FDR, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Pentagon Spending

In the summer of 1935, at the height of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt  signed the Revenue Act into law to pay for New Deal programs.  The Act raised tax rates from 59% to 75% on those Americans earning more than $5 million and raised corporate taxes from 13% to 15% on businesses earning over $50,000 annually.

In the summer of 2011, as President Obama’s $4 trillion ‘grand bargain’ with Speaker Boehner fell apart, the now-discredited Budget Control Act (BCA) was adopted on a bipartisan vote  to avoid an immediate economic default.   It was assumed that the sequestration portion of the Act which proposed mandatory cuts to military and domestic programs were so egregious that those reductions would never be allowed to occur.   The fact that Congress and the Administration were willing to take that gamble raises the inevitable question of whether the existing political structure is competent to run the country – especially in times of crisis.
 

Politically incoherent from the outset, the BCA which contained almost $1 trillion across-the-board cuts, brought the debt ceiling crisis to a conclusion while establishing a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka Super Committee) with twelve equally apportioned members of Congress.    If the forced negotiations failed to achieve a consensus on an additional $1.5 trillion cuts and increased tax revenue, then the BCA allowed a mandatory trigger of that amount to occur over the next ten years.   Of course, the Super Committee was doomed from the start – why would a dozen members of Congress  willingly commit political suicide by assuming  total responsibility  for determining the economic  future of world’s number one super-power.
 

As the  bipartisan finger-pointing and blame game continues, it is important to acknowledge that an enforced budget-cutting mechanism dubbed ‘sequestration’ originated with the Gramm Rudman Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Reduction Act of 1985.  At that time, Rudman referred to sequestration as ‘a bad idea whose time had come.”   Whether its current incarnation came from Jack Lew, current Treasury Secretary  or Gene Sperling, White House Economic Council Director  as Bob Woodward cites in Politics of Power (pg. 215) remains open to speculation.
 

Once the politically-generated ‘fiscal cliff’ stalled in January with modestly raised tax revenues while cutting unemployment benefits , the first sequestration $85 billion budget cut (coincidentally the same amount that the Fed Bank distributes monthly to the banks) kicked in on March 1^st despite a White House list of potentially horrendous cuts to education, transit, health care, housing, infrastructure projects and other essential people programs. 
 

Meanwhile, as Republicans sputter in protest over a $45 billion cut to Pentagon spending which represents only a softening of the edges, there is every reason to believe that the reduction will be watered down  in the name of ‘national security’ in the next  Continuing Resolution.   Since even before the fiscal debacle of 2008, the  tactic of Republicans to undermine and destroy the credibility of the Federal government, only to turn around and point to the result of their own actions as proof of why there is a breakdown in the Federal government’s performance, has proven to be shrewdly successful.   
 

For their part, today’s  Democrats bear little resemblance to past Democrats who constructed  the country’s once-sacrosanct social safety net.    Erroneously assuming Republicans would resist any military cuts and be forced to negotiate, the White House seriously misread the tea leaves as the party of Thomas Jefferson backed themselves into a tight corner with little room to maneuver.   

At the February 12^th Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the potential impacts of sequestration on the Department of Defense  with all five Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in attendance, Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich) opened the hearing with one example of ‘devastating’ sequestration impacts:   the Army had requested  $36.6 billion for 2013 but will only receive $30.6 billion (same as 2012 budget) with  sequestration cutting an additional $6 billion.  Levin went on to inform that since the Army has already spent $ 16 billion for 2013 with only $8 billion remaining for fiscal year 2013.   With “unexpected high operational demands requiring $6 billion to be spent overseas,”  left the Army with only $2 billion for domestic operations and maintenance for the next six months  - which, Levin pointed out, was originally budgeted at $20 Million.
 

As Committee members, regardless of political affiliation, expressed their empathy with the military’s need to pull in its belt for the first time in over thirty years, there was little evidence of a vibrant two party system  – until  tea party favorite Sen.  Mike  Lee of Utah had the last word.   Citing former Senator Chuck Hagel’s December 2012 Financial Times interview, Hagel was asked about  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s quote that sequestration would be ‘disastrous’ to national defense.  Lee quoted Hagel as stating that Defense “in many ways has been bloated”, “they have gotten everything they wanted in the last ten years”, that the “waste and fraud has been astounding” and that “they have taken priorities, taken dollars out of State Department and other agencies and put them in Defense”.   

