Well…maybe it’s not quite so simple.

Here’s my take on it: some form of a balanced budget amendment is necessary. As it stands now, we’ve grown so accustomed to running an increasingly massive budget deficit on an annual basis, that the de facto presumption is that we’ll continue to do so. And any time we balance the budget, it’s considered a big deal. A balanced budget amendment would reverse that. We shouldn’t be elated when the budget is balanced; we should expect that. Rather, we should be skeptical and cautious when it’s not balanced.

Therefore, a constitutional mandate to balance the budget is necessary. The problem doesn’t lie in the underlying goal or intent, but in the specific approach sought by the Congressional Republicans. The biggest issue I have with their approach is the idea of capping spending as a percentage of GDP (currently, they seek a cap of 18%), allowing for exceptions in a state of declared war or when 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree to allow more spending. I first read about this in a great New York Times blog post by a former IMF chief economist. You can read it for yourself, but I would like to draw attention to a few of his points about how this 18% cap could really hamper the progress of the US economy in the years to come.

The first thing he points out might seem like a trivial concern, but it’s really a big one when you put it in perspective. GDP does not have a “legal” definition. (Under the assumption that knowledge of economy theory ranges widely among my readership, I’ll very simply define GDP here: It’s a measure of the size of the American economy, and therefore a measure of economic activity. The raw number is equal to the amount of total income by all Americans in a given year). Although the federal government does have a formula that they prefer to use when calculating GDP, and although they do use this same formula every year in issuing official reports on economic data, nowhere is it written into stone that this definition has to be used.

Why is this an issue? Consider an example: some president at some point in the future wants to spend loads of money, above the 18% cap. He can simply redefine GDP so that it’s calculated in such a way that the number is suddenly larger than it would have been had the traditional formula been followed (he could, for example, sign a law requiring that small jobs involving cash payments such as babysitting, lawn mowing and table waiting, be reported to the IRS so that the value of those payments can be added to GDP). All of a sudden, GDP goes up on paper (but the economy is the same size) and that particular administration is enabled to spend more. Sets a nasty precedent, doesn’t it?

The specific figure of 18% that they’ve chosen raises some questions as well. While that figure might make sense right now, with a growing percentage of the population becoming eligible for certain entitlements as the baby boomer generation retires en masse, we will need to devote a larger percentage of GDP to entitlement spending than ever before (it should go without saying that I support massive reform of our entitlement programs to promote the future solvency of these programs in the wake of the massive expense that this new generation of retirees represents). The 18% figure is based on historical trends, not on future projections. Yet the fiscal circumstances of the next few years are unlike anything we’ve ever experienced, and need to be addressed as such. The 18% figure needs to be more flexible to accommodate the kind of circumstances that we haven’t before seen, and that weren’t necessarily considered in developing that figure.

Finally, I’d like to use a hypothetical scenario to illustrate one final danger of setting a government spending cap as a percentage of GDP. Suppose we have a situation of stagflation — defined as a stagnant, or shrinking, GDP combined with high inflation (this happens rarely, but when it does, it can be fatal to a nation’s economy — just look at pre-WWII Germany). In that particular scenario, GDP (by definition) goes down, and therefore the spending cap decreases. In addition, high inflation means that the real value of government expenditures decreases, leading to a massive net decrease in government spending, when the economy is already desperately hurting. I’m no Keynesian, but it doesn’t take a far-left economist to acknowledge that such a situation would spell serious trouble for the economy. And while the rule could be temporarily suspended by a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, one lesson that should be drawn from the recent debt ceiling debate is that you can never completely trust Congress to put aside ideology for the greater good of the economy.

The point of this is not to dismiss the idea of a balanced budget amendment — as I said, I would absolutely support that kind of measure, if it contains the kind of provisions necessary to give Congress flexibility in times of armed conflict, and unusual or unique (but far from impossible) economic circumstances. I just hope that before crying out for the need to balance the budget, political activists take the time to do the research and understand all possible consequences of a balanced budget amendment — both the good and the potentially scary.

Everyone from Barack Obama’s “socialist pawns” to Michelle Bachmann’s “tea-baggin’ crazies” is less than satisfied with the contents of the bill. I have to say, it feels sort of odd to be in my particular position. I can’t remember too many occasions on which I actually was fairly pleased with a piece of legislation that was voted for by a majority of Congress, yet when I was in such a vast minority in terms of my support for the bill.

