create an active-duty Space Force years ago. But Space Guard advocates say the hefty price tag doesn’t accurately capture their plans.

"I think there is a substantial misunderstanding about what it is we're trying to achieve here. We're simply trying to grandfather in the existing states and territory that have Space Guard and reserve components into a Guard,” Crow said. “We're not trying to create a new Guard infrastructure in every state. And that seems to be what OMB thinks we're trying to do.”

Proponents, including the National Guard Bureau of the United States, argue the costs are wildly overstated, with some advocates arguing the actual cost could even be as low as $250,000 and would not require any new facilities.

‘Organizational disconnect’

Supporters contend that, just like other branches, the Space Force needs its own part-time cadre to draw the personnel it needs to fully carry out its mission.

Lawmakers also argue that the Space Force won't truly be on par with other military branches while its Guard personnel continue as part of the Air National Guard, which they warn would undermine training, recruiting and funding.

Feinstein said doing so will fix an "organizational disconnect" between active-duty and Guard personnel in the Space Force.

"A Space Force National Guard would save money because otherwise we will eventually have to replace the capabilities we have in the Guard today with new units created from scratch inside the Space Force," Feinstein said in a statement. "A Space National Guard should have been created when Space Force was created."

Air National Guard units that are conducting space missions have an unusual relationship with the Space Force. While they fall under the Air Force’s command structure, the personnel receive operational tasking orders from the Space Force.

The arrangement makes it difficult for these Air National Guard personnel to get appropriate training because that is overseen by a different service, said Lt. Gen. Michael Loh, head of the Air National Guard and former Colorado adjutant general.

“I can't right now send them to basic military training with the Space Force [the service] they would actually be going off to combat with,” Loh told reporters last year at the Air & Space Forces Association annual Air Warfare Symposium.

But opponents consider the move a power play by Guard and state leaders, and even some leaders who see a Space Guard as inevitable aren't convinced it's needed just yet.

On top of the potential cost, they contend a Space Guard would mean extra bureaucracy and overhead when the Space Force was intended to be as streamlined and cost-effective as possible when it was created.

Space Force brass, meanwhile, haven't publicly endorsed the concept, instead floating a hybrid model that draws on both active-duty and reserve guardians.

Senate skeptics

Some on the Armed Services Committees are waiting to see the Space Force’s proposal before choosing sides. The service is expected to submit a proposal for a reserve component as part of the fiscal 2024 budget request.

"There's a little bit of hesitancy without a solid, solid plan to impose the entirety of the [National Guard Bureau] structure on top of such a small and agile service,” said one congressional aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the debate.

Plan or none, the debate is expected to play out again in annual defense policy legislation. Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) — whose support is needed for a Space Guard proposal to pass the upper chamber — isn’t swayed yet. Instead, Reed says he’s waiting to see what Saltzman and Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall recommend.

“I don't sense the movement,” Reed said of senators supporting a Space Guard. “But we really haven't brought it up."

Only one of Feinstein and Rubio’s eight cosponsors, Florida Republican Rick Scott, sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

House Armed Services is likely to approve a Space Guard as part of its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, as it has done with little controversy over the past two years. But even House leaders who support the concept aren’t sure the time is right for a full-fledged Guard.

Decorating the Christmas tree

House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said he’s “fine” with Crow and Lamborn’s proposal being included when the committee considers the defense bill in the spring, but said congressional leaders would ultimately make a call based on whether the Space Force agrees.

"This is one of those things that I want the Space Force to have what they need, but I'm gonna let them do it at their pace,” Rogers said. “I think it's inevitable that it's going to happen. I just don't think it's gonna happen right away."

It’s unclear so far what the Pentagon will recommend or if top brass will ultimately come around to agree with a standalone Guard branch.

Saltzman stuck to the Pentagon line that a dedicated Space National Guard isn’t currently needed during his Senate confirmation last September. He reiterated the service’s stated goal of a hybrid model that includes full and part-time guardians in a “single component.”

And the argument over how best to train, equip and supply part-time talent to the Space Force may get overshadowed by other more heated space debates on Capitol Hill. The Colorado and Alabama delegations are engaged in a political slugfest over the fate of the permanent headquarters of the U.S. Space Command.

But a slow and steady buildup could win again if the most vocal advocates of the newest military branch aren’t anxious to move ahead with a separate Guard.

“It's like a Christmas tree. You start with just the tree. Then you start adding lights and then you start adding decorations,” Rogers explained. “We just put the tree up that first year and what we have done subsequently has just been layering on things. And that's always the way I've envisioned the Space Force growing."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/5Vm8OYv
via IFTTT

Read More