The Bachmann Doctrine

This post isn't about Bachmann specifically (though it sounds kind of catchy). It's really about the foreign policy of all of our current potential White House residents.

I watched the recent CBS News / National Journal GOP Presidential Primary debate with a bit of anticipation. It was the first debate that focused on foreign policy, and I was excited to see what would the candidates would have to say about their views.

I had prepared and submitted my questions to CBS News before the debate, hoping (as this was supposed to be an interactive debate), that I might see my questions asked. Alas, apparently water-boarding and should we still be in Afghanistan were the only questions that the moderators felt important to ask.

I joke, to an extent, because there were some great foreign policy questions asked, but the debate questions felt a bit too broad and unspecific for my taste. I really wanted to get to the nitty-gritty, so to speak, about where Romney or Paul or Bachmann stood on real issues.

---

My questions were as follows:

1. Evidence suggests that Russia is assisting Iran in its development of a non-civilian nuclear program. Would you, as Commander in Chief, implement any sort of economic sanctions against Russia in response to this practice?

I really wanted to know if our presidential hopefuls had the guts to call out a giant like Russia on a national venue. It's one thing to say that Lybia or Syria is doing wrong, but to call out a country like Russia for questionable conduct requires real cajones (or ovaries). Not only did I want to see if they would call out a powerhouse like Russia, but what route would they take to deal with the problem, e.g. sanctions, negotiations, embargoes, etc.

2. In his campaign, then candidate Barack Obama promised to close the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay.  As president and Commander in Chief, what would your policy regarding Guantanamo Bay and the detainees held there be? The existence of GTMO seemed to be a silent issue.

Every time the topic comes up, water-boarding or sleep deprivation seem to take over the discussion. But people seem to have already taken sides on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" issue and the standard GOP response seems to be "I'm okay with it as long as the guy is bad and the situation is serious." Not the best response in my opinion, but getting a different one from a republican seems to be nearly impossible.  Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about water-boarding; I really want to know what our next president (if he/she comes from that pool) intends to do with GTMO itself. Will it be kept open or will it be closed? If it is to be closed, what will we do with the detainees there? Will they ever be tried? If so, will they be tried in civilian courts or military tribunals?

3. As seen in Oakland and in other areas of our country, the Occupy Wall Street movement has turned somewhat violent, has shut down business in some areas, and is now contemplating direct action against banks and other financial institutions.  At what point do you see civil unrest as a domestic threat to our national security and what sort of action would you take to resolve such a threat?

Civil unrest and domestic threats must be dealt with. It threatens public safety, damages property, and demands the full attention of an already heavily burdened police force. When peaceful protests turn into riots, they must be stopped. I really want to know where our GOP contenders perceive the line between protest and riot to be and what they are prepared to do to handle such.

4.Admiral Mike Mullen has said that our national debt is the greatest threat to the United States' national security. If this is true, then to get our debt under control, serious spending cuts must be made. In an effort to reduce the security threat our deficit poses, would you, as Commander in Chief, implement cuts in the defense budget at all, and if so, where?

When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff views the debt as our biggest security threat, then I honestly believe that it should be addressed, even if some cuts happen in his department. Additionally, I wanted to test our candidates to see if they viewed defense as a sacred cow. Would they cut defense anywhere? The current defense budget is just shy of  a trillion dollar program. You can't tell me that there is no room for savings there.

5. United States' controversial involvement in Libya and long presence in Iraq and Afghanistan raise the issue of whether involvement in these theaters is necessary. As Commander in Chief, how will you balance decisive and aggressive protection of our national security interests with the responsible use of military force?

While I honestly feel that military action in Afghanistan was justified, and that there are good arguments for our entry in Iraq as well, I feel that America's forces are deployed too often and for too long. After serving in Afghanistan I got a first-hand taste of what a war with no clear objective is like.

I personally believe that if our commander in chief cannot clearly articulate what our mission is in a theater of operations and if he cannot clearly show how our current presence in a theater is supporting that mission, then our troops have no business being there. Such is the case with Afghanistan in my opinion. The clearest explanation of the mission there is to root out Al Qaeda. As Al Qaeda is now primarily in Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula, what are we doing in Afghanistan? If our mission is to build up the Afghan government, then why do we have so many combat troops there? If it's to train the Afghan forces, then why are our forces still so segregated?

It is both irresponsible to endanger the lives of so many good men and women without a clearly stated objective, and to keep them in danger a day after the objective has been achieved.

6. The Transportation Security Agency has an $8.1 billion budget, yet still seems to take a reactionary stance when it comes to terror. Someone puts a bomb in a shoe, so we take off shoes; someone tries to blow up their a bomb in their underwear, so we have either be patted down or undergo a full-body scan; etc. As Commander in Chief, how would you change the strategy of our airport and port security from reactionary to proactive and forward acting?

