President Obama’s FY13 Budget: Reactions and Analysis
Posted February 22nd, 2012 at 11am by lyudin
On February 13th President Barack Obama announced his federal budget proposal for fiscal year 2013 with a focus on bringing jobs back to America, supporting the shift to democracy in the Middle East, responding to humanitarian crises, and cutting the national deficit. The budget proposals reflect federal priorities in strengthening the United States’ commitment to the international community while scaling back on national security and defense. For example, funding to the State Department was moderately increased while the Department of Defense budget was reduced (mostly related to foreseen to personnel reductions). While humanitarian organizations applaud the President’s generosity, national security officials condemn decreased funding to nuclear security programs.
The Partnership for Global Security (PGS) focused on budget cuts to nonproliferation programs and the modest contribution to the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program (with a 17 percent trim to its Global Nuclear Security program). The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs were hit hard with nearly a quarter, or 23.3 percent, of funding slashed from the FY12 appropriation. Although the Department of State’s overall funding was increased, the PGS report points out that cuts were made to the WMD Terrorism, Global Threat Reduction, and Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance programs.
The Fissile Materials Working Group (FMWG) was not shy in spelling out why they disapprove of spending cuts to nuclear security claiming “the Obama administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request takes a major step backwards in the fight to prevent nuclear terrorism.” Echoing the Partnership for Global Security, the FMWG press release expressed dismay over the $293 million funding decrease to NNSA and the $21 million reduction to DoD’s Global Nuclear Security program. The release elucidates how programs such as NNSA’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program (INMPC) (Pentagon’s Global Nuclear Security program), and the State Department’s Global Threat Reduction and Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism collaborate to ensure susceptible nuclear and radiological materials do not fall into the hands of rogue actors such as al Qaeda who intelligence has disclosed are actively seeking nuclear materials for an attack against the U.S. These programs also deter the trafficking of materials to precarious regions.
Tom Countryman, Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, responded to the FMWG in National Defense Magazine, shedding a more favorable light on Obama’s proposed budget reductions. Although Countryman recognizes the growing threat of isolated attacks and the international community’s failure to sufficiently secure fissile materials, he comments that the probability of nuclear world war is less than likely. He states that minor, evenly distributed cuts will not compromise security efforts and he remains confident in the nation’s ability to sustain export control programs targeted at countering nuclear smuggling. Countryman could not, however, disregard the decreased funding to radiation detection programs used at seaports, air ports, and land crossings, citing it has been successful in interceding trafficking and remains an important component to U.S. counter proliferation efforts. Challenging the FMGW’s claim that NNSA’s funding to nonproliferation efforts has been drastically reduced, he retorted that NNSA’s proliferation budget has actually been increased this year and warns the FMWG not to “over-interpreting particular cuts.”
It appears the humanitarian sector seems pleased over the new budget allocations; however, questions were raised over the reductions to global health and humanitarian and refugee assistance. President Obama had to account for new developments such as the winding down of U.S. occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unforeseen Arab Spring. Of course one cannot forget the ongoing famine in the Horn of Africa. Therefore, not only did the State Department gain funds, but existing funds had to be reallocated within the department as well.
Deputy Director of Government Relations at Citizens for Global Solutions, Melissa Kaplan, was content with the $51.6 billion boost in funds for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). She defined the budget priorities as “funding for the ‘frontline states’ (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq); human and economic security; support for embassies and the U.S. global presence; and support for U.S. allies and contributions to multilateral organizations.” The $19 million boost to the Contributions to International Organizations (or CIO) account tends to the latter and fulfills the United States’ financial obligation to the United Nations and various other international organizations such as NATO and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Furthermore, the approximate $2.1 billion in funds for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), which funds international peacekeeping missions including Darfur, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, is $270 million greater than last year. Kaplan expressed gratitude to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for making the U.N. and peacekeeping a priority and remains hopeful that the House of Representatives and Senate will follow the President's lead in support of “robust funding for the roughly 1 percent of the federal budget that funds international affairs in their annual appropriations bills.”
The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) conducted an in-depth analysis of the President’s proposed 2013 budget, categorizing every distribution and cause that will receive funds. The USCLG report described the budget as providing “the resources necessary to support the critical tools of development and diplomacy and meet America’s national security requirements;” however, the group voiced concern over the aforementioned proposed deductions in global health and humanitarian aid. In concordance with Ms. Kaplan, the coalition identified the investment priorities as “the State Department, USAID, and other civilian-led efforts.”
