Intervener-in-Chief: Libya and the Constitution

During times of international crisis and activity, the media and public produce a flurry of commentary, opinion, and analysis----most of it complete bullshit. Abusing public events is the easiest way to get one's name in the open, and how best to do that but criticize or spread fantastic rumors?

I previously expressed my support and opinion on the situation in Libya and the UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone to secure the civilian population, supported by "all necessary measures" short of "foreign occupation force". In the immediate aftermath of the strikes launched---led by the United States, United Kingdom, and France---speculation arose about the scope and direction of the operations, whether we were "at war in a third [Muslim/Arab/Middle Eastern] country"; furthermore, "questions" (read: loud complaints) are being raised about the constitutionality of the UN-authorized strikes:

Critics say the merits of the operation and its legality under international law are matters separate from the domestic legal question of who — the president or Congress — has the authority to decide whether the United States will take part in combat. (NYT)

The President has already released his own response, a two-page letter defending his status as Commander-in-Chief, outlining the limited nature of the engagement that places the intervention as below that of declaration of war, and reminding the Congress that he met with and consulted its members prior to announcing and ordering the strikes. But the issue lingers in the public eye and vociferous debate rages. I would like to use this post to clear up this matter.

THE CONSTITUTION AND AMERICAN MILITARY INTERVENTION

The disagreement comes from a conflict in interpretations of two points in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water [AND] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces...(Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 14)

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...(Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)

Thus, depending on one's interpretation, the President has the power to call the armed forces into action to defend the United States (and/or its interests), or he must receive direct authorization from Congress to do anything that could be called an act of war. The criticism of President Obama derives from the latter view, that armed attacks against Libya without a vote of authorization or stronger consultation of Congress violate the principles of the Constitution by committing acts of war without a war declaration, which would be Congress’ purview.

Furthermore, the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in the wake of deep distrust of Presidential authority and military action, explicitly states that if the President authorizes armed attack against another nation that does not include a declaration of war, such action must be ended within 60 days, and Congress must be notified within 48 hours. In making the public announcement immediately after the resolution was passed, privately consulting the members of Congress prior, and insisting that the engagement will remain less than 60 days, President Obama has not (yet) violated the terms of this law. But even more so, the action is not unconstitutional for even broader reasons than this.

Allow me to explain why the President's authorization of strikes against Libya under the auspices of United Nations Resolution #1973 are fully within the President's power as laid out by the Constitution and under the authority of Congress.

THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

First, the United States is signed to the United Nations Charter and ratified its provisions; this is not a document of convenience, it is a fully obliging international treaty. This is backed up by American law: in 1945, the United States Congress passed the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA), which (1) ratified American participation in the UN, and (2) set the guidelines for that participation, including sanctions and actions of the President to follow the UN’s directives.

In order to ensure the smooth participation of the United States in the United Nations and the Security Council, Congress, as part of ratification of the UN Charter, provided certain powers to the President for an American role in enforcing the Charter. Specifically, Section 7 of the UNPA states:

SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile [sic] President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.

The UNPA explicitly declares that the President does NOT have to seek special approval by the Congress to participate in actions undertaken and approved by the full Security Council “under Article 42 of said [UN] Charter”…well, that leads to the immediate question: what is Article 42?

To answer that, we need to look at Articles Forty-One and Forty-Two of the UN Charter. The following comes directly from the text of the Charter—

Chapter VII, ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

[…]

Article 41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

In layman’s terms, Article 41 authorizes the Security Council to pass sanctions and other non-military methods of punishment when a country violates the Charter through acts of aggression or breaches of the peace. Article 42 states that if the Security Council determines that the nonmilitary actions taken from Article 41 are not enough to stop the aggression, then military force against the offending country can be authorized.

Remember, the UNPA said that under American law, the Congress wouldn’t need to be asked for permission if the President was offering resources to the UN Security Council pursuant to Article 42. Thus, the President was acting under the assumption that Article 42 was in effect, and felt he had consulted Congress sufficiently, therefore he was confident offering American military resources was legal and pursuant to American obligations to the UN.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, what does this mean? This means that the members of Congress criticizing the President for taking action against Libya under a UN Security Council resolution are kidding themselves. President Obama was and is fully within legal authority to use American armed forces against Libya, pure and simple.

