The Soldier

A tragedy struck Fort Hood, Texas a few days ago. Major Nidal Malik Hassan, a psychiatrist set to deploy to active duty, opened fire upon his fellow Americans and soldiers, killing 13 and wounding 30 more. No words can express the horror that those soldiers and families experienced, especially when we’re supposed to be fighting “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “here.” Having personal connections to the shootings at Columbine High School in 1999, I can only express the utmost sympathies for all those involved and know what it’s like to fear for a loved one’s life. My prayers go to all the families of Fort Hood.

I’d like to take this time to honor those soldiers all over the world fighting for this country, both past and present. If it weren’t for their personal sacrifice and dedication to this country over the years, this world may very well look extremely different. Being Veteran’s Day, I feel that this is appropriate.

I believe that the President of the United States always has the best interests of the country at heart, no matter who it is and what his/her political ideology may be. That is the reason why a President chooses to run in the first place. However, President Obama’s decision to withhold a decision on troop increases or strategy in Afghanistan even longer, although his concerns about the Afghan government are relevant, is a serious, deadly mistake. President Obama has had the choice in front of him for almost two months now: increase the amount of troops in Afghanistan or choose another strategy. Today he’s chosen a third option: doing nothing.

Now, I understand the situation in Afghanistan under Karzai is touchy at best. Corruption seems to be the only policy in that part of the world, and Afghanistan is no different. I also understand the President’s concerns that Afghanistan might not act in all the best interests of the United States due to this corruption. War strategy in itself takes time to develop and work the flaws out. Sometimes it seems as though the world stands upon the edge of a cliff and the only thing keeping it from falling is a tiny little fraying thread tied to the cliff wall. Regardless of how the game is being played, however, in a wartime setting our first and foremost responsibility to those fighting is to ensure that they have the best protection and chances to win. That could be done in a number of ways, the least of which is adding more fighters to the fray–body armor and defensive equipment can be improved and resupplied, more air support can be given, even unmanned drones and fighters can be deployed.

My plea to you, oh reader, is to find it in your heart to feel what these soldiers feel when, after a 12-hour deployment in the field and returning to base hot, hungry, and exhausted, the news is broken that their President, their Commander-In-Chief still hasn’t chosen a plan to help them out; try to feel the sense of abandonment and fatigue that they know every day, that is extended every day that no decision is made. And if you think I’m making this up, talk to somebody who’s served in the field. They’ll put it in words you can understand.

But I hope I’m just crazy.

A lesson on inflation

I don’t think I was clear in one of my major points in my last post. I don’t endorse Republicans for the sake of their being Republicans. I’m not a Republican. I believe that both parties are equally flawed and bad for the country. I think that I’m not alone in thinking this either. Yes, there are people out there who vote for a candidate simply because they’re a Republican or Democrat. There are also people out there, however, that are getting fed up with the same government practices election after election, regardless of which party rules. I am one of those number, a number that is expanding, that started expanding when Bush initiated the ideas of the bailouts and gained heavy momentum under the spending legislation of the Obama administration.

I don’t condone the fiscal irresponsibility of the last 8 years under Bush; the only heavy spending from then that I support is the military defense budget, and then only for those projects that help improve troop safety in the battlefield. I also, however, don’t think the old “they did it so we can do it too” argument is legitimate in this case. In just the last year, the federal deficit has tripled to $1.42 trillion while the national debt has gained an additional $1.3 trillion. The bailouts and programs that the government has instituted and proposed (health care included, assuming it passes) by year’s end will have resulted in just under $1.8 trillion dollars of spending, creating artificial, temporary economic recovery, a recovery that will soon be countered due to rapid inflation thanks to the increase in the overall money supply. The credit rating firm Moody’s, which gives credit scores to major firms and countries, has said that if the United States does not curb its deficit spending habits soon, the country could lose its top AAA rating. This means that countries will be much more reluctant to lend us money, US Treasury securities (called by all of my finance professors the “safest investment in the world”) will lose value, the government will be forced to print more money to make up for the debt, and rampant inflation will ensue. And what’s more, you’d be surprised to find that it is not the spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the biggest culprit in the massive US debt–Medicare/Medicaid and Social Securtiy are running a combined $1.21 trillion budget and have a combined unfunded projected debt of $89.9 trillion dollars, and they’re just the top TWO. If I haven’t made myself clear yet, maybe caps lock will do the trick: MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS BAD. IT CREATES ARTIFICIAL INFLATION, WHICH DEVALUES EVERYTHING AND CAUSES ALL PRICES TO GO UP, DRIVING AN ECONOMY INTO RECESSION OR WORSE.

