US Representative, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is at it again. Rangel's prescription for fixing the ills we're feeling in Iraq is a draft. I have very mixed feelings about this. Conscription is conscription no matter what you choose to label it. Is that appropriate in a free country?
On the flip side of this coin, I've often thought that compulsory national service would be a great idea for American kids right out of high school. It might have been a better start for me than learning to down beer at a Liberal Arts university! Two years in the service might give kids time to think about their future, learn higher levels of responsibility, and begin to take life more seriously.
There are many countries who require some level of mandatory military service: Belarus, Chile, China, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, our neighbor Mexico, and our old buddy Germany, to name a few. Gee, now that I look at that partial list... aren't many of those countries Socialist or at battle with religious fanatics within their own borders? Makes you wonder doesn't it?
My father, who served 22 years (willingly) in the Army, is in favor of the draft. He said it fills out the ranks with kids outside of the poor neighborhoods, shares the burden among all levels of society. He served in Vietnam with draftees and volunteers so I suppose he knows what he's talking about; however, I worry that draftees would not take the work as seriously as those who serve out of patriotism. Look, I think it's this simple: How would you like to rely on a "conscripted" doctor for your next surgery? Not me, thanks.
Are we really at a point in American history where we must revisit the draft? Or is Charlie Rangel simply stirring up a hornet's nest to support the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq? I have read that he believes President Bush would never have taken the battle to Iraq if the draft had been in place. That's pretty hard for me to believe. If the President of the United States had a conscripted armed forces -- he would not have to worry about satisfying the needs of a conscripted army so they would re-enlist, he knows they're obligated no matter what -- how in the world does Rangel think THAT would make the President work any harder to avoid opening a new front in this war?! In my opinion, there is simply no logic to that argument!
Maybe there are logical reasons to consider conscription. Given the nature of the enemy we face globally at this point in history and the long, hard battles ahead we may need fewer truck assembly line workers, fewer cruise directors, and fewer humanities professors in the colleges and more "boots on the ground" instead. Does it make sense to conscript our armed forces to ensure that we always have the numbers we need to take care of business at home and abroad? We may readily increase the number of servicemembers but at what cost?
Society needs its poets as much as it needs its warriors. Since when is it okay in a free country for the government to start deciding your career (or the delay thereof)?? I think Charlie Rangel's lost his marbles. Maybe he needs a prescription for an anti-psychotic...
Check out ScrappleFace for a humorous take on what might actually be behind Rangel's call for the draft. Satire and sense all in one article? Nice job, Scott, as usual!
On the flip side of this coin, I've often thought that compulsory national service would be a great idea for American kids right out of high school. It might have been a better start for me than learning to down beer at a Liberal Arts university! Two years in the service might give kids time to think about their future, learn higher levels of responsibility, and begin to take life more seriously.
There are many countries who require some level of mandatory military service: Belarus, Chile, China, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, our neighbor Mexico, and our old buddy Germany, to name a few. Gee, now that I look at that partial list... aren't many of those countries Socialist or at battle with religious fanatics within their own borders? Makes you wonder doesn't it?
My father, who served 22 years (willingly) in the Army, is in favor of the draft. He said it fills out the ranks with kids outside of the poor neighborhoods, shares the burden among all levels of society. He served in Vietnam with draftees and volunteers so I suppose he knows what he's talking about; however, I worry that draftees would not take the work as seriously as those who serve out of patriotism. Look, I think it's this simple: How would you like to rely on a "conscripted" doctor for your next surgery? Not me, thanks.
Are we really at a point in American history where we must revisit the draft? Or is Charlie Rangel simply stirring up a hornet's nest to support the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq? I have read that he believes President Bush would never have taken the battle to Iraq if the draft had been in place. That's pretty hard for me to believe. If the President of the United States had a conscripted armed forces -- he would not have to worry about satisfying the needs of a conscripted army so they would re-enlist, he knows they're obligated no matter what -- how in the world does Rangel think THAT would make the President work any harder to avoid opening a new front in this war?! In my opinion, there is simply no logic to that argument!
Maybe there are logical reasons to consider conscription. Given the nature of the enemy we face globally at this point in history and the long, hard battles ahead we may need fewer truck assembly line workers, fewer cruise directors, and fewer humanities professors in the colleges and more "boots on the ground" instead. Does it make sense to conscript our armed forces to ensure that we always have the numbers we need to take care of business at home and abroad? We may readily increase the number of servicemembers but at what cost?
Society needs its poets as much as it needs its warriors. Since when is it okay in a free country for the government to start deciding your career (or the delay thereof)?? I think Charlie Rangel's lost his marbles. Maybe he needs a prescription for an anti-psychotic...