The arguments surrounding the issue of a Libyan no-fly-zone and the general subject of intervention are serious, complex, and ambiguous. There are strong ideological, political, and logical reasons behind the pro- and anti- interventionist stances. The policy argument is important; indeed, we can find no clear answer on the “right” course of action regarding Libya. I happen to support the interventionist ethic, in the hopes of providing greater precedent for future action and decisiveness during future similar crises. Yet I also respect the opposition’s view and core question of what the American national interest is in Libya, and whether our actions are counterproductive rather than helpful. This is a discussion well worth having.

However, questioning the legality of the President’s actions is a cowardly method to try to win a policy debate. Anyone is entitled to question the wisdom of committing forces to Libya, and the Congress is justified and within its power to demand stringent oversight and accountability to ensure no long-term commitment similar to those in Afghanistan and Iraq; targeting the policy as “illegal” or “unconstitutional” is asinine at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. Let it be clear that the President is within legal rights to have committed limited US forces to a short engagement under the authority vested by the UN Security Council and ratified by the UN Participation Act of 1945, under the regulations outlined in the War Powers Resolution, pursuant to the ideals and limits laid in the Constitution of the United States.

You try it. No really.

Recently I tried my hand at balancing the Federal budget with the NYT's interactive deficit-reduction feature, here's the rough plan: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=7zxvn9qc

Mine is an enormous surplus for rapid repayment of debts and/or expansion of discretionary spending on certain projects, but it has room for several adjustments, or much smaller surpluses. I invite you to use the clear-choices button and try your hand at it, at the very least this tool is good at illustrating the choices at hand, the sacrifices that might be necessary for budget reduction, and educating us about what we do or do not support among these options. Please try it, I would love to see the different results.

Libya: A New American Leadership

UN RESOLUTION #1973 is the subject of tonight's post.

The concern over the resolution stems from the soon-to-be-cliché phrase "all necessary measures" in paragraph 4, authorizing the use of military force to bring about the security of civilians. The phrase has been over-quoted in the media, becoming the bolded-headline across cable TV and newsprint the world over. Its out-of-context use makes it sound like the UN resolution has authorized some kind of military intervention on the scale of the first Persian Gulf War or the occupation of former Yugoslavia, or even the Korean War, all of which were UN-resolution authorized (a note on Yugoslavia in a moment).

In fact, the resolution explicitly prohibits "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" in the same sentence that authorizes "all necessary measures".

I understand the reservation of Americans to use force in yet another Muslim-majority developing country (many media sources are calling it a "Middle Eastern" country despite the fact that Libya is firmly an African continental state), indeed I share some of those reservations. Critics are also correct in pointing out that although we may idealistically want to support the interim rebel government "leading" the revolution from Benghazi, the council there may not be as democratic or ideal as we hope, and that the politics of these circumstances are not as simple as wild-eyed interventionists would love to think.

But there is something simple in all this: Muammar Gadhafi is a madman, a despot, and a murderer. He has made no attempts to hide the sheer scale of the violence he intends to unleash upon his people. He has said at different points that he would kill opponents "house by house", that the rebels were (in a haunting reference to the Rwandan genocide's language) "cockroaches" to be "crushed", and that "Libya will turn to hell" as he arms his people to slaughter the enemy and protesters who, for not loving him, "don't deserve to live".

This is not rhetoric to be easily misinterpreted. This is not simply parading for the domestic TV stations like North Korea's regular threats of "war"; this is a man who relished the opportunity to bomb civilian planes and support suicide attacks; this is a man whose iron grip has already slaughtered people in his nation; this is a man whose armies are as I write advancing on his opponents' positions, pillaging, raping, and murdering anyone who gets in the way of the great leader's will. Civilians supportive of the rebel uprising face harsh reprisal and slaughter if he is allowed to advance unchecked.

This is not an argument over if there are WMDs in Libya*

This is not a counterinsurgency against an invisible guerrilla enemy.

This is not a long-term occupation.

This is the United Nations authorizing the use of force and threat of force to get the madman's armies to pull back, or suffer debilitating consequences if he fails to observe the ceasefire order. The move will enforce an arms embargo to limit his armies' supplies and will shoot down his vital air attacks on rebel fortifications. It explicitly rules out the use of soldiers or armed troops to intervene directly anywhere in Libya, and places special emphasis on the participation of the Arab League, an organization comprising almost every country in North Africa and the Middle East.