So why does it matter that the country is running a massive national debt? Look at it this way: say you’re in a poker game with 9 other people. A few are your friends, a few are indifferent towards you, and the rest secretly want to watch you fail in any way possible. Now when the game started, you did really well, racking up lots of money. Suddenly, though, somehow your luck changed and you started losing money until you were broke. Not wanting to call it a night, you ask the table if you can borrow some money to buy back in, and everyone okays it. You do well again for a little while, but then you’re broke again. It’s still too early to go home, so again you ask for money, and again they all agree. Now repeat this about three more times. Everyone at the table is expecting you to pay back the money you borrowed, yet you’ve gone broke several times. You can write them checks, but you know your bank account won’t have enough money for a while because you don’t get paid until the end of the week. On the next hand, you go broke again. You still don’t want to go home, so you ask for one last loan. Nobody gives it to you; they’re still waiting for you to repay your original loans. Suddenly all your checks are worthless (after all, you’re completely broke now) and the table won’t accept anything less than cash. Now you can’t afford your rent that’s due in a few days or food or basically anything.

This example is extremely simplisitic, but it illustrates the main idea of what I’m getting at. When a government borrows and prints more money to make up for its own debts, two things happen. One, inflation increases due to an artificial increase in the money supply. Two, lending countries become increasingly wary of lending money to the borrowing country, wondering if they’ll get that money back. As a country, we must avoid getting ourselves into this situation, as Moody’s has already stated, if we wish to remain the greatest nation on the planet.

In response to a comment on my last post, a stable economy is a government-controlled economy. In such economies, no one but the government is rich, everyone is middle class or (usually) lower, economic stagnation sets in, innovation suffers, and you get Chavez’s Venezuela or the former USSR. Reagan recognized the power of a free market economy and used it to drive the Soviet Union to the edge of collapse, where it then self-destructed. And to the recognition of the election results, it’s not so much the results (although they’re very telling, especially in New Jersey) as the possibility of the outcomes. Many people assumed the Democrats would be able to carry over their momentum into this year, but not only were they unable to, they actually lost ground due to their own actions. Hoffman’s candidacy alone shows that the American people are shifting in what they want in elected officials–instead of standard cut-and-paste politicians who are ideally Republican or Democrat and will vote as such, they want people who are willing to represent the people and vote accordingly, regardless of the party they were elected under.

But I may just be crazy.

An examination

It’s the biggest political and economic event of the year this coming Tuesday: Election day 2009. What? You didn’t even know there were elections this year? If you didn’t, you’re not alone. Most people ignore election day completely if it’s not a Presidential or Congressional year. This year, though, there are some gubernatorial (I’ve always thought that word was funny-sounding) and special elections of great importance, if not obvious at the moment. Let’s take a look.

