BY

the time you read this, President Joe Biden may already have formally announced his intention to run for a second term. It’s no surprise, as he’s hinted at it many times recently. Still, a year and a half before Election Day, the president’s announcement heralds the start of the 2024 campaign season.

For the Democrats, a quiet summer is expected — a far cry from the state of the party’s primary races in July 2019, when no fewer than 17 candidates were seeking the nomination and TV coverage had to split the debates into two separate events. This time, Biden’s path to the Democratic nomination seems clear.

On the Republican side, meanwhile, former president Trump maintains a sizable lead over the rest of the Republican field, putting us on course for a 2020 rematch.

There are plenty of precedents for this. In 1824, John Quincy Adams prevailed over Andrew Jackson, only to lose their rematch four years later. The same scenario repeated itself in 1836 and 1840, with Martin Van Buren and William Harrison splitting victories in their two face-offs.

Of all the rematches in American presidential election history (and there are many), there’s only one example of a president who lost reelection, ran again, and won. That was Grover Cleveland, who lost his reelection battle to Benjamin Harrison in 1888, only to return and defeat Harrison in 1892.

The question of whether Trump can repeat that feat runs through the Republican primaries. The competition will be tough, and while Trump is the clear favorite, there’s no discounting that over the course of a long campaign, a challenger such as Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley could gain momentum. One way or another, campaign fever will be back (again) this summer.

Here are some of the issues that could move to the front burner to color the outcome of the campaign, for both parties.

Iran and Ukraine

While the administration seems to have abandoned hope of reaching a new nuclear deal with Iran, recent reports have pointed to the possibility of a watered-down deal including only reduction in uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. The administration hasn’t directly denied these reports, merely characterizing them as “inaccurate.” But there’s a sense that something is happening behind the scenes, and that Biden will have to reach a decision about the Iranian nuclear threat very soon, given that the Islamic Republic is just weeks or months away from a bomb, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley, who testified in Congress on the matter last month.

In the meantime, the administration is trying to focus all its efforts on Ukraine, a Sisyphean (and expensive) endeavor that has reaped impressive fruits in terms of stopping Russia. But there remains the question of how long Biden will be able to maintain this level of support — estimated at over $70 billion — in an election year.

It’s fair to assume that the Republican nominee — be it Trump or someone else — will press Biden on whether his policy represents an open check, and if not, what’s the limit. Hitherto Biden has not retreated an inch from his commitment to Ukraine, a strategic decision to not be the one who blinks first, in the hope of forcing the Kremlin to back down. The question is whether he’ll keep up this approach this summer, or whether electoral considerations will force him to change direction.

The Economy

Inflation is down, kinda. The latest report, two weeks ago, pegged inflation at 5% currently, down significantly from 9% a year ago. At the same time, the job market has remained strong, with unemployment down to 3.5% — despite massive layoffs in the high-tech sector.

Still, the specter of a recession still looms, and with it the question of whether inflation will be compounded by mass unemployment in the coming year. Opinions among economists are divided; some say the worst part is behind us, while others point out that inflation has decreased but not disappeared, and more significant pain may lie ahead before the economy stabilizes.

These differences of opinion are reflected in the Federal Reserve, which will have to decide whether to raise interest rates yet again in May. Interest rates have been hiked nine times in a row, from 0.25% in March 2022 to 5% in March 2023. The blow to borrowers has been immense, and the question is whether the Fed will decide to finally back off, or continue signaling its intention to fight inflation at any price, even a recession. Whatever decision is reached on this issue will have a dramatic impact on the 2024 presidential election, despite the Fed’s non-partisan status.

Congress and the Debt Ceiling

Congress is also expected to see a lot of action in the coming weeks, as the two parties will have to work together to find a solution to the US debt ceiling before the federal government defaults on its commitments. At the moment, there’s no sign of compromise, but agreements traditionally tend to be reached at the last minute, not before a good deal of posturing. Even Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker took 15 rounds of voting before the handful of holdouts agreed to compromise. But with both sides digging in, a compromise on the debt ceiling won’t be easy.

“The nation faces many challenging issues these days, but Washington only seems to be able to address the ones it is forced to deal with by external deadlines,” says Tevi Troy, senior fellow and director of the Presidential Leadership Initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former senior White House aide. “As a result, look for the main fight this spring and summer to be on the debt ceiling, which must be done over the next few months.”

President Biden has taken the stance that he will not negotiate, but the Republicans have come up with an interesting proposal that would create more work requirements for people receiving federal assistance while pulling back on some of the new spending initiated by the Covid emergency.

“It’s disappointing that President Biden’s called the package ‘wacko’ and still refuses to negotiate,” Troy says. “The only way to face our challenges, the $31 trillion in debt among them, is for people of different perspectives on both sides of the aisle to come together in good faith and negotiate through them.”

But not everyone is buying the House Republicans’ line.

