Abolishing DOD: A radical idea that makes sense

Freedom Democrats http://freedomdemocrats.com/ called my attention to a creative post from the Daily Kos. I often disagree with the very left-leaning types at the Daily Kos, but one of their contributors has come up with a radical idea that makes sense. Why not abolish the Department of Defense ? It would be one way to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and the Kos columnist gives some great suggestions as to how a more efficient structure might be organized. We simply don't need a vast civilian bureaucracy at the Pentagon. While the military must continue to be headed by a civilian commander, our men and women in uniform can best carry out the functions of our national defense. See link to the Kos column at http://tinyurl.com/kfm8p

"First, anyone who is wearing a uniform is transferred to the new Department of Uniformed Services. This means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. This department fights battles. Period. It should be headed by a military group like the Joint Chiefs. If you don't wear a uniform, you don't work in this department. There would be a civilian top-level directorate as now."

"Second, there is all the indirect work done using DoD contracts. This includes procurement, weapons R&D and allied development work. Things like the Army Corp of Engineers and similar non-military functions should be transferred to another department such as Homeland Security or Interior. Perhaps if there is enough engineering and infrastructure work spread throughout the government we should have a dedicated civil engineering department. FEMA might also be put into this organization. This department could be called something like Military Support Services."

"Third, intelligence gathering and analysis not related to battlefield activity should be consolidated into a single department. This includes most of the present pentagon intelligence operations, the CIA and the NSA, and, perhaps, parts of the FBI. Clandestine operations of a non-intelligence operation should be removed from the CIA and into Uniformed Services. Spy agencies are not supposed to be overthrowing governments or trying to assassinate foreign nationals. This would be the Department of Intelligence Services."

"Dividing things this way would improve things in several respects. Weapons procurement and R&D would be evaluated by Support Services, an independent group. This would eliminate inter-branch rivalry. Pulling strings within DoD would not get your pet weapons system approved, for example. Similar efficiencies would arise from the ability of all intelligence services being organized by mission rather than which branch of the military they support. Having each department with its own cabinet member and dedicated congressional oversight committees would also prevent the type of funds shifting which goes on now."

"There is also no reason to keep the size (and many of the details) of the Intelligence Services' budget secret. Knowing how big it is does not impair security, but does give the civilian overseers and the voting public the ability to evaluate the cost/benefit of the department. Turf wars like those going on now between the CIA and DoD would be eliminated as well. Even conservative supporters of a big military should be in favor of streamlining "bloated" government bureaucracies."

As a "Scoop Jackson Democrat," I have long advocated a strong defense and a hard-line approach to matters of national security. Getting rid of the wasteful DoD and empowering our military to protect America is a common sense idea that deserves serious consideration.

* WHY DEMOCRATS MUST TAKE THE LEAD ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Writing in Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan makes a strong case that Democratic center must reassert itself and our party must take a tough stand on national security matters to prevail at the polls. See link to full column at http://tinyurl.com/pvr43 Bevans quotes from Senator Evan Bayh who recently gave a great speech to the National Press Club on the need for Democrats to respond effectively to the challenge of militant Islam just as FDR, Truman and JFK stood against the threats of fascism and communism.

Here is an excerpt from Bevan's column:

"Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, both DLC centrists and possible 2008 presidential candidates, spoke at the event (a National Press Club forum to publicize a new book by Democratic defense and foreign policy experts) on Tuesday. While the two offered plenty of sharp criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy, their message to the party could not have been clearer: Democrats must reclaim the aggressive foreign policy heritage of FDR, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy if they want to reclaim power." Bayh told the group:

"If you ask me why we lost the last presidential election, I'd say more than anything else, it was because of our perceived problems with national security, broadly defined, and the war on terror, more specifically. We still have a hurdle to cross with the American people in convincing them that we can be both tough and smart when it comes to securing America.
And we're not going to be able to have a dialogue with the American people on all the other issues that we do so well on -- health care, education, the environment, jobs. They're not going to trust us on those things if they don't first trust us with their lives."

"This is, of course, what the centrists have been saying for some time. In December 2004 Peter Beinart wrote an article in The New Republic entitled "The Fighting Faith" arguing that liberalism had failed to be fundamentally reshaped by the attacks of September 11. Beinart wrote that while Democrats were still energized by traditional domestic issues like healthcare, the environment and gay rights, he could find "little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda." Beinart eventually signed on to expand the centrist thesis of his essay into a book that will hit the shelves next month The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again."

