The Public Doesn't Support Raising Defense Spending Again

Donald Trump has proposed a new budget for next year. While drastically cutting all domestic programs (including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), his budget would raise defense spending to $750 billion -- an increase of $34 billion, or about 5%.

The United States was already spending more in its military budget than the next 10-12 biggest spending countries combined, and that was before that spending was raised significantly for this year's budget. If Trump's budget was passed, military spending would comprise about 57% of the government's discretionary budget.

Personally, I don't think another rating of the military budget (most of which goes to the corporations in the military-industrial complex) can be justified. And it looks like the general public agrees.

Note the charts above. The top chart shows that only 31% of the public believes the defense needs to be stronger (needs more money applied to it). About 55% is happy with the current spending, and 12% wants a decrease.

And that is the feeling of both political parties. Only 15% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans think the defense budget needs to be increased.

It's time to stop feeding the incessant greed of the military-industrial complex, and start taking care of American citizens (who have been left behind by Republican policies that reward only the rich).

The charts above are from a recent Gallup Poll -- done between February 1st and 10th of a national sample of 1,016 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

My Idiot Congressman Wants To Make It Legal For The Government To Lie To Us

Every time I look at the dorky-looking guy in the picture above, I feel like I owe the American people a huge apology. That's because he is my congressman, Mac Thornberry -- a Republican representing the 13th District of the state of Texas (and Democrats in this area have not even come close to defeating him). Thornberry is not the brightest bulb on the GOP's tree, and the Republican leaders can always count on him to vote as instructed. His only saving grace is that he doesn't author much legislation.

Unfortunately, he's trying to change that. He, along with Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), has tacked an amendment on to the defense authorization bill recently approved by the House of Representatives. It was bad enough that this bill busted the budget agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans last summer by billions of dollars, but Thornberry's amendment makes the bill even worse.

It is legal for the government of this country to spread propaganda (lies) in other countries -- it's immoral and unethical, but legal. But it is not legal for the government to do the same thing to American citizens in this country. That is prevented by two laws -- the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. These laws make it illegal for the U.S. government to intentionally propagandize (outrageously lie to) its own citizens. Thornberry wants to change that.

His amendment would make it legal for the U.S. government to spread propaganda (lies) in this country. Thornberry doesn't like that the American citizens have turned against the Republican war in Afghanistan (and subsequent occupation). Americans know the truth (that we are not winning and nothing is being accomplished), and they don't like it. The war-loving Thornberry thinks the government should be able to spread propaganda to keep the people supporting the war (and future wars) -- so his amendment would overturn the two laws mentioned above (at least the parts of them preventing propagandizing U.S. citizens).

Now I know the U.S. government already lies to its citizens far too much, but it would be a serious mistake to legalize that lying. It would be just another giant step toward a plutocratic police state (and we are already too far down that road). Democracy cannot survive if the people are not allowed to know the truth.

President Obama needs to veto this bill if it passes the Senate -- both because it spends more money than was agreed on, and because of this idiotic "propaganda" amendment.  

President Signs Defense Bill (With Reservations)

President Obama has signed the new Defense Authorization Bill into law. Frankly, I find that very disappointing. I wish he had vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. I don't say that because the bill contains far too much military spending, although I believe that is true. I say it because of a provision which would allow the indefinite detaining of an American citizen in a military prison without a trial -- as long as the government labeled that person as a "terrorist". And applying such a label to a person is very easy, especially since it would not have to be proven in a court of law.

That provision in the bill also made the president uncomfortable. He said:

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

But he went on to assure Americans that he would not use the provision against American citizens, saying:

 I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

I believe the president. I don't believe he wants to destroy the constitutional rule of law that has been established in this country -- a rule of law that protects American citizens against their own government (and for freedom to exist, there must be established limits beyond which government cannot go, because even a democratically-elected government can go to far in denying rights if there are no established limits).

But President Obama is not going to be president forever, and who's to say that the person who inhabits the White House next (or down the road a way) will have the same respect for the Constitution and rule of law that President Obama has. Is there any doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration would have jumped on the opportunity to abuse such a provision, even against American citizens? How can we know that such an administration will not be elected in the future (especially after viewing the caliber of Republican presidential hopefuls)?

This was a bad bill that never should have passed Congress or been signed into law, but it has been. All we can hope for now is to elect better men and women to Congress -- people who respect the Constitution and will overturn this ridiculous new provision of law.