How Long/Short is Congress's Institutional Memory?

Whereas the Republican-controlled 109th Congress was derided as the "do-nothing Congress," Pelosi & Co. seem determined to make the 110th the "do-something Congress" - even if nothing would be better. Lately, these do-something efforts in the House are aimed at undercutting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been conducted with a surprising amount of cleverness. To begin with, they've split the war funding into three parts: the funding itself, a much-hyped GI Bill, and the obligatory sop to the far-left mandating withdrawal.

On the funding portion, Republicans too showed that they could play cute, and borrowed a play from the Audacity of Hope (or at least Obama's play book): 132 Republicans voted present, protesting the fact that they had not been permitted to offer alternative legislation.

But the real cute part of this whole legislative mess is the benefits for veterans, a new "GI Bill" extending educational benefits for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. To fund these programs, an estimated $52 billion over ten years, Democrats could have slashed discretionary spending elsewhere - the farm bill, for example. Instead, they chose to further burden their favorite target: the successful. Thankfully, unlike Obama's bone-headed conception of wealthy, they set the bar at a reasonable (though still outlandish in principle) $500,000 for individual filers and $1,000,000 for joint filers. The tax hike is also a relatively insignificant .47 percent.

But it's the principle of the matter. Congress has used taxes on the wealthy before to fund wars. Perhaps most notably, in 1898 Congress passed a 3% excise tax on telephone usage. In that day and age, such a tax was a tax on the wealthy. Unlike this tax, the Spanish-American telephone tax was likely proposed without the "screw the rich" intent - after all, no one can dare claim that the country's elite sat out the war (just look at the roster of the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry Regiment). But the telephone tax holds a lesson for Congress, and questions its institutional memory, as it wasn't repealed until 2006.

Now I dare not expect too much of Congress; it's unlikely that most remember when the Spanish-American war was fought, or where - though I do hope they can name our opponent and perhaps (though it may be a stretch) the conflict's casus belli. But they should clearly remember that such taxes outlive their usefulness by years, decades, even centuries, and should be levied carefully. Some enterprising Republican in the Senate (Gordon Smith or Susan Collins, perhaps, who are both moderates and facing stiff reelection battles) should attach an amendment putting a sunset on this tax, or perhaps even an annual renewal.

Democrats also engage - shocker - in some martial relativism here. While all wars are no doubt hell, as Sherman said, they aren't all the same. Congress enacted the GI Bill after the war to reward a whole generation of American men, many of whom had been drafted into the service (though the vast majority went willingly). In contrast, all of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are volunteers. I know, not a distinction I expect 435 of our not so bright and hardly best to grasp, but still.

32 Republicans voted in favor of the bill; many of those are facing tough battles for reelection and represent moderate districts where supporting the troops likely outweighs fiscal responsibility. Some of those 32, however, are just asshats such as Don Young, who no doubt understands that the revenue raised by this tax is fungible and could be diverted to...a bridge to nowhere? If it survives the Senate in its present form (where it'll put McCain in a hell of a bind), Bush will likely veto in the name of fiscal responsibility and urge Democrats to find the money elsewhere. Whether or not the veto gets overridden will likely be a result of two things: whether Boehner and the Republican leadership chooses to whip the vote and keep their party in line, and if not whether individual Republican representatives put fiscal responsibility over a vulnerability to cheap attacks that they don't support the troops (by Democrats and the media who keep twisting the knife in the back of the troops at every opportunity they get).

Noteworthy and Under-Reported

The Marines - and all the other branches of the armed services - exceeded their April recruitment goals. Even in a three-paragraph article, AP puts into play the inevitable Democratic talking point: "Recruiting is easier in a slow economy." That being said, the economy isn't as slow as AP would like to believe; perhaps improving conditions on the ground are causing young Americans to once again consider serving their country?

[I first caught this in the Tribune this morning, but couldn't find it on their website; the first Google News searches I ran yielded some interesting and irrelevant results]

Rush a Stalking Horse?

I'm starting to wonder whether this whole Rush Limbaugh/"phony soldiers" brouhaha - which, by the way, Rush said nothing close to what the Left alleges - is merely a Democratic stalking horse for the Fairness Doctrine. After all, Rush is Talk Radio, that evil menace to democracy that needs to be policed by the FCC. Michelle Malkin and I are on the same page; The Hill also agrees.

An Unsung Hero Passes

Blackfive notes and mourns the passing of General Wayne Downing, Special Forces soldier extraordinaire - and a soldier's soldier.

More Congressional Harassment

Veterans for Freedom, a group that understands that the blood of Americans spread in Iraq cannot be in vain, is launching a push of their own to give our troops the opportunity to win. Check out their ten-week plan here. If you're a veteran, I'd urge you to get involved; they're doing great work and they rightly note that their strength is their numbers. And again, feel free to give a piece of your mind to your Senators, especially if they're spineless cretins like Reid (apologies to honest invertebrates everywhere).

Britain's Vanishing Military

Some MPs are voicing concerns over declining enlistment rates in all branches of the British military; among the cited reasons are "heavy workloads, frequent overseas deployments and impact on family life." No doubt.

Truly gone are the glory days of British arms. Presently, troops can look forward to tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere lasting months and with many comforts while off-duty. At the height of empire, enlistment was something like ten (fifteen?) years, and deployments on far-off posts in unhealthy climes (India, West Africa, etc.) were measured in years. During the Napoleonic Wars, sailors of the Royal Navy could go years without setting foot on dry land (and could go almost as long without their food being refreshed).

I've begun to think that war debts and a whiny Left (including the transmission of various nationalist doctrines into colonies) were only two of the most obvious causes of the decline of empires post-1945. Other under-studied causes could very well include the development of communication technology and rise of the welfare state. The second of these meant that men had a choice between starvation and service (which often wasn't a whole lot better). The former meant that overseas policy was conducted more cautiously by government bureaucrats rather than those on the front line. If he'd been blessed (cursed?) with satellite communications, no doubt Clive never would have fought Plassey. Instead, when England next heard from him, he'd annexed a large swath of India on his own initiative. It used to be that when troops were deposited on some distant shore, they acted as they saw fit until such time as they perished or received further "orders" (often hopelessly obsolete) from Europe. Compare that to LBJ's micromanagement of Vietnam!

What does this all mean? Perhaps national service (broadly construed) should be made a prerequisite for welfare benefits. Of course that would be seen as aimed at the lower classes, which is unfortunately true. A culture of public service needs to be inculcated into national elites, so that they too do their part (though aristocratic officers were often far more trouble than they were worth). Perhaps I am just a man born in the wrong time.