Vets Before Refugees - Not for This Vet

It's been nearly 5 years since I posted anything. I honestly would have thought that Trump was the topic that would have brought my opinions to the page, but it turns out there's something else that pushed past (though I'm pretty confident something on The Donald will end up making its way to a post).Over the past few weeks, I've noticed a trend that is increasingly gaining traction: the "Vets before refugees" movement. And as a veteran, as a conservative, and, frankly, as an American, it pisses me off. 

As a veteran I get that a portion of us have seen, experienced, or done some legitimately damaging shit. Some of us have sacrificed life, others have sacrificed limb, and a still others have sacrificed conscience in their countries service, leaving scars both visible and invisible. I'm not stranger to the frustration that comes from having an anxiety attack over events that occurred in years past or fearing that you might hurt yourself or someone you love because of some mental or emotional scars that you're struggling to come to terms with. And these veterans have every claim to our nation's compassion and assistance while they heal.
But I didn't enlist to fight for a country that has lost its humanity!

I am in no way calling for America to open its borders and allow all who call themselves refugees to enter. First, the need to properly vet refugees for immigration is real. America's vetting process (even before the advent of Trump's so-called "extreme vetting") is pretty thorough, and there are absolutely times when the priority of our nation's security may prohibit it from allowing the immigration of persons who fails the process or simply cannot be properly vetted. Second, America's capacity to house these individuals and to facilitate their integration into society must also be brought to consideration.

Immigration aside, there are ways to provide aid to those who need it. The US both privately and publicly provides valuable humanitarian assistance and aid to refugee camps across the world. And yes, of course such assistance comes at a cost that must be assessed and budgeted appropriately. And if the need outweighs the financial ability of our nations government and people to assist (and it will), at least we as citizens and a nation can say that we tried. But the notion that America has a binary choice between helping its veterans in need and lending assistance to refugees, our world's most desperate segment of population, is an outright lie.

I'd wager that the a large portion of those who keep posting and sharing the Vets Before Refugees nonsense have done little to nothing to actually, tangibly assist either party. To you, I say, "Stop using me as a scapegoat for your lack of charity." Quit using your bumper-sticker patriotism as a pathetic alibi. On what planet does someone claiming to be an American or even a human being for that matter, feel that the plight of a refugee is one to ignore?

And to my brothers and sisters in arms, on what planet does a veteran feel this way? Veterans, the segment of our population that are frequently put on a pedestal for an inclination to Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Honor (among other things), are absolutely the last people who should pound their chest and shout, "Me first!" They should be doing the exact opposite, shouting "Help him" instead. I for one, enlisted not only with the patriotic intention to serve my country, but with the desire to serve those who needed our help most.

Well here they are! Let's not ignore them.

Happy Memorial Day

Happy Memorial Day. 

Please take some time to do something in remembrance of our Nation's fallen.

Closet Anti-Capitalists

Is it just me, or have some of our GOP candidates let their closet anti-capitalist out? Specifically, I'm referring to attacks on Mitt Romney in regards to recent statements, claims that a CEO or manager would be a poor president, and his record as a venture capitalist at Bain Capital.

Romney the Terminator

Some of the candidates have taken some of Mitt's comments out of context when speaking about health care companies. This seems like a lame attack done in poor taste.

What Romney actually said was:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

What the other candidates claimed Romney said was: “I like being able to fire people.”

When I first heard the comment, I was reminded of a chick flick that I watched once that starred a guy who's job was to fire people. He was a real-life terminator. Rick Perry's witty, albeit petty attempt to create a ringtone out of the phrase deserves points for merit, but Huntsman telling people that the guy who headed a firm that owns a huge chunk of his daddy's company is unelectable for the comments falls short. Incidentally, could the reason that Huntsman Sr hasn't written kiddo's campaign a giant check be the fact that he's a business partner with a firm closely associated with an opponent?