On the one hand, the Republican in me was relieved to see the President bend over and take it on revenue increases and cuts to entitlement programs. On the other hand, the sensible aspiring economist in me was wary of seeing steep cuts in government spending at a time when unemployment is over 9%. All in all, I’d say the bill could have looked a lot worse — if either side had completely gotten its way.

My position at this point is not just strange, but rather frustrating as well. It leaves me to go to bed at night with the difficult (albeit probably somewhat arrogant) thoughts of, “everybody in this country must be completely out of their mind but me.”

Thankfully, I feel less guilty about my arrogance in knowing that I’m not alone in feeling that way. If you lean hard to the right, you’re probably thinking that any willingness whatsoever to increase the debt at a time when we’re at risk for default defies all fiscal logic. We obviously haven’t learned anything about the urgent need to sort out our finances ASAP and we’ll all be paying the price (literally and figuratively) for our own stupidity in a big way, really soon. I’d agree with that — to an extent. And if you lean hard to the left, you’re probably terrified that our system of government permits a small minority of activists who are very politically charged (but less-than-savvy in the realm of actual governance) to hold the economy by its neck over the dark, endless abyss of double-dip recession, make steep, ideologically-rooted demands, and only allow us to breathe once we’ve given in (what’s even scarier than the fact that they can do it is the fact that they would and did do it). This too, would garner my agreement — up to a point.

Then there’s me. The guy in the middle. The guy who looks at the two extremes above and weeps for the future of our nation.

Do yourself a favor. When this bill passes today, don’t breathe a sigh of relief. Don’t act like the elected officials in Washington have done something “big” and “noble” to compromise on this important issue. Understand that we should never have been in this position in the first place, and the fact that this issue could only be resolved after weeks of intense, tabloidesque drama is a really serious problem. The way our elected officials acted was beyond “childish” — a word which many of them acknowledged and embraced in major media outlets to describe their own behavior over the past few weeks (relieving, isn’t it?).

Well surely, you say, there must be a silver lining here. Right? Sure. At least there was one moment of quasi-unity yesterday when Rep. Giffords made her way into the House chamber to a standing ovation, in order to vote in favor of the bill for the first time since being attacked a few months back. At least her story allows us to come together on something. We can all agree on our unqualified opposition to unprovoked, unmitigated, fatal, close range gun violence in grocery stores.

As for now, it seems like that’s about all we can agree on. It might not be a huge step forward, but it’s a start.

The defining “where were you when…” moment for my generation was always 9/11. Yet this past Sunday night, I had the incredible and unforgettable privilege of experiencing another such moment at its very point of origin.

At about 8 PM on Sunday night, I took a shuttle bus to my school’s auxiliary campus to use its library as I got ready for this past week’s final exams. Around 11:30 or so, I noticed that everyone was being uncharacteristically loud for a library and I began to get frustrated since I was trying to study (I didn’t have my computer with me at the time, so I had no clue what was going on). Finally, I sent a text to a friend of mine who was there, complaining about how obnoxiously loud it was. His response was something to the effect of, “yeah, they’re probably talking about the bin Laden thing.” I had no idea what that meant — but within about five minutes I had figured it out and bolted over to where he was sitting with a few other friends crowded around his computer, watching CNN’s livestream and awaiting President Obama’s address.

Love him or hate him, the President’s address to the nation was phenomenal. Hearing him confirm bin Laden’s death and his description of that day’s events literally gave me the chills. After the address concluded, I went back to studying, figuring that the night was pretty much wrapped up.

At about 1 AM, I got back on the shuttle to go to my room for the night. A half dozen or so other students got on after me, all saying that they were headed to the White House. They said that their parents had been watching the news and that a massive celebration was underway. After ten minutes of overhearing them talk about how incredible the scene at the White House apparently was, I reluctantly decided to head there myself.

I got off the shuttle and made the four block walk over to 1600 Penn. As I approached, the streets were more and more crowded with people and cars were speeding by, laying on their horns and waving American flags out of their sunroofs. When I finally turned the last corner to get a glimpse of the White House’s north lawn, I was blown away. There must have been close to 10,000 people there in what was a totally spontaneous and unplanned celebration. The vast majority of the crowd was my age, or very close to it. Everyone — black or white, male or female, American or foreign born, young or old, Republican or Democrat — was in a euphoric mode of relentless patriotism. Everybody was absolutely pouring over with love for their country, the US military and their fellow American citizens.

For the two hours I was there, I was absolutely stunned by the sense of community that prevailed. For one night, everybody was everyone else’s best friend. The political, socioeconomic and demographic barriers that so frequently divide our country ceased to have any relevance. I’ve never seen so many complete strangers showing each other affection — be it via a hug, a high-five or helping someone down from a tree (and yes, literally every tree was occupied to capacity by people celebrating).