In the 23rd district in upper New York state there is a special election taking place. Originally there were two candidates, Republican Dede Scozzafava and Democrat Bill Owens. Owens is a pro-choice, pro-stimulus, pro-government health care candidate running in a district that heavily voted for Barack Obama. Scozzafava is pro-choice, pro-stimulus, and undecided on the health care plan. Owens is pro-ACORN, and Scozzafava accepted ACORN’s endorsement. Not too long after the race began, a third candidate joined the race: Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Hoffman has promised to fight for very limited government, much less spending, and that the people of the 23rd district “be [his] boss.” Just the other day, Scozzafava dropped out of the race. Why? Because Hoffman was an immediate success and took a lead in the polls, which are now saying he has a 5%-17% lead over Owens depending on which poll you look at, and the GOP candidate was losing a large percentage of votes to the independent.

So why does this matter? Stay with me for a bit.

In Virginia, there is a heavy fight between Republican Bob McDonnel and Democrat Creigh Deeds. The Democrat Deeds is also pro-choice, pro-health care, pro-stimulus, and has been closely associated with President Barack Obama, while Republican McDonnel is almost the exact opposite, favoring limited government and increased personal liberties (pro-life, pro-gun, etc). This race has been going on for some time longer than the previously described one, and is by now pretty much assumed that McDonnel will win. Democrats have started to say that the loss will not be because of the issues, but rather that Deeds was a relatively weak candidate in a heated race.

So why should you care? Stay with me a little longer.

Over in New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie is challenging heavily for governor John Corzine’s job. New Jersey is traditionally a heavily liberal state that almost always votes Democrat in both Congressional and Presidential elections. Christie is characterized as a “moderate” Republican (meaning he’ll be conservative or liberal depending on what’s popular) and generally a relatively weak candidate in a strong race. Yet Corzine has been heavily associated with Barack Obama (Obama even stumped for Corzine recently–helped campaign for him) and, to make matters worse, was part of a corporation that received bailout funds (Goldman Sachs). So why is Christie making this election close to begin with?

The answer to all these races is simple: the American people are realizing that more government is possibly a bad thing. They’re wondering whether it’s a good idea for the government running up trillions of dollars of debt and if we should continue to encourage that or not. Don’t believe me? Look at the races again. Both opponents of Hoffman in New York were/are for large government spending programs; Hoffman is not. Creigh Deeds supports Obama’s health care plan and also favored the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. Corzine is heavily associated with the bailouts and Obama in general. Each losing candidate is or has been perceived as being for large government control and spending, while the winning (or challenging, in Christie’s case) candidates have been openly against the same thing.

So why then did I call this election season the most important political and economic event of the year? Because it is a preview of what’s to come next year should the politicians in Washington turn a blind eye to the races and, in a way, the American people. We’ve seen from town halls to tea parties and everything in between that Americans are getting fed up with not being heard, with being ignored by their supposed representatives in government. I believe that, should either the health care bill or the idea of a second stimulus pass, the trend we’re seeing this year will become a national wave that completely changes the looks of both the House and the Senate in the next couple of years. I also believe that some politicians will try to play the political game and pretend to be for everything the American people want, and that those same politicians will be more easily seen through than Keira Knightley after a diet.

But I may just be crazy.

 

*EDIT*

Election results are in. Corzine narrowly won New Jersey (4%), McDonnell easily won Virginia (18%), and Hoffman lost NY District 23 (4%).

A brief preview

My name is Scott. I’m half white and half Mexican, grew up in a middle class environment, had to work hard for some things, and had others handed to me. I’m an average college student, but could be more; I’m not because I don’t try. I’m conservative but not a Republican, Christian, and pretty much everything that causes Democrats to turn various shades of puce. People either love me or hate me, and I have plenty of people at both ends of the spectrum. I’m stubborn on my positions, yet I also hold an open mind and a willingness to try new things. I am who I am, and you won’t change me easily.

This blog, while assigned for a class, is more a medium in which I will attempt to explain the crazy in the world. I won’t necessarily parrot the headlines or talking points that come out of the news or political parties or major corporations–I’m nobody’s puppet. I will do my absolute best to remain impartial and objective (unless, of course, provoked) while at the same time offering perspective.  And, after I’m done, you may just call me crazy.