Check out ScrappleFace for a humorous take on what might actually be behind Rangel's call for the draft. Satire and sense all in one article? Nice job, Scott, as usual!
Comments
As usual you impress me with your thought process. I think what I like most about this blog of yours is that you don't subscribe to "bashing" the other side's ideas. As one from the opposite side of the aisle from you, I say, "thank you for your open-mindedness. "
Charlie Rangel has definitely brought up a very complicated discussion. When I watched Charlie speak I heard him point out two main reasons, which you have touched on, for reinstating the draft. (Wondering out loud -- If the republicans kept control of both House and Senate would Charlie have brought this up right now? Perhaps. -- Would he have waited for a republican to stir this debate for ... next Presidential cycle? Maybe)
The two main points I heard Charlie say was 1) Draft would even up the have's and the have-not's in the military thus Congress would not be as quick to wage war. 2) Draft would keep the recruiters away from his district so we don't "pick" on the underprivileged. Both are "valid" points. But to me, they are only "valid" if we lived in a vacuum with all things remaining equal.
We know from the Vietnam draft that all things do NOT remain equal in a draft. Men in college did not have to be drafted. Rich kids that did have to serve were still able to pull off a no-show in Nam (state side for most) and maybe even George Bush didn't fulfill his obligation - since some claim he didn't really show up for anything. My point is, even with a draft the have's can still avoid the draft while the have-not's cannot avoid the draft, at least not with the same ease as the rich. So, Charlie's notion that the military would have sons/daughters of Congress as well as sons/daughters of the White House is not realistic. In fact, his notion would simply give rise to more strings being pulled from Congressional and members of the White House. Plus, it could give rise to MORE "favors" being made - which is a big enough problem right now.
The second point Charlie addresses is a fact. The money recruiters use to advertise would be better spent IN the military.
Charlie's idea that Congress would not be as quick to wage war or be as quick to prolong a war has been proven wrong by Vietnam draft as well. Nixon did not pull our troops out even though we had a draft. There were plenty of draft dodgers. We lost tons of men and in the end - those US soldiers lost their lives, terrible to say, for nothing. North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. US Soldiers came back to this country different and often mentally ill. The poor were not able to afford mental help while the rich could, but not all did. Additionally, refugees were forced to leave their country and move to the USA. Some, many, of those refugee children lost their parents on the "boat" ride over and ended up living with complete strangers. The entire episode was so very sad. The refugees came to the USA with no English in their background. They had seen more atrocities in their little lives than I would ever see in my life if I lived to be 200. The haunts those children had gave rise to gangs being formed. Believe it or not, most of the refugees that came to this country were only permitted to leave their country if they had enough money to PAY the North Vietnamese soldiers at the banks of the river. Often times, after the families paid the soldiers, they were then mowed down by artillery, left floating in the water presumed dead. Some of the children played "possum" in the water and at night fall would swim the Laos in hopes of catching a boat from those banks to the USA - while their parents and sibling remain dead in the water. The draft did not help US soldiers and it did not encourage Congress to withdraw from Nam and it did nothing to help the citizen's of the country we were trying to help.
Had we pulled out of Nam earlier - the only thing that would have changed would have been the number of US soldiers, North & South Vietnamese soldiers, and civilians killed in that war. We still would have had refugees (maybe not as many), and North Vietnam still would have taken over South Vietnam. Simply put, fewer people on all sides would have lost their lives. Which to ME, is what I wish were the case.
Therefore, I have to disagree with my fellow Democrat Charlie Rangel. I don't think a draft is the answer for avoiding a war or helping in withdrawing troops quicker.
Prior to 9/11 the only thing that legitimately prevented a US president from starting a war without provocation a.k.a invading another country was the US Constitution. (Now with the War Powers Resolution - the President can invade a country with much more ease.) In fact, now all a President really has to say is, that country over there are harboring terrorists. Well, since terrorists come in all sizes, shapes, colors and COUNTRIES - gosh - are we going to wage war with the world? Wasn't Timothy McVey a terrorist? Don't terrorists filter in to our own Country - like from the South? I'm not talking about a "mid-eastern" terrorist. I am talking about anyone that terrorizes - you know someone that uses one or all of the following: violence, bombing, kidnapping, assassination, to INTIMIDATE others, often but not only for political purposes - which is the definition of terrorist. If that's the definition of terrorist and if the President can wage war for countries that "harbor" terrorists then if a person gets arrested in the USA for stalking and kidnapping but then gets let free because of some silly technicality - then isn't the USA harboring THAT terrorist? If a man/woman kidnap a child and god forbid what that child has to endure, then let us say that kidnapper, pedophile gets off because some judge (like the one in Ohio) decides that that guy just has a mental problem - duh - and thus gets set free because the judge lets him go free, then isn't the USA harboring THAT terrorist.