One of the coolest things I saw was a group of Marines who climbed up into a tree, hung a USMC flag from one of the branches and spent an hour singing Marine Corps cheers and fight songs. They received — and I’m not exaggerating here — no less than a full 20-second ovation from the crowds beneath them upon finishing each cheer. You can imagine why I was completely taken aback.

Of course, it didn’t last forever. At around 3 AM, after spending a half hour following Geraldo Rivera around and unsuccessfully attempting to get my 15 seconds of fame on a major cable news network (much like almost all of my friends who were there), I walked back to my room and decided to call it a night. After thinking about it for a while, I was kind of surprised by the magnitude of the celebration. I thought to myself, “I know bin Laden’s death was a big deal, but I had no idea that people would react like that.” And that’s when I realized what the whole night was about.

Yes, bin Laden’s death was obviously the impetus for the celebrations of Sunday night, and that will certainly be the defining event associated with May 1, 2011. But it wasn’t just about celebrating the death of a madman. The people didn’t show up carrying posters showing bin Laden with crosshairs over his face. They were waving American flags and paying tribute to the greatness that is the United States. That’s what it was really about. Osama bin Laden’s death simply gave us the excuse that we’ve been waiting for since 9/11 to demonstrate our love of country that has been so absent from the public view. People weren’t cheering “death to Osama.” They were cheering “U-S-A!” This wasn’t just about bin Laden. This was about all of us coming together as Americans and defying the notion that “one nation, under God, indivisible” is just a cliché. That sense of unbreakable American community still exists, and I got the chance to see it in its purest, rawest form on Sunday.

So where were you when you found out that Osama bin Laden had been killed?

Me? I was right there.

There are two basic sides to this argument: the first, generally from the right, suggests that this mosque is insensitive and anti-American. Some have even claimed that it could serve as a hub for terrorist activity. The other, generally from the left, would argue that this is an important test of America’s meddle and credibility in defending its citizens’ freedom of speech.

And then there’s the third side of the issue — my own personal side, which hasn’t quite caught on much yet. The side that would argue something to this extent: our country is $13 trillion dollars in debt, unemployment is nearing 11%, Social Security is on the brink of an unstoppable downward spiral and Iran is developing nuclear capability. And we’re spending our time talking about the construction of a mosque? What?

Here’s my response to both sides of the issue.

To the right: first of all, it’s not a mosque — or at least not in the way you might think of what a church is to Christians. It’s an Islamic community center with a prayer room in it which, apparently, classifies it as a mosque. Secondly, labeling it “the ground zero mosque” adds an unfair layer of drama to the situation, given that it’s going to be built two blocks away. Third, anyone who actually believes that a mosque is immediately at risk for generating terrorist activity is an Islamophobe who has no credibility anyway. And finally, why do you really care? What kind of personal effect could this possibly have on you? I understand if you don’t like the idea of building a mosque two blocks from ground zero but unfortunately, that defense doesn’t hold much ground in a serious political debate.

To the left: let’s be honest. The people who are proposing this construction knew the kind of resentment it would generate. Knowing that this kind of controversy would be stirred up HAD to be part of the decision to pick that particular construction site — you don’t just “accidentally” overlook that. And is this insensitive for that very reason? Yes, it is. Wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But insensitive? I think so. And please stop with the whole “freedom of speech” crusade that you’re leading in defense of this project. In the United States, people have the right to built WHAT they want but not necessarily WHERE they want to build it. That’s what zoning laws are for. It wouldn’t necessarily be right, but it certainly wouldn’t be outside the government’s authority to disallow the construction. The point is, this is not a freedom of speech issue. And the more you try to make it one, the more you turn this into a laughable political soap opera.

If you want to know what I think should happen, I think they ought to go ahead and build the thing. I don’t much care for the idea of it, but that’s not really the point; it’s not illegal and the property is privately owned. So they should build it and move on to bigger issues — important issues. An Islamic community center near ground zero isn’t going to keep me up at night. But the prospect of paying over 40% of my income in taxes one day just might.

As a fiscal conservative, there isn’t much I find more relieving than the idea that a far-left administration might start to embrace the idea of spending cuts. But let me just relay a few thoughts on this matter to our President’s supporters out there, particularly those who will be voting in 2012.