The move has support by votes from European allies in NATO (Germany excepted), Arab League members (who formally suspended Libya from their organization and requested the resolution), as well as the African and Latin American representatives on the Security Council, with only abstentions from Russia (who has arms deals with the Libyan government), China (who has a long history of opposing foreign intervention of any kind), India, Brazil, and Germany (all three of whom are hesitant to approve international military force and who wished for more information before greater action). All of these nations' votes and arguments can be read in the UN report highlighted at the beginning of this post.

I support the actions authorized in the UN resolution because they entail limited measures against the Gadhafi regime. NATO members and the Arab League have agreed and are preparing to shoulder the burden of enforcing this resolution, meaning America's participation in enforcement will not be solo or unsupported. The President has already ruled out troops on the ground, but as the following NBC report shows, he is resolved to carry out the will of the international community, and with their support:

This time, the United States is a leader in global good, in rallying world leaders to support the protection of human rights and innocent lives, and is one among many nations participating in the sanctioning the deplorable acts of an insane dictator. The costs of inaction would have been morally reprehensible and on our hands, just as Rwanda and the Congo and Somalia are now, and this is a moment where America's might, is being used for the right.

Why the West is Wrong About the Internet and Democracy

The West is very self-assured of how right their way of life is. Democracy, rule of law, political freedoms including press and speech, are bywords we are raised by. These values form the backbone of what the nations of Europe, North America, and Australasia consider makes them unique (read: better) than the rest of the planet. Having been raised as a child to value these same ideas all but religiously, and the free choice of people to live as they see fit, I will die defending them. I have no qualms whatsoever stating that I buy into the Western belief that our democratic and liberty-enshrining ideals (when we actually care to follow them, of course) are superior to the other ideologies behind governments around the world and throughout history. I recognize I am biased; so be it.

What I do not buy, however, is the common wisdom among many Western ideologues who believe that it is but a matter of time before democracy comes to the rest of the world. These analysts insist that tyranny cannot reign forever and that eventually, like the Berlin Wall before them, the autocratic regimes still propped up around the planet will come crumbling down from the forces of Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, and blogs such as this that "spread freedom of information and the truth", so to speak. The idea is rooted in history: according to these theorists, Levi's and Coca-Cola conquered Eastern Europe; Apple and social networking will conquer Iran and North Korea.

Now, I admit that the majority of the serious international studies/relations establishment do not subscribe to this very, very liberal (in international relations, "liberal" means something else, relax) theory of democratization by exposure to our products and freedom. Serious students of the modern era will tell you Soviet communism collapsed because its centralized economic management choked both innovation and competitiveness and, once coupled with the end of the propaganda train that lied through its teeth about who was ahead between West and East, these forces brought down the last crumbling centers of political power in that nation.

But that's not the narrative being told to the average American.

If you were to read the headlines of mainstream publications or watch cable news broadcasts, you would be convinced that if only the Chinese would let their people Google anything, democracy would come running out of the computers like poltergeists from televisions (No? Too vague a reference?), and that if Twitter weren't interfered with, protests could be organized on a grand scale to topple the Iranian dictatorship. Even our policymakers in front of cameras focus on vague terms like "human rights" and "freedom of information" in the same breath, implying that wi-fi access will suddenly open the doors to Chinese prisons everywhere. Who are we kidding?

For one thing, the Chinese and Iranians and Koreans and African warlords are not that stupid (at least, most of them). The PRC is not telling its people that they are richer and better than America. They are (correctly) telling them that America is 250% richer than China despite China having almost 4 times the people of the US. They are using the truth to increase the impetus for Chinese entrepreneurship and growth. The Iranians are not afraid of Twitter letting people protest---their brutal crackdowns were equally effective at putting down demonstrations whether they were organized via "Tweet" or by megaphone. Guns are still more lethal than fiberoptic cables.

Information is indeed important in a free society, and the internet is admittedly the largest, most open, and broadest wealth of information in human history. It is also the most sordid collection of lies, myths, legends, errors, and unfounded opinions (some of which are written by this author) in human history. If I may, "you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." It is no easy tool to utilize. Think, for a moment, of our own democratic society and how we use the internet for ourselves. (I mean besides Farmville and porn.) Did you get that email about how Obama planned on giving a new award to the Vietnam sympathizer Jane Fonda? How about that one where a Republican candidate for Congress was caught in a neo-Nazi uniform? Complete with pictures as proof! What about the irrefutable evidence that the President was born in Kenya? Oh, oh! And the Lindsay Lohan sextape, and the proof of Chupacabras being real, and the pills that grow that "special something" (funny how half of them never say "penis") inches in just WEEKS?

