The policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) resurfaced last week during President Obama’s State of the Union address. The 17-year old policy, controversial when President Bill Clinton signed it into law, is officially listed under Title 10, Section 654 of the United States code. The code reads as follows:

(b) Policy. – A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;

(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

In general, the policy states that if a member of the military expresses a homosexual desire or lifestyle, they are a disruptive presence within the armed forces. As the bill states, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” giving Congress the right to limit who can or cannot serve in the military for whatever reason them determine. But is it right to bar those living an alternative lifestyle?

This policy hasn’t barred homosexuals from joining the armed forces, but it has required them to keep their orientations secret. DADT didn’t cause this, as people were keeping their orientation secret for decades because it wasn’t socially acceptable. But now that we have high-profile celebrities openly discussing their alternative lifestyles and television shows with the leading character being gay, public opinion is softening towards what was once viewed as a perversion.

But is there a problem with military personnel living a secret life? Our friends over at Kn@ppster has this to say in their article “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — A Threat to National Security“:

If they’re in the military, then they are vulnerable — not because of their sexual orientation, but because of the military’s policy of requiring that that orientation be kept secret on pain of discharge.

Because they are vulnerable, the military is vulnerable. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” makes every man and woman in the military — of any sexual orientation, because a false allegation can be just as much a career-killer as a real one — a potential vector for infiltration by foreign intelligence services.

Could homosexuals under DADT become a national security risk? I don’t think that the fear of being exposed by a foreign entity would cause the service member to compromise national security. After all, these individuals have sacrificed their personal lives to serve and defend their nation. If they were so easily influenced, odds are they wouldn’t have signed up to begin with.

On the other hand, it only takes one person to cause a lot of damage. We have seen the damage done by a single compromised serviceman in the past. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood in November. Warrant Officer John Walker, Jr. passed cryptographic secrets to the Soviets for 17 years during the Cold War. These two individuals are just examples of how it takes just one person to negatively impact the armed forces as well as putting many at risk.

Has DADT caused any events such as these to happen? Is it just a matter of time? I’m not in a position to answer either of those questions, but there is always the potential of someone being compromised, regardless of their sexual orientation. In the mean time, the military and Congress need to go back and evaluate the policy and see if it is still viable today as it was 17 years ago.

As I start this, I’m staring at a 7,446 word, 11-page speech that lasted 70 minutes last night during primetime. For every word, I could probably write ten of my own, so I am going to tackle some of the major points rather than go piece by piece. That and I don’t think you want to read a 74,460-word article.

The first portion of President Obama’s speech focused on the economy. Highlighting the unpopularity of the bank bailout program that was started under President Bush, Obama sites the anger and frustration many had over spending government funding to keep the banks open. Noting how most of the funds used in the bailout have been recovered, he stressed how he has proposed a fee to recover the rest. According to Reuters, $545 Billion of the original $700 Billion was allocated to various financial institutions, with $375 Billion actually being distributed.

Many banks have already repaid part or all of their loans, and the nation is gaining interest and dividends on outstanding holdings. The fee in question will be 0.15% on covered liabilities for banks with more than $50 Billion in assets (approximately 35 banks at the moment). Projections show a return of $90 Billion over 10 years. However, with the government receiving returns on current investments, why do we need to institute the fee? And, what if we recoup all of the losses in 5 years, especially if more banks cross the $50 Billion threshold? Will the government cancel the fee? I doubt it.

The reason I doubt that the fee will be cancelled comes from Obama’s next major point. He wants to redirect $30 Billion from bank repayments to use infuse community banks so they can make loans to small businesses. If you remember, the TARP funds were to help banks make loans initially, with some banks forced by the government to accept funds even though they didn’t need it. So if the government is going to repeat the same process, will there be a different end result than now? In addition to the $30 Billion, the President calls for tax credits for small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages, eliminate capital gains taxes on small business investments, as well as tax incentives to businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. While no specifics were provided, the total for these initiatives could reach $50 Billion in the first year (no time frame was provided, so I don’t know if this is a one year or multi-year proposal). With such an expense, the bank fee would have to remain in place if the government is going to slow/reduce the growing national debt.

