Today, President Obama was told by the head of the AFL-CIO that unless he offers a special Obamacare deal for union members, he faces a revolt from one of his staunchest allies.

While this should not be allowed to move forward, and we are working to prevent it from happening, the demand raises a bigger concern than just whether union members should get special treatment. 

Americans are seeing just how bad Obamacare is by the amount of delays and waivers being issued to various constituencies. The President’s allies literally are scrambling to get special exemptions.

Which leaves the rest of America asking, “Where’s my exemption?” They rightfully want to know why they have to follow a law that the President’s allies aren’t following.

Here’s a novel solution to this problem. Let’s exempt EVERYONE from the law.

That’s exactly what a group of us in the U.S. Senate have proposed. My colleague Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) and I have introduced a bill to delay the individual and employer mandates included in Obamacare until 2015.

Not only is this a matter of fairness, but it will save money. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that delaying the individual mandate would reduce the federal deficit by $35 billion over the next decade.

The steady flow of implementation problems is proof-positive that Obamacare is bad policy, and exemptions from bad policy shouldn’t be given only to a chosen few, but to all. That’s why Congress needs to pass our bill. Let’s give everyone the benefits that the President is seeking for his allies. 

*This post was originally published in the latest edition of our newsletter which went out today. If you are not already a subscriber, be sure to sign up for our newsletter to stay apprised of the latest happenings in the Senate.* 

There is no doubt that the suffering inflicted upon the Syrian people who are caught in a civil war to free their country from a brutal, authoritarian regime calls for a response from the international community. Confirmation that Bashar Assad’s regime used a nerve agent against civilians, killing over a thousand in the process, defines the gravity of the situation. The use of chemical weapons, banned by international law for nearly 100 years, is a crime against humanity. There certainly is a need for world powers to intervene.

But what level of U.S. response is appropriate?

For weeks, President Obama has been making the case that the only way to assert U.S. power is to send the regime a message with a unilateral, punitive response. He still appears to be keeping that option on the table regardless of what our allies, Congress and the American people think.

However, there may still be a diplomatic answer. A plan for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons, initiated by Russia and agreed to by Syria, has the potential to take these weapons of mass destruction out of Assad’s hands. While we should be skeptical of any deal between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Assad, a deal Putin now appears to be hedging, the U.S. needs to pursue every diplomatic avenue. 

It is important to see if we can resolve this issue through diplomatic efforts.

The people of Arkansas have spoken loudly, and almost universally, in opposition to President Obama’s request to authorize a U.S. military strike against Syria. They remain unconvinced that military force is the only way to resolve this issue or that it would successfully prevent Assad from further brutal attacks on civilians. It only takes one look at Libya, which is in complete chaos, to see that it’s very difficult to get untangled once you are involved in this type of conflict.

The American people are weary of becoming involved in another U.S. military engagement. In the weeks since the President first proposed a military strike against Assad’s regime, the majority of Americans have become more convinced that the President lacks a plan to accomplish his goals. Many have become more concerned in that time that these goals aren't even well defined.

Without a clear path forward, I agree with them and continue to oppose the use of military force in Syria.

Watch and read some of the interviews we’ve done about Syria.

KASU - Boozman discusses Syria, and reflects on 9/11
40/29 - Why Sen. Boozman says he'll vote no on Syria
Magnolia Reporter - Sen. Boozman thinks this is the wrong time to strike Syria
Hot Springs Sentinel-Record Boozman skeptical on action in Syria (subscription required)
Arkansas Democrat Gazette - Hoping Obama listens, say 5 Arkansans in Congress (subscription required)

According to the Navy Times, President Obama has decided to give our servicemen and women a smaller raise than the 1.8 percent increase approved by Congress.

Under a Congressionally-approved federal pay formula, U.S. servicemen and women are slated to receive a 1.8 percent raise come January 1^st. However, President Obama has announced that he wants to cap the increase at 1 percent.

As the Navy Times story indicates, President Obama’s letter to Congress about his decision said the U.S. is recovering “from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare” requiring efforts to stay “on a sustainable fiscal course.”

It is true that Washington is spending at an out-of-control pace, but the first step in changing course is by prioritizing. Out of all of the U.S.’s financial obligations, the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms must be placed at the top of the list. This is all the more important if you are considering obligating our already overextended military in another engagement.