You see my point. The internet may be a great place to get access to treasure troves of information---I recommend the BBC and Meet the Press podcasts on iTunes, the Economist online, and the TED Talks, for starters---but you must know where to look, and how to discern what is real from what is not. We barely have a handle on it, and we were the first ones to use the internet at all. What makes you think that suddenly-liberated or net-access peoples will know immediately? Right now, many of these people live in societies with strict controls on access to information. Effectively, dis-information is the key tool to keep people in line. But in the democratic world, mis-information is just as effective a tool, and you can bet your iPad/netbook/eReader/laptop/desktop the dictators of the world are working on that too.

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying the oppressed peoples of the world would be worse off with open internet access than without. I am not saying that it would not benefit them to have access to information critical of their governments, and the ability to discuss and use this information to demand improvements to their societies. But don't forget: for every report on human rights abuses in China, there are Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib op-eds. For every story of Western charity, there are 10 videos of "2 girls, 1 cup" reactions. For every tweet link they follow to coordinate protests, there are a hundred rickrolls waiting. This is not a negative; this is reality. This is not pessimism; it is the truth. For any peoples freed from electronic suppression, the transition will be a long road of learning how broad, fascinating, and sometimes disturbing the uses of the unlimited internet can be. Ultimately, the internet is one of our greatest achievements as a species and should be valued as such.

The bottom line is this: the internet is no catch-all source of liberation and civilization to the rest of the world, just as the radio and the television and the phone were not. They are in fact powerful tools, and we can hardly disregard them; yet when I see pundits and policymakers alike relying on them as the last best hope of democratizing unfree peoples I cannot help but think, to borrow a line from a Transformer, "this is bad comedy". The internet will not be the conquerer of the unfree, but it will be a powerful tool if and when these societies join the ranks of the free world: to coordinate, to manipulate, to unite, to divide, to empower, to condemn. It will be as powerful and various as it is here in America and the rest of the West. And we should be damn proud of that when the day comes.

Rethinking the Assault Weapons Ban

After any major gun-related tragedy, such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and even now with the Tucson shooting, it's vogue for pro-gun control advocates to use the event as support for their policy objectives. And it is vogue for media and policymakers to eventually dismiss these calls as a ploy. They say that in the view of insane people committing atrocities, gun control misses the point. The weapon used matters less than the intent of someone disturbed to do harm to others. I disagree.

First of all, let's be clear: Yes, Loughner is clearly a disturbed individual, as are the majority of perpetrators of such rampages. The most effective method of preventing such individuals from committing heinous acts is to identify and treat their illness before these types of events are triggered. That colleges, and the military, and law enforcement suffer such a disconnect as to be unable to share the information that could have had him, and several others like him, seeing physicians instead of gunstore owners, is a sign that systemic changes must be made to make diagnosis and treatment much more rapidly and easily available to those who are ill.

However, the argument that "he, and other madmen, will commit these acts regardless of the laws that exist" is invalid. It has been used by the NRA, by media commentators, and numerous people each time these events happen. It speaks to a level of cynicism that I cannot abide; it assumes that society itself is powerless to stop the assaults of dangerous and sometimes evil people. It assumes that laws are no safeguard against those who would seek to break those laws. This is a mentality that is brought on by sustained ineptitude of government: because we failed in the past, we cannot succeed. I find this view unacceptable, and here is why.

It is true that if Jared Loughner wished to kill the Congresswoman, he could have bought a normal, unmodified handgun and done the same basic crime; hell, he could have bought a switchblade or other non-firearm and still threatened her life. It is true that if cartels and drug kingpins in Mexico wanted to slaughter people and soldiers in the thousands, handguns are capable of doing this. These are simply facts: in the modern world, there are too many tools of murder to pretend we have an airtight defense, or that we ever will.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is also true that if a child wants to put a fork in a power outlet, it may find a way. It is equally true that if someone at my work wanted to poison me, household cleaners would work. It is also true that if a burglar wants my possessions, a simple window lock will not suffice to stop him if he tried enough (as my family found out personally several years ago).

Yet we buy baby-proofers for outlets, we ban arsenic, and we lock our doors and windows. Why? If in fact, as the phrase goes, the inmates are running the asylum, why do we care?