"With the next presidential election more than two years away, it's far too early to tell which side will prevail. It's going to be a long, important fight with some very serious potential consequences. For the moment, at least, the centrists have fought back and taken the offensive. Time will tell if they can hold on to it." http://realclearpolitics.com

Democrats need to follow the example of FDR, Truman and JFK and take the lead in the war on terrorism. The Republicans have shown that they lack a real concern for protecting our national security interests and it would be a disaster for the Democrats to follow the path of the Moveonner Left toward pacifism and isolationism.

* THE "FAIR TAX" AND "JUST GIVE THEM MONEY" !

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) is not only attempting a political comeback 25 years after leaving public life but aiming for the White House. Gravel is the first major Democratic figure to come out in favor of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax promoted as the "fair tax." Gravel is the most prominent although certainly not the only Democrat to endorse such a plan which has been embraced by many conservative Republicans, the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian-oriented Freedom Democrats.

In my view, progressive income taxes are more fair than relying on sales and property taxes for all government revenue. If the "fair tax" were enacted, we would either end up slashing the federal budget to the point of eliminating basic functions of government or greatly raising the price of goods through very high sales taxes. Even if food, medicine and inexpensive items of clothing could be exempted from the "fair tax", I think the middle and working class would still end up paying a disappropriate share of taxes as a relatively frugal wealthy person might pay little more than many solidly middle class individuals.

The notion that the IRS could be abolished with the "fair tax" is probably wrong as our state tax agencies are not able to do an effective job of making sure that businesses are paying their state sales taxes. In my home state of Florida, our Republican Governor and Legislature have sharply reduced the number of state tax agents. This situation has basically giving a free pass to unethical businesses that might be tempted to pocket sales tax receipts and depend on the voluntarily compliance of major companies. Some kind of federal tax agency would still be needed to properly monitor the payment of sales taxes by businesses engaged in interstate commerce and to investigate as tax fraud involving multiple states.

Furthermore, progressive taxation encourages wealthy individuals to give generously to charities in order to get tax breaks. If we ever go to a purely sales tax based system or a flat tax with no deductions, the amount of money given to private charities will probably drop sharply. Social service agencies, relief organizations, arts and cultural activities will be eliminated or be scaled back considerably. And I suspect there is a hidden secularist, anti-religion agenda behind the "fair tax" as it will sharply reduce the amount of contributions going to churches, synagogues and other religious organizations.

I agree that something needs to done to increase the savings rate and reduce mindless consumption but the "fair tax" is not the solution.

Interestingly, another idea advanced back in the early 70's by then Senator Gravel - a guaranteed annual income for all Americans is coming to the forefront again. Mark Satin of the Radical Middle Newsletter is promoting the concept of replacing all entitlement programs with a single annual cash payment of ten thousand dollars to every American. See http://tinyurl.com/zdqej I'm not sure this idea would work, but it is an interesting concept. I have generally favored an approach to poverty that is a mix of the Daddy State and Nanny State mindset that balances a willingness to help the poor with a certain amount of tough love for those who abuse the system. The Rich Uncle State approach doesn't work and the Absent Parent State is just too anti-humanitarian in my view.

Another idea along similar lines is a proposal by Congressman Harold Ford to establish a savings account at birth for every child. See link http://tinyurl.com/gwcp5 Ford's idea could be an effective weapon to reduce poverty and also improve the savings rate among Americans.

* THOUGHTS ON DEMOCRATIC MISALLIANCES

Dissent, a left-leaning journal of opinion, recently posted a though provoking
article "Democratic Misalliances" by Benjamin Ross from Spring 2003 to their online archives http://tinyurl.com/z2rdu While the essay is now almost three years old, it is still quite timely. I think that Ross makes an excellent point that elitists within the Democratic Party from the 70's McGovernites to New Democrats and in my view - now the Moveonner Left have captured the party and moved it away from the traditions of representing working families.

Although I like some of the DLC's positions on things like national security and charter schools, but don't care for much of their economic agenda which is simply too free market and big business oriented for my taste. Many of the New Democrats in the 90's held strongly liberal positions issues like gun control and abortion - issues that were important for the McGovernites and the Moveonner Left today. There is common ground with the McGovernites in the 70's to the New Democrats of the 90's to the Moveonner Left types of the 21stCentury in terms of their focus on the concerns of upscale and highly educated segments of the population as opposed to the poor, the working class and the lower middle class.

All of these movements assumed that racial minorities would inevitably go along for the ride despite the neglect of working class concerns and values, however, that will not continue indefinitely. At some point, Democrats are going to have to return to a mainstream and working class-oriented populism. The DLC and Moveonner factions in my view are both examples of how our party has gone astray.