Subject: My take on the Administration's 31% budget cut: A cold war relic
From: "Liz Schrayer, USGLC" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:32:47 -0500

Hunter,

In Washington, today is budget day - and for those of us who
care deeply about America's engagement in the world, it can be
disheartening, but we are speaking out and so are our friends on
Capitol Hill. Here is my press statement.

http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=v_IzFt_RHaThcxpGqMIveA

The Administration released its FY18 budget proposal with dangerous
and disproportionate cuts to the State Department and USAID -
calling for a slashing of one-third of our civilian forces at a time
of extreme global threats, famines of historic proportions, and a
refugee crisis not seen since World War II.

Upon unveiling the budget, OMB Director Mulvaney stated, "This
is a hard power budget, not a soft power budget." This outdated
debate between hard and soft power harkens back to a relic of the Cold
War. After 9/11, that debate ended and our national security experts
rallied around a consensus of smart power: the use of development and
diplomacy alongside defense (not an either or).

Fortunately, we're seeing wall-to-wall rejection from Capitol
Hill, with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle opposing
these cuts. More than 120 retired military leaders recently sent a
letter to Congress and today more than 100 conservative faith leaders
did the same, including some of those who participated in President
Trump's inauguration ceremony.

http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=P1IdF1tkN_NwtRVPXDsTxA

Now the decision-making shifts to Congress where you can make a
difference. Next week, I hope you'll join the USGLC in a national
mobilization to push back against these horrific cuts. Watch for an
email with the details.

Read our full analysis with all the budget details - or scroll
down for the cliff notes version.

Click Here for the Full Report
http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=aGxFJlxr52efRyhix6XNag

These cuts would truly make America less safe, so please plan to make
a few calls to Capitol Hill next week. More soon.

Liz
Liz Schrayer, USGLC

Deep and Dangerous Cuts to International Affairs Budget Would Make
America Less Safe

Analysis of the Administration's FY18 "Skinny"
International Affairs Budget
March 16, 2017

>> Click here to get the full analysis report
http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=vEHZodeHSahKs0lBU4sb6Q

In keeping with promises to shrink the federal bureaucracy, the
Administration today released its FY18 "skinny" budget,
which would slash the State Department and USAID by 31% from current
levels, cut the Treasury Department's International Programs by
35%, and eliminate five agencies associated with the International
Affairs Budget.

While the full details of the Administration's request will not
be made public for several months, here are our major takeaways based
on today's proposal.

1. With Historic Cuts to Spending, International Affairs Takes
Severely Disproportionate Cut

The proposed cut to offset increased defense spending affects almost
every non-defense federal agency with the State Department receiving
the steepest reduction, along with the Environmental Protection
Agency. In justifying such a draconian cut, the Administration notes
that its slashing these programs in order to "free up funding
for critical priorities here at home and put America first"
- even though these programs account for a mere 1% of the
federal budget.

2. International Affairs at a Historic Low As Percentage of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP)

The deep cuts to development and diplomacy programs proposed in the
Administration's budget would reduce spending on these programs
as a percentage of GDP to its lowest level since World War II. Under
President Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength"
credo, funding for the International Affairs Budget reached nearly
0.6% of GDP in the 1980s. The Administration's proposal would,
however, slash funding for development and diplomacy to approximately
0.2% of GDP at a time when global challenges are clearly on the rise.

3. Proposal Breaks with Decades of Bipartisan Consensus of a
Military-Civilian National Security Framework

While there has never been a formal national security budget, since
9/11 there has been a bipartisan consensus that development and
diplomacy, alongside defense, are key pillars of U.S. national
security.  With this consensus, funding for defense and international
affairs has largely been seen as part of a national security
framework, with proportionate funding - ebbing and flowing
together as a percentage of GDP going back decades.

4. Global Health Prioritized, Mixed Results for Development and
Humanitarian Programs

While specific funding levels are not included, the budget proposal
seemingly prioritizes the long history of bipartisan U.S. leadership
on global health with commitments to "provide sufficient
resources" for PEPFAR, vaccine programs, malaria, and TB. There
are no current indications on funding levels for other global health
programs including maternal and child health, so we will wait until
more details are available to make a final judgment. Two other
important areas of to watch: 1) dramatic changes to where our economic
development programs are targeted, and 2) what humanitarian funding
levels emerge after the promise for "significant funding,"
including for "food aid, disaster, and refugee
assistance."

5. Lever of U.S. Influence Cut or Eliminated

Some of the harshest language in the proposal is used to question the
impact of multilateral organizations, like the United Nations. Without
providing specific funding levels, the proposal aims to reduce funding
to the UN and affiliated agencies, including UN peacekeeping and other
international organizations like the World Bank.

In addition, a total of 19 agencies across the government were
eliminated, five of which are housed in the International Affairs
Budget that have made vital contributions to advancing America's
interests overseas: the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC), the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), the U.S.
Institute of Peace (USIP), the African Development Foundation, and the
Inter-American Foundation.

6. Back to the Cold War

From the start, the Administration's public posture has singled
out the State Department and USAID - along with the EPA -
for cuts. As part of their framing, OMB Director Mulvaney argued that
this is a "hard power budget, not a soft power budget."
This debate between the use of hard and soft power is a relic of the
Cold War that ended for good long ago.  Since then, and especially
after 9/11, our national security strategies have called for not one
or the other, but the use of smart power - development and
diplomacy, alongside defense - to keep America safe.

7. What's Next: All Eyes on Congress

Congress has been quick to reject the Administration's proposed
cuts, with strong statements from both Democratic and Republican
lawmakers about the consequences of such deep and disproportionate
cuts to the State Department and USAID. From top Senators to the
leaders of a key Appropriations Subcommittee to a House Freedom Caucus
member and a veteran-turned-Congressman - all weighed in today
with support for America's International Affairs Budget. Click
here for a full rundown of statements.

http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=n96DmcIF2ADTHjiAc7R0Hg

Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of the
purse, meaning spending decisions - including topline levels and
funding for programs - will be determined and finalized through
the FY18 appropriations process.

>> Click here to get the full analysis report
http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=kH5vKrn585ot2RvpL18Q5g

The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition
1129 20th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | USGLC.org

http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=ssWwohJYT9DhdQ6tWch4_g
http://action.usglc.org/site/CO?i=CQtn2iJjPjFe-uDaevShF33Jg4ydbYYD&cid=0
http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=CurAktX9mqJ06TvzW0UHjw

http://action.usglc.org/site/R?i=-a2j1EXElj6nRRCX3gZl3Q