“We are concerned that Republicans refuse to take debt ceiling negotiations seriously and seem willing to hold our economy hostage in an effort to impose their extremist and deeply unpopular fiscal policies,” says Halie Soifer from the Jewish Democratic Council of America. “Instead of navigating a path forward to lift the debt ceiling, Republicans are proposing sweeping cuts to Social Security and Medicare that will devastate working families.”

House Republicans will be receiving strong support from one corner, however.

“The Republican Jewish Coalition will strongly support the Republican majority in the House, as they work to build on the success of the first 100 days,” says Sam Markstein, RJC national political director. “In the immediate term, this includes reaching a fiscally responsible debt ceiling solution, as well as recognizing and fortifying our alliance with Israel as the Jewish state commemorates the 75th anniversary of its founding. We are particularly excited for Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s upcoming travels to Israel — his first trip abroad as Speaker — where he will be just the second Speaker of the House in history to address the Knesset.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 958)

The post Get Ready for 2024 first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

IT

would be difficult to overstate the setback to US intelligence services and foreign policy after a series of classified top secret documents were leaked online by a 21-year-old National Guardsman.

The documents released, in what has been described as the worst breach of security since the 2013 WikiLeaks operation, revealed detailed information about the war in Ukraine, including orders of battle showing that several Western countries, including the UK, sent special forces to Ukraine without informing the public.

The documents also uncover US concern about the state of the Ukrainian air force, and divulge that Egypt planned on supplying Russia with rockets. There was also information relating to China, Iran, Russia, and yes, Israel, with apparent confirmation of the report that the Mossad has encouraged the protest movement against judicial reform.

The National Guardsman, Jack Texeira, laid his hands on physical documents, which he photographed and uploaded to a small group on the chat platform Discord. The documents remained inside the group for weeks before migrating to other groups and websites, taking the Internet by storm.

This incident once again raises questions about the United States’ reliability concerning classified information and data security. And why is this so important? Because almost all Western democracies share intel with the US in one form or another. This includes intel concerning rival countries such as China, Russia, or Iran, and to have allies reading their own intel about adversaries on social media can’t increase their confidence in the US.

“I think there could be some short-term chilling effect on intel sharing with certain allies,” says John Hannah, a senior fellow at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy and a foreign policy veteran of both Democratic and Republican administrations. “But once the dust clears, I don’t anticipate that you’ll see too many countries choosing to significantly reduce their cooperation with the United States.”

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is not so sanguine. “The entire episode is not a great look for the United States. At a time when Washington is looking to rally its allies and counter revisionist powers, this embarrassing intelligence leak sends the wrong message.”

That message is all the more damaging given that the alleged leaker is a US person, and demonstrably not a Russian. That tends to lend greater credibility to the documents, and Hannah believes US behavior in the wake of the leaks only confirms that credibility.

“From early on, the reaction of the US government to the leaks seemed to indicate that most of the materials were probably authentic,” he says. “Only a few of the documents were openly disputed as having been altered in some way. If more of them were clearly forged, we would have almost certainly heard about it by now. The US government had a clear interest in discrediting them as fakes, but for the most part it hasn’t been able to do that.”

Given that the documents contain some uncomfortable revelations about Israel, officials in Jerusalem were likely squirming, Hannah says, but he doubts there will be long-term repercussions to the US-Israel relationship, including in the intelligence sphere.

“If the documents show the US listening to the communications of Israeli officials, I’m not sure the Israeli government will be terribly surprised, but it’s still awkward and embarrassing, especially since the US government has for decades cast aspersions on Israel’s intel community for allegedly aggressively trying to steal US secrets. Nevertheless, do I think for a minute that Israel is about to turn its back on the US or severely circumscribe its intel partnerships with America? No way. It’s just too valuable to both of them to have access to Washington’s enormous intel gathering resources and capabilities. In many cases, it’s helping to save the lives of their citizens.”

Schanzer takes a more jaundiced view, though, pointing out that some of the leaked documents could endanger future Israeli military missions that are of existential importance.

“The recently leaked report about the Israeli exercise simulating an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is the one that is likely to have a more significant impact on US-Israel ties,” he says. “The leaked reports about the Mossad and domestic unrest or missile defense and Ukraine, while not welcomed in Israel, are unquestionably less sensitive, given the centrality of the Iran threat to Israel’s security.”

As to the question dominating the headlines — how does a 21-year-old soldier have access to so many damaging documents? — Hannah and Schanzer offer different approaches.

“He was apparently part of a military intelligence unit, helping support top-secret computer systems,” Hannah says. “By definition, he himself would have had to have top-secret clearances. The US national security apparatus operates on a global basis. It is vast. It requires tens of thousands of people to function. Militaries, in particular, whether in the United States or Israel, are organizations filled with very young men and women doing incredibly important jobs with huge responsibilities. The chances that a handful of people over the years will abuse that responsibility and do something evil or just plain stupid, as seems to be the case here, is just an unfortunate reality.”

Schanzer’s response is more terse. “This is a question that many people are asking. I have not seen a good answer.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 957)

The post Costly Leaks Damage US Intel Reliability first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

S

ome things can usually be taken for granted. If you turn on the kitchen faucet, water will come out; if you go to the bank to withdraw your hard-earned money, it will still be there.