In conclusion, Lee invited each Joint Chief “down the line” to respond  whether they agreed with Hagel’s general characterization.   After a few nervous twitters, only Ashton Carter, deputy Secretary of Defense responded, woefully failing the straight face test, citing Secretary Gates’ efficiency initiative to reform and improve the acquisitions system, how management problems occurred when it was easy to reach for more money to solve technical problems, that habits had accumulated over decades  and that “we have accommodated a substantial budget adjustment relative to  a few years ago.”   

In his first term, Lee,  who has shown a populist streak on occasion, responded that Carter’s answer appeared “inconsistent” since “Hagel’s statement was made just recently - in December.”

 

MOX Fuel, Plutonium Proliferation and the Russians

As automatic sequestration budget cuts loom, the Department of Energy has managed to keep a $5 billion plutonium plant alive - just barely. According to an Office of Budget and Management proposed budget, funding for the controversial Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel program would be cut 75% with no justification for not pursuing an outright cancellation.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War in 1990, the United States was faced with the dilemma of discarding a stockpile of dismantled nuclear warheads containing tons of lethal plutonium, leftovers from a frenzied arms-race with Russia that fabricated thousands of unnecessary budget-busting nuclear weapons, warheads and bombs since the end of WW II.

Amidst Administration concerns about nuclear proliferation with Iran’s potential entry into the world of nuclear weapons and as the North Koreans conduct a ‘miniaturized’ nuclear device, the MOX fuel plant under construction since 2007 at the DOE’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina sounds, on the surface, like a conscientious effort to limit the spread of weapons-grade plutonium.

The beleaguered MOX plant, designed to convert plutonium from obsolete nuclear warheads to ultimately fuel commercial nuclear reactors has been plagued by out-of-control cost overruns and is significantly behind its 2007 startup date, has been targeted for total elimination by environmentalists, safe energy, peace and taxpayer groups.

Keeping the project on the books with a $2 billion life-line is of dubious legislative wisdom since the MOX facility may never function as originally designed or be reconfigured for any other purpose.  Even as the DOE has failed to find one commercial utility willing to utilize MOX, it is unclear what would be accomplished by maintaining an empty building with no purpose. In the marbled halls of Congress, it is frequently a clever ploy to ‘deep six’ a controversial, indefensible project and then quietly slip it back in when the opponents are engaged elsewhere – but the reality is that the 75% cut should not be considered a ‘done deal.’ Committed Congressional friends of the project can be expected to find a way, during all the hustle-bustle of the sequestration debate, to restore full MOX funding.

In recognition of the proliferation risks from surplus irradiated plutonium, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) signed a contract in 1999 with a consortium of corporate partners including Duke Energy to design and operate a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. By 2000, the US and Russia, which had also accumulated tons of excess plutonium, entered into a Management and Disposition of Plutonium Agreement PMDA. with each country accepting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring and committing to convert no less than 34 metric tons of plutonium, also known as nuclear fodder for terrorists. The US had estimated 50 tons of surplus plutonium in its possession with 38 tons considered ‘weapons grade’

According to the 2000 Agreement, two options were identified for preventing plutonium from any future use: one option called for immobilization of plutonium in a ‘glass or ceramic matrix using a can-in-canister system of chemically stable ceramic discs suitable for geologic disposal.’ In 2001, President Bush cut project funds as he halted construction of an immobilization plant considered by Ed Lyman, Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, to be worth exploring as an alternative. Instead Bush gave the green light for development of a full-scale MOX program.

