Every now and then a person runs for office that gives us hope. For many voters in the last election Barack Obama was that person. Obama promised ambiguous ‘Change’ and the people bought it. Unfortunately, for many Obama fans and devout Democrats, his foreign policy actions and his further crack down on civil liberties has come to resemble something like George Bush part II. Yes once again it seems the people of America, despite how they vote, continue to receive the same actions from their government. It’s become as though the right to vote no longer has any meaning. Despite what campaign promises are made… nothing really changes.

This is why I was glad to meet Joe Tegerdine of Petal, Mississippi. Joe is not a career politician that has to take his talking points from party insiders and corporate backers. Joe is a family man, a lawyer by trade, and a Constitutionalist. He is seeking the 2010 Republican nomination for Mississippi’s 4th Congressional District.

So what’s wrong with Gene Taylor? Not much according to most voters of the 4th District. Taylor (a Democrat) has won handedly in every election since he entered Congress in 1989. Taylor’s hold on the 4th is particularly remarkable since it is one of the most Republican districts in the nation. The 4th has not supported the official Democratic presidential candidate since 1956.

How does Taylor manage his hold on the 4th? By blending his voting record to appease both liberals and conservatives.

For example, from Taylor’s website you will discover that he is pro-gun and pro-life… a requirement for holding the Congressional Seat for Mississippi’s 4th (and rightfully so). No surprise there, since a lack of support on those two items would certainly ensure defeat. However, any Republican that runs is also pro-gun and pro-life… so you can ignore those two issues… they are givens for my Congressional District.

Taylor combines conservative rhetoric while pushing socialist legislation…

Most recently Taylor voted in favor of the GIVE ACT and The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (so did Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker).

At a Picayune Town Hall Meeting in May of 2009, Taylor admitted support for Obama’s take over of General Motors. The government must tax the American Citizens to insure that the UAW in Detroit continues its destructive business model. Of course that’s not the way Taylor put it. Instead he claimed that the government had a right to take over private industry so that our military will continue to have tanks and other equipment manufactured within our borders. Though I agree this is important, perhaps ending government regulation and profit-choking taxes against business so they can once again be profitable would be the solution… but not for Taylor… we need more government takeovers, more regulations, more Socialism.

Socialists love to slap ridiculous regulations and taxes on industry. When the industries fail, like in the case of GM, the solution they propose is government take-overs. Socialist government intervention caused the industry to become insolvent in the first place and now the solution to these evil ‘failed’ businesses is for Washington D.C. to consume them in its ever-expanding belly of free market digestion.

In Mississippi we have a deep respect for our military. There is a high percentage of citizens from Mississippi who’ve chosen to serve in our nation’s armed forces and Taylor has fought to improve the medical benefits of our military’s retirees. I commend his actions towards extending benefits for those in our nation who choose to serve. Despite these honorable deeds, should we ignore Taylor’s Socialist ideology and hand outs to Middle Eastern countries? The answer is no!

Taylor voted ‘yes’ on H.R. 2346: an appropriations bill for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. You can read the bill by clicking here. Voting yes on this bill provides funding for our military… hence Taylor can take credit for supporting our troops (Conservatives applaud). However, among other items within this bill, Taylor also voted ‘yes’ for:

$556 Million to the West Bank and Gaza of which $200 Million in cash to the Palestinian Authority and an additional $106 Million for security.

 

$555 Million to Israel that will be released within 30 days of the passage of this bill.

 

$556 Million to Pakistan in general support and $400 Million to support counter insurgency efforts.

 

$310 Million to Mexico’s Military and $160 for Narcotics control.

And that’s just for starters…

So Gene Taylor can take credit for supporting the troops, meanwhile he just gave away a billion in tax-payer dollars to foreign countries. Does that sound like a legislator that is fiscally Conservative? As I stated earlier, he plays both sides of the fence to satisfy both liberals and conservatives and therefore remain in power. Since when are the fruits of the American Citizen’s labor free to be given away by the whims of incumbent Congressmen seeking re-election? I suppose that’s the way Washington D.C. works these days… but that doesn’t make it right!