My point, the War Powers Resolution is too vague and allows the President to wage war in a willy nilly fashion.
I have a proposal that might make a President or Congress think twice before waging war with another country that has not attacked our soil first ie., a country that is accused of harboring terrorists. What if an Amendment to the War Powers Resolution were to go something like this: 1) If a President wages WAR against another country that President's children and/or grandchildren and/or nieces and nephews must actively serve in the Military and cannot simply remain Stateside. Even if those relatives of the President simply go to the military personnel stationed in "said" country to entertain such as with the USO. Their little feet have to touch the soil of the "said" country. I know, not popular and would NEVER pass the Congress. But, what an idea huh?
Oh well, back to my original point. Charlie Rangel has definitely spurred a complex discussion by raising the notion of a draft.
By the way, I think that this country is FILLED with patriotic people. Just because people are busy with their 24/7 days does NOT mean we are NOT patriotic. It means that we live our lives and when the "call" comes we do stop everything, carry our American FLAG with PRIDE, pray for our men/women in the military and thank God everyday that they are fighting so we can rush to the next item on our itinerary. I don't think we need a draft to prove our patriotism.
Some of the nations left out of the list with compulsory Service are Israel, Switzerland, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan, and South Korea, all allies of the United States. The United Kingdom begins their voluntary military service openings at age 16.
I personally found my experience in the service to be a very positive thing. Were there to be a return of a military draft the one thing I think should be insisted upon is the abolishment of deferments.
You're in school? Well now you're in the Army.
You have a family? Well so does everybody else.
You have a professional career? Well, it will have to wait.
No deferments- period.
Allow room for a professional class of soldier and shorten conscription tours to no longer than 2 years. And when you get out you're assigned to a Reserve or Guard unit.
If they had sent in the 450,000 troops that Gen. Eric Shenseki had estimated to secure Iraq, I think we would be in a radically different situation today.
Brad
Before I could "support" a draft without deferment I would need time to think about the pros and cons. But, from a knee jerk point it sounds much more appealing than a draft with deferment.
I think it's awesome that we have people that do serve in the military. I had one brother that did 2 tours in Nam as a helicopter pilot - flying in and out med vac. I had two brothers drafted toward the end - 1969??? Lots of body bags coming home at that time and well ... one brother shot his foot so he wouldn't have to go and my other brother messed up his cholosterol levels so he wouldn't pass the physical. So, I guess when my oldest brother went (at the beginning) it was a way different picture than toward the end when my other two brothers were literally scared to death to go.
I am pro-military, pro-covert actions, pro-keeping secrets that we don't need to know ... but ... I am not pro-draft as we have previously used the draft.
I think Colin Powell's quote is probably one of the most telling comments on the war.
"I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well-placed. . . managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."
Colin Powell, My American Journey
Brad
Even without deferments, I don't think I could ever support a draft. It just seems wrong to me for the government to dictate a person's choice of contribution to society. I think it is best left up to each citizen to determine what he/she is best suited for as it most likely benefits society in the long run. Just as I am ill-suited for a career in medicine (not being able to stomach the blood and guts nor comprehend the intricate science involved), others may be just as ill-equipped to handle the demands of military service. In which case, you are asking the men and women who are well-suited and passionate about their service to put their lives in the hands of others who may be unable or unwilling to carry their part of the load.
This idea that men and women who join the military because they are from poor, working class sections of our society is BAD just boggles my mind. I know many people who joined the military and have bettered themselves through their career choice. It was a GOOD opportunity for them as it is for many people regardless of their socioeconomic background.
The idea that it is unfair for others to have to join because they have other options in life is a little disingenuous if you ask me. Everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic background has choices in life. Many people from poor backgrounds have used education and hard work to pull themselves up in life to a higher standard of living. It's wrong to imply that poor people have no other choice but military service to improve their lives. That's simply not true.
I must reiterate that, in a free country such as ours, the government has no right to perform social engineering whether it's through conscription, dictates on family planning, or political indoctrination of the children of this great nation. Once you allow the federal government to dictate personal choices, you might as well hand over your freedom along with your firearms and your free will.
Your comment is very open-minded as well. Heck, everyone writes such thoughtful commentaries on this blog that it would be nice to have you all post them as new items instead of comments!
