Budget

In order to have a balanced budget, one has to ensure that dollars in is greater than or equal to dollars out.  Seems simple enough and yet the US government finds itself $14,300,000,000,000 in debt at the time of writing.  (Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/).  That is an awful lot of money to owe.  In fact, that is around $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States!

So how did we get here?  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has everything to do with it:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
 .....
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
.......
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Most of the subsections deal with the reality that in order to operate, the government needs to spend money on certain things, and in order to have that money they would need the power to tax their citizens.  Given the fact that we just fought a war essentially against taxation without representation, it is safe to assume that the founders wanted to ensure that no similar situations would arise here, while still allowing for a government to accomplish the duties of running the country and protecting our freedoms.  But then there is the one I highlighted, regarding borrowing money.  Sure, at the time the US was a fledgling nation and needed to rely heavily on borrowed money, but look at where we are now.  To make matters worse, we face what's known as the debt ceiling, or the most amount that the government can legally borrow, this August.

Depending on which side of the aisle you fall, you probably have one of the following opinions:

Our current debt and deficit is a result of our government not taking in enough revenue and taxes should be raised, ideally on the rich since the middle class needs to be protected; or
Our current debt and deficit is a result of our government spending too much money and raising already high tax levels on anyone during an economic recovery period would be a disaster.

So which side is right?

Pictured: spending less vs. taxing more

 Common sense would dictate that either way, spending over $4 billion a day totaling to a $1.5 trillion annual deficit might not be the best tactic, especially as we near the debt ceiling.  Unless the average American is comfortable with a larger individual obligation, raising the debt ceiling is not an option.  So lets take a closer look at each argument.

Raising Revenue (taxes):
Many on the left blame the budget shortfall on the tax cuts enacted by President Bush and continued last December by President Obama.  What many people fail to realize is that the tax cuts were enacted for all Americans, and discussion of continuing them for people making less than $200 thousand annually while allowing them to expire for those who make more is ridiculously inequitable and gets back to the duties being uniform issue.  Either way, lets take a look at the breakdown of the US government's revenue sources.  Income tax is already 45%, broken down by a questionable bracket system of income, where people who make more money not only pay more in taxes but pay a higher percentage of their income.  How is it fair to charge some Americans over $100,000 a year in taxes and give refund money back to others?  Both receive the same access to public services and enjoy the protection of living in this country, and both have the responsibility to follow the law.  Pointing to the tangible indicators of success for one as justification for confiscation does not fly with me.  If anything, everyone should be paying the same percentage of income or replace our complicated and inequitable income tax system with a consumption tax like FairTax.

Reducing Spending:
Republicans like to promote cutting welfare programs and redundant government agencies while Democrats like to promote cutting military spending, and yet both sides get angry when you suggest cutting government spending in all areas across the board by some percentage that would not only balance the budget, but also allow the repayment of debt.  Let's take a look at the breakdown of spending by category.  As you can see, Social Security, the Department of Defense, Welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid comprised approximately 75% of our 2010 budget.  Where ever your politics lie, if you think we couldn't trim 30% of waste and inefficiency out of the big 5 in order to remain solvent, then you might be part of the problem.

The Keynesians in the crowd will dislike this, but I support the recent public outcry for a Balanced Budget Amendment.  This proposed legislation would stipulate that our government would be bound to not spend any more than anticipated tax revenues in any given budget cycle.  That way, no matter how the left and right squabble over high taxes versus smaller government, their compromises would never again be able to put the American taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars worth of debt.  What do you think?

Gun Control

Gun control is a topic that adds the controversial layer of mortality to the discussion.  No matter how much logic or historical evidence you have on either side, if a person knows someone who passed away as a result of gun violence or misuse, their emotions often preclude an intelligent discussion.  I would like to preemptively apologize to anyone who has lost a friend, relative, or acquaintance to either the presence of firearms or the lack thereof.  I do not intend to reopen old wounds with this discussion, but I do wish to address the controversy surrounding the topic and do so with the care and honesty it deserves.

The right to own guns is rooted in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution:

Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 The 2nd Amendment grants the citizens of this country the inalienable right to gun ownership as a measure of balance to protect their freedoms.  That has powerful implications.  The government cannot infringe upon the rights of the individual to use firearms to protect themselves or their freedom.  So why would the Founders guarantee the ability for anyone to wield dangerous weapons?  We have all seen the consequences of violent crime.  We have also heard the heart-retching stories of people who have survived home invasions or attempted robberies by the virtue of being gun owners.  So where do you draw the line between public safety and personal protection?

This might be that line.

If you believe that the defense of public safety exceeds the rights of the individual to own a gun, reasoning that no loss of life is justifiable to uphold the Constitution, that is understandable at first glance.  You might reason that without guns, the world would be a safer place.  Following that logic, if people are not allowed to own weapons, they would not have the ability to harm or threaten others in either criminal or accidental scenarios and no one would die or get injured from guns (or bullets if you want to be literal).  This type of thought process has led to many laws surrounding regulation, restriction, and even prohibition of gun ownership over the years.

You might be asking yourself why states and cities are allowed to pass laws that restrict gun ownership in attempts to curb violence, despite the fact that doing so is a clear case of residents' rights being "infringed".  If you are, congratulations!  You might already be a Libertarian!  As it turns out, the Supreme Court tends to agree you.  In two recent rulings, citizens in Washington D.C. and Chicago successfully invoked the 2nd Amendment to protect their rights in cities that had contradictory anti-gun laws.