First, don’t let yourself be fooled into the idea that responsible and scaled-back spending is anywhere on Barack Obama’s list of priorities. You want to cut discretionary spending? Let’s start by refusing to add new spending projects. A $787 billion dollar stimulus package that threw a few bucks into every little menial construction project across the country and a $1 trillion or more healthcare access expansion bill, both signed into law within a year and a half of Obama’s ascension to office, tells me that this guy is a BIG time spender. That doesn’t even account for the potential passage of this unemployment benefits expansion bill that will add a nice wad of cash to the deficit, while eliminating jobs from the American economy. So if you think that this administration has you in its best interests when it preaches budget cuts, you’ve been completely fooled. Want to make cuts? Start with cutting entitlement programs, forcing people to create jobs and causing natural economic stimulus.

Aside from the ridiculous, in-your-face hypocrisy as described above, the idea that defense should suffer increased budget cuts over any other department is ludicrous. I am so sick of this hindsight approach to national defense working its way into American mainstream thought patterns. It doesn’t seem to matter to anyone where we are now — all we hear is why we shouldn’t be there. Should we have invaded Iraq and cultivated a pattern of Iraqi dependency on American security forces? No. Most people get that by now. But that should have nothing to do with defense spending moving forward. I’ll be hard pressed to convince nonbelievers in American exceptionalism or a muscular US foreign policy to agree with me on this one, but for those of us Reagan-type patriots out there, there is a pride factor involved in conducting our military operations in a way that we don’t expect (or hope) to fail as an excuse to wipe our hands clean of the situation. And if you can’t take that as a sufficient argument, need I remind you how vital it is for our own national and energy security to have a stable Middle East? Cutting off our own resources to the region seems about the worst approach to take right about now.

Some (particularly members of the Obama administration) might argue that we need to focus more on efficient military spending, and that spending cuts will force us to extract more results per dollar spent. In a perfect world, I’d agree 100%. But the fact is, spending inefficiencies will always exist in national defense. As long as it’s funded and operated by the U.S. government and there is a political agenda at stake, there will be spending wasted. So to think that spending reduction is possible without surrending some of our military capability is wishful thinking. I’m not saying that I agree with inefficient spending, I just embrace it as an inevitablility. That’s one of the primary reasons why I support the slashing of entitlement programs. Maybe I’m just a pessimist — but it’s an irrefutable historical trend that we seem unlikely to break with any time soon.

The whole mentality of this administration that preaches entitlements and snubs its nose at national defense is one that frustrates me and that, frankly, I have a really hard time understanding. I think it’s fair to say that Robert Gates (who in fact opposes these spending cuts) might know a thing or two more about the need for a consistent Pentagon budget than Barack Obama. Hopefully, our President will wake up to the reality of the situation, realize his personal lack of qualifications to make a fully informed and educated decision on this matter (as compared to the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc.) and won’t try to work around the advice of one of the most intelligent and qualified military advisors that this country has.

Oh and by the way, Mr. President — enjoy your vacation this week while your top advisors deliberate this decision for you.

          As many are aware, the recent immigration law passed in Arizona has sparked heated controversy within the state and throughout the country.  And while the content of these changes to existing laws that combat illegal immigration are open for debate on their appropriateness, the actions of protestors against SB1070 have been consistently uncivil and offensive.

            We have seen the more stringent controls on illegal immigration compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the imposition of a Nazi police state, South African Apartheid, and the Jim Crow Laws (though they’ve been renamed “Juan Crow Laws” in this case). Perhaps next they will invoke the Trail of Tears. Or instead maybe the Great Purges of the Soviet Union. The Crusades anyone? Drawing these parallels is outright fear mongering of the worst kind, and does little for legitimating their cause. The Tea Parties that get such extensive attention by the mainstream media for their radicalism seem quite passive in comparison. I would say downright harmless in fact when you hold the two protests next to each other.

            Probably the most pervasive protesting in particular has been the invoking of Nazi Germany. Reasonable suspicion written into the new immigration law has now been turned to cruelly characterize law enforcers (who risk their lives each and every day for Arizona) as Gestapo coming and pounding on peoples’ doors asking for their immigration papers. The Governor of Arizona has been called a racist Nazi, meanwhile protestors have repeatedly invoked ‘Chicano pride,’ seeing no contradiction at all in their own ethnocentric rallying cries.