The President has not only failed to fulfill his promise to go through the federal budget with a scalpel, but resisted the opportunity when it was offered up by Congress to avoid arbitrary cuts through the sequester. The President then went further to try and make certain constituencies “feel the pain” by opting for government furloughs and closing down White House Tours to the public rather than eliminating waste, all in an effort to convince the American people that any reductions to the growth of government would spell Armageddon.

We have two major budget battles on the horizon—a continuing resolution to keep the government operating and a request to increase the debt limit to avoid defaulting on our obligations. These two immediate concerns do not abdicate our responsibility to bring the individual appropriations bills to the floor. These are the times for us to fight our spending battles. Not with pay for our troops. I will work with my colleagues to override the President’s decision and ensure our servicemen and women remain at the top of our priority list when it comes to how we allocate our money. 

There is no doubt that the suffering that is being inflicted upon the Syrian people caught in a civil war to free the country from a brutal, authoritarian regime calls for a response from the international community. Confirmation that Bashar Assad’s regime used a nerve agent against civilians, killing over a thousand in the process, defines the gravity of the situation. The use of chemical weapons, banned by international law for over 100 years, is a crime against humanity. There certainly is a need for world powers to intervene. 

But what level of U.S. response is appropriate?

President Obama seems convinced that the only way to assert U.S. power is to send the regime a message with a unilateral, punitive response and he appears to be committed to that strategy regardless of what our allies, Congress and the American people think.

U.S. involvement with Syria through bombing, unless there is a clear national security interest, is an act of war and thus Congressional approval is necessary.  The President should explain to the American people his reasoning and go before Congress to get authorization.  He needs to share the intelligence used to make his decision, the goals of a military strike and his plan to achieve those goals, as well as explain his broader Syria policy and strategy, something that has been lacking since the crisis began two and half years ago.   Without doing so, he risks exasperating the situation. This is the exact mistake he made in his handling of the Libya crisis.

The concerns Americans have with President Obama’s strategy are real:

How will one limited strike be successful in ending Assad’s war? Most military experts believe it will not. It is almost certain that limited strikes will not destroy Assad’s ability to continue to murder his own people, with or without chemical weapons, and it will absolutely draw the U.S. down the path of greater involvement in the conflict.

Is this a prudent use of military force? Military force should be used only if there is an achievable purpose and outcome.  A unilateral U.S. strike as punishment solely for using chemical weapons is unlikely to discourage the Assad regime from continuing to slaughter its own people.  Without a clear-cut U.S. policy and end game, such a limited strike would only succeed in the escalation of the crisis.

Where are our allies? France seems to be our only major partner in a potential strike against Syria. The British Parliament has already nixed the idea of UK military action. The Israelis are nervous that an escalation will lead to attacks on their nation. Jordan has said it will not get involved out of fears that it will exasperate an already out-of-control refugee crisis. Russia and China, while not staunch allies of the U.S. by any means, are supporting Assad in this conflict. We have to consider the ramifications of military action in the context of the greater picture.

Whose side are we fighting on? Of course any action we take is to aid the innocent Syrian people who are being oppressed and murdered by the Assad regime, but there is a serious concern about the make-up of the Syrian rebel forces leading the fight against the regime. Radical Sunni Islamists, many of which are linked to the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant”, an al-Qaeda affiliate, are emerging as the prevalent force seeking to topple regime. This combined with al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, which is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting al-Assad, makes for a terrible conflict of interest. With no goal of regime change on the table, wouldn’t U.S. action just embolden the very people who seek America’s destruction?  As General Dempsey stated in an August 19^th letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “The use of U.S. military force can change the military balance…But it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.”

What is the end game? The President has indicated that the goal of U.S. military action is not regime change. Then what is the point? Assad’s regime has the capability and the willingness to continue to brutally tyrannize and slaughter innocent Syrians even if strategic bombings negate his ability to do so through use of chemical weapons. Most military experts agree limited surgical strikes would do little to hasten the overthrow of Assad but would for sure draw us in further to the conflict. Again, the President has to assure America that he has a plan to avoid this.

These questions and more need to be answered by the President. The world is watching. Our response needs to be strong, but it also needs to be smart. Assad clearly is a tyrant by any standard and we need to work with the international community toward removing him from power. President Obama, however, should not try to do this alone. He needs to come before Congress and make his case to the American people.