But that latter certainty has been shaken over the past two weeks, with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) raising the specter of the 2008 financial crisis.

Last week, a friend told me that his family in Ohio and West Virginia were fuming over the administration’s decision to bail out SVB and Signature Bank, two banks that catered to the high-tech industry and took unnecessary risks.

“Why did Biden have to save their skins?” he asked. “If Biden loses in 2024, this will be the reason. People in the Midwest are furious about this decision.”

In short, the argument was about whether the federal government should have guaranteed all depositors’ money, or only up to $250,000 per account holder, the current limit. Should an Iowan farmer have to prop up an insolvent bank in California? Or to put it differently, would the administration have intervened if a bank in Iowa had gone under?

On the other hand, some argued that if the administration hadn’t saved SVB, the wealthy would have seen it as a signal that the administration won’t guarantee their money in a crisis, leading them to withdraw their deposits from smaller to larger banks, or even to overseas, thus compounding the domino effect. In other words, it may have been bad PR for the administration to bail out a bank in Silicon Valley, but what was the price of the alternative?

“It was an overreaction to bail out all depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank,” says Cornelius Hurley, adjunct professor at Boston University’s School of Law and director of BU’s Center for Finance, Law, and Policy. “The administration will have a difficult time backtracking when the next bank fails. The preferred option would have been to arrange a modified payout of uninsured depositors.

“In my view, the ‘original sin’ of the United States’ response to the 2008 financial crisis was leaving in place the ‘too big to fail’ banks. That created the inevitability that in a moment of banking stress, such as we are experiencing now, depositors would take refuge in the large banks. I anticipate the continued flight of depositors to the too-big-to-fail banks, with structural consequences for the US banking system.”

Prof. Hurley explains that the structural change he is referring to is consolidation in the banking industry, with bigger institutions taking over smaller ones. “We have too many banks in the US, and the current crisis may be the catalyst for right-sizing the financial system.”

On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told the Senate that there were no plans to insure all depositors without Congressional approval. Yellen said the administration had taken a middle course, by creating a new mechanism for lending to insolvent banks in order to stabilize them, thus obviating the need for bailouts.

But some say her statement raises a question whether “this middle course” — which won’t cover every deposit in full — will lead to a snowball of more bank runs.

“The main thing Treasury has to do is clear up the ambiguity Secretary Yellen has created over who is covered by deposit insurance and who is not,” says Prof. Hurley.

Williams College economics professor Ken Kuttner, however, doesn’t expect a massive flight of deposits among consumers, but says businesses might decide differently.

“It will probably be limited to the banks that are known or suspected to be in bad shape — i.e., the ones whose stock prices plummeted,” he says. “Most consumers don’t have deposits in excess of $250,000, so they don’t have to be concerned about this directly. The only concern is that the failure of a bank damages or destroys customer relationships, and so businesses that are used to working with a bank that goes under might have a hard time finding a new source of credit.”

Professor Kuttner does not advocate fully insuring all deposits, as it would reduce market discipline on banks and reduce their incentive to keep ample liquidity on hand. “And you don’t want the government, the Fed, or the FDIC to be on the hook for the deposit-like liabilities of the entire banking system.”

But he concedes that bank runs are highly disruptive; therefore, full insurance of deposits should come at a price. “I’d say that if the federal government were to guarantee all deposits, it should subject banks to much tougher regulation — and enforce it more consistently than it did with SVB.”

Prof. Kuttner defends Secretary Yellen’s “middle course,” citing rising interest rates. “The rising rates are reducing the value of the long-term Treasury securities held by banks, so the Treasury is surely trying to assess banks’ exposure to interest rate risk.”

As far as the possible collapse of additional banks is concerned, Prof. Kuttner says we may be out of the woods, but more detailed analysis is needed.

“My hunch is that the worst is over,” he says. “SVB seems to have been unusual in some respects — not diversified, very heavy reliance on uninsured deposits. To make a more informed judgment, one would want to look closely at the data on banks’ reliance on uninsured deposits.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 955)

The post US Bank Bailout Stokes Voter Anger first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

ON Tuesday, the White House announced that Boeing had inked two deals with Saudi Arabia for up to 121 aircraft. The timing of the announcement was interesting. Just a week earlier, Saudi Arabia normalized ties with Iran, in a Chinese-brokered deal that many saw as a sign of Washington’s weakness.

But perhaps, to borrow from the Wall Street Journal’s headline on the news, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is “test driving a nonaligned foreign policy.” The announcement generated lukewarm responses from a trio of international security experts.

Brookings Institution senior fellow Ryan Hass says the deal shows that “US and Chinese interests in the region are not in fundamental tension,” and the Boeing deal following the Iran normalization will not generate too many ripples.

“Both Washington and Beijing seek stability, secure flow of energy, and a reduction of risks emanating from the Middle East,” he said. “At the same time, the US-Saudi relationship has changed considerably in recent years. In the current context, I expect Saudi leaders will be disappointed if they assume that their warming ties with China will generate leverage in their relationship with the US.”