Towards the end of his speech, he went back to talking out the economy and the debt. Outlining his goals to repay the debt he amassed in 2009, he started by calling for a freeze on discretionary spending starting in 2011 (based on the impression that the economy will be better in one year). The cap on spending is based upon the current budgetary levels which are already much greater than where they were when he entered office. Because of this, the spending cap won’t make much of a difference in the bottom line. If he were to cap it at where the 2009 budget was when he entered office, he would make a much larger cut in the debt, especially with the costs associated with the Iraq war come to a close, meaning there is more than enough money for the government to operate.

He continues by noting $20 Billion has been identified in savings for this year, but when you consider that he wants to spend $30 Billion for small business loans (as noted above), he’s already in the red on his cost savings proposal. To off-set this, he wants to end the tax cuts on people making $250K which he campaigned on in 2008. Additionally, he wants to end tax cuts on oil companies. However, he said earlier in the speech that he would provide tax incentives to businesses that invest in new plants and equipment, so the net savings would probably be offset. Lastly, he calls on the reinstatement of PAYGO, which he credits as “a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s” (though the tech bubble leading to record tax receipts as well as savings from the ending of the Cold War had more to do with it than government spending). I won’t go deeply into PAYGO since I’ve already written how it is an inferior policy in a prior article.

Moving from the economy to national projects and infrastructure, the President called for the next generation of domestic energy production and high-speed rail service. In regards in energy, Obama said the nation needs new nuclear power plants, opening new offshore locations for gas and oil development, investments in biofuels and clean coal technologies. Much of this has been the rally cry for Republicans as well as many states for some time, and the President was obviously playing up to that side of the hall. However, he was also setting up the right by going right into calling for the passage in the Senate of the cap-and-trade legislation that the House passed last year. Obama has constantly said he was open to increased nuclear power, especially since he wants to expand the electric car market during his time in office, though he has been reluctant of actually allowing expansion to begin. On the other hand, he strongly supports taxing emission-producing power plants while creating an artificial “carbon credit” market. He misses the point that you can simply change the emission regulations and offer tax incentives to companies to modify existing power plants (which will increase jobs as well as tax revenues).

He continued by stating how the country needs to move from a bystander on the global warming debate to the global leader. Citing how there is debate over the climate change “evidence,” he attempted to change the discussion simply to the need to transition to the next generation of energy, especially if it can lead to a good that can be exported. This has been position that most people (Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike) have shared for years, but the political debate has held back progress. If the President would drop the cap-and-trade portion of the energy regulation reform and became more proactive about allowing nuclear and oil/gas production expansion, both he and the nation can realize the end of dependence on foreign oil.

In regards to transportation, the President highlighted the need for high-speed rail service here in the United States. Comparing us to Europe and Asia, where they have taken advantage of high-speed rail for decades, he notes how our transportation infrastructure has allowed us to be competitive in the global markets and lead to business growth. There is a high-speed rail project proposed in Florida linking Tampa to Orlando (approximately 80 miles), with a future connection to Miami (approximately 230 miles) by 2017.

The initial route is projected to cost $2.6 Billion, though concerns are that the line won’t generate enough revenue to repay the investment. There are other high speed projects in the nation as well. Unfortunately, there is a problem with this program, which is why it hasn’t been implemented in the past. High-speed rail service would be difficult to bring to the New England states because of the lack of space. It would cost billions to purchase land rights through crowded 200-year-old cities for new lines, since these trains cannot run on existing tracks. Additionally, there are two mountain chains the divides the nation into thirds, making transcontinental high-speed rail service financially impractical. The Acela service offered by Amtrak (a government funded, financially insolvent company) is about as fast of a practical passenger rail service that our nation can imagine while being cost effective. For faster service, regional air carriers are the better option.