Northrop Grumman

Gene Taylor sits on the House Armed Services Committee and is co-chair of the Shipbuilding Caucus. Northrop Grumman has ship building operations in Pascagoula, Mississippi (part of the 4th Congressional District). Does Gene Taylor have a vested interest in escalating American fear of foreign threats to insure ship building for his District remains relevant? I couldn’t say but would think that any thoughtful American would pose such questions. Ships used in the service of the military are paid for with the tax dollars of working Americans. Here’s a simple pie chart showing the United States military spending compared to other countries in 2007.

Some might think the graph above is a small price to pay for ‘freedom’. It seems to me that this price tag has much more to do with faulty foreign policy and poor intelligence decisions from the White House on down. Well at least Gene Taylor can say he did his part to keep America’s piece of that pie larger than ever. After all we wouldn’t want Northrop, Boeing, or Lockheed Martin to find themselves at a loss for U.S. Defense contracts.

I’ve had enough of Washington D.C. insiders, back-scratching, and kowtowing to lobbyists and other special interest groups. Mississippi’s 4th Congressional District needs a Champion For The People who will uphold the U.S. Constitution and strive to protect property rights and individual liberty at the expense of big government. Joe Tegerdine is that man.

The following is an article Joe posted on the ‘The 912 Project Hattiesburg’ message board that led to my endorsement of him for the 4th Congressional District.

I believe our Congress needs to do a better job checking the power and reach of the Executive branch and ensure strict adherence to the Constitution. The President should not be able to declare war, or use the military in anyway that resembles war without approval from Congress.

I do believe we can be fiscally responsible when it comes to foreign policy. As Congressman, I would seek to shut down most of our foreign bases and bring our soldiers home. Imagine if we could take the approximately 30,000 soldiers serving in Korea and put them on our border with Mexico. Not only could they help stem the tide of illegal immigration, but imagine the positive effect on the local economies in those border states. South Korea has the manpower and the economic strength to protect her own borders and keep the North in check.

Last week, I had the privilege of visiting our Navy base in Guam and I witnessed first hand the positive economic effects that occur when our military bases are placed on U.S. land. Although Guam’s tourism industry has taken a hit over the past year, it has largely been immune to the effects of the economic crisis due to the military presence on the island. They are preparing now to receive around 25,000 people as the Marines (w/families and support operations) based in Okinawa, Japan are reassigned to Guam.

These are just a few examples and there are many more. We need to build a strong military on U.S. soil and stop exporting our military strength and wealth to foreign nations. I am not an isolationist. I do a lot of business in China and believe we should be conducting commerce around the world, but we should not become intertwined in other nation’s problems or politics unless there is a clear and unequivocal impact on American interests.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” –George Washington

Best,
Joe Tegerdine

A room-mate here in St. Croix (where I’m currently working) made a striking stand the other night for Universal Healthcare. Democrats would have been proud. Of course I’ll be the first to point out that a Washington legislator which prevented the government from negotiating drug costs with pharm. co’s, is the same legislator who recently retired from Congress to become President and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). There’s plenty of blame to go around..

But as my room-mate explained the other night… healthcare is a right! But healthcare isn’t a right. Healthcare is a market of goods and services provided by the private sector that’s been screwed up thanks to ‘managed care’, insurance, and government regulations. You are not born with a right to free goods or services. And that’s exactly what our government has decided. Thanks to over-regulation our healthcare couldn’t be resolved within the private market if the whole world desired it. Americans, like most sheeple across the globe, would cringe in terror at the idea of repealing any laws designed to implement safety or consumer rights. Of course these laws are really about steering dollars to the people whom helped get the legislation passed in the first place. That’s what most laws passed in the name of ’safety’ are all about. Just think about how many laws get passed everyday for the children. Seems to me that parents should be in charge of the children and not the government. However, since our government has created a welfare state and an economy built upon debt, mommy’s and daddy’s must now be away from home for ten hours a day to prop up our bloated government and America’s false ’standard of living’. No worries… the government can surely raise our kids better than we can any day of the week. Soon it’ll be all seven.

