After Hanging Back, Cameron Vows to Escalate Air Strikes Against ISIS
After losing a crucial 2013 parliamentary vote authorizing military force in Syria, Prime Minister David Cameron noticeably pulled Great Britain back from global affairs, effectively allowing other countries to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the alarming growth in strength of ISIS.
Last January, President Obama reportedly told Cameron that Britain must adhere to its military spending commitment to NATO or set a damaging example to its European allies. Obama and other U.S. military officials have said that Britain’s failure to hit a military spending target of two percent of its Gross Domestic Product would be a serious blow to the military alliance.
Related: Britain Hangs Back As the U.S. Pays $2.2 Billion to Fight ISIS
In an about-face, Cameron on Sunday said he hopes to step up his country’s role in the allied air campaign against ISIS while also adopting new tough measures at home to try to stem the rise of jihadist activities.
In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Cameron said talks were underway in Parliament about what more can be done to allow his country to take part in the U.S. led campaign against ISIS in Syria, as well as in Iraq.
Cameron’s Conservative Party won a surprisingly resounding reelection victory in May, and since then he has been talking about the need for Britain to step up to the plate more in helping the U.S. and other allies halt the spread of ISIS throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Although Parliament in 2013 rejected air strikes against ISIS in Syria, media reports last week revealed that British pilots embedded with coalition forces have been taking part in operations in Syria.
"In Syria we're helping not just with logistics, but surveillance and air-to-air refueling,” Cameron confirmed yesterday. “But we know we have to defeat ISIS, we have to destroy this caliphate whether it is in Iraq or in Syria--that is a key part of defeating this terrorist scourge that we face. I want Britain to do more. I'll always have to take my parliament with me," said Cameron.
Related: Why America’s War with ISIS Will Take Years
Cameron was expected to announce a five-year plan for fighting the terrorist group on Monday, according to The Sunday Times.
"I want to work very closely with President Obama, with other allies,” Cameron said. “Britain is now committed to its NATO two per cent defense spending target all the way through this decade. We've already carried out more air strikes in Iraq than anyone else other than the U.S., but I want us to step up and do more, what I call a full spectrum response,” he said on Meet the Press.”
Until recently, Cameron has sought to steer his country on a centrist path that included tough austerity measures and a dramatic scaling back of the United Kingdom’s military presence overseas. Those policies were only reinforced by Cameron’s strong showing at the polls.
Since the Great Recession, the British Army lost fully 20 percent of its troops--from 102,000 to 82,000 since 2010.
Related: How ISIS Could Drag the U.S. into a Ground Fight
British aircraft and unmanned drones have been used to attack ISIS emplacements in Iraq with more than 200 bombs and missiles, according to a recent report by The Guardian. ISIS targets included 20 buildings, at least two containers and 65 trucks. As the Guardian noted, British air operations are a small fraction of those carried out by U.S. aircraft and drones, which have struck more than 6,000 targets as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, according to recent Pentagon figures.
Trump’s Cabinet Would Benefit from Tax Plan Too
“Eliminating the estate tax would save the Trump Cabinet over a billion dollars," Oliver Willis writes. "Like Mnuchin, Trump’s secretaries would make out like bandits. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross would get an extra $545 million. The family of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos would rake in $900 million. Linda McMahon, head of the Small Business Administration, and her husband, WWE founder Vince McMahon, would take in $250 million. Trump’s own net worth is in dispute, thanks to his failure to reveal his tax returns, but based on his estimated net worth of $3 billion, the estate tax scheme would net him $564 million.” (Shareblue Media, Bloomberg)
A Liberal Economist Shoots Down the GOP’s Fiscal Chicken Hawks
Republicans want a tax cut, but they don’t want to fully pay for it and may be willing to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. This would continue a troubling cycle, economist Jared Bernstein writes, in which supposed fiscal conservatives “use the deficit argument to block spending, promote fiscal austerity, and small government, conveniently tossing deficit concerns aside when it comes to tax cuts.”
You’ll hear arguments about how increased economic growth will make up for the budgetary effects of the tax cuts, but don’t believe them. “Our fiscal history on this point is clear: Cutting taxes loses revenues, which, unless offset by higher taxes elsewhere or spending cuts, increases the budget deficit, which in turn raises the debt.” When this happens again, and the promised growth effects don’t materialize, the tax cutters will go back to pushing for spending cuts.
The country faces a number of serious challenges, including an aging population that by itself will require increased government spending, and we need a tax policy that does more than drive up the deficit. “The problem with structural deficits — ones that go up even in good times — is that they reveal that we’re unwilling to raise the necessary revenues to support the government we want and need. This enables those who whose goal is to shrink government to point to deficits and debt as their proof that we can’t afford it, whatever ‘it’ is, except when ‘it’ is tax cuts.” (New York Times)
Health Secretary Tom Price Under Fire for Use of Private Jets
Back in 2009, Tom Price spoke out against House Democrats who wanted to spend $550 million on private jets for lawmakers to use. A Republican representative from Georgia at the time, Price told CNBC that the purchase of the jets was “another example of fiscal irresponsibility run amok.” Now Secretary of Health and Human Services, Price seems to have changed his mind about the virtue of government officials using private jets at taxpayer expense. Just last week, Price used a chartered private jet to travel to three HHS events — including one at a resort in Maine — at an estimated cost of $60,000, Politico reports.
While previous HHS secretaries typically flew commercial, reports indicate that Price has been traveling by private jet for months. “Official travel by the secretary is done in complete accordance with Federal Travel Regulations,” an HHS spokesperson told Politico.
Critics on Twitter have been harsh:
More in-your-face kleptocracy from Tom Price.Take food stamps from poor, hungry kids- spend $25k from taxpayers to charter plane to Philly
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) September 20, 2017
1️⃣ Attack Medicaid while trading health stocks.
— Harry Stein (@HarrySteinDC) September 20, 2017
2️⃣ Spend funds that could give someone 4 years of Medicaid coverage to fly a private jet. https://t.co/GO5cfJgWgO
First Mnuchin, now Tom Price. The @realDonaldTrump Cabinet has a big problem charging taxpayers for private flights. https://t.co/th1QbGdfT7
— Ben White (@morningmoneyben) September 20, 2017
Social Security Benefits Due for a Bigger Bump in 2018
In a few weeks the Social Security Administration will announce its cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for 2018. Inflation data for the month of August suggests that the adjustment could be the highest in five years, possibly over 2 percent, according to the Washington Examiner. Adjustments for the past five years have been relatively small: The cost of living adjustment for 2017 (announced last October) came in at a modest 0.3 percent, and the adjustment for 2016 was zero. Some retirees have complained in the past about small COLAs, but it’s worth remembering that higher adjustments are driven by higher inflation, which is bad news for people living on fixed incomes.
Americans Are Less Satisfied with Government Now Than a Year Ago
Gallup finds that just 28 percent of Americans are satisfied with the way the nation is being governed, down from 33 percent a year ago. And as we approach some potential fiscal battles, it's worth noting that the lowest satisfaction levels since Gallup started updating the measure annually in 2001 came in 2011 (19 percent) after a debt ceiling showdown that led to the U.S. credit rating being downgraded by S&P analysts and in 2013 (18 percent) during a federal government shutdown.