I think Rangel did actually suggest a draft a few months back while the Republicans still had the majority in Congress. At that time, I thought he was doing it more as a scare tactic because he knew it would be voted down. However, now that it's resurfaced alongside the new Democrat majority, I wonder... I think he actually thinks it's a good idea. Obviously, given the comments here, it is seen as a good idea by others as well. So I suppose I was wrong in guessing he did it as a scare tactic a while back.
I suppose that no matter which side of this issue you happen to take, it will be left to our representatives in Congress to decide now. Let's hope they consider this carefully and with due diligence before legislating anything. Now that there is a Democrat majority with a Republican president, we ought to be able to do just that!
Let me start off by saying I generally agree Americans should some choices on service, but I also believe everyone should contribute something more than just tax money.
The underlying assumptions you’re making are quite interesting- and if I get them wrong please let me know- here is what I’m hearing:
1. Other than paying taxes and voting, US Citizenship comes with minimal responsibility on the citizen side.
2. Fighting on behalf of the nation should be a choice, not a mandatory obligation.
3. If one serves then it should be based on their own assessment of their abilities- not that of the needs of the military.
I’d like to quickly point out that in the prototypical Greek democracies and Roman republic, those who were considered citizens were required to hold military rank and office- the origin of the word populace translates into ‘those who fight or struggle’. This idea is nothing new- however when our founders began the nation, conscription is a word they deliberately avoided, but they did emphatically give congress the power to ‘raise and support’ a military; although conscription is implied, it is not mandated. And the ‘Chesapeake Incident’- where the British forcibly conscripted US Sailors off of American ships- was one of the central factors in the war of 1812. In addition some Historians will argue that one of the central reasons for the fall of Roman Government is that they became more and more reliant on Auxiliaries to fight their wars- non citizens hired to fight, including slaves with the promise of freedom.
I tend to get long-winded, so I’ll just cut to my main points. Right now there is a disconnect between those who benefit most from American citizenship and those who sacrifice in military service. For example the current Iraq war has forced the US military to lower the entrance requirements on four separate occasions- the last two lowering education and increasing the age of new enlistee’s to 42 years old. I think that should tell anyone who is defending our country.
I believe if everyone had to serve then you would have a population more committed to the election process and to a coherent foreign policy. Frankly I don’t think it’s practical to let everyone ‘choose’ their kind of service for many different reasons; and I think Citizenship should have the weight of responsibility to go along with the benefits.
And this view directly ties into the ideas of the 2nd Amendment- a potential tyrant’s worse nightmare is a population of veterans who have the means and training to change things they don’t approve of.
Although it’s a bit unrealistic, I personally would support legislation that exempts those who have served in uniform from a portion of their income taxes- and those who have served in combat completely from paying taxes- ever.
The bottom line for me is conscription without deferments would create a ‘national’ view of policy in a way that slick PR campaigns and think tanks never will; and the historical models of democracies and republic's viewed miltary service as a necessary part of citizenship.
Will the draft return? Probably not. Would it necessarily be a bad thing? I don't think so.
All the best,
Brad
If I hear you correctly you are saying that 1.) Citizens of this country will assume more responsibility and respect for this country if they are "drafted" into the military for at least 2 years. 2.) Former military personnel would not have to pay the same in taxes as those who do not serve. 3.)Veterans of "combat" would never have to pay taxes.
With respect to number 1: If we lived in a vacuum and all people thought the same way you would be right. However, that is not the case. We saw after 9/11 that even those of us who have never served in the military are every bit as patriotic as those who have and do serve. Thus, forcing a draft does not necessarily mean men/women in uniform are any more patriotic than the rest of us. They (men/women in uniform) simply express their patriotism differently than those of us who chose not to join the military. Secondly, simply forcing people to serve for 2 years as is seen in other countries is NOT what defines a democracy which is what the American Revolution was all about. In fact, freedom of choice is what our founding fathers fought for. "Choice" what a powerful word.
There are many ways to be patriotic and responsible, respectful citizens without serving in the military. To name a few, police, firemen, doctors, lawyers, teachers, secretaries, service industry, .... long, long list of patriotic people that do not chose to be in the military.