Too much government will lead to total dependency and eventual tyranny. When the people refuse to educate themselves to choose freedom over tyranny and dependency… well a day of reckoning is upon them. If you demand to be treated as selfish children by your government… I’m sure your government can oblige you in bestowing its will and needs above your own. My Anglo-Saxon forefathers didn’t ask for hand outs and government sponsored healthcare. Enslaved African-Americans didn’t ask for free education, housing, and cheap credit. Instead these settlers of America asked for freedom. That’s all they wanted. And in the absences of freedom, these groups of men and women understood all too well the powers of tyranny.

Choose freedom. Through freedom and liberty, both economically and socially, Americans will discover the means through which to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But remove freedom and liberty… and we’ll soon find ourselves in a never ending cycle of despising the hand that feeds us. And it will feed us cake while we have no bread!

The other day I saw a nice dinette table and chairs for free. You can simply pick these items up and bring them home. Once home, look them over to see if they need cleaning or any repair. Once you feel satisfied with their appearance you can advertise them ‘for sale’ on Craigslist (you can even post a photo of them). Posting ‘for sale’ items on Craigslist doesn’t cost you anything. You can also check to see if there are any local papers through which you could place the items for free. In Hattiesburg we have a local paper called “The Impact” in which you can list for-sale items for free. Listing an item for-sale in your local newspaper may cost $5 to $15. If you think the item will bring in $50 to $100 then listing the item may be worth it.

A person could easily make hundreds of dollars per month selling items which they found on Craigslist. Granted you’ll have to learn as you go but it’s a legitimate method for scraping up some extra cash.

Finally, tired of the calls, he called the company back. He was greeted by a representative of a collection agency who informed him that they were collecting on a phone bill from 1988. My friend was dumbfounded at this claim. The representative asked if he could remember a certain phone number… which he could. When asked if they could provide any documentation (paperwork) showing the debt of $130, the bill collector explained that they couldn’t and he would have to rely on their knowledge and pay the amount requested. This overdue bill, if it existed in 1988, was likely around $20. My friend told them where they could go and how to take the short-cut. He’s not paying a bill without any documentation. And as I explained to him, the bill has long been beyond the statute of limitations within every state.

These types of collection agencies are junk debt buyers. They buy up old debts for a penny on the dollar (if that much) and if only 10% of the debtors pay these old out-dated bills… they make a nice profit. This is especially true since the collectors themselves often only make a percentage of the collections they make. Hence their negative and harassing attitude.

This is the condominium where we’re staying… the “Gentle Winds”.

The homes on St. Croix are made of rebar, cement blocks, cement, and mortar. The roofs are made of cement or aluminum. The home below is under construction, like many homes on the island. Due to hurricane force winds the homes must be reinforced.

The photo below is the Hess Refinery (HOVENSA) along the shoreline. Gasoline is around 50 cents per gallon cheaper than in the states.

I’ve been working on other website projects lately that have consumed my time. I began http://barrybroom.com and then more recently http://smscampaignforliberty.com/ (a website for our Campaign for Liberty meetup group here in south Mississippi). I hope to devote more time to Debt Prison since I’ll have a little more time to myself here at St. Croix.

Dear Barry,

On May 5th, 2009 I was summoned to appear in my County Court as I was being sued by a collection company by the name of **Debt Collector. As sat and waited my turn to be called, there were several people who found themselves in the same boat as I was. Each of them agreed that they owed money and made some sort of payment arrangement.

 

When I was called the Judge asked me how I felt about owing this money to this company. I stated that I never heard of **Debt Collector until I received the summons and as far as I knew I had no contract with this company stating that I did owe them anything. The Judge looked at the paperwork and said, he didn’t see any contract and that I might have a point. He since dismissed the case, but gave **Debt Collector 20 days to come up with a signed contract between myself and this collection company.

