http://online.wsj.com/…

AP/USAF We could use some more F-22s

The Department of Defense is preparing budget cuts in response to the decline in national income. The DOD budgeteers and their counterparts in the White House Office of Management and Budget apparently reason that a smaller GDP requires belt-tightening by everyone.
That logic is exactly backwards. As President-elect Barack Obama and his economic advisers recognize, countering a deep economic recession requires an increase in government spending to offset the sharp decline in consumer outlays and business investment that is now under way. Without that rise in government spending, the economic downturn would be deeper and longer. Although tax cuts for individuals and businesses can help, government spending will have to do the heavy lifting. That’s why the Obama team will propose a package of about $300 billion a year in additional federal government outlays and grants to states and local governments.

A temporary rise in DOD spending on supplies, equipment and manpower should be a significant part of that increase in overall government outlays. The same applies to the Department of Homeland Security, to the FBI, and to other parts of the national intelligence community.

The increase in government spending needs to be a short-term surge with greater outlays in 2009 and 2010 but then tailing off sharply in 2011 when the economy should be almost back to its prerecession level of activity. Buying military supplies and equipment, including a variety of off-the-shelf dual use items, can easily fit this surge pattern.

For the military, the increased spending will require an expanded supplemental budget for 2009 and an increased budget for 2010. A 10% increase in defense outlays for procurement and for research would contribute about $20 billion a year to the overall stimulus budget. A 5% rise in spending on operations and maintenance would add an additional $10 billion. That spending could create about 300,000 additional jobs. And raising the military’s annual recruitment goal by 15% would provide jobs for an additional 30,000 young men and women in the first year.

So building death machines and expanding the military industry complex will make things better? Ignoring the MIC component completely it’d seem to me that opportunity cost alone would show this to be false. By definition the free market is the most efficient use of resources at any particular time. The further you get away from someone’s top priority the worse you make things. Throwing money at multimillion dollar flying death machines is pretty low on most people’s list. People want defense from possible harm but F-22s and the American MIC don’t provide that. They make us less safe. These Keynesians are destroying us from within and pissing off others without.

Sept. 11th, 2008:

• John McCain’s interview: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
  • Says outright he’s against compulsory service.
  • Advocates growing the military several times.
  • Claims private industry provides services better, wishes to create partnerships with business instead of having the government take on those roles.
  • Points to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as bipartisan cooperation that is needed to gain trust and support of the public.
  • “It’s not about the individual, it’s about the cause we serve.”
  • “I think the all voluntary force is having difficulty recruiting and retaining because we are too small and we need to expand the size of our military and we need to do it as rapidly as possible. And we got to perhaps offer additional incentives.”
  • Apparently, without knowing what the Serve America Act does, McCain says he would sign the bill as president.
  • Would rather have the private sphere perform the voluntarism and only have the government provide incentives.
• Barack Obama’s interview: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
  • “Each and everyone of us are going to have, are going to make commitments in terms of improving fuel efficiency in our cars and homes. And the government is going to be in partnership with citizens to make that happen.”
  • “America is the greatest country on earth but it didn’t just happen on its own. It’s not a gift only. Although it is a great blessing we’ve received. It’s a responsibility. And part of what makes America work is the fact that we believe in individual responsibility and self reliance but we also believe in mutual responsibility, in neighborliness, in a sense that we are committed to something larger than ourselves.”
  • Speaks of growing the military. Getting those in urban areas to be equally represented in the military.
  • Wants more people in the military and non-military service regardless of whether there is a war.
• Interviewed a City Year ‘volunteer’ but my questions and pins on my book bag (”Taxation is theft”, “Ron Paul 2008″) scared them off. The Service Nation handler asked me to turn off the camera, that he didn’t want any problems, that it was a positive event. The City Year ‘volunteer’ said he couldn’t speak on the topic as a representative of City Year.