Because we, as beings capable of rational thought, have reasonable preventive measures we take against things which would do us harm. The reason we can say that gun control laws need another look, is that a madman was able to acquire a modified semiautomatic weapon capable of destruction on a scale most of us should not have access to. And let's be clear about the facts:

1: Loughner purchased a Glock 9mm semiautomatic gun which, unmodified, carries 15 rounds in its cartridge.
2: Loughner then proceeded to purchase a modified cartridge for the gun which could hold up to 30 rounds. These "extended cartridges" are intended to make reloading less common and thus save time and effort for the shooter. Please note that in virtually all law enforcement jurisdictions in this country, extended cartridges are not issued even to police officers or agents, with only necessary exceptions.
3: On Saturday, Loughner fired 31 shots (1 round in the barrel, 30 in the cartridge) into the crowd at Congresswoman Giffords' event, before having to reload. It was during this period of reloading that an older woman seized the second cartridge he intended to load, and the crowd overpowered him, ending his rampage.
4: Of the 31 shots, 20 hit victims. Of those victims, 6 were killed and 12 wounded. Note that the number of HITS alone is 5 higher than would have been possible without reloading if he had not had the extended magazine.
5: Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the extended magazines would have been unavailable for Mr. Loughner to purchase, much less fill with ammunition and fire into a crowd. Instead, he was able to walk into a store and acquire something which elevated his capacity for slaughter higher than was otherwise possible.

But this incident is only a sideshow compared to a larger problem: the United States is the most-armed nation on Earth, with 90 firearms per 100 in the population. National intelligence service estimates say about 90% of the guns used by cartels in their war against the government and police in Mexico come from stores in the United States purchased easily and then smuggled easily across the border. The guns have empowered cartels to counterattack and threaten all stability in the country, and slaughter thousands easily and with only token defense by average citizens. Their sheer firepower and strength intimidates entire communities, and the United States' gun market is all but financing their private armies.

The violence in Mexico spreads closer to, and already partially across the border. American citizens have been kidnapped and held for ransom, or simply murdered, sometimes in broad daylight, by this criminal empires supported by our gun manufacturers.

In Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, there are no permit restrictions whatsoever on the purchase and concealed carry of firearms for any person above the age of 18. Concealed-carry laws are not enough, however, because they do stand as an example of a law that has no effective method of enforcement, and therefore no effective prevention of illegally concealed weapons. Hence, urban areas have tried to do wholesale gun bans, but again these prove ineffective in the face of being able to transport guns into the area from easier-purchase states. And so the encroachment of criminal activity and violent acts using guns so easily acquired continues.

Thus, the initial response, even from me, is to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban that might have helped prevent some of this, but not all of it. In writing this I have realized, however, that the AWB is not the gun control policy I would agree with because it is simultaneously ineffective and not enough. I recognize that the Assault Weapons Ban was not comprehensive and indeed was mostly cosmetic in nature, not entirely banning all weapons capable of the same level of destruction.

I also recognize that outright bans on categories of firearm are unacceptable to supporters of Second Amendment rights, but the fact remains that weapons are too easy to acquire by the people who want them most: people who would do us harm.

Thus, as rational people, we are encouraged to form policy which protects our rights but also protects our lives, that meets some kind of compromise between knowing that not all tragedies can be prevented but that we can also resist simply letting the criminals and madmen have open access to tools of slaughter.

I propose the following solution as a starting point:

• Set up a national gun registration service;
  
• The service will issue uniform permit registrations, which would include mandatory drug test, mandatory number of hours of firearms training, and mandatory background checks that would be flagged for any prior criminal behavior or mental illness which the doctor believed made the person unfit for deadly weapons ownership.
  
• All guns manufactured would require identification numbers that would identify the guns in the event of use or seizure in a crime scene;
• Each permit-holder would have a yearly limit on the number of guns he or she may purchase;
  
• All guns purchased would have to be registered to the name of a registered permit-holder. These guns would then have to be registered every 6 to 12 months to ensure that they are still in the possession of the permit-holder.
• Any gun sales must be reported to the national registry for a paper trail to exist; failure to do so results in revocation of license and further penalties as prescribed by law.
• The system would be paid for very easily: increase the gun tax so that purchases of guns fund the system that ensures they are used safely and properly and can hunt down criminals who would misuse them.
  

Most importantly however, I wish to start a debate: a debate on the merits of gun control and how we can strike the balance between what we accept as the reasonable extension of the right to bear arms, and the reasonable expectation of our own safety in public. Please comment as you will and seek to find where you stand as well, and contribute to a national discussion on this issue which has so horrifically been brought to light.

