In the last couple years I haven't written quite so much about politics and current events. Thus there are a number of topics where I have something to say, but need something to trigger my opinions. I wasn't planning on writing anything until I saw a column that I *agree* with, which goes against my anti-punditry norm, but there you go.
A trio of topics have come up over the last few years, all draped in the flag and country and "giving back". The underlying principles behind each differs quite a lot, from partisanship to misplaced patriotism. I'll start with the latter and work my way to the former.
1) Several politicians have proposed that young Americans donate a significant amount of their time to some form of civic or charitable cause. As a right-winger I'm opposed to large amounts of government-mandated charity, so immediately my defenses are up even though at age 26 I'm not likely to be effected by it (most plans call for 18-25 year olds). One of the key things that makes charity meaningful and rewarding is that it's voluntary. You do better by yourself in doing better by others. What's really irked me about the issue is the number of times I've seen it brought up as a who-could-object-to-this common-sense proposal.
Mandatory service would involve a lot more than just teenagers picking up trash on the side of a road. You're talking about monitoring, enforcing, punishing, certifying what does and doesn't count, and who knows what else. If it's for only a short period of time then the labor won't accomplish nearly enough to make up for the cost and hassle of operating the program. If it's for a long period of time then you're talking about what amounts to slave labor and seriously disrupting lives. In either case it's not going to foster 'civic responsibility' as much as civic unrest. It's one thing to draft men at a time of vital war, it's another to demand busywork because of a generic "young people today aren't nice" mentality.
2) I've seen a few people on several locations of the political rainbow call for a return of the draft. Some want it because they think it would reduce militarism. I think that wanting to do a draft for political reasons is indefensible, and if you can't raise enough anti-war protests that's your own problem. Politicians shouldn't mess with the military any more than they already do (see: questionable weapons programs, military base decisions, Donald Rumsfeld). Wanting a draft because "we're running out of soldiers" is sheer laziness.
We don't pay soldiers even a fraction of what they deserve, and the fact that so many are willing to serve at current pay scales is a testament to the character of our military. Considering that they have to leave home, give up many basic freedoms, are on the job 24/7 and risk their lives, and that they get paid less than many/most policemen, it's amazing that anyone signs up. If the military was seriously on the verge of needing more men, while at the same time taking up a much smaller % of GDP than it did even during many recent times of peace, to me the logical first step would be to increase pay and see if that would get more recruits. Some people might want to serve but couldn't really afford to right now. Others might be indifferent to serving now but go for the money. The prospect of a 'mercenary' army might not appeal to some of you, but to me in a situation like we're in today it's a lot more morally defensible than forced service. The bottom line is that the military does compete with the rest of the economy for manpower, and if it needs more then it should first be willing to at least try paying more for it. Speaking of paying more, I'd like to wrap this up by going after one of the most lackluster talking points of the last five years.
3) "There isn't enough sacrificing for the Iraq war, just look at what people went through in WW2". There are a couple variations on this. I have yet to see one where the point was "you should donate more time and money to veterans groups". The point is usually "we can't have tax cuts and a war and conservatives should give up one or another". This is what's called a false dilemma. Take two things that are marginally connected at best (war funding and taxation) and say there one or the other must be sacrificed. The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes far too many things, but perhaps most importantly it assumes that if a conservative got what he wanted (war and tax cuts) there would be an unsustainable budget deficit. Thing is, if you ask any halfway respectable conservative he'll come up with several hundred billion dollars worth of spending to cut and thus balance the budget. I won't even go into the whole "sometimes tax cuts lead to more/not much less revenue" talking point because that's a whole 'nother debate.
I'm annoyed so much by the talking point because it's usually employed in a very dishonest, partisan way, and it also tries to use an end-around on the tax debate (since war is more serious than taxes). It's a "gotcha". I hate a "gotcha" debate mindset. Even if you 'win' a debate like that it's going to do more to cause discord rather than change minds.
So in conclusion: charity is awesome but it should come from the heart, pay the troops more, and the federal budget is big enough for there to be some leeway on what people want without making assumptions.
On a final note, thanks for the positive feedback so far, especially from those of you who don't agree with all of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I entirely agree with you that a tax cut is sustainable even when there is a war. Problem though, and I know you didn't say this or support it, is that too many pork-barrel projects exist out there that are tied into politicians' coffers.
