s 89 and hr 163: there will be no draft, no matter what john kerry says or how george bush conducts the war 



despite all the abrupt panicked clamor, in blogs from the democratic underground all the way to warren ellis and halfway back, there is not going to be a draft. please to observe at population one . . .

First off, the two bills in question are H.R. 163 and S. 89. The record shows that S. 89 was introduced on 1/7/2003 and was referred to the Committee on Armed Services the same day. H.R. 163 was also introduced on 1/7/2003 and was referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force on 2/3/2003. There has been absolutely no action on either bill since they were referred to committee.

introduced by whom?

H.R 163 was introduced by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), and S. 89 was introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC).

hmmm! what's that D there! so why did these honorable gentlemen, scarcely bush supporters, introduce a pair of bills that the white house has said are unnecessary and the pentagon does not want?

well . . .

"This bill requires all young Americans – men and women between 18 and 26 – to perform a two year period of national service in a military or civilian capacity as determined by the President. For those who conscientiously object to war, the bill assures that any military service would not include combat. Otherwise, there would be no preferences, no deferments, no chance for the well-off or the well- connected to dodge military service for their country, as did our President.

"Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some. But, it will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war. Without a universal draft, this burden weighs disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor the disadvantaged and minority populations.

"It is my understanding that out of the 435 Members of this House and the 100 members of the Senate, only one -- only one -- has a child in active military service. Who are we to know the pain of war when we ourselves will not directly bear the brunt of that action? It won’t be us mourning the loss of a child or loved one. Maybe some of you in this Congress would think twice about voting for war in Iraq if you knew your child may be sent to fight in the streets of Baghdad?"

so why the sudden panic?

hmmmmmm . . . frightening college aged kids into voting for kerry, perhaps?

all i want in this world is some freaking honesty. do you think bush is a stinking liar? then don't use his methods. act like the enemy and you become him. haven't we been screaming about that this last month? abu ghraib, anyone? anyone?

oh, but this is different. right. of course it is.

it always is.




Update: and if the urban-myth-busting snopes.com doesn't rightly convince you that this is hokum--how 'bout this: does this sound like a president who's chomping at the bit for a draft? give it up already.

Senate votes to add 20,000 troops to Army

Thursday, June 17, 2004 Posted: 8:53 PM EDT (0053 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defying the Bush administration, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to add 20,000 troops to an Army stretched thin by the war in Iraq and other commitments around the world.

The 93-4 vote in the Republican-led Senate -- following a similar action by the House -- reflected the anxieties lawmakers have been hearing from families of service personnel whose tours in Iraq keep getting extended and whose return to civilian life is repeatedly postponed.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the lack of troops at the end of major combat in Iraq cost the military an opportunity to stop the violence that continues today.

"We didn't have enough people on the ground, and now we are paying a very, very heavy price for that incredible mistake on the part of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon of the United States of America," he said.

The increase was approved as an amendment to a $447 billion defense authorization bill. Under the proposal by Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the size of the Army would increase by about 4 percent, to 502,400. Congressional aides estimated the cost at $1.7 billion.

Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, supported the amendment after it was modified to specify that the money would come from a $25 billion fund within the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan operations or from a future emergency spending bill.

"The Army needs this active duty strength. We are in agreement, I think, on this point," he said.

Army leaders oppose a permanent increase in troop strength, saying they can do the job with the current force once it is organized more efficiently.

The Army also had a higher cost estimate for the additional troops. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker told reporters this week it costs the Army $3.6 billion a year to keep 10,000 soldiers trained and equipped, and the Army would struggle if given thousands of extra troops without the money to pay for them.

"Congress can only fund us one year at a time," Schoomaker said Tuesday. "They can encumber us forever. We are very reluctant to be encumbered by more than is necessary."

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved temporarily increasing in the Army's strength by 30,000 more than its congressionally authorized size of 482,400. Army officials have said that was necessary only so the Army could fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and reorganize at the same time.

As originally drafted, the Senate bill would have given the Army the flexibility to add 30,000 troops, but wouldn't have required it to do so.

The House version of the defense bill, approved last month, would add 30,000 Army soldiers and 9,000 Marines over three years.

The White House criticized the House provisions. "A mandatory increase would lack flexibility and could leave troop levels higher than needed, especially after several (Defense Department) initiatives to reduce demand on the force have had time to work," it said in a statement

Voting against the Reed amendment were Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Larry Craig of Idaho and Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Not voting were Sens. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Republicans Robert Bennett of Utah and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he hopes the overall bill will be ready for final approval Tuesday. The House and Senate language will have to be reconciled before the bill is sent to President Bush.




and a further Update . . . as pointed out by the dissident frogman, in fact the children of 535 congressmen and women are overrepresented in iraq. there are, evidently, five . . . there are 130,000 servicemen and women in theatre . . . there are 300,000,000 americans

thusly--

5 is 00.9346% of 535.