 

Also, on April 10, 2009 I sent the attached file (letter private via author), through snail-mail, to **Debt Collector, the Clerk of Courts and the Federal Trade Commission. I know they all received my mail, as I required signature confirmation.

 

What I need to ask you is, is there a possibility that **Debt Collector would continue with this case in the 20 days allowed, in other words, could they possibly proceed unless they could produce a signed contract (not a copy), with my original signature and a signature from the company?

 

Please, if you have the time to reply I would certainly appreciate it. Thank You.

 

Sincerely,

For the debt collector to continue with the suit, a signed contract must be produced, indicating that the defendant ever entered into any legally binding agreement with their client. Failure to produce the signed contract should prevent the case from moving forward. This debtor handled this properly.

When you are sued by anyone… defend yourself!

Anyway so this week at Hudsons they had mens suits and sport coats for 90% off. I bought five sport jackets, one suit, and long sleeve button ups. My wife and I also bought sport coats for other members of our family. Altogether the merchandise was valued at $800 and with the 90% off sale we paid $80. That’s the kind of deals that make living near a Hudson’s Salvage worthwhile.

It’s nice having a camera phone so I can snap these great shots.

But what about here at home? Shouldn’t we be free to seek freedom for ourselves? And how is our enslavement to an unsound monetary system related to the many problems now plaguing American society?

Though we claim to spread democracy abroad, within our own borders we relish a very restricted form of democracy. We have a two party system that fails the citizens repeatedly. There’s not enough differences in the two main stream parties to actually separate the two anymore. This becomes quite clear if you notice how the direction of Washington fails to change… no matter who is elected.

What is interesting to observe is how the citizens accept hypocrisy whenever the political party they prefer is in office. Conservatives complain about Obama and government spending, but failed to complain when it was George Bush and cronies doing the same thing. Democrats complained about our involvement in the Middle East, but now that Obama is steering the Humvee… they take up for the man and ‘his policies’. Hence nothing changes.

Despite what should have been a complete change in our political landscape (Democrats took the House, Senate, and Oval Office away from the GOP), the following didn’t change one bit:

America’s Imperial military budget

America’s highest percentage of incarceration

America’s devotion to transforming the Middle East

America’s steady climb towards Socialism

America’s ever rising national debt

America’s continued erosion of civil liberties

America’s continued dependence on foreign oil

America’s continued erosion of nuclear families

Yes the ‘Land of the Free’ does have its perks. U.S. citizens live in a society where their political landscape, media, and government have been high-jacked by a ruling elite (despite nearly everyone having the right to vote). If the above stats don’t convince you that America is a plutocracy… close this article and continue watching Fox News and CNN. All is good in your world.

And yet in this land of the supposed free, Americans are forced into using a form of money that should be outlawed. How do I know that the gold standard was better than the Federal Reserve unhinged? For the simple fact that they banned a gold standard. The gold standard was officially destroyed in 1971. And that’s also when government spending began to grow dramatically.

Those who support the idea of a central bank (Federal Reserve) often blame the gold standard for the market crash in 1929. There are many opinions as to whether the economic crash was the result of the Fed or the gold standard. What we do know for a fact is that the Great Depression occurred after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Nothing this horrendous had happened to the U.S. economy before.

After the market crash of 1929, the sooner a country left the gold standard behind the sooner the economic recovery occurred. Also, the Great Depression prompted the U.S government, under Franklin Roosevelt, to adopt Keynesian economic theory which magnified the Federal Government’s role in the national economy. From these two outcomes one can rationalize a couple of things.

Central banking and a gold standard are incompatible 

A gold standard is incompatible with a large, intervening Federal Government.

And obviously a bloated, intervening Federal Government, is incompatible with a free society.

The income tax was instituted at the same time (1913) as the creation of the central bank (Federal Reserve)… Why?