Shooting in Tucson: A Moment of Silence...And Clarity

This morning, the Representative of the 8th District of my state, Arizona, in the House of Representatives, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot outside a Tucson supermarket, along with at least 5 other victims--including 5 dead as of writing: a District Judge, an aide to the Congresswoman, and a 9-year old child. I mourn each of them, and hope their families know that today, the nation is with them in this tragedy.

Representative Giffords was prematurely reported as being fatally shot, but she had undergone surgery and doctors report they are 'optimistic' for her recovery. For that, I am thankful. As more and more of her colleagues express admiration and praise for her work, it is clear that Ms. Giffords, as with the other victims of the shooting, would be a terrible loss for this nation to take.

What I was driven to write about however, pertains more than just the solemnity of the moment. More than the grief which casts another pall over this afflicted state, and nation.

Often, these events are used as good moments for heartfelt photo opportunities, but as details come to light about the man responsible for this senseless attack, something becomes clear: this is a warning shot, ladies and gentlemen.

We have operated at the brink, so to speak, for too long. Both sides are guilty of this game--liberals and conservatives each have their loudspeakers who proclaim with gusto that the other side is all but a dictatorship. That their plans will lead to financial ruin. That their tactics are dastardly and flout the very spirit of the nation's freedoms and values. And that following the other side will mean nothing short but future oblivion.

Congressman Giffords is clearly a woman who stayed above that rancor for many years. A Democrat, she managed to hold her seat in a previous Republican stronghold, and even more impressively in an election year which saw a wave of incumbent losses. She was only able to manage this by remaining centrist, appealing to the needs of all the constituents in her district. Of course she would clash with opponents---this is politics, not a Peace Pipe meeting---but she did so in a manner that, if her colleagues' comments are any indicator, put her a cut above the rest.

What that means is this: a shot against her is a warning that the years of fear and stark division in our politics, without progress, are coming back to haunt us. That a congresswoman this capable of balancing between Right and Left and serving her people can be struck down by a gunman--that should worry every citizen of this nation, regardless of ideology.

So today, I ask not only for a moment of silence across the nation to mourn the victims of this tragedy, but a moment of clarity, to wake up from the conditions that produced the heinous event in the first place.

Do not let this opportunity slip. I am not so blind as to assume disagreements will stop or that the heated arguments will subside. But I do expect that we can learn. Let us not be so heavy-handed. Let us not deceive ourselves and one another. Let us not create a climate of fear when we must create a climate of national revival. In the name of Congressman Giffords, and each victim of today's shooting, and in the name of the nation they belong to, let us---average citizen and policymaker alike--learn to have our disagreements without producing casualties.

Let us move forward and renew the cause of the nation, starting with the creed of Lincoln in his first Inaugural, vowing: "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none".

The Budget debate reveals that your government is lying to you. Again.

The showdown of the first quarter of 2011 has been framed, ladies and gentlemen, tickets are available at the box office. Save your money though, you might not have much more coming: Republicans threaten to NOT raise the debt ceiling when we will hit it in March. Now, for those not savvy on the driest of dry political subjects, here's a quick lesson on what the hell the debt "ceiling" is:

The easiest metaphor for the debt ceiling is a credit card limit. Like your MasterCard, the United States has a cap on how much money it can have borrowed. Also like you, if it hits that limit, it cannot go over---it can't borrow anymore. The main difference between you and the US government is this: you can't tell MasterCard "but I need more money, so there." The government can. As long as a majority of Congress votes in favor of raising the debt ceiling, America can continue to borrow. If it does not, borrowing stops.


Now, at first glance, this seems unfair. "Why can the government just raise that? Doesn't that mean there's really no debt ceiling as long as the government wants to borrow?" Yes, that's true, and that's the logic behind refusing to raise the ceiling: if we couldn't borrow anymore, we would have to balance the money and only spend the money we have. Wouldn't that be great?



Let me explain why it would not be great. Simple math problem:

If Susie has $2,000 and the overpriced computer she wants is $3,000, how much does she still need before she can buy it?

If you don't have the answer, I have to ask: how'd you get this far?

Anyway, obviously, Susie (our metaphorical America) is short $1000 to buy her computer, but she needs it now (everyone else uses Skype and her webcam sucks). So she charges it to her credit card of course! Otherwise, she'd end up either having to work to the bone to make the extra money fast, or spend on nothing else, like food or water. Like anyone needs those.