Upon scrutiny, the MOX fuel option is an untested nuclear boondoggle with the potential for accomplishing the opposite of the Agreement’s stated goal: prohibiting the proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium. The more experimental MOX process is considerably more hazardous and complicated with numerous opportunities for plutonium diversion - beginning with the removal of a plutonium “pit” (about the size of a grapefruit) from a defunct nuclear warhead. The ‘pit’ is to be converted into an oxide powder mixed with depleted uranium to form the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. Of special concern to Lyman is the increased handling by personnel and multiple transportation risks of one of the “world’s most dangerous substance and a usable nuclear weapon material traveling in unmarked trucks with weaken security safeguards than would otherwise be required for comparable toxic material.”

Of no less importance is the status of the bilateral Agreement (amended in 2011) with its Russian partner. Lyman and Tom Clements, nuclear weapons expert with Friends of the Earth, share the concern of the U .S. sanctioning Russia’s use of a fast neutron reactor and the reprocessing of some of its spent fuel to produce additional plutonium, thereby undermining the original intent of the Agreement to decrease plutonium stockpiles.

Clements added that the promise of the Agreement is no longer being pursued as Russia has abandoned the use of MOX in light-water reactors and has instead been building a new plutonium BN800 "breeder" reactor which poses significant nuclear proliferation risks as the reactor using MOX fuel can produce weapons-grade plutonium. "It is a blow to international nuclear non-proliferation policies that the US has helped enable Russia to build the BN800 breeder reactor," said Clements.

.

The NYC School Bus Strike and Wall Street

Despite assurances that ‘sharing the sacrifice,’necessary as a result of the 2008 economic collapse, is the patriotic duty of every American, the latest challenge to that burden- sharing philosophy are the school bus drivers, matrons and mechanics of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1181, the country’s largest transit union with 8,800 members in New York City.  

On strike since January 16, the walkout was provoked when Mayor Michael Bloomberg withheld a court-ordered Employee Protection Provision(EPP) from Department of Education bids for upcoming school bus contracts. The EPP, which dates back to 1965, guarantees each employee a job regardless of which company wins the bid by requiring the company to hire current workers at their current salary based on seniority. Without the EPP in force, the privately owned bus companies will be able to cut wages and benefits and replace experienced, trained personnel with minimum wage workers who lack the necessary CPR training or other required certifications.  

Like most large urban cities, the city of New York does not directly employ its school bus drivers, matrons or mechanics, the majority of whom work for the Atlantic Express Transit Group which is the City’s largest transit company and second largest in the country. While the majority of the City’s 1.1 million public school students walk to school, 150,000 city students depend on bus service; one-third of whom are disabled requiring a wheelchair or autistic children.  

In the background, beyond public purview is a Wall Street private equity firm, the Greenwich Street Capital Group, that purchased a controlling share of AETG in 1999. As any private equity firm’s prospectus will confirm, its purpose in life is to invest in companies it perceives to be potentially profitable and to take whatever steps are necessary to assure that profitability…no matter if that means cutting services to school age children whose physical disabilities require an attendant on their school bus ride each day. 

Driving a school bus or serving as an on-board caretaker is not exactly a Sunday drive through the park especially in the most densely packed, high-traffic city in the country, frequently driving long distances through multiple boroughs on tight schedules. While the City's school busing costs have risen to $1.1 billion in 2012, up from $300 million in 1994, it is not because of exorbitant bus driver salaries which top out at $50,000 a year or with matrons maxing out at $26,000. Working split shifts in the country’s most expensive place to live, many members of 1181 are on food stamps and as of February 1^st, the bus companies have stopped providing the strikers with health benefits.  

With the choice of getting arrested on the picket line or lose their job certification, Local 1181’s back is to the wall in a classic labor struggle against a bazillion dollar Wall Street private equity firm and the City of New York which refuses to negotiate. Overwhelmingly minority, members of 1181 are on strike without the support of either political party as the teacher, firefighter, sanitation and transit unions (all working without a contract) remain on the sidelines and a union leadership that has offered to order workers back on the job.  

On Friday afternoon, the NLRB dismissed a Complaint brought by a coalition of bus companies that the walk-out is illegal citing the companies refusal to negotiate on the EPP which, according to the ruling, is an ‘integral part’of employee contracts. The NLRB went on to affirm that the City of New York is a 'primary employer' associated with the strike. The bus coalition has said it will appeal the decision – and until the job security of the EPP is restored, the strike goes on.

