1. Yes, the vacation thing was probably an unnecessary side note (which is why it only got one sentence). Clearly that wasn’t meant to be a main point.

2. You misunderstood my accusation of hypocrisy. The two actions don’t connote hypocrisy, it’s the fact that his grounds for cutting the defense budget has been to cut wasteful spending, which the stimulus bill was overflowing with. All I’m suggesting is that saying that he’s cutting defense in the name of fiscal responsibility is ridiculous when he’s just a year removed from one of the most wasteful spending bills in recent memory.

3. It’s not necessarily a matter of “self-importance” as you inferred. It’s more a matter of doing a job properly. Hiring more Foreign Service officers is nice, but what sort of practical implications is that really going to have in terms of global conflict and US foreign policy? It might be a beneficial long-term strategy, but the immediate conflict is an armed one, not a diplomatic one, and to try to carry it out any other way is not likely to produce anything beneficial (save for maybe a Nobel Peace Prize).

The whole point of this post was to demonstrate that Defense should not, in fact, be first on the cutting board. While it is laden with waste, there is no denying that our entitlement and social welfare programs have turned into little more than a sponge for the federal budget.

1. Big deal — Obama was on vacation. Turns out Presidents Reagan, and Bush I and II all spent more time “on vacation” in their first year than Obama did. So let’s leave that out of any analysis of his performance as the leader of this nation.
Here’s the link to prove it: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

2. You qualify the Administration as “hypocrite” for hinting that the 2011 Budget will see cuts in discretionary spending while in the meantime Obama has signed the Economic Stimulus and the Healthcare Reform Act. I see no connection between the two. If anything, these pieces of legislation are the farthest from what you would qualify as “discretionary spending” — rather being comprehensive and long-term investments of the government (like public education and Medicaid) as part of the effort of providing the goods and services that all Americans fundamentally deserve. Sure, we can talk about the qualities of what the Federal government should and shouldn’t take on as “major investments.” But it’s not fair to call Obama a hypocrite if he’s trying to cut spending on cancerous pork programs that flood Departmental budgets.

3. So now it’s somehow “tragic” that we’re cutting spending on Defense because of some conceited feeling of self-importance and patriotism? Things happen for a reason, and surely if the Defense budget is being cut, it’s because Obama seeks to invest more in other areas which our country has ignored to develop — like our diplomatic corps, for example. The 2010 Budget gave the State Department some room to breathe, and allowed for more Foreign Service Officers to be hired. And, I wouldn’t be surprised if that trend continues inj next year’s Budget. Now THAT’S something worth being proud and patriotic about…. that we can have the world’s finest diplomatic body, and have the potential to advance a global agenda for peace and democracy. Not that we have the meanest soldiers and bloodiest guns which we can use to police the world as we wish. Of course Robert Gates isn’t going to want to see cuts — it’s his Department!

But enough is enough. If you’re going to complain that Obama should be cutting expenditures, then you should start by reciognizing that the Defense Department ought to be the first on the cutting board. The Pentagon does not need more carte blanche and blank checks from the President. This is a civilian society led by a civilian government, and nothing or anyone should try to tip that balance — for the sake of our democracy.

For Instance, about saving money on more government programs, like Rehabilitation?

Its not a matter of the now, its a matter of the progress and the changes that will have to come for progress.

Agree to disagree here — there are few people whose politics I respect more than yours, JC.

I’m not calling you or your blog post anything. I was making a statement that this Arizona law was influenced by too much emotion and too little economic pragmatism.

I have no problem with people from Mexico. I have no problem with people from any other country. I have no problem with people who have a different skin tone than me, who speak a different language than me or who practice a different religion. You know this.

Yet you say that “…emotionally-based rhetoric and fear mongering unnecessarily clouds debates on immigration.” Who here is practicing fear mongering? I said nothing racist, xenophobic or anti-immigrant. My position is and always has been staunchly anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.

Suppose that immigrants are all, across the board, a major series of pluses for our economy. That doesn’t matter. This is not an issue of providing a good living to people who want to work hard, and the economics are a secondary issue here for me. This is a matter of national defense. If somebody wants to come here from Mexico illegally to support his family, I take major issue with that. Sure it’s unlikely, but not impossible that an ex-felon or even a terrorist could come across the border without the government’s knowledge and without ever being a legal, registered citizen. Does that not concern you? Now, if that same person were to come here legally and have a background check done along with the other prerequisites for citizenship, I would have absolutely no issue. This is not ethnic discrimination. I don’t care if it’s a white guy coming over from Mexico. I don’t care who it is. I don’t want them here until they have become legal residents. And if the immigration quotas are so prohibitive that those people can’t make it here legally, then maybe the other illegals should stop coming here so that the federal government doesn’t need to keep immigrant quotas so low to compensate for the annual influx of illegals.

So before you accuse me of unfairly blurring the debate with xenophobia, take the time to think about which side is looking at this from a standpoint that calls it “ethnic discrimination” and which side is looking at it from a standpoint that calls it “national defense.” THEN you can tell me who’s invoking the ethnic question.

Immigration offers more economic benefits than most people realize. In the Immigration Equation, Roger Lowerstein argues that with greater supply of immigrants in America, there are more opportunities to open new businesses, create jobs. Lowerstein writes, “Somebody would realize that the immigrants needed to eat and would open a restaurant; someone else would think to build them housing”. Immigrants consume goods and services like everybody else, provide previously unavailable capital, resources and through their daily transactions new markets are made.

Immigrants are seen, labeled as threatening because native born-American citizens are upset with the status-quo, but choose to blame a group which offers the US more benefits than negatives. Mexican immigrants work jobs most native-born citizens would not do. They pay taxes but do not receive an equitable share of benefits. Most immigrants want steady employment, educational opportunities for their children, and to improve they their adopted country. Why then do States not accept, welcome these hard workers which enable economic growth?

Arizona, and other communities hold unfavorable views of immigrants, because emotionally-based rhetoric and fear mongering unnecessarily clouds debates on immigration. Native-born Americans are manipulated by popular media and political ideologues which shape views on this issue. Thus, if America wants to move beyond racial, ethnic immigrant discrimination, it must have more universal empathy, respect for all ethnic groups.