A central bank needs the ability to create credit without restrictions. As a result the national debt grows much more rapidly and therefore more money is taxed away from the citizens to pay for these increases in the debt.

Many claim that government spending really isn’t growing if you compare it to GDP… but as you can see government spending has always increased. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Jefferson was also quoted saying “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”

“It is a [disputed] question, whether the circulation of paper, rather than of specie [gold and silver coin], is a good or an evil… I believe it to be one of those cases where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by ruin.” ~Thomas Jefferson letter to John W. Eppes, 1813

Yes Corporate America wants a central bank. Yes the Federal Government wants a central bank. But the citizens of America do not need a central bank, nor should they desire one. Central banking, unlike a gold standard, over time will destroy the society and leave it in ruins, perhaps for centuries. Is it a coincidence that all Anglo-Saxon societies have embraced central banking? And is it therefore a very strange coincidence that each of these societies has the same set of ideals and predicaments? Anglo-Saxon societies each embrace a form of Socialism. And through the system of credit and debt that a central bank provides, they are able, at least for a short while, to prop up an entourage of benefits and safety-nets.

The benefits package for the citizen is merely a smoke screen for the real purpose of a central bank. The purpose of central banking is to create artificially inflated economies. The bank issues far more credit than what would be accomplished with a gold standard at 100% reserves on hand at the banks. The men who benefit from central banking are the corporate elitists. You know, like GE, Boeing, Wal-mart, Exxon, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, and on and on.

Supporters of a central bank (artificially heightened economy) will say that central banking has produced an unusually high standard of living for Americans. This is true. But the real question should be… at what cost? and… How long can it be maintained? Furthermore, is a high standard of living conducive to a moral and free society? How can you be free with so much debt upon the shoulders of the citizens? How can you be a free nation when you have the highest incarceration rates in the world? How can you be a free society when your government is ever-growing… passing more and more laws to dictate your behavior and the products of your labor?

Should the measure of a society be determined by the quantity of products it consumes? Should the measure of a nation be determined by the ease with which consumers have access to goods?

Or should the measure of a nation be determined by how well it maintains nuclear families? Or by how well neighbors care for one another?

Unfortunately Americans have decided that the idea of freedom is how easily we can purchase goods and services from around the globe. Which brings us to the ridiculously large military budget referenced in an above graph.

The purpose of our military, if you remove the fear-mongering and honorable intentions, is to insure that America’s economy and way of life is not disturbed. Our bloated national debt and government spending, which only serve the elitists, can immediately be brought to its knees by a disruption in the economy. Our government needs us to trust it, just as our government’s lenders need to know that the U.S. dollar is backed by our economic engine and the American consumer/taxpayer. If the economy fails, the dollar fails, and times will be… well, very unpleasant.

America looks to its military might to insure not national security, but economic security… two completely different ideals. Who benefits from national security? Everyone. Who benefits from economic security? The rich. We have decided that our need for a smooth economy is a matter of national security. How can we be so selfish? If there is trouble in the Middle East, we go to war. A disruption in what is currently around 16% of our oil consumption would be enough to bring our economy to its knees. At least for a few years.

The high price of gasoline would keep money from going into the normal economy. Consumers would have to cut back, and once that happens, companies sell fewer products. Because fewer products are sold business owners have to lay off employees and on and on. Soon you’re in another Great Depression and all because we decided on centralization rather than self sufficiency. Rather than slowly cut back on our consumption of imported products and develop new technologies for energy… we’d rather be enslaved to foreign nations for the maintenance and success of our economy and our way of life.

 What am I proposing?

I propose that you consider your role as a U.S. citizen and ask yourself what you want America to be. Are we to be living-large pimps, propped up by perpetual war, credit hustlers, and unsustainable living standards? You can draw any conclusions you want, but I’ll share mine with you.

As our standard of living, government authority within, and military policing abroad have grown… so have our divorce rates, our out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and our dependence on the government. What have we lost? We’ve lost our sense of self-reliance, economic freedom, and individual liberties.