Simon Henderson is the director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at the Washington Institute, specializing in energy matters and the conservative Arab states of the Persian Gulf. He lauded the Saudi move but also cautioned against reading too much into it.

“MBS has established a reputation for surprising and even audacious policy moves,” he said. “This policy shift fits into that category. The WSJ wording hides a deep skepticism, I suspect.”

Although the timing of the Boeing deal was curious, Henderson says there was probably no underlying connection to the Chinese diplomatic coup announced the week before.

“Probably unrelated because China does not make suitable aircraft, but the West does,” he says. “So maybe it is a reminder to the US that Saudi Arabia still appreciates the importance of the bilateral relationship.”

With Saudi Arabia apparently navigating between the superpowers, Henderson does not anticipate Riyadh facing pressure from the US to pick sides.

“I suspect the White House will be watching to see how much heavy lifting China actually wants to do,” he says. “And how comfortable the Arab Gulf states will be with the experience. I predict the Gulf leaders won’t be comfortable.”

Richard Goldberg, senior advisor at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, says that after two years of pushing Saudi Arabia away, first by pledging to make MBS a pariah, followed by removing the Houthis from the terrorism list, and then an exhaustive effort to revive the Iran nuclear deal at the expense of Gulf allies, the Biden administration shouldn’t be surprised to see Riyadh turn its eye toward China in search of a new strategic paradigm. But that doesn’t mean the Saudis will be able to convert that into diplomatic leverage.

“Long term, Riyadh can’t play both sides — the security commitments already provided by Washington, let alone those MBS has requested as part of normalizing relations with Israel, cannot coexist with a strategic Saudi-China relationship that compromises US technology or intelligence,” says Goldberg. “Hopefully it’s not too late to salvage US-Saudi relations and cement its future, but the president needs to try with great expediency.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 954)

The post Boeing Deal Shows Saudis Play Both Sides first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: APImages

Last Friday morning, Turkish president Recep Tayipp Erdogan surprised the world when he announced that Ankara no longer opposes Finland’s bid to join NATO, all but guaranteeing its admission to the alliance. Erdogan’s announcement, in a joint press conference with the Finnish president, ended a ten-month delay on the admission process.

Sinan Ciddi, nonresident fellow on Turkey at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and associate professor of national security studies at the Marine Corps University, said Erdogan’s decision was driven less by geopolitical concerns than more mundane ones.

“Erdogan has been playing with this issue for a while, mainly because it is a domestic political election issue for him,” Ciddi says. “He vilifies the West, saying they have supported terrorists seeking to undermine Turkey, such as the PKK — and by pointing to Finland and Sweden, he’s basically kept this issue alive in front of voters. On the other hand, there has been considerable pressure brought upon Turkey by the West, especially in NATO, saying, ‘You have to accept NATO enlargement,’ because these are valuable allies.

“So Erdogan is going halfway, saying, ‘Look, I’m not a spoiler, this is not just about politics, I’m approving Finland because Finland has taken into consideration our security concerns, [but] Sweden has a bit of way to go.’ But sometime after the May elections in Turkey, I expect Erdogan to ratify Sweden’s membership, most likely at the Vilnius summit of NATO in July.”

But, Ciddi cautions, that timetable will only hold true in the event that Erdogan wins — not a sure bet, as the Turkish opposition has lately found new life. And if Erdogan loses, the timetable will likely speed up.

“If Erdogan loses, this is an easier issue for the political opposition in Turkey, because they would like to mend bridges or reset Turkey’s relationship with the West as quickly as possible in areas that they can. And I would call the NATO enlargement issue low-hanging fruit.”

When Finland was about to apply for NATO membership, their representatives approached the Turkish government and asked for support, which Erdogan indicated he would give. The Finns were surprised and upset when Erdogan then backtracked. He eventually relented, Ciddi says, “because there is no sizable Kurdish population in Finland.” With no compelling reason to hold out further, Erdogan decided to approve Finland’s NATO admission as a gesture of good will. But he is still playing his card with Sweden.

“Sweden has done a lot to address the issues that Turkey has highlighted, but Erdogan is still holding out basically until he gets reelected,” Ciddi says. “At the Vilnius summit, he’s going to make a big sort of grand entrance and approve Sweden. So it very much is a political stunt.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 954)

The post Quitting Cold Turkey first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

For several years now, the Washington diplomatic rumor mill has churned out talk of Saudi Arabia and imminent normalization of ties, presumably with Israel. But last Friday, word came that instead, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had normalized its ties with Iran — in a deal mediated by China, no less.

The news came just a day after the Wall Street Journal published a report detailing the Saudis’ demands to America in exchange for normalizing ties with Israel. According to the report, Saudi Arabia demanded that the United States provide it with security guarantees and help it develop a civilian (non-military) nuclear program in exchange for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. However, Saudi Arabia reportedly held back, due to fear of backlash from the Arab world and assessments that it would exacerbate the kingdom’s tensions with Iran.