Look at him, with all that luxury. GET A JOB!

Imagine if Susie had a $500 limit on her card though. And instead of declining, if she goes over that limit, the bank comes and asks her for all the money back that she owes. Now. Oh, and until then she can't have another penny, from any of her accounts. That's America's situation:

We take in $2.2 trillion in taxes (as of 2010). We SPEND $3.5 trillion.
3.7 - 2.2 = $1.5 trillion in deficit.

Basically, anything in the deficit MUST BE BORROWED. There is no other way to spend that money. The alternative is printing money, which can cause hyperinflation (meaning next year your money is worth half of what it is this year. Yeah, hence we don't do that printing-money much).

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, we cannot continue to borrow, which means we would not be able to afford $1.5 trillion in our budget. And we would also almost certainly have a downgraded credit rating, which would increase the interest we pay on current debt and destabilize our currency and economy.

"So?" You might ask. "We spend too much! Cut the budget!"

"Chill the fuck out guys, I got this."

Ok, let's do that then. Should be easy. Hm...how about a 50% cut in the military? No more supercarriers, no more Special Forces to take out terrorists before they can attack...that'll reduce the deficit by...oh. 15%. Ok, 85% left to go!

What about all those awful Congressional earmarks everyone seems to complain about? They waste SO MUCH MONEY! Ok, get rid of all of the wasteful earmarks. That brings us down a whopping...1% of the deficit. Only 84% left!

Ok, well let's say we're willing to REALLY sacrifice here:
No more NASA,
no more FBI (which includes a loss of a majority of missing persons investigations)
no more assistance to police departments,
no more environmental protection,
no more assistance to poor people to find housing,
no more aid to poor nations,
no more researching cancer or AIDS or diabetes or genetics,
no more building/repairing highways, bridges, ports, airports, trains,
no more federal school funding or increased funds to poor districts,
no more grants to university students,
no more National Weather Service,
no more Coast Guard,
no more building flood levees and power stations,
no more aid to hospitals to cover ERs,
no more aid to small business.

Eliminate ALL major government services except entitlement programs, the other half of the military we let survive, and paying off interest on the debt...and our deficit does get cut.

By another 35%.

Leaving us 49% more of the deficit to cut.

Yep. That's the first of the two big lies being propagated by the people currently in government, mainly Republicans: all we need to do is cut wasteful spending, and there goes the deficit.

Well, if you consider every single thing government does as waste (which some of my Libertarian friends might), then that's fine. But if you believe government spending has the ability to do some good (read the list above), then you must know that the math doesn't add up: spending cuts alone cannot save the current fiscal scenario.

The second lie is also equally false, and this one is the Democrats': Republican-driven tax cuts for the wealthy in the 2000s killed the budget, we just have to let those expire and the deficit will come down!

This one is simply untrue. In order for taxes to make up the deficits, tax revenue would have to rise----by about half their current value. This means that taxes on the wealthy can't go up just from 30% to 35%, but rather to 45 % or 50. And the average American's taxes would not remain at 25, but would probably have to rise to 36%. Taxes were already disturbingly low at the end of the 1990s, the Bush Tax Cuts certainly did not help, but the situation would be similarly dire either way.

Third lie: Social Security and Medicare are too important to cut. They can pay for themselves.
Also, simply not true. For one thing, 2010 marked the first year that payments from Social Security out-paced the money meant to pay for the program from the FICA tax, a separate tax on income designed for it. This means that from every year from 2011 on, we can expect the Social Security Administration to need more tax assistance, and soak up more of the budget.

Even if you believe the SSA is the most important program on the budget, its outlays already exceed all money spent on discretionary spending. Combined with Medicare and Medicaid, they make up 40% of the federal budget, or 99% of the deficit.

I'll say that one more time: our mandatory spending programs, that lawmakers claim should be invulnerable to cuts, make up 99% of the deficit. Cutting all other discretionary spending combined does not add up to the same amount.

The point?

WE HAVE TO CUT OUR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

WE HAVE TO RAISE TAXES.

WE MUST REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS LYING TO YOU AND HARMING OUR FUTURE IN THE PROCESS.

CONGRESS IS LYING TO YOU, AND SO HAVE THE LAST TWO PRESIDENTS. BOTH PARTY PLATFORMS CONTAIN LIES DESIGNED TO KEEP THIS USELESS DEBATE GOING. DEMAND BETTER.