I do not know that a gold standard would revive these lost concepts. But I do know that gold is economic freedom. We claim to be free but aren’t allowed to use gold as legal tender? We are forced into using the Master’s paper currency backed by his word and his willingness to deploy troops around the world for our corporate elitists.

Can we exist with a gold standard, a much humbler foreign policy, and a much humbler economy? Could Americans look to their neighbors, churches, and community’s to solve life’s problems rather than a Federal Government who would prefer you in the chains of corporate masters and power-hungry politicians? Could we look to a gold standard, more savings and investment, less credit and debt, and less inflation and taxes?

We used to… how did we manage?

Whatever America means to you, whatever part of her you cherish… if we are to salvage some part of it we must turn away from the advice of the wal-street executives, the credit hustler, the banking cartel, the corporate master, and the war mongers. We must accept the facts of life… that decisions have consequences. Yes we can live as self-righteous pimps of international corporate consumption. Or we can live as humble free men and women, Americans, looking to ourselves and families for the measure of a just and free society.

What does America mean to you? What part of her do you cherish most? And what would you give up to insure your children can see this version of America too?

I choose gold - not central bankers. I choose humbleness - not arrogance. I choose self reliance - not dependency. I choose local solutions - not Federal solutions. I choose economic freedom for the individual - not the corporation.

Discuss this article and meet new people at Debt Prison Forums.

If you have found this information to be useful, please leave a donation for Barry.

Related Articles

* State Secession and the Coming Civil War

* Do we have private property in the USA?

* Achieving Libertaria

* The Poor People I Know

* Government Waste and FEMA Trailers

* Guns and The Power of Free People

Watch the Bill Moyers PBS interview with Andrew Bacevich by clicking here.

Heed the intentions of the Founding Fathers

The Constitution was

“Drafted by men who appreciated the need for military power while also maintaining a healthy respect for the dangers that it posed, the Constitution in our own day remains an essential point of reference.” (pg. 209)

Nothing in the Constitution instructs the United States to implement military power to save the rest of humankind, nor does it instruct to remake the world in our own image.

Revitalize the concept of separation of powers

In practice, presidents in consultation with a small circle of advisers decide on the use of force; the legislative branch then meekly bows to the wishes of the executive or provides the sort of broad authorization… that amounts in effect to an abrogation of direct responsibility (pg. 210).

Since WWII the legislative branch has avoided its responsibilities under Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution which confers upon Congress the power “To declare war”. It’s not that the president has become too strong, but rather that Congress has become weak in upholding its end of the bargain. Rather than taking moral responsibility for the decision to begin and end war, Congress appears much more prepared to pass that obligation along to the executive branch. This lack of courage by Congress must end.

View force as a last resort

This requires an explicit renunciation of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, which in arrogating to the United States prerogatives allowed to no other nation subverts international stability and in the long run can only make America less secure (pg. 211).

First, the United States reserves the right to act in its own self-defense and to do so unilaterally if necessary.

Second, the U.S. will not tolerate behavior posing a proximate threat to itself or its citizens… this would have permitted the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 but not the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Third, the U.S. in conjunction with other nations, will respond with military force to wholesale violations of human rights, to instances of widespread suffering, or to looming threats endangering international peace and comity.

These provisions might have allowed the U.S. to engage in an internationally sanctioned multilateral effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And it most certainly would permit the U.S. to participate in, and lead in organizing, a multilateral effort to put a stop to horrific events such as genocide or ethnic cleansing. However, it would not permit the U.S. to claim for itself alone the responsibility of serving as the world’s conscience.

Enhance U.S. self-sufficiency

The argument here suggests taking the steps necessary to limit the U.S. dependence on foreign resources, thereby reducing the pressures to intervene abroad on behalf of ostensibly “vital” material interests. (pg. 212)

Our dependency of foreign energy, for example, has guaranteed us ever more involvement militarily in the Middle East. By reducing our consumption of foreign energy we would likewise reduce the need for military involvement around the world.