The USGLC report recognized the creation of the $770 million Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Incentive Fund as “the most significant new initiative within the FY13 International Affairs Budget.” It contributes to institutional reform by “addressing short-term, unanticipated needs and long-term investments.”
The article regards the proposed budget for the Frontline States as the continued effort to transition from militarized intervention to an increasing civilian-led mission as U.S. troops withdraw from the region. It is noted that such efforts in Iraq have expanded since FY11 and for the first time, in the FY13 plan, have expanded to include Afghanistan. The report states: “Overall, State operations and U.S. assistance to the three Frontline states would grow 6.6 percent, reaching $11.8 billion.”
The USGLC foresees the Global Heath portion of the International Affairs Budget as the most contested section as questions arise “over the rationale for reduced spending and the shifting of resources.” The USCLG report questions the 3.8 percent reduction while simultaneously recognizing the $7.85 billion funding request as the “largest foreign aid account in FY13.” Moreover, this is only the second proposed reduction in the last ten years. The administration calculates that the budget will sufficiently support global health commitments. There are two noteworthy increases ─ Family Planning/Reproductive Health (up by 1.1 percent) and U.N. population Fund (increased by $4 million).
The climate change community faired quite well with 2013’s new budget allocations. The Washington Postreported that although the President failed to live up to his 2009 promise of doubling the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget, NSF did receive a 5 percent boost. Additionally, the Department of Energy was given an extra 3.2 percent “for clean energy, research and development, and advanced manufacturing,” however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 1.2 percent budget cut.
Scott Slesinger, legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council recently blogged about the 2013 EPA budget and approved many of President Obama’s decisions discussing the “high priority activities” that received increased funds. He does note the overall budget cut for the EPA and traces it to the $359 million cut in the state revolving funds ─ “funds that pay for local drinking water and sewage water infrastructure improvement,” he explains. That aside, he claims that President Obama protected the most important components of the EPA budget such as the main Operating Budget (receiving 5 percent budget increase) which “funds enforcement, regulators and their work and research and development.” He describes the Operating Budget as the foundation of environmental law, the science behind EPA standards and their enforcement, and “critical to the protection of our environment.” He was also satisfied with several of the geographical water initiatives such as the Great Lakes Initiative ($300 million), the Everglades ($245 million), and the Chesapeake Bay ($15 million). Slesinger also praises the increase in state grants (increased by 10 percent) that he explains contribute significantly to regulatory activities, fund Clean Water and Clean Air permitting activities, and “the nation’s environmental enforcement.”
Darren Goode, senior energy and environment reporter for Politico Pro, did not appear as enthusiastic about Obama’s proposed budget plan as captured in the title of his article: “Obama’s 2013 budget: A familiar tune for energy.” Goode perceives FY13’s “proposals and goals to boost clean energy and cut incentives for oil and gas companies” as recycled and refers to it as a campaign document for the reelection later this year. Goode writes, “[Obama’s proposal to prompt investments in green energy and infrastructure] copies debt reduction and job growth strategies Obama previously offered Congress.” He also claims that Obama’s goals to enact a Clean Energy Standard including “putting 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015 [and] reducing old imports by one-third by 2025” are old news. Goode did approve of the Department of Energy’s $27.2 billion in discretionary funds, highlighting benefits for increases in renewable energy sources and revamped industrial technology-advanced manufacturing program. The positivity does not last long, though, as he proclaims, “EPA continues to be a budgetary loser.”
President Obama’s FY13 budget proposal is proof that you cannot make everyone happy. The real test is the extent to which the budget plan contributes to national goals such as job growth, a stable and democratic Middle East, and the reduction of the national deficit. While the budget plan is not set in stone and awaits a vote in Congress, agencies and organizations will continue to voice their opinions on the losses and gains of every department. One consensus is apparent, that federal priorities are reflected in where the money goes.
This blog was written by Shelley Marshall, Program Intern at the Connect U.S. Fund.
Primary Issues:
Human Rights
Nuclear Weapons
Arms Control-Disarmament
Climate Change
Advocacy Practices:
None
Comments
Post new comment