With a multi-billion dollar budget, you would think that the TSA would be able to find a way to keep our airports secure without feeling up 5 year olds kids and 95 year old grandmas.

7. Constructing a fence that covers our nations nearly 2,000 mile long southern border would likely take years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Is a fence the best use of our taxpayers' dollars when combating illegal immigration? If not, what is?

I don't think a complete ocean to ocean fence is the solution to America's illegal immigration problem. While there are many areas that should be fenced that currently are not, I feel that the root causes of illegal immigration need to be addressed more than a fence needs to be constructed. For example, we need stricter enforcement of current immigration law combined with an overhaul of our current immigration policy. Combining a policy that makes it easier to come here the right way and harder to stay here the if you came the wrong way while making crossing the southern border more difficult is the logical solution in my opinion.

8. In his farewell address, George Washington argued that the United States should avoid permanent alliance with foreign nations. Is the United States' alliance with Israel permanent? Hypothetically, do you ever see yourself as Commander in Chief withdrawing support for Israel, and under what circumstance?

That ought to get some people riled up. But I ask the people who bristle to this question: Wouldn't you want to know at what point a presidential hopeful would withdraw support for a key ally like Israel?

I believe that no alliance should be viewed as permanent; however, that doesn't mean that an alliance can't last forever. In other words, as long as supporting Israel serves America's security interests, then an alliance makes sense. But never should any country be led to believe that America's backing is something to be taken for granted.

9. Congressman Paul, do you ever see a situation that justifies military action against a foreign threat?

I really want to know at what point Ron Paul would ask for congressional approval to declare war or take military action against a foreign threat.

---

There are probably a billion other questions worth asking, but these were mine. And, unfortunately, none where directly addressed in the last foreign policy debate. Maybe next time.
                       

OWS: Tea Party's Crazy Cousin?

What exactly is the occupy Wall Street movement? Is it disenfranchisement with the wealthy? Wall Street? Student loans? Unemployment? The current economic conditions?

I believe that the OWS movement parallels the tea party movement in this regard. In the early days of the tea party movement, there was no clear-cut agenda. Was it frustration with taxes? Bailouts? Social policies? Government in general?

While the specific goals and objectives of the tea party movement varied from place to place and from individual to individual there was a resonating tone of dissatisfaction with an increasingly growing and increasingly intrusive government. Similarly, there is a broader, more generic message coming from the OWS movement that also seems to echo dissatisfaction with the government.

But that's basically where the similarities end.

To me, OWS is the liberal response to the Tea Party, a movement that starts in the same place then heads in the opposite direction. It's as if liberal organizers like Adbusters are trying to say to Karl Rove and Dick Armey, "See, we can create a peaceful grass-roots protest, too." Except OWS protests actually turn violent.

I considered delving into speculation over whether the OWS movement is timed to help Obama politically or if it's secretly funded by spooky dude George Soros, but I'll leave that to Glenn Beck.

While the tea party wants, generally, less government, the OWS movement seems to want more. While the tea party movement favors lower taxes, the OWS movement seems to favor a higher tax rate, at least for the rich. Basically, it's the polar opposite of its tricorn hat-wearing cousin. Both movements purport to be grass-root and spontaneous, both were spawned by dissatisfaction with the current social, economic, and political climate, and both lack clear-cut objectives and leadership; however, while one thinks government is a large part of the problem, the other seems to think that government is the solution.

While OWS lacks clear cut, uniform objectives, there are some recurring themes in the movement:

1 - Wall Street seems to be above the law and in some cases, seems to run the government.

2 - Capitalism is a broken system and corporations are evil.

3 - There is too much income inequality. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

4 - Education costs too much

Wall Street is above the law and in some cases seems to run the government

I agree. The bailouts, the solyndra scandal, our current tax system, GE, and a slew of other gaffs, screw-ups and phony regulations reveal a government that gets in bed with big business and starts picking favorites. Banks and businesses that are failing just keep getting more cash from government coffers (BoA, Citi, GM), politicians dabble in venture capitalism with taxpayer money (Solyndra), and tax-codes are re-written and manipulated to reward friends of those in power (GE). All this is funded by taxpayer money - money that could have been used to pay down our deficit, build roads and bridges and for other…ahem…shovel ready jobs, and otherwise improve the quality of life of our nation's inhabitants.

Unfortunately, the OWS solution is irresponsible. OWS would have us empower the Wall Street-controlled government to implement tighter financial regulations and oversee a greater portion of economic activity in our country. In other words, OWS wants to give a corrupt government more government power, because they think that will make things better.

