In Response to: Government Cuts on Security

This blog post is in response to Brandon Nguyen's editorial: Government Cuts on Security

Brandon, I agree with you that a long-term solution means a careful evaluation of each budgetary item. We, as a country, have gotten used to the idea of surplus spending and expect someone else to solve our financial woes. The reality of the situation is that we are in debt and in desperate need to cut back our spending to help our economy recover. Our national security and defense expenditure is one of the largest elements of our budget. The United States recognizes that a powerful military is important in maintaining our safety. However, we spend more than many of the most industrious nations combined and accounted for 43% of global military expenditures in 2010. [1] I feel national defense is one area where there is a need scale back our spending. I do agree with you that the safety of the people needs to be upheld but at what cost?

Ron Paul, current Republican presidential candidate, has been vocal in his stance of scaling back America’s military footprint in foreign nations. I think this could be a reasonable option. We currently operate in over 100 countries and this is very costly. This also adds to the notion that as a country we need to “police the world” which can create a negative view on what America truly stands for, diplomacy and democracy. By bringing our troops back home we can hope to secure our borders at a lower cost and help balance our national budget. [2] Of course this idea seems simple and could have potential drawbacks. The best method to test this theory would either be a temporary scale back or a minor scale back of certain bases. Either way, Congress needs to find a way to successfully decrease military spending without losing the national security we have upheld as a nation.

[1] http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[2] http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Ron-Paul-foreign-policy/2011/11/20/id/418626

Delaying the Inevitable?

On Thursday evening, the US House of Representatives yet again put into place a temporary spending bill to keep the federal government up and running. The bill is working its way through Congress right now and is awaiting Senate approval. The current spending appropriations were extended because the federal government was scheduled to run out of finances this coming Friday. A long-term solution would be preferable but at this point something just needed to be done. The temporary measure extends the current spending plan until December 16^th. [1]

This isn’t the first time the House of Representatives has had to scramble to keep the government running. A stopgap bill was used in early October for needed disaster relief and to keep the government afloat entering a new fiscal year. [1] In August, the debt ceiling was increased to avoid a default on our debt. This action enabled continual borrowing and spending for government programs. [2] There seems to be a trend in the current Congress for delaying the inevitable.  Often things can get worse before they get better, but this year there a repeatable trend of things getting worse – too many accounts of creating short-term solutions to long-term problems. This continual round about methodology of Congress has made them lose American confidence. [3] The constituents are taking notice and actually starting to take action as well.

The reason for all of the short-term solutions, rather than a restructuring or long term plan, is the inability of our Congress to collectively decide upon budget appropriations for the 2012 fiscal year. Amazingly, it has been more than 15 years since both chambers of Congress – the House and the Senate - have passed a bill laying out the spending measures for all government supported programs. Over that time, Congress has supported continuing past resolutions or bundling appropriation bills. [1] There is undoubtedly a problem with this “last-minute” legislation trend of inaction. Our dawdling Congress needs to get its act together and start working towards long-term solutions. Clearly, there needs to be a change in Congress’ culture; this begins with the constituents. This isn’t an issue of party politics; this is an issue of getting the American people what they deserve - a diligent legislative body working cooperatively to make our country stronger and more fiscally sound.

I realize that this may sound harsh. I’m not suggesting that present solutions are horrible or ill advised, but instead, that our government’s representatives need to grapple with the hard stuff, and that as citizens, we need to support them in doing so. Collectively, we need to make a better effort to work together and do what is best for ALL of the American people. Passing a federal budget and deciding how the money is allocated is the job of Congress; it is clearly laid out in the Constitution. As US citizens we have a responsibility to uphold this sacred document- to ensure that we the people form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. [4]

Sources:

[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/house-passes-continuing-resolution-avoids-another-shutdown-threat/

[2] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html

[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx

[4] http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

In Response to: Quality Over Showboating

The following commentary is in response to John Newhouse's editorial Quality Over Showboating.

First off, I would have to agree with you that campaign methods do not always promote supporting a candidate on the correct basis. I feel that campaigns should be based on the qualities of candidates and the reasonable actions that they can achieve while in office. The US government is not set up so that one person can go in and make a dramatic change. Instead, it is set up so that a person can lobby for certain outcomes and gain support for them. With that said, banter and name-calling grabs headlines and sensationalizes a situation or characterization of a candidate.  Those candidates who make the headlines under a popular stance have a better chance to win an election; those making headlines under an unpopular stance have a better chance to lose an election. This practice has occurred throughout our history.  It is important to note that just because it has become standard practice does not mean that it should be a primary focus of campaigns. The party system by its very nature creates a comparison between candidates and, I feel, splits the country on opposing sides that most people do not understand or follow. As long as we continue to employ single-member districts and not proportional representation the current tactics used in elections will continue and unfortunately, the focus and revenues raised won’t be on solving the problems of our time. We know that finances have and potentially always will be an issue with politics. Supporters want their candidate to win so they can get favorable legislation passed. The easiest way to ensure victory is through financial support. Fortunately, the Federal Elections Commission was established to monitor spending in federal campaigns. This helps to regulate money that is coming in from corporations, lobbyist groups, political action committees, individuals, and political parties. Although, each donor has a limit to what they can contribute to a candidate there is no limit on the number of donors who can contribute. This in turn, leaves the field wide open on the amount of money a candidate can raise for their campaign. So bottom line, find a candidate worthy of supporting and send in your check. This seems like a poor way to be represented but sadly, in the current system, it may be the best way to be heard.