Your points 2&3) I don't understand why anyone would not want to pay taxes. I mean sure, it would be nice to have all our dough and keep it so we can buy alligator shoes, nice homes, while throwing pocket change at those in this country that don't have a pot to eat out of. However, in reality it makes no sense to give perks to corporations, individuals or former military personnel because another part of democracy is to help those that cannot help themselves. Whether it is the severely handicapped, elderly or children who have drug addicts for parents, or simply children who have parents that try and try and STILL cannot manage to pull out of their economic demise. What would happen to our free public education? What would happen to our roads? What would happen to medicare and medicaid? What would happen to mental hospitals? What would happen to hospitals? Mass transit? Military? You do know a great DEAL of tax money goes to pay for the military, right? Therefore, if I did not have to pay taxes ... ever ... I would probably end up paying close to the same amount, if not more, than I already do pay in taxes for all of the things that we currently pay for. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it the way I do, so those areas, those recipients of taxes would be so under funded we would have a far greater problem than we do right now. For instance, the budget for funding the military has increased YET at the same time, the budget that funds the military men/women who suffer brain trauma IN combat has gone DOWN???? Ok, so they fight for our country, get bombed, get injured and our government decides to NOT help pay their medical benefits, because they (our current government) gives tax incentives to corporations. Imagine how worse off we'd be if there were also a tax incentive (not pay) to those that have served in the military.
That is why people like me and others that have posted on this website want corporations that evade paying taxes to be forced into compliance. That is why I agree with the posters that want Mark Nickolas to be forced into compliance.
Therefore, the "choice" our forefathers fought for actually is a double edged sword. If the government gives it's citizens the "choice" of what to do with 100% of their money (no taxes) then the "choice" made would be economically detrimental to our entire countries economy.
Taxes and what the government uses our tax money for is one of many incentives to pay close attention to who is voted into local and federal government. I do see a need for my tax dollars in this country. I also see a need to pay close attention to what is and is not funded. (Like the veteran medical bills -- why DID congress vote to cut the veterans medical bills?????? Yet keep us in a war that is impossible to win?????)
That is why I agree with you that allowing anyone in this country to NOT pay taxes is not realistic. That is also one of the many reasons I think a forced draft is a bad thing. "Choice" - what a powerful word ... THAT is democracy.
I understand the points you're trying to make, but in my view citizenship should be more than 'just showing up'. And I think the biggest hurdle for my Tax idea would be the ‘Equal treatment’ clause, not the public reaction. I honestly think I could persuade a majority of Americans to support a tax break for Service men and women- and I'd love the opportunity to test it. But the larger question is 'what value do you bring to our Democracy'? Ala Kennedy's 'Ask not what the country can do for you..."
In the larger sense I think a population at ‘equal risk’ for military service might be more inclined to follow public policy issue more closely. The largest difference between military service and your public servants list is they have the option of quitting gat any time- a Soldier does not; different stakes deserve different rewards.
I agree with your assessment of Taxes which I view as Investments in America- but then again I think putting your very life on the line to defend this nation should have a a lifetime reward. And I am more than aware of how the recent Congresses have injured our Veterans while wrapping themselves in the flag of the Freedom they ensure- it’s despicable.
Brad
I respectfully disagree with you for reasons already stated.
With respect to your statement that your statement, "I could persuade a majority of Americans to support a tax break for Service men and women- and I'd love the opportunity to test it." Well, that's a no brainer. It is true that most people would "do" or claim to "do" just about anything to avoid paying taxes. What a pitty since taxes help pay for so many things. But humans, being humans would welcome any "skirt" to avoid paying, just ask Mark Nickolas, the self proclaimed democrat that is not a tax exempt corporation but claims to be tax exempt so he can cheat you and me and the rest of the world out of paying taxes because he thinks he is above the law???
Whatever,
my point, it would not be hard to "sell" do this, or claim to do this to avoid paying taxes. But, does that stance reflect the notion, "ask what YOU can do for YOUR country." NO! To not pay taxes is saying "how can I cheat my country so that I (ME) can make all this money and the others that need it be damned."
You know, there are MANY, MANY handicaps out there that would LOVE to be in the military but cannot because they are not medically fit. How does your idea work for them? How does your idea work for the many individuals with eye injuries or the flat footed person that cannot pass the military physical. Is it just simply "too bad for you, sorry about your luck, you pay taxes because I could pass the physical."
What about the baby born just 4 minutes ago with spina bifida? How does he/she fit in. What about the kid that was born 2 minutes ago with no parents and addicted to crack cocaine? How does he/she fit into your perfect plan in an ideal world where everyone is fit as a fiddle and can be drafted and pay no taxes. Did you think of them? Or, do they not matter because YOU don't know them? I do know them. How about that. I know them to well. I raise money for them. Yes, I raise money for their medical needs. How are they going to pay for YOUR military artillerary? They cannot work. They cannot feed themselves. Not by their choice. But that's the cards they were dealt. Who will pay for your tanks, your guns, your war?