  

 

Failed Filibuster Reform Threatens Legislative Agenda

Despite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (Nev) repeated pronouncements that the Republican stranglehold on the Senate’s filibuster could no longer be tolerated, that is exactly the final outcome of recent reform efforts.  With the success of important Obama legislative initiatives like depending on a Democratic Senate for enactment, what was Harry Reid thinking?  Reid’s stunning flip in favor of retaining the most egregious elements of the Republican filibuster clearly jeopardizes the President’s legislative agenda.  

Since the 2010 Congressional election when Senate Democrats lost their 60^th vote to Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the minority Republicans played hardball requiring a 60 vote majority to bring any legislation to the Senate floor for a vote.  Even with a clear advantage of 59 – 41 votes, Senate Democrats remained inexplicably unable to assert their legislative resolve as the business of running the government fell into disarray and public support for Congress dropped to historic lows. 

As recently as the day after the 2012 election which kept the Senate majority in Democratic hands (56-44), Reid indicated that the filibuster rules were being abused by Republicans and that he would act to change them.  With that encouragement, reform-minded Senators Tom Udall (NM) and Jeff Merkley (Ore) took up the banner as they had two years ago to require that any Senator who wanted to filibuster a bill must personally appear on the Senate floor to defend their filibuster and to inform the country why their filibuster was needed to stop what they considered to be an ill-conceived act.   The current rules allow any Senator to ‘hold’ a bill without having to be publicly identified or to provide any explanation for that hold.

Yet given public anger at Congressional gridlock and the Senate’s inability to function as Republicans brazenly brought public business to a near-halt, last week Reid formalized a “gentlemen’s agreement” with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky) by stating that he was “not ready to get rid of the 60 vote threshold.” 

   

What is unfathomable is Reid’s disregard for improving the Senate’s stature or making it an efficient, effective legislative body to assure passage of the President’s most important legislative issues.  Yet to be explained is why the Udall-Merkley proposal could not muster a simple majority of 51 Democratic votes for adoption or why every Democrat in the Senate voted (86-9) to adopt the Reid McConnell watered -down ‘reform.’ Only Senator Bernie Sanders (Vt) and 8 ultra-conservative Republicans were in opposition.  It is with no small irony that the vote to continue the requirement for a Super-Majority of 60 votes was adopted with the requirement of 60 votes.  

Even as Republicans remain mired in a disconnect from political reality and despite reports of a bi-partisan agreement on an immigration reform ‘blueprint’, there is little reason to expect that the party of Lincoln will not continue to effectively stonewall  every reasonable legislative initiative addressing the country’s most critical problems.  And as Senate Democrats continue to stumble into an era of lost principles, there will be no one to blame but themselves.

.

To read Renee's newest posts, contact

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/

Bahrain Arms Sale Challenges Congress

The Obama Administration has been planning to send a supply of spare parts and maintenance equipment to Bahrain without triggering requirements of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA) asserting that “none can be used against protesters.”  http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/27/obama_administration_selling_new_arms_package_to_bahrain    In stating that the Bahrain sale does not meet the AECA threshold, the Administration has not publicly noticed the proposed sale or notified Congress as the AECA requires.   http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sup_01_22_10_39.html     

 A spokesperson at the State Department confirmed that the U.S. is maintaining “a pause on most security cooperation pending further progress on reform   while supplying some items on a case-by-case basis that directly affect U.S. national security interests.”   