If a parent sees a child who is terrorizing others with a stick, he takes it away from the child. OWS is trying to give the kid a hammer instead of a stick. So long as the government is "run" by Wall Street, anything the government does will be designed and manipulated by Wall Street. New financial regulation from a Wall Street Lobbyist-controlled government will regulate everybody but the ones who really need the regulation, because the kids with the sticks will be the ones writing the rules.

The only way for the situation to improve is for us, the electorate, to take the hammer away. We must demand that politicians get out of bed with bankers and to fire the ones who won't.

Capitalism is a broken system and corporations are evil

Seriously? That old chestnut again? Capitalism is not evil or broken - it has generated more wealth and prosperity and improved the quality of life for more people than any other system. If you doubt that, move to Afghanistan where it's near impossible to find toilet paper and running water, then blog about your discomfort on the iPad or iPhone most Afghans have never heard of on the internet that is barely accessible there. Too many have been so spoiled by our exorbitant living standards that they take them for granted and assume that they just are and have nothing to do with our economic system.

Capitalism works because it allows anybody to create a good or a service that is of value to others and to make a living off it. The more valuable that good or service is, the more demand there is for it, and the better a living that can be made off of it. This is not evil - it's common sense. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but at least in a capitalist system, the deck is not stacked. It always works better when the consumer, not central planners decide what's valuable and what's not.

Just about every dart we see thrown at "capitalism" should actually be thrown at "crony capitalism."

Bailouts - not capitalism.
Government backed loans for solar cell producers that sell product for less than it costs to make - definitely not capitalism. Corporations that gross billions in profit but pay nothing in taxes because they "know people" - crony capitalism.
Mortgage companies that give loans to anybody and everybody because the government told them to, then liquidate that risk by bundling them into "mortgage backed securities" - you guessed it, not capitalism.
Corporations aren't evil either, just misunderstood. Corporations are simply legal representations of individuals or groups. Instead of "Steve", it's "Steve's Hot and Tasty Coffee." Not scary unless you spill it on yourself.

If a corporation is evil, it's only evil because its principals are. And in a capitalist system, nobody is forcing you to support the evil corporations. You can always buy your coffee at Starbucks instead.

There is too much income inequality.

The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

I agree - kind of. There is income inequality in our nation. Some people are rich, some are poor, and most aren't rich or poor.

Frankly, I don't care that Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg is richer than me. The only thing that upsets me is that I didn't think of Facebook before the Winklevoss twins did. Who names their kid Winklevoss or a Zuckerberg anyway?

If anything, I applaud the vast sums of money that Gates accrued. Why? Well for one, if he can do it, then maybe I can, too. Secondly, he didn't steal it, he earned it.

Income inequality would only be an issue if the rich got richer at the expense of the poor - that is, if the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. While it is true that America's rich are accruing wealth at a faster rate then its poor, America's poor are also getting richer. American poor enjoy cell phones, microwaves, indoor plumbing, cable TV, government subsidized housing, healthcare, transportation and food, and many other luxuries. In fact, America's poor are among the richest in the world. Just think, would you rather be poor in America or Zimbabwe?

Education costs too much

Education doesn't cost too much - college does.

Okay, that was a smart-alek answer. It's undeniable that education costs are rising. I personally think that education is one of the next bubbles. We're all encouraged to go to college so we can get a good job. And many people have been convinced that student loans are the only way to pay for school. As demand for an education increases, the prices will, too. Eventually costs will equalize, or the bubble will burst as more and more students fail to repay their loans. Until then, those who want higher education will pay higher costs for it.

As with any expense, the cost has to be weighed against the benefits and the risk. Benefits - better jobs with better paychecks (hopefully). The risk - not finding a good-paying job. Getting a student loan only compounds that risk. What happens when you're unemployed with $34,000 in student loans (the average student debt of a current college graduate)? Student loans are virtually impossible to expunge, so they will almost definitely follow you for life, even after a bankruptcy.

OWS would have student loans forgiven. I would have students who make smarter financial choices.

I believe that a student should focus on a career path that will give him the best chances of financial success as well as personal gratification and only borrow as much as he can confidently pay back even if he never finds a good job. Then find other means to pay for the remainder of education costs (work, scholarships, grants, etc).

To the OWS protester who borrowed $90,000 for an education in anthropology and history I ask, "Are you stupid? What possessed you to think that would land you a job that would enable you to pay that kind of money back?"

--
Recently, there has been speculation that the OWS crowd is more conservative than it thinks it is. I disagree. While OWS shares some of the same concerns as the tea party, the tea party presses for increased personal responsibility while OWS tries to run from it.