Only in an ideal world would your system of combat pay for never pay taxes work. What a pitty we don't live in your ideal world because I would bet you all the tea in China that those babies in wheel chairs would traid in their chair for the ability to walk let a lone carry a gun. So, in reality, there are those that simply CANNOT take care of themselves because that's how God made them. Therefore, we must pay taxes. Please Brad, stop looking at taxes as a punishment. You just have never met the needy that cannot ever be able to do any better than drool and breath. They deserve medicine, food and love just like any other of God's animals. Sorry, that's what they've been dealt but due to reality your no tax structure is not making much sense to me. I know these kids. I love those kids. I help and raise money for those kids.
Her son would love to be in YOUR military for never pay taxes, but he is in chemo right now fighting for his LIFE. And prayers, yes, prayers is what will help save him. The power of prayers and tax dollars .. sad but true.
What do you want to bet that he would trade anything to pass that military exame? And for him I willingly pay taxes. Because there are LOTS of hims in this world.
I am not trying to sound like I am scolding. I just know of too many good, GOOD causes that my taxes help.
I wish you well and you never have to face such hardship. You are clearly a lucky person to not know such individuals.
God speed to you.
But I still think my idea a good one- particularly in the light of the deminished veteran benefits.
And I'd like to also mention that it's a bit of an assumption on your part to assume I or my family have never expeienced the kind of hardships you expressed.
Brad
Thus, under the theory that military personnel would get a break on tax debt and combat personnel get total relief for ever from tax debt places the burden GREATER on those that cannot pass a physical. Additionally, that tax break for military personnel you speak of would also be increased from what they pay at the present time. Therefore, their tax "break" would actually end up being a tax "increase."
Someone has to pay for the military and that is "we the people." "WE" the people not SOME of YOU people.
Given the relatively small number of Americans with Military service, the amount of lost tax revenue would be inconsequential. Most other nations tend to take their tax funds and put them toward social services- the US is atypical in that regard.
www.fas.org
Brad
I have to disagree that the amount of tax revenue lost would be inconsequential.
The USA does put tax revenue toward social services. Clearly, the military gets more of the pie but they should.
Tax revenue lost is never inconsequential. For instance if there were 1million companies in the USA and each company threw in one dollar that equals $1 million dollars toward the tax revenue. Take away that same amount and you are BEHIND $1 million dollars.
That example was for simple math so imagine the amount of money lost under the no tax for combat or tax relief for service.
Hence, our taxes would rise because we STILL need that $1Million dollars, so THAT $1 MILLION DOLLARS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE UP FROM SOMEWHERE???
I think everyone would like to see a decrease in the amount of taxes we pay per individual. That is why I am against corporations getting a tax break for moving to a different country. What a DEAL for the corporation - they get tax relief in USA PLUS they get cheap labor due to NO unions in other countries - WOW!!!
I would suggest we do away with NAFTA and give a tax incentive to STAY in this country. That way we would have MORE citizens in this country working and they WOULD pay taxes. Corporations would get that tax break and overall - the tax revenue would increase thus perhaps decreasing per individual responsiblity.
But as long as we have corporations getting a tax break if they leave this country, thereby reducing the total $$ in revenue because now those employees DO NOT WORK and DO NOT put $$ in the tax till, BUT those employees actually take money out of the tax till under social services - our individual taxes will continue to rise.
Therefore, I would hope that someday soon NAFTA will be a thing of the past.
Brad, I think you had these assumptions about my view on the draft and citizenship pretty well pinned:
1. Other than paying taxes and voting, US Citizenship comes with minimal responsibility on the citizen side.
2. Fighting on behalf of the nation should be a choice, not a mandatory obligation.
3. If one serves then it should be based on their own assessment of their abilities- not that of the needs of the military.
...except #1. I'm a believer in serving this country. I think that there are many ways to do it: public service via public leadership in office, fighting in the armed forces, donating ones time to veteran's causes and other community concerns, and by being a regular blood donor.
That may sound strange. I think we all support our country by supporting each other in many, many ways. As was mentioned in previous comments, we can all be patriotic without having to don a uniform and fight on foreign soil. The love of ones country comes through in many ways and is seen in actions outside the armed forces. Patriotism wears many hats and all of them are needed.
I worry that we will turn people into anti-patriots through conscription. The Romans were empire-builders: They needed every body they could find to conquer and occupy foreign lands in the name of the Emperor. We, on the other hand, are not (contrary to what some on the Left may believe) interested in building empires. We fight to secure our safety and our freedoms and to provide relief to oppressed people around the world. Then, ideally, we provide them aid to rebuild their countries and return home. However, in some cases we've lingered far too long and I fear this is part of the problem at present. We need to ensure our welcome in some strategic countries but maintain mobility. That's been lost to some degree thanks to WWII and battles long since won.