What does this mean for the average American?  This may be cliche but the logic that always made sense to me was the fact that if you outlaw guns in a society, only the people who break laws will have them, which in turn would embolden them to commit more crimes with the knowledge that the general public would not have the ability to defend themselves.  Not to mention, if our government ever decided to systematically remove our Constitutionally guaranteed rights (no Obama jokes, I promise), we would have no way to prevent the military from being used against us if we were to protest.  To me, the tradeoff is worth it.  I'll take the freedom, you can have the illusion of security.

Foreign Policy

What a large and complicated issue to tackle for this first installment of the issues!  I wanted to take the effort to do as much research as possible upon which to base my statements and claims, and I think this process will pay off in terms of providing a quality platform of discussion.  Before I dive right into current debates and opinion, it makes sense to get a historical context for foreign policy in the US.  Here are some excerpts from the last 230+ years:

The formative years of the government in the late 1700s were mostly occupied with wrestling independence away from Great Brittan and establishing ourselves as a legitimate sovereign nation, ironically concerned with repaying our debts accrued during the revolutionary war.  Then there was the matter of indigenous Native Americans occupying the land west of the colonies, during which policy was a pretty solid case of get out of the way or be killed.  Other issues with expansion were eased with the Louisiana purchase from France to help them finance their own war with the British, and despite trying to make a deal for Florida, the US simply cedes most of it from Spain with no retaliation.  The conclusion of the war of 1812 with Brittan left our young country in a prime position to not only have respect in the world, but also to keep pressing westward.
After that, piracy provided a constant threat to international trade and travel.  The US responded with naval forces to the Northern coast of Africa, where much of the piracy was not only based, but also sponsored by the region's governments!  As the country progressed through the 1800s, hostilities continued against various tribes and in 1835, Texas began the war for independence from Mexico.  Though not officially part of the USA yet, many Americans joined the fight since there were several American settlers living there, and was concluded after the decisive win at the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, admitted as a US state after a decade of existence as its own republic. 

Clearly my favorite part of US history and foreign policy

Unfortunately the Civil war broke out in 1861, devastating the country with various European countries ready to begin siding with the different factions, ultimately leading to the reunification under Lincoln.  International trade began to expand following the Civil War and a huge wave of immigrants arrived from Europe and Asia, along with increased foreign production competition.  By this time, the number of admitted US states was in the mid 40s.  The early 1900s saw America's true rise to prominence in the world with our involvement in World War 1, a result of the beginning of the industrial era and utilization of our vast natural resources, despite the fact that we tried to remain neutral on what we considered to be foreign affairs.  The 20s and 30s were a return to the desired neutrality, only for us to become once more involved in World War 2 after being attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan.  The decades following the Allied victory became a worldwide campaign to battle communism in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba; culminating in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  Modern conflicts since have been fought in the Middle East, largely in the name of defending oil-producing countries from unstable leadership.  That, along with a rise of the internet and the easy spreading of ideas has generated the terrorist threat we see in today's headlines.  Non-combat foreign policy has been one of preservation of balance and encouragement of trade in an increasingly globalized world.

TL;DNR version of the above is that in America's history we have displayed an inconsistent foreign policy depending on the situation and what was best for us at the time, not necessarily what was right.



The first statement I would like to address is why the federal government should be responsible for foreign policy at all, a question to be raised prior to any discussion.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is the source of this power granted to Congress.  It can be interpreted (in my mind) by the following clauses:

3:  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4:  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5:  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 3 (the infamous Commerce Clause) seems basic enough, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and because the framers for some reason did not consider Native American tribes as foreign nations, also included them.  Regulating commerce with foreign nations seems to grant Congress broad powers to dictate international exchange rates, economic embargos (Cuba), and maintaining healthy trade relations; which are almost always good for peace and stability.
Clause 4 establishes the power (and responsibility) for the federal government to regulate immigration into this country.  This is relevant to foreign policy in my mind, because we have granted asylum to political refugees in the past and can (theoretically) prevent immigrants from coming here from a country if we have reason to do so.  That power could certainly be wielded during diplomatic negotiations.
I included Clause 5 because establishment of the US Dollar and the Fed's oversight has extremely important implications to the rest of the world due to global exchange and the fact that many consider the Dollar to be the international currency.
Clause 10 matters because by definition, the oceans of the world are considered international territory, and enforcing a set of laws not only protects trade, but also helps secure travelers.  (sensing a theme here, yet?)
Clause 11, declaration of war is a give away.
And last but not least, I included Clause 15 for the power to repel invasions.  To me, that goes hand in hand with declaring war, but I wanted to be thorough.

Okay, now that the groundwork has been laid for a proper discussion, what does all of this mean?  Can powers granted to our own government really be applied in the face of other sovereign nations?  How long must we act as the world's police?  Why do we continue to engage in wars or occupations in foreign countries when we are $14 trillion+ in debt?  I think a simple pragmatic approach to these questions is one of free trade policy, offering nations who want it a model of our republic, and refusal to be involved in foreign conflict unless we actually declare war.  This would help keep us from appearing imperialistic to nations who are unwilling to accept our help, keep our budgets balanced, and keep our focus on fighting terrorism here in our country instead of waging expensive foreign non-wars.