-koff- Halliburton -koff-
But I must say this: The war isn't making people suffer enough back home. This becomes a problem when you try to raise consciousness as to the problems of the war. This ties back into the taxation problem because the US (as a non-american) is supposed to be involved in this war, which is supposed to suck.
Yet the tax cuts (which benefit the richest - and pish posh to that drip down nonsense) are still coming, and only the poorest Americans are going out to die for the country.
My point really, is that the war and American 'save-the-world' missions will continue till it hurts the richest. And right now, it's only hurting the poorest 'little people'
I'm not even entirely sure where to start. I could go into the "tax cuts for the rich" debate, I could go into the "only the poorest serve in the military" talking point (which just isn't the case), but what matters is the core premise.
Your concern isn't fiscal responsibility or economic effects, which is the only thing that matters in taxes. The goal is making the US more pacifist. That line of argument just isn't constructive- for pacifists. I've gone back and re-written this several times because it's not easy to explain, but I'll do my best.
The argument as I see it is this: if a war starts then taxes should be raised even if not fiscally needed just so there's more public opposition to the war, since people would be directly effected. Since the very richest pay the most taxes and (I will grant this) are less likely to have children serving, and since the very richest have the most political stroke, this would serve to prevent or bring a faster end to wars.
I can understand the appeal of this reasoning to those who are anti-war, but that doesn't make it a good argument to use. For one thing it's a pure political fantasy; any nation where such a law would pass would be unlikely to engage in marginal military conflicts to begin with. Since it isn't actual legislation under consideration, the argument's purpose ought to be to change minds. To convince people who are either pro-war or neutral that they should become anti-war.
I'd be stunned if the argument could ever do this. The reason is simple: it completely avoids the actual pro-war/anti-war debate and assumes that anti-war is better, and moves to make things easier for the anti-war side. It's a "preaching to the choir" kind of argument. I'll do my best to demonstrate how by fashioning somewhat of a hawkish mirror version of it.
"Wars are often necessary, but because the poor are more likely to serve and thus feel the worst of the war, their hardships are made worse. Thus in order to minimize the suffering, tax breaks and subsidies will be given to military families/communities below a certain economic threshold". And the end goal/result would be to reduce public opposition to the war.
In either the hawkish or dovish version, the public would be bribed (my scenario) or pressured (your scenario) into changing their mind on the war for reasons other than its basic merits/demerits. How on earth is desiring such a thing supposed to change minds? As a hawk my reaction is that my opinion is being dismissed entirely, and with the way some people phrase it (though not you) I find it downright insulting.
As I said in other posts, I don't like bad arguments no matter who uses them or how or why. Bad arguments are part of why political and social discussions are often so bitter and nasty, and in most cases they don't even advance the cause.
After going to the bathroom I had more time to think, and I think maybe I have a fairer phrasing of the argument:
"It's unjust that only the poor suffer during wartime".
Putting aside the "why do they always send the poor?" meme that I detest, my response is: why must the answer be more suffering? Why must the answer be more 'sacrifice'?
If you think that the tax burden on the rich isn't great enough, then advocate a change in tax rates. Then in wartime the rich would be (in theory) paying more in taxes than in peacetime, and in peacetime they'd still be paying more than the rest.
I think what you and others find unnerving is the *timing* involved: tax cuts and then war, close together. As if now, not only are the rich not paying more taxes during wartime, they're paying less. And I can see where that could be frustrating.
The solution isn't in trying to use the tax and war debates as leverage against one another. The solution is to win the war debate on its own merit, and to win the tax debate based on its own merit. If you succeed in changing the tax distribution, then the rich will pay more in wartime. If you succeed in winning the war debate then the poor won't suffer. Using tax rates as a reason to be against the war, or using the war as a reason to be against tax cuts, just isn't going to work in winning either debate.
Putting aside the "why do they always send the poor?" meme that I detest--Ditch
Funny stuff. My least favorite saying ever. Why do they always send the poor? Because the poor sign up for the military, it is a great salary no matter what people say.
It isn't even true, though. There's a slight trend towards lower incomes, but there's plenty of soldiers from middle to upper-middle class. The stats I've seen show that military service has more to do with whether you're in a "red" or "blue" county. Areas that sent the most soldiers to Iraq are those that have the highest support for the war. If that wasn't the case then Kerry would have won in a landslide in 2004.
評価他スキー ジャケットでデュベティカ、デュベティカ ジャケットですすべての確率では最高級。デュベティカのネットコートです、完全手頃な価格。
Post a Comment