Fwd: MyHeritage.org: What's in the New START Treaty?

FEATURED VIDEO Heritage senior legal fellow Cully Stimson discusses the potential modification of Miranda rights for terrorism suspects. More videos » May 21, 2010 | By Amanda J. Reinecker What's In the New START Treaty? Is it really too much to expect that our lawmakers know exactly what they're voting on before they pass it into law? First there was Obamacare, and now there's the new START treaty between the US and Russia for example, which is up for ratification in the Senate. There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether or not the treaty places limitations on American missile defense capabilities. The Russians are under the impression that it does.  The treaty will only work, Russian officials argue, if the U.S. "refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities." On the contrary, the U.S. State Department insists, albeit in a watered-down version of its previous statement, that the language of the treaty "does not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defense possible." It's worrisome that the two signatories are delivering such contradictory messages when they're supposedly reading the same treaty. Why? State Department veteran David Kramer, in an interview with The Heritage Foundation's Rob Bluey, explains: The Russians have to spin this at home as saying they have laid down markers on missile defense.  Here in the United States, the administration is going to underscore that this in no way ties the administration's hands on missile defense. So what's the truth? Does this new treaty protect America's flexibility to develop and deploy missile defenses or doesn't it?  Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns, "advances in missile defense [will be] effectively impossible if this treaty enters into and is to remain in force." The looming questions about missile defense must be resolved, and the consequences of the treaty need to be clearly defined during the Senate hearings. Senators can and should turn these stones by "demanding access, in classified form, to the Treaty's negotiating record," suggests Heritage's Baker Spring. This will enable them to break through the spin and mixed messaging and clarify specifically what the treaty does and does not say about missile defense.  Anything that compromises American sovereignty and security – such as limiting our defense capabilities - is not worthy of ratification. In Congressional testimony earlier this week, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton urged her former colleagues in the Senate to ratify the treaty. Now, some may argue that we don't need the new START treaty. But the choice before us is between this treaty and no treaty governing our nuclear security relationship with Russia, between this treaty and no agreed verification mechanisms on Russia's strategic nuclear forces, between this treaty and no legal obligation for Russia to maintain its strategic nuclear forces below an agreed level. And as Secretary Gates has pointed out, every previous president who faced this choice has found that the United States is better off with a treaty than without one, and the United States Senate has always agreed. The 2002 Moscow Treaty was approved by a vote of 95 to nothing. The 1991 START treaty was approved by 93 to 6. But our choice isn't between the START treaty and nothing. It should be a choice between the START treaty and something better that explicitly protects America's defense capability. Not to mention, if the new START treaty isn't ratified than the old START treaty remains in place through 2012. So the "no treaty" option isn't an option to begin with. > Other Heritage Work of Note On Wednesday, two Democratic Senators blocked attempts to move Sen. Dodd's financial reform bill forward, writes Heritage's Conn Carroll. Were they protesting the fact that the bill is "a big government monstrosity, expanding powers for existing Washington regulators as well as creating and empowering new ones?" No, shockingly, they don't think the big government bailout bill does enough to increase the power of Washington bureaucrats. The legislation subsequently passed after Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) changed his vote. It now faces reconciliation with the House version of the bill. Looking back on 2009, Heritage's Bill Beach recalls, "Not only did the federal government effectively take over half of the U.S. economy, it also expanded public-sector debt by more than all previous governments combined." Most of that growth of the state stems from the creation and expansion of programs that increase dependency on government. Government dependency rose 13.9 percent in 2009, according to a recent Heritage report. This is because these programs falsely portray a "free lunch," but they're cost is great – neither the recipient, citizens, nor the provider, government can afford them.  And, as Beach explains, their effects are quickly chipping away at our economy, our civil society and the overall well-being of our nation. Heritage's David John weighs in on why the Security needs a drastic makeover. He argues that "since 1983, Americans have paid more in payroll taxes than Social Security needed each year for benefit payments. Unfortunately, Congress spent the extra money on everything from roads to aircraft carriers. All that is left are government bonds that, like all IOUs, have to be repaid." Significant reform will require sacrifice in the short run. John recommends changing current benefits -- not raising taxes, as liberals suggest, since the problem is with spending to begin with -- in order to increase individual private retirement savings without reducing both economic growth and employment. > In Other News States are making drastic cuts to their Medicaid programs because of the financial burdens they impose. Many of these cuts target the mentally disabled living at home. Obamacare would expand Medicaid and impose still more financial burdens on the states. Says Germany's finance minister about the European debt crisis: "I'm convinced the markets are really out of control. That is why we need really effective regulation, in the sense of creating a properly functioning market mechanism." Unfortunately, panicked lawmakers here in the U.S. are expanding government intrusion into markets rather than ensuring free markets can function -- and stock markets are responding predictably. In a show of solidarity with his Mexican counterpart, President Obama criticized Arizona's new immigration law and, instead, called for a federal fix (read: amnesty) for the nation's illegal immigration problem. Heritage's James Carafano argues the President should stop playing politics with the Arizona law. South Korea is pointing the finger at communist North Korea for the death of 46 sailors in the sinking of a naval warship. North Korea, which has denied involvement, has threatened war if punished. The Associated Press reports: "The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months...Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week." Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.