Organize U.S. forces explicitly for national defense

Focusing on defense rather than power projection implies jettisoning the concept of “national security,” an artifact of the Cold War employed as a device to justify everything from overthrowing foreign governments to armed intervention in places that most Americans could not locate on a map. (pg. 213)

Foreign governments must wean themselves from depending on the U.S. military to provide their security. This includes bringing troops home from stations abroad where no immediate need for their presence exists. This method will encourage us to avoid conflict where our interests are negligible or nonexistent. It will also mean that U.S. forces get to decide where we engage rather than fighting fights that aren’t ours. The organizing for national defense would also require treating other countries, such as Japan, more like allies and less like vassals.

Devise an appropriate gauge for determining the level of U.S. defense spending

To stipulate, for example, that the United States should match the next ten most lavishly spending powers combined would assure U.S. military capabilities not only far in excess of any potential adversary but also in excess of any remotely plausible combination of adversaries (pg. 215).

As of 2008 the U.S. military budget was 48% of the entire world’s military budget. The graph below is from 2003.

A spending level equivalent the 10 closest military budgets would have given the U.S. a military budget in 2006 of $366 billion… instead of $623 billion.

Enhanced alternative instruments of statecraft

The natural accompaniment to a doctrine that views hard power as a last resort is to increase the attention given to so-called soft power, the ability to influence rather than merely coerce and to build rather than merely demolish (pg. 215).

The State Department is in disarray for it seems to accomplish very little. The Department’s delivery of U.S. diplomacy is under-funded and mismanaged. For the amount of money wasted on the military budget (such as the $8 billion Comanche Helicopter failure and the $12 billion V-22 Osprey, tilt-rotor transport aircraft), perhaps the State Department could receive more funding and with more diplomats on the ground, we would find more ‘peaceful’ solutions.

Revive the moribund concept of the citizen-soldier

One way that a republic safeguards itself against militarism is to ensure that the army has deep roots among the people… A people placing responsibility for national defense in the hands of “a special class” render themselves “unfit for liberty.” Therefore, concluded General Palmer, “an enduring government by the people must include an army of the people among its vital institutions” (pg. 219).

Civilians should be constantly coming and going from our military. And they should come from all areas of the socio-economic scale. Today more than ever, the upper class is electing to ignore the obligations of servitude to the military… and most often these are the men and women who will become our nation’s leaders. Having a background in the military will improve the decisions these future leaders command.

Reexamining the role of the National Guard and the reserve components

As a device for concealing the disparity between the publicly stated aims of U.S. strategy…this expedient of incorporating reservists into the imperial army makes sense. But as a basis for long-term policy it makes little sense and is doomed to fail (pg. 220).

Increased demands on reservists will exhaust their ability to remain willing to offer continued service and can lead to incidents such as the prisoner abuse scandal in 2004. These reservists are best returned, as quickly as possible, to their proper role of community self defense.

Reconcile the American military profession to American society

From its earlier days, the officer corps has cultivated separateness as an element of its professional identity… Virtually from its founding in 1802, West Point has sought to train, educate, and above all socialize cadets in isolation from the rest of America - or, if permitting contact between cadets and the “outside world,” it has sought to dictate the terms under which that interaction occurs. Implicit in this approach has been the conviction that the soldierly ethic ought to be nurtured within the ramparts, since beyond lies temptation and sin (pg. 221).

The military is too focused on keeping its members away from regular American society. This does more harm than good for the overall function of a military which should be of the people and by the people.

Relevant to the purpose of this account, binding the officer corps more closely to society will have the ancillary benefit of reducing the likelihood of the armed services running amok or engaging in politically irresponsible behavior (pg. 223).

Keeping our soldiers with one foot inside regular civilian society will help balance the demands of power with honorable purpose.

** The New American Militarism, Copywrite 2005, Bacevich