 Since last fall, a $53 million shipment of helicopters, advanced missiles and high mobility, multi-purpose Humvee tanks to that small island Kingdom with a population of less than half a million has been on hold but the Administration’s current efforts have stirred Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) and Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore) to circulate a letter to colleagues in opposition to the sale that will be sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  

Home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, Bahrain made headlines in 2011 with its own Arab Spring pro-democracy protests and when the government prosecuted medical personnel for treating injured and tortured protesters. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12729786 According to McGovern, Bahrain recently denied entry to several human rights monitors and on Monday, police tear-gassed mourners attending a funeral for a teenager who died in police custody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain_Independent_Commission_of_Inquiry

With the road to hell paved with good intentions and strewn with bricks of gold, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 was adopted in recognition of the need for Congress to reassert its authority in foreign policy decisions as the sale of U.S. weapons to foreign countries escalated after the Vietnam War.    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00002751----000-.html

In what was originally intended to control armament export  from the U.S. military industrial complex as well as act as a diplomatic tool with the ultimate goal of ‘reducing international trade of weapons and to lessen the danger of regional conflicts,’ the Act, with the noble goal of a ‘world free from the scourge of war,’ has instead transformed the United States into the global tooth fairy for armaments and other military toys as the AECA has become little more than a rubber stamp for the country’s weapons industry. 

In adopting the AECA, the 94th Congress urged the President to ‘maintain adherence to a policy of restraint’ solely for the purpose of ‘specific national defense requirements’ including consideration of whether those exports would “contribute to an arms race, aid in the development of weapons of mass destruction, support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict.”   

Yet, despite words of peace and reconciliation, the AECA also included the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Program within the Pentagon to provide loans and grants to countries like Bahrain to purchase American made weapons and military equipment.

While the AECA requires the President to provide Congress with written notification of its ‘intent to sell,’ http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/36b_index.htm  in December, 2011 alone, President Obama notified Congress of five possible foreign military sales (FMS) including a continuation of its PATRIOT system to Saudi Arabia, FMS of C27J aircraft to Australia, Javelin anti-tank guided missiles to the UAE, F161Q aircraft to Iraq, and UH-1N helicopters to Hungary.

In a maze of alphabet-soup acronyms, the FMF is a central program within the Defense Department’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) which under its “Scope of our Business” cites “13,000 active FMS (foreign military sales) valued at $327 billion”   http://www.dsca.mil/   A separate fund from the State Department’s humanitarian or economic development foreign aid, the  FMF’s $5 billion in 2008 included assistance to Israel as its top beneficiary until 2003 when Iraq received the most military assistance from 2003 – 2007 with Afghanistan now the top recipient of U.S. military support.     http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80701.pdf

While the President has the ultimate authority to approve a weapon ‘transfer’ after advance notice to Congress, the Act also gave Congress the oversight power to deny (but not approve) the sale.   The Presidential role of using weapon sales as a diplomatic tool to influence foreign policy with potentially complicated implications involving the State Department has been sufficient reason for many in Congress to accept their limited role.  While objection to any sale requires a simple majority vote via a joint Congressional resolution, rejections or even modification of a weapons sale continues to be rare.  

As currently written, supporters of maintaining the AECA’s status quo would argue that for Congress to have a more comprehensive role in the process, to vote aye or nay on each weapon sale, is to risk politicizing sensitive foreign policy discussions while each weapon sale decision may be unique with a very different set of policy ramifications.  For instance, would it be reasonable to expect that a Congressional denial of the recent $30 billion sale of F-15 jets to Saudi Arabia might negatively impact US - Saudi relationship given that country’s reliable standing as the second highest importer of petroleum to the US.   The potential sale of a weapon may be used to positively influence a foreign country to improve its human rights record as in the case of Bahrain or to allow for democratic elections or whatever other goal may be in our ‘national security interests.’     
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/36b_index.htm

On the other hand, given a more complex and challenging world since 1976, without a broader role, the AECA allows little - no room for meaningful Congressional  negotiation on any sale, whether it should be modified in some appropriate way that better reflects international realities.  For instance, a Congressional debate on why a petite country like Bahrain, located in the Persian Gulf, dependent on annual U.S. military assistance, would benefit the American taxpayer’s understanding of ‘foreign aid.’   In addition, if each weapon sale was publicly debated and voted on the floor of Congress, presumably fewer weapon sales would occur and the nature of many foreign policy decisions now made behind closed doors without public or, in some cases, Congressional input, would be open and transparent.   