I do agree with you 100% about tax status for veterans. Anyone who's served a full career (20 years or more) in the armed forces should be granted 100% tax exemption for the rest of his/her life. Veterans give something far more valuable than money to their country. They have earned the right to sit out the tax burden, if you ask me.
I disagree with the argument that it would greatly impact this nation and the needy herein. We have multiple issues at play here: government waste, government programs that need re-examination, and the needs of society that are necessary for the federal government to cover.
I know that many Democrats believe that the federal government should be responsible for curing the ills of society. I disagree wholeheartedly with that idea because the federal government can barely deal with its own ills much less those that may afflict us personally. Those needs are better filled by private sector charities and people with good hearts, hands, and heads.
The families with sick ones to support are best helped on a state and local level and then most of all by private charities and services. Ask anyone who's had to deal with the federal government... I think you'll find they were best helped elsewhere.
I suppose I will have to respectfully disagree with you and my own Dad on the draft, Brad. As much as I value the opinion of our veterans, I still believe that people who WILLINGLY give of themselves give more than 100% and those who are forced into giving give only as much as needed to get through the "ordeal." I wouldn't put my life in the hands of anyone not willing to give 100% to make sure we all get home alive.
I will have to respectfully disagree with those who think that veterans owe more than what they've already given -- just because we can't all serve in the armed forces doesn't mean we can't all support our country in meaningful ways. If one of those ways is paying taxes then that's what we do instead. Our patriots in uniform give up so much of themselves in war time that there is simply no way any of us could give up enough money to equal that which is given in battle.
"I would suggest we do away with NAFTA and give a tax incentive to STAY in this country. That way we would have MORE citizens in this country working and they WOULD pay taxes. Corporations would get that tax break and overall - the tax revenue would increase thus perhaps decreasing per individual responsiblity.
But as long as we have corporations getting a tax break if they leave this country, thereby reducing the total $$ in revenue because now those employees DO NOT WORK and DO NOT put $$ in the tax till, BUT those employees actually take money out of the tax till under social services - our individual taxes will continue to rise."
There are a number of fallacies in your argument but the stunning one is this: When companies move their operations elsewhere, they somehow cause PERMANENT unemployment for employees they leave behind! Not so. I don't know about you but each time I've been "downsized" by a company, I've gone on to find new employment.
Look, if I was an underwater basketweaver and there was only ONE company that made baskets woven underwater, I would probably be employed by that company. If I then joined a union that demanded higher wages and more benefits even as the demand for underwater-woven baskets dwindled, would we be able to force the company to maintain a business that loses money? How would they pay us with no demand for their product?
If that company goes under (pardon the pun), despite the UBW union's best negotiations, I'm out of work with no skills to use in other industries! Now, wouldn't I be foolish to pretend that my underwater basketweaving skills would always be needed if the demand were so low that only one company existed to supply the demand for them? I'd be silly not to train into some new skills. Heck, the federal government now provides opportunities to do just that. Our tax dollars at work!
Second, it's a troubling assertion that to maintain or increase tax revenue, we should give US companies "tax incentives" to stay here. You've just contradicted yourself -- "tax incentives" are lower taxes and/or periods where they pay no taxes whatsoever. Where's the revenue in that?! Maybe I'm missing something but it sure doesn't make sense to me.
Here's the main point though: NAFTA has been in existence for 12 years now and this nation currently has an awe-inspiring unemployment rate that is the lowest in our history! The argument that we've lost tax revenue just doesn't hold water -- gee, once I get stuck on a theme, it's impossible to get out of it!Tax revenues are up (yes, despite tax cuts and NAFTA) and our unemployment rate is down. How is that possible if NAFTA has harmed this country?
For every company that takes its manufacturing off-shore, there are other foreign manufacturers who decide to build their products here. We are glad to have them! I work for a foreign-owned company that continues to build bigger and bigger facilities, hire more people, and pay good wages right here in Kentucky.
Just like global communications, global trade is here to stay, my friend. It's a reality that will actually help to level the playing field eventually. It's good not only for our country but for those in less fortunate countries as well.
Read this report (done in 2004, 10 years after NAFTA) if you want to learn more about this particular issue. You might find it very surprising and enlightening!
http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-08-04.html
So, as you can plainly see by my long-winded commentary that I will have to respectfully disagree with you on free trade, "Do Away with NAFTA." I think we'd find that you and I both want the same things for this country -- all of them good, naturally. However, I just don't see isolationism and protectionism as good things.
I won’t be so bold as to claim to be an expert on Roman History, but I do know a fair amount. And although general comparisons between the US and the Roman Republic/Empire are there, sometimes I think they are over used.
