PHOENIX - Congress is debating a possible military strike against the regime in Syria. Supporters say the U.S. has no choice but to punish Syria for a chemical attack on its own people. Some oppose the action because they are afraid it will draw the U.S. into another costly war, like Iraq. Secretary of State John Kerry says it would only be a limited strike.

U.S. destroyers are positioned in the Mediterranean, loaded with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the same type used in a limited strike on Libya in 2011. Mattea Kramer, director of research for the National Priorities Project, has crunched the numbers, and she said each one of those missiles costs American taxpayers $1.5 million, and the military used a lot of them.

"In the first hour of our strike on Libya, we launched 110 of those missiles," she declared.

The total bill for the action in Libya, Kramer said, turned out to be more than $1 billion, and there is no way of predicting how much military intervention in Syria would cost. But she pointed out that the George W. Bush administration had predicted that intervening in Iraq would cost no more than $60 billion. Ten years later the bill is up to $814 billion.

Faith communities in Arizona and around the country prayed for peace over the weekend.

According to Mary Zerkel of the American Friends Service Committee, her organization has had people in the Mideast region for a very long time and they understand that Syria's problems are complicated. She said it's not just about two choices, to bomb or not to bomb.

"There are more than two options," she declared. "We have to look at a cease-fire, the comprehensive arms embargo, the humanitarian assistance on the ground."

Meanwhile, yet another option has surfaced: transferring Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles to international custody.

President Obama has told reporters that he is aware of American opposition to a military strike. But he said Congress needs to make a decision that is right for the country. He is expected to address the nation on the Syrian situation tonight.

Professor Marjorie Cohn at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law said that even if Congress approves the strike, it would be illegal under international law, because the United States has not met the two conditions that the United Nations Charter requires for such action.

It would be legal "either if it's acting in self-defense or the Security Council approves it. The Security Council has not approved this military strike."

When President Obama makes his case to the American people, he may have a tough time convincing them. Nearly 60 percent of the Americans who were polled last week said they were opposed to military intervention in Syria.

More information is at: goo.gl/2cZf3J; NationalPriorities.org; and at goo.gl/lnbVDR.




get more stories like this via email

The Trump administration announces its new wave of tariffs Wednesday, and with U.S. Department of Agriculture funding still a question mark, Minnesota farmers are having trouble planning ahead.

Ag economists say the latest tariffs and retaliatory moves by trade partners could be blows felt by farmers and ranchers, especially for beef and pork.

Cindy VanDerPol and her husband, owners of Pastures A Plenty Farm in western Minnesota, are monitoring market upheavals due to tariffs and just saw a one-year pause in federal grants to help supply locally grown food to schools. She said it makes it hard to map out what they need to buy for the year.

"Do we go and purchase more laying hens? Do we purchase broiler chickens to be processed later on?" VanDerPol asked. "Those all are uncertainties right now."

She pointed out they would already have made such moves. VanDerPol added the uncertainty does not just potentially limit her farm's output but also demand for local meat processors. As in the first Trump administration, the USDA is weighing emergency aid for farmers if needed. But economists warned countries like Brazil are bigger ag competitors now and if a trade war heats up, foreign markets could just look there.

Federal officials have released some agriculture funding initially frozen during downsizing efforts led by the White House.

Jennifer Fahy, communications director for Farm Aid, said there are still not enough details about grants seeing movement again, leaving farmers in the lurch.

"The very fact that this money that is legally due to them is being held up and they're not getting any answers on when they might receive it, if at all, it's creating inordinate stress that really is completely unnecessary and damaging to our entire food system," Fahy contended.

Fahy noted it also could mean layoffs for farmworkers, as some operations downsize or close.

Gary Wertish, president of the Minnesota Farmers Union, said when other things like rising interest rates are factored in, farmers face a crisis similar to the 1980s, when the nation lost millions of farms.

"That's where we're fearful of, that we could very easily be back into that '80s crisis time frame," Wertish cautioned.

Minnesota lawmakers this session are emphasizing new protocols to shield state agencies from fraud. A watchdog group says so far, it appears they're on the right track.

The motivation to address this issue is tied to the high-profile "Feeding our Future" case, when dozens of people were accused of stealing pandemic relief money intended for kids' meals. It's estimated roughly $250 million was misspent, and dozens of convictions have since followed.

At the state Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats have openly discussed the need for tighter controls, which is encouraging to Matt Ehling, a board member for Minnesotans for Open Government.

"It's been a growing problem for quite a few years now," he said, "so it's nice to see that both sides of the aisle are focused on this issue this year."

One bill calls for a new state Office of Inspector General to get ahead of suspicious behavior. Ehling said the Office of Legislative Auditor does good work, but sees the need for another arm that goes beyond reviewing problems after the fact.

A separate proposal could stir backlash by no longer awarding some grants to nonprofits without a bidding process. Backers of keeping that option have argued it helps smaller groups in underserved areas get access to funding.

The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits has said it agrees that state funds must be used for their intended purpose, but worries some restrictions would make inequities worse.

Ehling said it's unfortunate that, at the height of the pandemic, federal relief packages meant to help people in need were targeted by fraudsters.

"Bad actors were able to take advantage of that, because the money was coming in so fast," he said, "and the resources to oversee the money were simply not appropriately put in place."

When those COVID spending packages were approved, states were tasked with distributing aid. Ehling's group hopes that if there's a new Office of Inspector General, it will operate with transparency. And a bipartisan group of lawmakers has said that with grant reforms, there should be assurances that smaller community groups are given a fair shot.


get more stories like this via email

AARP says it's getting thousands of phone calls from seniors worried about getting through to Social Security, as program operations are dramatically overhauled by the Trump administration. The concern is being felt in North Dakota. From staffing cuts to pursuing the closure of nearly 50 regional field offices, the White House and top advisor Elon Musk are seeing backlash over these moves. There are reports of wait times stretching several hours. It comes amid a new requirement that says beneficiaries can no longer verify their identity by phone. They have to do it in person or online.

Josh Askvig, state director of AARP North Dakota, says that could be tough in a largely rural state.

"It would be possible that folks would have to drive three to four hours or more to get to a location. And if you're not comfortable working with apps on your iPhone or Android device, you're looking at potentially a full day of driving, and that's a significant barrier," he explained.

The national AARP says it's fighting to protect these services, so that monthly payments aren't disrupted. It also calls on the administration to scrap the new verification rule and restore the phone option.

The White House says it's trying to root out fraud while insisting benefits won't be cut. But Democrats argue these changes will lead to missed or late checks for beneficiaries.

Askvig said the chaos that's unfolding could lead to another problem lurking in the shadows.

"We're also concerned that this change will lead to scammers using the confusion the agency has created around this to potentially exploit and prey on Americans as well," he added.

AARP and other senior advocates hope their allies reach out to Congress to intervene. They say Social Security operations have been under-resourced for some time, and they hope their renewed calls for service improvements turn more heads amid public frustration. Nearly one in six North Dakota residents receive Social Security benefits.