Another obstacle to normalization of ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia is the Biden administration’s lack of appetite for helping Saudi Arabia militarily, in light of the White House’s frosty relations with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and assessments that many in Congress would oppose such a move.

And just 24 hours later, it became clear that not only had no breakthrough occurred on the Israeli-Saudi axis, but there had actually been a breakthrough on the Iranian-Saudi axis — and what’s more, through Chinese mediation. As readers may recall, Chinese president Xi Jinping was very warmly received on his visit to Saudi Arabia two months ago, in stark contrast to the cold shoulder Biden was treated to a year ago. And while OPEC countries decided to actually cut oil production after Biden’s visit, President Xi’s visit was followed by economic cooperation deals between the two countries.

At first, it looked like just another signal of irritation from the Saudis. Something along the lines of “Look, we have alternatives.” But by now there’s no ignoring the new axis emerging. While it’s not new for the Chinese to be trying to gain a foothold in the Middle East, what is new is for them to pull off a major diplomatic coup, as the peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have an immediate impact on the war in Yemen.

On the other hand, some believe that Iran and Saudi Arabia, which represent two competing streams of Islam (Shiite and Sunni), won’t become fast friends overnight, and that the normalization deal is a tactical move at most. If this assessment proves correct, there may still be a window for normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, despite everything.

But that’s not going to happen overnight.

“The agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia was announced just as reports indicated that the Saudis are still actively considering normalization with Israel, so long as the concessions from the United States are enough,” says Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. “In other words, normalization with Israel can still occur.”

Schanzer says that Xi Jinping has taken measure of his country’s standing in the world, and has decided to throw his weight around. “China is now flexing new diplomatic muscles,” he says. “Beijing is endeavoring to demonstrate that it has significant influence, beyond the transactional interactions it is known for. This is something to watch, particularly for countries like the United States, which seek to limit Beijing’s influence.”

One question weighing heavily in many analysts’ minds, given the longstanding tensions between Tehran and Riyadh, is why now. The two countries have tried to hold diplomatic negotiations since April 2021, but to no avail.

“They’ve maintained a dialogue for months, with little to show for it,” Schanzer explains. “The dialogue has been largely driven by the Saudis’ interest in lowering the military threat from Iran and its proxies. So in that sense, this is not surprising. But the fact that China brokered it was something of a shock. Also, there were few if any indications that such a deal was imminent.”

The larger question, however, is what this deal means for the Middle East.

“On the one hand, if the deal does what it should, we could see a reduction of violence in places like Yemen, where Iranian proxies are battling Saudi forces,” he says. “That could be positive. On the other hand, we may see other countries now follow suit, granting the regime in Iran more recognition, and perhaps paving the way for Iran to direct more of its aggression toward countries where it lacks such agreements. Israel immediately comes to mind.”

Still, a few points remain unclear. First of all, Jerusalem’s goal in normalizing ties with Saudi Arabia is not only economic cooperation, but first and foremost to build a coalition against Iran. While until now it was obvious which side Saudi Arabia was on, things are no longer so clear.

Secondly, the Biden administration is insistent in its denials that it has withdrawn from the Middle East and left a vacuum. Yet it’s hard to ignore that over the past two years, we saw the Biden administration first pull out of Afghanistan, and then focus almost 100 percent of its international attention on Ukraine. And furthermore, Biden declared human rights one of his number one priorities in international relations after taking office.

As a result, a de facto vacuum has emerged in the Middle East, which China is filling. China has no problem with Saudi Arabia, nor with Iran (Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi made a rare visit to Beijing last month and met with Xi Jinping), and certainly not with Russia. At the same time, the Russian-Iranian axis is tightening, with the Russians agreeing to supply Iran with SU-35 fighter jets. All this, especially China becoming a key player in the region, is bad news for Jerusalem and Washington.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 953)

The post China Shuffles the Middle East Deck first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

IN Washington, a consensus is emerging that Biden is on the verge of officially announcing his run for a second term. And it’s in this context that we have to look at Biden’s budget request last week. In a sense, this is his campaign platform. It’s clear to everyone that the budget won’t actually pass — not as it stands, with Republicans in control of the House.

And so, instead of thinking of it as Biden’s fiscal plan for 2023, we should think of it as Biden’s list of 2024 priorities. The key clause in this regard is, of course, the tax hikes on the wealthy, especially multimillionaires and billionaires, aiming to ensure they pay a minimum 20 percent of their income in federal taxes every year.

“No billionaire should pay less taxes than a schoolteacher,” as Biden said.

That’s one clause the Democratic base — especially progressives — will love, while Republicans will be less enthused. In this way, Biden hopes to raise over a trillion dollars over the next decade to reduce America’s national debt, which has already grown to an astronomical $31.6 trillion. As noted, these measures won’t make it through the Republican-controlled house, but it will allow Biden to run on a message of “finish the job” — i.e., give me the power and here’s what I’ll do.

A key part of his plan relates to repealing the Trump tax breaks on corporations and those earning $400,000 a year and above. Biden intends to raise taxes on both corporations and high-income earners.