00.9346% of 300,000,000 is 2,803,738 . . . ie, there should be almost three million americans in theatre to make congress' children's contributions equal.

or,

130,000 is 00.0433% of 300,000,000

and so there should be 0.2318 congressman's children in theatre--ie, less than a quarter of a person, or none. thus, it is obvious that congress' contribution to the boots on the ground is 21.567 times that of the average american's.

merde!


update to that update . . .

people continue to whine that this may not be accurate . . . are congresspeople a representative sample of americans by family? age? marital status? do they have the same number of children as other people? are they actually lizardoids inside human skins? will my tinfoil hat protect me?

all right, this is a simple ratio of citizens to soldiers vs. congress to soldiers, that's all i can demonstrate it to be. but i suspect it is relatively accurate . . . after all, fer chrissakes, we're talking about five people. what the difference is? if i exaggerate, through malice or simplicity, the average congressman's kin-contribution to the war by, say, ten times--that's still patently higher than the average american's!

so let's do a little research to plug in a few more solid numbers, shall we? according to the US census in 2000 there were 72,025,000 families in the US, with 3.17 persons each on average. let us assume that only these households contribute individuals to the war effort. let us assume that all of congress has a family and children--that's 535:5, as opposed to 72,025,000:130,000. the ratio boils down to 107:1 for all congress, from barney frank D-MA to bill bumpkiss R-MS, 554.04:1 for census defined US families as a whole only.

five times the rate. five times. and this is a best case scenario for congress, and a worst for the US as a whole.

so, and but, and still, when 'lauren smith', for instance, pertly observes, Your calculations reveal a frightening lack of statistical savvy, considering you post your "findings" on the internet for the equally inexperienced browser to read, (and this on the very same internet with the daily kos!) i respond simply--or shall i say thusly--is the exact ratio the point of this blog entry? NO! the point is there will be no no NO draft. end of story.

so lay off, get literate, and watch schoolhouse rocks a couple more times. you might learn about how a bill becomes a law. (and yes, yes i know the bill in the song does become a law. the point is most do not. ever. especially ones lying fallow in committee. especially ones opposed by the pentagon, the majority party, and the white house.)

oh! but i forgot! i got an email that says it's true! and congress might only be ten times likely to send a child to iraq, not 100 times! and thusly is not correct usage! and kerry said it was true! and a nigerian businessman wants to give me $50,000,000! so it must true.

you people are going to turn me into a (shudder) republican if it's the last thing you do, aren't you?


and yet another Update . . .

i suppose if dick cheney can claim there will be another 9-11 if kerry is elected, then kerry can claim that bush is returning the draft. i suppose the massive uptick on my blog from people looking for draft info is related to this speech--and its predecessors; obviously someone is making the case, in many places, that the draft is returning. again, i maintain that this is utter and complete bullshit.

increasingly, this campaign is about who is not whom. i am not george bush is not a basis on which to build a campaign. i am not john kerry is not either. kerry is not basing his campaign on anything other than his service in vietnam and his non-identity with george bush. equally, bush's reliance on success in iraq and the economy are empty statements, giving the state of both. it's all crap. crap, crap, crap.

is there a campaign going on? i can't tell. my prediction for the election? bush by 20-30 electoral votes. i think i'll write in john mccain for president and zell miller for vice president . . .

anyway--the update:


Kerry Says Draft May Return Under Bush

Wed Sep 22, 4:45 PM ET

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq) and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush. Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past.

Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."*

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials have been asked numerous times whether they thought a draft would be necessary to maintain force levels in Iraq. They have said consistently that they think it is neither necessary nor desirable, since today's military is built on volunteer service and professionalism.

His voice scratchy and breaking from a cold, Kerry called the president's proposal to give workers partly private Social Security accounts a windfall for financial companies and one that will cut benefits for senior citizens.

"He's driving seniors right out of the middle class," Kerry said in a battleground state rich with voters keenly watching the candidates talk about two pillars of retirement, Social Security and Medicare.

"I will never privatize Social Security, ever," Kerry said, repeating promises not to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.

Kerry's two-day swing through Florida, which began Tuesday, follows deadly hurricanes that nearly halted polling and politicking in the state. Bush made his third campaign-season trip to Florida this week to assess damage caused by Hurricane Ivan. Kerry has been to the state that decided the 2000 election nine times this year.

Kerry opened the town hall-style meeting about government benefits by repeating his charges that the president is divorced from realities in Iraq and ignoring the manhunt for terrorists in Afghanistan. "Osama bin Forgotten," Kerry said.

Noting that the campaign Tuesday night neared Disney's "fantasy land" in Orlando, Fla., Kerry said: "The difference between George Bush and me is that I drove by it. He lives in it."

Returning to seniors' issues, Kerry said Bush made life harder for seniors with a Medicare drug benefit that doesn't let the government bargain for lower costs.

Kerry also cited a study by Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago business professor and informal adviser to the Kerry campaign, to say the president's Social Security proposal will cost seniors.

Bush favors allowing young workers to create voluntary personal savings accounts with some of the money they now pay into the Social Security system, a change he insists will not increase payroll taxes or change benefits for retirees or near retirees.

Goolsbee examined one model that proposes workers set aside a small percentage of their pay in private accounts as a method to adjust Social Security to a rapidly graying population, concluding that fees charged by financial companies could reap them hundreds of billions of dollars and eat 20 percent of the benefits in an account held by a worker making an average salary.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said the study makes assumptions based on policy decisions not yet made and contended that Kerry hasn't explained how he'd meet the challenges posed to Social Security by aging Baby Boomers.

"His record is one of voting for higher taxes on current retirees and ignoring the needs of future retirees," said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt.

Kerry wants to bolster the retirement program by reducing the deficit and expanding the economy. Some experts say economic growth might be insufficient to cover future benefits because those benefits grow as wages increase.

The Massachusetts senator also wants to improve Medicare by retooling the recently passed prescription drug benefit to let the government negotiate for bulk discounts on drugs.

___________
*N.B.: because it's crap. typical politician-talk: raise an issue and then say you're ignorant about it. if he took the trouble to read this single blog entry out of thousands, he'd have his answer. idiot. 

Posted: Mon - May 24, 2004 at 06:35 AM             |

©