Tag Archives: arguement

It's Not The Government's Job .... Or Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

So to be clear, it's NOT the government's job to:

  • Create Jobs
  • Buy new cars to 1) Help the environment by switching to hybrids and 2) help save jobs in the automobile industry
  • Borrow and spend money, or raise taxes to support government programs
  • Provide funds to help provide for lengthened unemployment benefits during an economic downturn
  • Regulate or help in any way the financial sector to save jobs or lessen the damage to the economy
Or at least that's what Republicans have been arguing for the past few months.  Many of these have good arguments and deserve discussion.

Suddenly however, with the announcement of the change of direction for the military by Sec. Gates Republicans are falling over each other to save their favorite unneeded or overly-expensive project to save jobs in their state/district.  This at the same time many of those states and claiming they're going to turn down funds for job creation and unemployment benefits.

Another arguement is that these cuts will "disarm America" and somehow make us weaker in the world.  Even though the change in the budget will provide:

– An increase in “intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for the warfighter in the base budget by some $2 billion.”

– An additional “$500 million more in the base budget than last year to increase our capacity to field and sustain more helicopters – a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan.”

– “To grow our special operations capabilities, we will increase personnel by more than 2,800 or five percent and will buy more special forces-optimized lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft.”

All of which are needed for the wars we are currently fighting and are likely to fight in the future, not some mythical war from some yet to be declared enemy.

The projects cut  are focused on fighting a large, powerful enemy .... such as China ...  by borrowing money to fund these projects ....  from countries such as China ... and thus helping fund our potential enemies while arming to fight them.

The change in direction shouldn't be focused on jobs, as that's not the military's goal, though that seems to be where Republicans finally decide to change their tune.  Even though this change in budget also provides for MORE personnel, MORE healthcare for veterans, and MORE material support.  They seem to just love their military toys, and their large defense contractor friends.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Is The President Above The Law?

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States we believe in the "Rule of Law".  A term meaning that everyone must obey the law, and nobody is above the law.  These laws are to be written, public, and challengable in court.

Bush's nomination for Attorney General thinks one man is above this.

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

SOURCE

His arguement basically comes down to the fact that The Constitution is above all laws, and that since the President is required "the defense of the nation" in the Constitution, laws are null and void in pursuit of this goal.

This is NOT a view the nation should embrace.  The defense of the nation can and should be pursued following the Constitution, International Law, and also following our domestic laws.  Violating these ideals has led other nations to dictatorship, corruption, and loss of liberty.  It CAN happen here as well, not just other nations.

The Attorney General is THE law enforcement official in the country.  It's their job to ENFORCE the laws of the land, not make exceptions to them.  If something is illegal, the Attorney General should be the first one to stop the President and his actions.  That was the main problem with the last one.  Gonzales was seen as just defining things and changing them to fit the current Administration.  Not holding the Administration to the law.

Popularity: 1% [?]