Other clauses relate to expanding Medicaid, increasing tax credits for parents, as well as subsidizing day care and community colleges for low earners. The defense budget will also be increased by three percent, rising to $835 billion.

But this is first and foremost political tug of war, and Democrats are trying to pressure Republicans to present their own alternative, assuming it will call for fiscal restraint. Democrats can’t wait to see what the Republican list of priorities will look like. It’s safe to assume that if and when a counter-proposal is made, we’ll see it being debated loudly and publicly.

This argument isn’t happening in a vacuum. The United States federal government could default on its loans by July or earlier, so Democrats and Republicans will have to reach a compromise to raise the debt ceiling.

No one seriously believes that Biden’s budget will become law, and it’s safe to assume that the budget that ultimately passes will be profoundly different and include compromises both sides find distasteful — and will be happy to campaign on in 2024.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 953)

The post Banking on 2024 first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

INa scenario that would have been unthinkable last year, President Joe Biden is giving signs that he will line up with Republicans in Congress to torpedo Democratic-sponsored crime legislation in Washington, D.C.

The political math for how this came to be is simple.

“The reality is the biggest vulnerability that Democrats have shown over the last three years is on the issue of fighting crime and the baggage they carry from some of their more progressive members calling for de-funding the police, especially around the time of the George Floyd killing,” says Axios senior political correspondent Josh Kraushaar.

The logistics for how these almost unimaginable circumstances came to pass have a convoluted backstory.

The municipality that governs the nation’s capital is run by a mayor and city council, like most American cities. But the district it sits in is subject to oversight by the US Congress. Thus, as the city completes a 16-year project to revamp its municipal criminal code, it will have to submit its legislation for approval by Congress.

The city’s last criminal code dates to 1901 and stands in urgent need of modernization. The new code would lower or even cancel minimum sentences for most offenses (aside from homicide). So, for example, a person convicted of carjacking would serve a prison term of four to 24 years, rather than the current sentence of seven to 45 years. (If the carjacker is armed, the minimum sentence jumps to 15 years.)

The criminal code rewrite is a microcosm of the divisions within the Democratic Party. Passed by the Democratic-controlled Council of the District of Columbia, it was vetoed by Mayor Muriel Bowser, herself a Democrat. But the council didn’t give up, instead passing it again by a veto-proof majority of 12-1.

The bill’s proponents argue that with all due respect to law and order, the maximum 45 years is disproportionate to the offense of carjacking, especially taking into account that many of the offenders are minors. Should a minor who made a terrible mistake at 17 have to sit in jail into his sixties? Another point being raised is that even the minimum sentence of 15 years for armed carjackers is clearly deterring no one; 485 such cases occurred in 2022 alone. If people are committing the crime in full knowledge of the potential price, then it appears that disproportionate penalties won’t solve the crime problem.

Opponents of the bill counter that D.C. is a crime-infested city, and that the municipality has failed comprehensively at tackling the problem. They argue that despite the city’s massive revenue from high taxes on the tourism and hotel industries, the municipality is failing to provide government’s most basic service, physical security. They point out (and they’re not far from the truth) that neighborhoods once considered safe and affluent, such as Adams Morgan in the city center, are now seen as dangerous neighborhoods you wouldn’t want to wander into after dark.

Now, Congress has 60 days to review the law. Congressional Republicans, backed by a number of Democrats, intend to take advantage of D.C.’s lack of statehood to block the legislation. Surprisingly (or not), none other than President Biden himself has come out in favor of the GOP position, tweeting that while he supports D.C. statehood, he won’t veto Congress’s decision on the matter.

Room in the Middle

In other words, President Biden, a Democrat, will allow the Republican-controlled Congress to override legislation passed by Democratic D.C. council. At first glance it seems unbelievable, but it’s important to understand the broader context.

In the last midterm election, Axios’s Josh Kraushaar says, Democrats largely did a good job of calling for more funds for the police and inoculating themselves in many races from these Republican attacks. “But in the races where Democrats badly underperformed, like in New York or Oregon, very, very Democratic states, those were races where you had Democratic candidates ignoring or indulging the very progressive left-wing views on criminal justice.”

And if Biden had any second thoughts about this bill, he definitely made his mind up after watching the astonishing defeat of Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who did not even advance to the runoff in her reelection campaign.

Kraushaar notes that Chicago is a city where crime is hitting historic highs. Lightfoot, who has struggled to deal with crime, only won 17 percent of the vote. “So President Biden is joining with Republicans to oppose this D.C. crime bill because he does not want to run for re-election and have to address the perception that he’s soft on crime,” he says. “Crime is the biggest vulnerability that Democrats have these days. And if they don’t take positions that show they want to increase the number of police, that they want to take a tougher stance against criminals, they risk squandering significant political capital.”

Kraushaar predicts that although all the “energy” within the Democratic Party is on the progressive left, and many party donors and activists rank criminal justice reform as one of their top issues, Biden will not suffer any backlash within his own party for opposing the D.C. criminal code revision.