The President commented on other issues, such as the stimulus bill, national security, and health care, but I think the last item I’ll cover in this article is education. In what is probably the most interesting proposal of the night, the President wants to end the practice of funding financial institutions to offer/manage financial aid loans. Instead, he proposes a $10,000 tax credit for families for a four-year college education as well as capping how much they have to pay on their student loans. Limiting the maximum payment to 10% of the students income for 20 years (10 years if the student enters public service), he proposes that any remaining balance on the loan be written off. It will be interesting to see the details on this proposal, since I don’t know if the annual/total loan limits will be increased or decreased, nor do I know if there will be changes on who will be eligible for PELL grants and how much they will receive. In the end, there is a possibility this becomes another unsustainable program such as Social Security, meaning that it will continue to add to the debt of the nation (but only 20 years from implementation, and long after he is out of office).

There wasn’t much about this speech that surprised me, and the majority of it was a rehash of his campaign and public speeches from the past two years. He did make many references to the Senate since they have not acted as fast as the House. As a former Senator, he should understand that the Senate’s role is to help temper the frenzy of the house, which is why a Senator’s term is six years while a Representative’s term is only two. Additionally, this focus on the Senate has to do with the loss of the 60-seat super majority the Democrats enjoyed over the past year. Obama is now in a position where if he wants major pieces of legislation to pass, he has to have Republican support. Up till now, he had a hard enough time simply getting all of his party members to fall in line, meaning that if much of his proposals in last nights speech fail to come to fruition, he can blame the Republicans for obstructing his vision of progress.

Overall, I give the speech a B, since the overall theme of the speech was on the economy, and he linked most of his points to jobs or the economy in one way or another. He lost points for his inappropriate chiding of the Supreme Court (who sits in these speeches out of courtesy) and for being too long. It will be interesting to look back to this speech in December to see what he has or has not achieved over the next 11 months.

I will address the Republican response tomorrow.

Have you heard about this? The RNC has released the “RNC Resolution on Financial Support of Candidates,” where they list ten key points that candidates wishing to obtain party funding must support at least 80% of the time. Where does the Republican leadership come up with this nonsense? Talk about trying to win a marathon while being chained to a pole.

In the fallout of the nomination of “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) in recent elections, the Republican leadership has decided to release a list of 10 issues that candidates must agree with (at least 80%) if they wish to receive party endorsements and financial backing. Hoping to avoid another candidate like Dede Scozzafava from running under the Republican banner, the sponsors of this resolution hope they can field Reaganesque candidates for the 2010 election. I think they are going to be disappointed.

The following is the ten key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle as identified by the Republican National Committee, as well as my personal responses to each one:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

In general, I believe that a “smaller government” is best. The Constitution lays out fairly clearly the role of the Federal government, with most of the powers being placed in the hands of the states. However, after 200 years of maturing as a nation and taking on the role as the worlds’ lone Super Power, the scope of responsibilities by the Federal government has change. That is why a “bigger government” in respect to foreign policy is needed today.

In regards to reducing the national debt, deficits, and taxes, I do agree. Keeping a smaller government (as mentioned above) leads to a lower fiscal demand on the population. Another benefit of having a tighter belt on government spending is that it is easier for the government to respond when economic stresses arise since you are in a financial position to take on some additional debt for the near-term. Take the economic stimulus bill that the RNC highlights in this litmus test.

When the nation needs a shot in the arm, it can infuse cash into the system through government projects and contracts. The stimulus bill failed since it was focused on small state projects or supporting state services. Additionally, there is no return on investment from these projects, which leads to a greater financial hurdle that the population must shoulder when the economy finally turns around. A leaner Federal government would have focused on long-term interstate projects (such as new energy infrastructure programs) that are needed and provide a return on investment. Additionally, instead of spending money on state projects, the Federal government should have provided the state governments a low-interest line of credit with a 20-year repayment deadline. That will help states through their economic slump while maintaining their credit rating, gives them ample time to repay their balance, as the Federal government receives some financial benefit in the end.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