Sept. 12th, 2008:

• I spoke with a fellow blogger regarding my reason for being at the summit. She was there on behalf of the Case Foundation which is a Service Nation Coalition member.
• Richard Stengel, managing editor of TIME, effectively asks “why not have compulsory service?” during presidential forum. The tone of the questions and the fact it’s brought up more than once indicates to me he is in favor of mandatory service. In his own brief speech he talks of the most known part of the Declaration of Independence but casually bypasses arguably the most important line. Focusing on “consent of the governed” instead of “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Implying, IMO, he prefers a positive law democracy vs natural law republics.
• Jon Bon Jovi speaks on his private charities. Many examples of service and voluntarism given were in fact actual privately performed.
• Vartan Gregorian, President, Carnegie Corporation of New York tells us [Part 2]: “We’re not here as Democrats or Republicans or as libertarians, socialists, Green party members, or members of other organizations. We are here today first and primarily as Americans.” Claims being a citizen is the highest achievement.
• Admiral Michael Mullen [Part 2]: “the soldiers in Iraq are protecting our democracy at home. They are there because of what happened on 9/11.” I thought Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. How is it that our invasion of Iraq is protecting us? “There is no greater reward than working for something greater than yourself.” “Keep singing (God Bless America), keep waving (flags), and keep serving!” Yay nationalism/fascism!
• Michael Bloomberg [Part 2]: “We are the beneficiaries of those who give their lives to defend us.” “Service should be asked of everyone and should be open to everyone. So we are creating new programs.”
• University president’s [Part 2]: Speak of giving out grants to those who volunteer at school. Making voluntarism mandatory parts of the education process.
• Alan Khazei: Misuses/misrepresents the Emancipation Proclamation. Need a new role for government. Funding public/private mix of service. “Getting government to do what works.” Speaks of Gandhi, abolitionists, and others. All of who worked against government.
• George H. W. Bush
• Bill Clinton
• Town Hall [Part 2,3,4,5,6]

These are all the videos I’m going to upload… at least for the time being.

Sorry about the last few not having notes. Too lazy to watch them. You can find some notes I took during the event here.

I don’t know how this slipped through the libertarian blogosphere but this is pretty hardcore. Looks like it was on 3/13/2008 and the blog is from 6/15/2008.

http://politicalinquirer.com/…

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt
http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

And as other sovereignty issues arise like with Real ID hopefully the states can exert enough pressure to cripple the federal government. At least slow its march toward total national control.

TSA’s Badges Are a Sore Spot With Cops

Screeners at the nation’s airport checkpoints are going to start wearing police-style badges - but real officers aren’t too happy about it.

Some sworn officers fear airline passengers will mistake screeners for law-enforcement officials with arrest powers.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is starting to equip its 48,000 screeners with 3-inch-by-2-inch, silver-colored, copper and zinc badges that will be worn on new royal-blue police-style shirts.

The attire aims to convey an image of authority to passengers, who have harassed, pushed and in a few instances punched screeners. “Some of our officers aren’t respected,” TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said.

Nor should they be. Not only is what they do an egregious infringement on the 4th Amendment but also the 9th and 10th and perhaps the 14th. It’s also an affront to private property. It doesn’t matter what outfit you wear. This, this, this, or this. You make people’s lives more difficult without any benefit.

“A lot of cops at airports are not real thrilled about it,” said Duane McGray of the Airport Law Enforcement Agencies Network, an airport police association. “It’s another way of saying (to airport police), ‘You’re not important.’ “

Boo fucking hoo. Police in general are far less important then they think they or wish they were. The war on drugs has given the police officer profession a sense of importance that is completely undeserved. Do consumers want protection services? Sure. But the police don’t offer protection.

I hope this leads to a showdown between the local and federal authorities in the same way the Real ID law is. Reminds me of another South Park reference:

AUTHORITARIAN FIGHT!!

http://www.tsa.gov/…

Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.

This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers. Cooperative passengers without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures.

Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2).

This initiative is the latest in a series designed to facilitate travel for legitimate passengers while enhancing the agency’s risk-based focus - on people, not things. Positively identifying passengers is an important tool in our multi-layered approach to security and one that we have significantly bolstered during the past 18 months.

I think we can now agree that the reason for the TSA’s existence is control and security theater. Ignoring this. 1. No person with malicious intent would want to raise suspicion or awareness of themselves by refusing to show identification. They’d just get false IDs. 2. How is refusing those who refuse to show ID any safer than giving them a secondary search? You’re going to let these people still walk around the airport correct? If they are strapped with explosives and refusing to provide ID they could just take out all those in the security checkpoint which very likely is backed up because of the TSA’s inefficiency.

This puts people like myself in a difficult situation. Break our principles to ease transportation or utilize ground and water based methods and hope the State doesn’t move to “secure” them. I very rarely fly so the choice at the moment is simple.