“[Progressives] want to reduce the length of sentences for criminals as part of what they see as social justice,” Kraushaar says. “It is not an issue that Democratic voters necessarily support, but it’s an issue that their activists and their donors often do. So there is this tension between the base and the energy of the Democratic Party and the majority of their voters. Will they oppose Biden because he overruled the District of Columbia City Council? Probably not, because anyone who’s in a tough race knows that even if they may disagree with what Biden did, it could hurt them politically.”

This calculus also has a lot to do with Biden’s own personal re-election plans, Kraushaar says. “Biden has a lot of running room to the middle. He knows that the stakes of the 2024 election are high. And if he is running for re-election, the Democrats do not want to divide the party over ideological issues when that could allow someone like Donald Trump to become president.”

Although the writing was already on the wall for progressive activists, the Chicago mayor’s race put the crime issue in unmistakable clarity.

“The fact that Mayor Lori Lightfoot only won 17 percent of the vote as an incumbent shows how problematic the issue of crime is for mayors in Democratic-run big cities across the country,” Kraushaar says. “The mayor’s runoff in Chicago will be the most powerful test of Democratic voters’ desire for more safety in their community.”

Seemingly Giving Up

That desire has perhaps faced no tougher challenges than in the nation’s capital. That was epitomized two weeks ago by Washington’s Metropolitcan Police Department (MPD) announcement of an initiative to distribute free steering-wheel locks to Kia and Hyundai model owners, to prevent car thefts.

“MPD is partnering with Kia and Hyundai corporations to combat motor vehicle theft after a social media challenge that encourages using a USB cable to steal these types of cars led to a substantial increase in Kia and Hyundai car thefts,” the D.C. government said in a statement.

The MPD acknowledged that in 2022, there were 3,761 motor vehicle thefts in Washington, D.C., an 8 percent increase from 2021. A social media trend that demonstrated how to steal Kia and Hyundai cars during the summer of 2022 directly contributed to the increase in motor vehicle thefts of those makes.

Some critics might say that by handing out steering wheel locks, the police department shows it has given up, but even supporters have to concede the plan highlights the lack of any better ideas to end the phenomenon. And sadly, the thefts aren’t the worst of the problem.

The constant risk of carjacking is one of the more frightening features of life in Washington, especially over the past two years. Generally, it happens when people stop to refuel or forget their keys in the car when stopping at an ATM. It’s more common at night, but there have been cases in broad daylight as well.

It’s an especially frightening crime because according to the MPD, 65 percent of cases involve arms. Over the past five years, the rates of carjackings have skyrocketed, especially since the Covid pandemic. Last year’s 485 carjackings occurred at a rate of almost one and a half per day. And in the beginning of March, just 60 days into 2023, the count now stands at 97.

But what’s even more concerning is that since the beginning of the ye`ar, 58 percent of criminals arrested for this offense have been minors. So armed kids are behind a significant percentage of car thefts in Washington, D.C.

Until 1993, “carjacking” was not even its own category of crime in the capital, with incidents being categorized either as “armed robbery” or “car theft.” In that year, carjacking was made a criminal offense punishable by a minimum of seven and a maximum of 21 years in prison. In cases of armed carjacking, though, the sentence jumps to a minimum of 15 years, and a max of 45.

The seeming futility of these harsh sentences was part of what drove the city’s comprehensive criminal code revision. And as voter anger over rising crime intensifies, President Biden seems content to let Congressional Republicans do the dirty work of striking down the revision. Whether either side can come up with a solution to the crime problem is a question that remains to be answered.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 952)

The post Will Biden Side with GOP on Crime? first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

IT

seems that the war in Ukraine has exhausted its news value. One could even say that a certain indifference has developed across the world toward a conflict that has already claimed 300,000 lives and continues to rage in the heart of Eastern Europe, well into 2023.

But even so, the one-year anniversary of the war’s outbreak is worth dwelling on. A year ago, Western public opinion would have rated Ukraine’s chances poorly, giving it no more than a few days or weeks at the most. No one would have predicted that a year later, Ukraine would not only be hanging in against the Russian giant but even landing some punches.

Biden took a gamble with massive supply airlifts that enabled the Ukrainians to stabilize the situation and ultimately repel the Russian advance. This week, Biden landed in Kyiv in what was seen as a major humiliation for Vladimir Putin.

Volodymyr Zelensky managed to take the world by surprise, morphing overnight from an inexperienced politician best known as a comic actor to a leader coordinating military aid with Ukraine’s allies across the world, especially the US, and succeeding in upgrading his army’s capabilities on the move. The Ukrainian army is much more sophisticated than it was a year ago.

By contrast, we’re seeing massive Iranian support for Russia in the form of combat drones, reportedly in exchange for Russian warplanes. Speculation has also arisen regarding possible aid from China, although on the eve of the war’s first anniversary, Beijing was launching a peace initiative to try to bring the fighting to an end.

When we see the United States and the EU providing Ukraine with massive aid while Iran — and potentially China — back Russia, the question arises: Is this the Cold War 2.0?