The first 500 years of the Republic, a titular Democracy, saw the Roman Citizen at war almost the entire time. The Temple of Janus in the city center only closed its doors during times of peace; in the History of the Republic those doors were closed only a dozen times or so. War was a state of being for the city state of Rome; because the citizens realized to lose a war was to lose freedom itself, since the victors normally claimed the vanquished as slaves.
I would argue the architects of the Neocon Project for the New American Century laid out a plan for US hegemony in the very real sense of an American ‘Empire’; and these were also the principal strategists for the Iraq War. One caveat, don’t let the word necessarily scare you; Empire can mean different things at different times- the Athenian Empire, The Persian Empire, The British Empire, etc. By and large though, Historians see the word Empire as the precursor to decadence and failure in a civilization.
Roman aristocrats in the Republic were required to hold military rank to hold political office. Consul, Proconsul, Tribune, etc- all had a military function as well a public office role. The problem we have today is the ‘haves’ do not feel they have to protect this country to enjoy it’s benefits- and one day we’re all going to suffer from that sentiment.
I think Winston Churchill summed it up best-
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and... of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."
-------------
“I know that many Democrats believe that the federal government should be responsible for curing the ills of society. I disagree wholeheartedly with that idea because the federal government can barely deal with its own ills much less those that may afflict us personally.”
Using this view Dawn, why should we then let the Government fight our wars if they are so incompetent? The fact of the matter is Government is as good or as bad as its leadership; but government does have the power to correct social ills and improve the common good- the examples of positive work are as prevalent as the negative. Safe foods; drinkable water; disease control; cancer reduction though tobacco regulation- all the result of government intervention.
I would suggest the problems you see in government are more the result of special interests derailing the common good in favor of their personal gain; Global Warming being the most popular example right now.
I understand the subtleties of your comments about the neo-cons and their hand in current affairs. Thanks for your moderate tone there. I am not 100% happy with what neo-cons have done to the Conservative landscape in this country politically and they're not much better at foreign policy either. I believe even Newt Gingrich agrees with the idea that America has built an empire. I'm not so sure I agree but that's a whole different discussion.
As for the Roman aristocracy being held to account by forcing their involvement with the Roman military, it was a bad idea then and I remain convinced it's a bad idea now. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me a few Roman leaders were assassinated based on the plotting of those same aristocrats... I fear that sort of thing would become a reality here in our day and time if the wealthy were required to become more tightly involved with our military leadership.
I certainly agree with your inclusion of Winston Churchill words but probably differ with you on the meaning of them. We are always in a period of consequences whether long-term or short-term. Each decision made has it's own major and minor set of them. It seems to me that we have already suffered enough half-measures, soothing and delays with regard to the situation in Iraq. It's time to put up or shut up for both America and Iraq. If we want success we have to push for it not plead with it!
When I mention the "ills of society," I'm referring to social problems such as joblessness, homelessness, mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. These are areas which require personal responsibility and the support of like-minded individuals who have a true stake in the outcome.
I certainly believe that a safe food and water supply as well as the control of communicable diseases is among the primary responsibilities of our government (whether at the federal or state level) because those things are a part of our safety and security as a nation.
As for cancer reduction through tobacco regulation, I've not seen anything that proves government regulation is responsible for any reduction in the number of cancer cases in this country. If you have something with regard to that, I'd love to read it. While it's entirely possible that one could lead to the other, I've not seen any real studies on that.
My feeling on the matter is that the government should stick to enforcing the rule of law with companies who produce hazardous substances. That would be the correct approach to controlling the potential harm to citizens rather than legislating a citizen's choice of legal products. I am more of a Libertarian (or traditional Conservative) on these types of social issues which is why I believe the federal government has no business in these areas.
Certainly the problems I see with the mismanagement of government efforts may be partially attributed to special interests; however, much of it is simply a result of trying to manage far more than the founding fathers ever intended the federal government to manage.
I don't know that global warming has anything to do with that, frankly. While we do know that the temperature of the Earth has warmed, it has yet to be proven that manmade emissions are the sole cause of the warming of the Earth's climate. That's a whole other area of hot debate right now, I know. Why not take the steps to curb our emissions just in case? Good question and one that will likely be solved at the individual level. When individuals buy based on his/her needs, this drives the market for better fuels and less disruptive engines. We're seeing a change in that now simply thanks to the upsurge in gasoline prices.
Gee, how in the world did we cover such varying topics as the Roman Empire, Winston Churchill, smoking, and global warming all in one discussion? hehehe I adore thinking people! I can't thank you enough for making us all think about a whole lot of things with one comment, Awe!