The fact is that the Bahrain request for military assistance is but a drop-in-the- bucket, the tip-of-the-iceberg when it comes to US funding and facilitating the sale of  “Made in USA” military equipment to foreign countries.  The list of “Congressional Notification” that reads like a who’s who of Nation’s of the World indicates little discretion at determining if a country’s FMS requests meet the in-their-defense-only goals set out in the AECA. http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/reports/intro_congnotify.html
 

Rep. M<cGovern’s point that to approve the Bahrain request “sends the wrong message by giving any type of military equipment to Bahrain while the Bahraini government fails to meet its human rights obligations and promises” is a principle for the U.S. to follow in every FMS request.

On Sunday night’s 60 Minutes program, Scott Pelley opened an interview with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with the question “How many countries are we currently engaged in a shooting war?”  Surprised by the question, Panetta, who laughed heartily as if Pelley had just told him a really humorous knock-knock joke that tickled his funny bone, responded ‘that’s a good question.  I have to stop and think about that.”    Panetta proceeded to answer “we’re going after al Qaeda wherever they’re at….Clearly, we’re confronting al Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa….”   In case you’re wondering, yes, Panetta confirmed that US troops are in Pakistan.     
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7396828n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

Pelley’s question could not have been more clear just as Panetta’s answer was unequivocal.   What neither Pelley nor Panetta, who received a law degree from Santa Clara University Law School, mentioned was that for the US to be ‘engaged in a shooting war,’ not to mention more shooting wars than he could recount, without Congressional approval is not only unconstitutional but is a clear violation of the War Powers Act of 1973..  

After the debacle in Vietnam, with the American people dispirited and exhausted from a bloody, divisive war, the 93^rd Session of Congress recognized the need to restore its Constitutional authority to declare war and oversight on national security and foreign policy issues with adoption of the War Powers Act of 1973. http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm.  The Act, which was also intent on improving accountability requirements for the Executive Branch, necessitated a Congressional override of President’s Nixon’s veto.   

In lieu of a declaration of war, the Act requires three things of the President: ”in every possible instance” to consult with Congress  before introducing US troops “into hostilities”, to report to Congress within 48 hours of committing troops and to withdraw US troops by 60 days.  In addition, while Presidents have cited Congressional funding votes as tacit endorsement of their actions, the Act (Sec 8 (a)(1)) specifically prohibits any appropriation from being “intended to constitute specific statutory authorization.”   Since its adoption in1973, the spirit and, we now know, the legal mandate of the Act has been consciously challenged, undermined, dismissed, dodged or violated in an on-going erosion of Congress’ Constitutional authority.     

Military action against Libya began on March 19 with the US in command with several submarines and frigates firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. into Libya with the Presidents of Zimbabwe, Uganda and Namibia in opposition.  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/odyssey-dawn.htm   http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63225  That day, President Obama announced the deployment of US forces stating his action did not include any ‘troops on the ground’ and notified Congress that its authorization was not necessary.  http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63225
As Congressional criticism of the action grew, the President announced the 'transfer' of command to NATO.  On the 60^th day of US participation, the President had still not sought Congressional approval and was no doubt aware that the Act does not distinguish between troops on the ground or air or naval attacks.    

On Friday, June 3^rd, the US House of Representatives rebuked the President in a bi-partisan resolution offered by Speaker John Boehner for committing US forces to Libya without Congressional approval.  Boehner’s resolution was approved on a 268 – 145 vote with 45 brave Democrats voting to reprimand the President.   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world/africa/04policy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Even prior to Panetta’s admission Sunday evening, the Constitutional questions for Obama’s new global occupation    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/us-plans-for-perpetual-wa_b_1237365.html  by U.S. combat troops in potential hot-spots on every continent, participting in specious counterterrorism chases across the planet, remained problematic.   With confirmation Sunday evening that US armed forces are engaged militarily without prior Congressional approval requires some Member of Congress, any Member of Congress, to demand an immediate full-scale Congressional inquiry. 

If the President of the United States, known as a Constitutional scholar and after having been rebuked once already, persists in repeating past indiscretions, what are the implications for the Act to retain any trace of its legal authority or for the country to maintain any semblance of a Constitutional democracy?