Since we have covered Health Care Reform in the past, I won’t go too deep into this item. I’ll state that item one in this list naturally dictates that item two should be a non-government run program. The role by the Federal government in regards to health care should be establishing the guidelines for the insurance companies to follow. For example, if the problem with the current health care industry is that people with pre-existing health conditions cannot find coverage by a new insurance provider, then government can simply pass a law requiring providers to treat these patients the same way as any other client. There is no need for the government to have to offer their own insurance plans.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

The fallacy in this statement is that cap-and-trade is government-based. What it is, in a nutshell, is a penalty on energy providers by artificially creating a carbon credit market, which then in turn creates a market-based system. Unfortunately, this plan will hurt the energy market more than help. What the Federal government should do is create an environment where energy producers want to voluntarily upgrade their power plants so they are more environmentally-friendly, while at the same time making it easier for them to expand to meet the every growing demands by the public. As our society grows ever more dependent on technology, the need for more grows as well.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

On this I have to agree. Card check is a bullying tool wanted by the unions as a way to stem their loses in the labor market. If unions provided a service in the modern working world that workers cannot obtain from the employers directly or from similar jobs, then people would be signing up for the unions more often today than they are now.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Unless the RNC is planning on deporting over 10 Million illegal aliens, there will have to be some form of amnesty provided. That doesn’t mean that the government has to stop deporting illegal aliens as they are captured and hand out green cards and visas without any penalties. The correct “solution” to the current illegal alien problem is to offer an amnesty while charging them $10,000 per person. So, a family of five would have to pay $50,000 in exchange for legal status. After the amnesty period concludes, any remaining illegal aliens would have to be deported. If they are obtained during a raid on a business, the business will be fined for each illegal alien captured. This would hopefully create an economic disadvantage to the employers to verify the legal status of a potential employee before hiring.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

The author of this item doesn’t seem to understand the complexity of the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ‘victory’ in Iraq was not just a military-recommended troop surge, but a mixture of both military and political recommendations and strategies. This is obviously a dig at Obama for not jumping on the McCrystal recommendations, and I do agree that Obama has had over a year to decide on his course of action. I say “over a year” since he was briefed repeatedly both on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Presidential elections as well as after he was elected President.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

I have to ask the RNC to clarify what they mean by “effective action.” Am I to assume they are looking for a military response to Iran’s nuclear program?

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

It might sound like a cop-out, but the gay marriage debate does fall under the “interstate commerce” clause. Let me try to explain.

The states are the ones who should establish the definition of marriage. The problem is when you start dealing with multiple states. If one state recognizes gay marriage and another one doesn’t, what is the legal status of a gay couple if they move? Additionally, are they able to obtain health care coverage for their spouse or adopt a child? The problem with leaving the decision to define marriage up to the states creates the potential for gay couples to live in limbo if they have to move to a non-gay-friendly state. For this reason I support a national definition which the Defense of Marriage Act provides. If enough states desire to change the definition of marriage, they have the ability to petition the Federal government to repeal DOMA and establish a new definition that is universal across the whole country.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;

This item ties in with item 2. The government should not be providing health care plans to the general public (they do pay for some health insurance for government workers and the military). As far as government-funded abortions, I would like to refer people to my article on embryonic stem cell research. I would not bar people from seeking out an abortion, but I would all but bar Federal funding for the practice. For government workers and members of the military who wish to seek an abortion, I would limit it to cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mothers’ life. For ‘elective’ procedures, the person would either have to fund the procedure out of pocket or through a third party.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

One of the biggest problems with the Second Amendment is how poorly written it is. Since I think the government has the right to limit certain types of weapons from general sales as well as establish screening regulations before obtaining a permit, this statement is too vague to support.

I guess by the RNC’s criteria, I would not be receiving much support from the party if I were to run for office. By that note, I don’t think Ronald Reagan would either. The RNC resolution loves to cite Reagan throughout the document, but it completely misses the essence of what made Reagan great. He worked to create an identity of the party on a series of principles, not through “purity tests.” The RNC would be taking the party back to the days of Nixon with this resolution, and not the era of Reagan.

Related articles:
CNN – “Should Republicans be trying to sell political ‘purity’?”