As you can see, they took less than a sentence out of an entire paragraph spoken specifically about a relationship with an unsatisfactory service provider out of context and applied it in general principle to paint the man as the evil job-cutting equivalent of It's a Wonderful Life's Mr. Potter.

Obviously, the other candidates were hoping to take the image of Romney as a Wall Street fat cat that OWS has painted for him and run with it. If they can make him seem out of touch or ruthless, then they feel they might be able to detract some votes from him.

Unfortunately, I feel that this particular attack is petty and poorly formulated. I'm not surprised that Romney's words were taken out of context. These are politicians that we're working with. They all do it, all the time. Romney did it, too in an attack ad on President Obama. The issue that I take with the comments is not so much that they're out of context, but that they're fruitless. They don't do any real damage. In fact, they might help Romney.

First, a guy who “likes to fire people” in the private sector really isn't a threat to me in public office. The president doesn't own my company. It's not like he'll call on America's job creators and tell them to stop. At worst, he'll fire his own staff repeatedly, which will in the grand scheme of things have little effect on someone detached from the President's Palace.

Second, even if we take the “like to fire people” comments and run with them further, I think that many people would celebrate the possibility that Romney would fire regulators at the EPA or stay-at-home IRS code-writers.

Additionally, someone could take him saying, “I like to be able to fire people” as a union busting comment. After all, it's harder to fire a union worker than a non-union one. I don't think many conservatives would balk at that.

At the weakest, this argument implies that Romney would be a cost-cutter. He'd trim the fat. Doesn't break my heart.

A Manager Doesn't Belong in the White House

At last Saturday night's GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum defended remarks he made, claiming that a “manager” would make a poor president. He claims that what America needs is a leader, not a manager. A weak argument, if you ask me. In most cases, the words leader and manager can be used interchangeably. Isn't a good leader a good manager? Isn't a good manager a good leader?

At the debate, Romney seized on the weakness of the argument and promptly threw the comments back in Santorum's face by saying he's out of touch with the leadership qualities that a guy who “managed” the 2002 Olympics back to success must possess and painted Santorum as a government guy who has no idea what the private sector really needs.

Mitt the Job-Cutter

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a group of supposed "free-market conservatives" who attack a venture-capital firm. After all, isn't venture-capitalism the charged, bold, high-risk / high-reward essence of the American capitalist idea?

Of course a company that focuses on leveraged buyouts, takeovers, and start-ups will see bankruptcies, restructurings and downsizing over the course of their operations. They invest in at-risk companies - the companies that typical banks and financiers won't touch. Of course guy who ran a company that has invested in over 250 businesses, many of which were considered risky or failing, will have to fire people. Of course some businesses will file for bankruptcy, and of course some pay-cuts will probably occur.

I had a close experience with a buy-out recently. I sell building products. Two of my closest competitors recently received investments from venture-capital firms. One company ended up filing for bankruptcy, but after some restructuring, they came out solvent after shedding losing divisions of their company. The other business eventually failed entirely.

Without the assistance of their financiers, neither company would have had a shot at regaining success. Unfortunately, one company failed outright. That doesn't mean that the idea of venture-capitalism is a failure, but that its risky. It is possible, albeit difficult to turn a troubled asset around.

Romney should get ahead of this topic and tout it as a claim to fame. He helped found the company that directed startup, purchase, restructuring, and profitability of companies like Staples, Dominos, Burger King, Huntsman Corporation, Toys'R'us, and more. He should use this record to help his campaign image as a reformer, organizer, the savior of distressed organizations. The guy who has what it takes to fix Washington's financial problems.

The Real Issues

Romney's record as a venture-capitalist is not his issue. His inconsistent political record is. He's a flip-flopper, he's shaky on abortion, he's shaky on gay marriage, he instituted what was used as a basis for Obama-care. He's got as much baggage as any of the candidates, but his opponents seem to focus on his free-market loving, venture-capitalist record, which makes them seem anti-capitalist. And last time I checked, republicans, especially conservative republicans aren't anti-capitalist.

              

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.