The University of Florida’s Professor Ido Oren, who specializes in international  security and US foreign policy, is hesitant about applying the Cold War label, but he predicts this conflict will be around for a while.

“The Ukrainians are optimistic that they can roll back Russian forces in the East and possibly even go all the way to Crimea,” says Oren. “As long as they think they can make military gains and tht US aid will continue, they’ll fight on. On the Russian side, it’s basically down to one man, Putin, and my sense is that he’s not ready to settle at this point.”

Oren says that NATO has been “rejuvenated” by the crisis, as seen in the desire of both Finland and Sweden to join the alliance, and in key member Germany’s willingness to ratchet up its defense spending. But ironically, the US role in the conflict is facing questions from Republicans in Congress as to the desirability of aid to Ukraine.

“I think the problem is less with the capability of the United States and the Europeans to support Ukraine and more with the domestic politics of the matter,” Oren says.

But Michigan State University’s Professor Matthew Zierler is more optimistic that the GOP will continue to back Ukraine. “We hear about the Republican lack of support for US aid in Ukraine, but it’s really from a small but loud minority,” he says. “The average Republican will still support [Ukraine] because we realize the importance of Russia. It’s a quirk of political history that the Republican Party under Trump sidled up as much as it did to Vladimir Putin. Most mainstream Republicans, like most mainstream Democrats, see Russia as at least a nuisance, if not a threat.”

Zierler also sees Europe staying united against Moscow, as evidenced by the EU’s recent deal with Azerbaijan to replace Russia as an energy supplier. For Zierler, the more interesting question is how stable the Russia-Iran-China axis is.

“It’s worth looking at,” he says. “Iran is as isolated as it is. You see them searching for an outlet. Given their own domestic troubles, though, I’m not sure how much their support will really help in the end.”

China, he says, is not as desperate as Iran is, and is keeping its focus on the long game. As such, Beijing will likely avoid getting “bogged down” in a prolonged Russia-Ukraine conflict, but it will leverage the situation to whatever benefit it can.

“China, however, is a very strategic and self-interested actor,” Zierler says. “This is part of China’s strategy what we see around the world — to make sure that China has others loyal to it. So if China can help out the Russians, at least for a little bit, that would put Russia in China’s debt. That’s China’s geopolitical strategy, to have others feel the need to rely on it as China becomes a regional power.”

The key, Zierler says, will be how well Ukraine’s military bears up against the Russian onslaught. “Most observers thought the Ukrainians couldn’t keep up with the Russian military. And we’ve seen just the opposite. So the longer this goes on, the worse it is going to be for Russia. And I can’t see countries like Iran and China staying in the long haul if it’s clear that Russia is not going to win.” —

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 951)

The post First Skirmish in New Cold War? first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

Last week, the US State Department announced a massive new $10 billion arms sale to Poland, including 18 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers; 468 HIMARS Launcher Loader Module kits; and 45 M57 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).

To better understand the significance of an arms package of this size, in the context of hostilities in Eastern Europe, I reached out to Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Bowman, who focuses on US defense strategy and policy, has served as a national security advisor to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, as well as an active duty US Army officer, Black Hawk pilot, and assistant professor at West Point.

Do you see this as a routine arms sale between two allies, or does it have deeper significance?

“Following Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine last year, the Biden administration has sought to unify the NATO alliance, arm Ukraine, and strengthen NATO’s eastern flank. This arms sale is focused on the last of those three priorities. These weapons will improve the capabilities of the Polish military and increase NATO deterrence, making Putin think twice before starting a conflict with the alliance.

“But many of these capabilities may not arrive anytime soon due to insufficient US defense industrial base capacity. It is noteworthy that the package includes ATACMS. I’d rather the administration send those first to Ukraine.”

What is the US trying to accomplish with this arms sale? Enhance NATO capabilities, deter Russia, or both?

“Both. This sale seeks to increase the readiness of the Polish military, improve its ability to operate with the United States, and strengthen NATO’s deterrence on its eastern flank. The more US allies wield the same weapons, the more effectively our forces can train and operate together. These are serious capabilities that will strengthen the Polish military.”

Will we see an Eastern European arms race in the next few years?

“An arms race with whom? Russia has conducted an unprovoked invasion, the largest in Europe since World War II. Countries near Russia increasing their military capabilities is a predictable and necessary reaction to the invasion. Our adversaries are already racing. The question is how we should respond and whether we have the will and capability to deter and defeat additional aggression. As others have said, weakness invites aggression. Putin sees weakness as an invitation for additional aggression.

“We should spend more time strengthening the military capabilities of threatened democracies before invasions and attacks, and less time worrying about provoking autocratic bullies.”

Some countries prefer not to export certain technologies, such as Israel with its Iron Dome. Is the US being pushed to provide other countries with certain capabilities and weapons to deter Russia that otherwise it would prefer not to export?

“Poland is a valuable ally that plays a leading role in protecting shared security interests in Eastern Europe. These are capabilities that Poland should absolutely possess in sufficient quantities. The problem is that it may take a long time for them to actually arrive.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 949)

The post Firepower for Poland first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.