            Protestors have further upped their methods of characterizing Arizona as a Nazi police state. Now by wearing white armbands to show their solidarity to the oppressive forces they believe immigrants will come under. While they explain that this protest tool comes from the use of black armbands in Vietnam anti-war protests, it seems much more likely that they are attempting to draw parallels to Jews forced to wear armbands with the Star of David in Nazi Germany. In fact, it seems to make perfect sense that these protestors would try to put immigrants on the same footing as Holocaust victims to symbolize the oppression they believe they will ultimately share with Jews.  Besides the fact that such beliefs are utter nonsense, this use of armbands is grossly offensive to all Jews, and belittles all those who suffered and died under real genocidal oppression. Even if these protestors rationalize alternative reasons for this use of armbands, such arguments hold little weight under serious scrutiny. Ignorance is not an excuse, and they should all be ashamed of themselves for such insidious rhetoric and symbolism.

The recent passage of Arizona SB 1070 has raised quite a bit of controversy  in the American Latino community, as the provisions requiring police      officers to ask for identification from suspected illegal immigrants are   perceived as “racist” or “discriminatory.”

You know what I think? Get over it.

The illegal immigrant community is, by and large, an enormous drain on  American resources. They don’t pay taxes, they take American jobs, they  invite drugs, prostitution and crime into the United States from across the  border, they transplant American capital into a far less stable and prosperous economy, they set a dangerous precedent if they stay permanently, they benefit from welfare, health and education services, they enjoy the same legal rights and protections as everyone else, they enjoy police and military defense and they apparently have a very influential voice in American politics.

They enjoy all of these benefits, in spite of the fact that they are in violation of American laws by simple virtue of the fact that they are here. And while legal Americans repay their government for countless services through taxation, illegal immigrants simply ignore that obligation, since it would inevitably be revealed that they are breaking immigration laws. It’s a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

And yet they have the audacity to call this law “racist?” For all the ways they take advantage of the American social, economic and political framework without paying their civil obligations, they are really going to criticize a law like this? All it does is allow police to check for proof of identification. Where’s the problem? When I get pulled over or stopped by a police officer, I need to provide proof of identification too. And if you really are a legal resident, you lose nothing more than 30 seconds of your life. There are worse things that could happen to you.

This is the most arrogant and cocky expression of entitlement I have ever seen. To the illegal immigrant community: how dare you compare the United States of America, the most tolerant and pro-human institution ever conceived by mankind, to a gestapo-run, Nazi police state simply because we wish to ensure the legality of our citizens? You are cheating the American community out of millions in taxpayer dollars and are destroying the credibility and integrity of our immigration laws. Instead of imposing an appropriately harsher fine or punishment on you (which, frankly, we should), we simply ask to see your identification. So sorry if you’re “offended” by that. Maybe you ought to go through the legalization process and stop leeching off a system financed by me and the 300 million other legal residents.

And one last thing. This has been called a bill that legalizes racial profiling. Yep, it is. That’s exactly what it is. Arizona law enforcement officers will be targeting Mexicans (yes, people from Mexico) when looking for illegal immigrants. As much as I’d love to randomly check every third person that walks by — black, white, Asian, Latino, Native American or whatever — to see if they are illegal Mexican immigrants, I kind of think targeting actual Mexicans might be the most efficient means. Just a thought.

So, I will again address the illegal Mexican community: I leave you with three truly just options. One, you can shut up, risk deportation and realize that this law is necessary for our national security and for the equitable treatment of all legal citizens. Two, you can become legal and accept that you might get asked for ID once in a while. Or three, as much as I hate to echo sentiments of the Tea Party, you can leave. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

William F. Buckley once pondered, “is the day imminently ahead when Muslim influence expresses itself here as vigorously as it is doing in Europe?” The question now seems answered, evident by the recent censorship of the South Park episode “201.” Like the controversy surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in Denmark, the threats directed at the creators of South Park and Comedy Central illustrate the growing headway a small minority of Muslim extremists have gained surrounding issues of censorship and free speech.

For the 14 years of South Park’s existence, the television show has maintained its status as an equal opportunity offender towards all religious groups, whether they are Christians, Jews, Mormons, or Scientologists. Yet the poignant satire directed towards these religions has never sparked violence, threats, or even censorship. A civil society like ours does not exist on such illiberal lines, and if offense is taken people respond in a mature adult manner – by boycott, peaceful protest, or simply tuning out. The infantile actions of a small extremist group have taken the opposite route, and ironically its demands and interests have been appeased at the public’s expense.

And while it is understandable to take such threats seriously, the fact is that Comedy Central in its censorship of South Park has merely pushed this issue further down the road, where it will surely arise again. Their concession has given these Muslim radicals, formerly confined to their small niche within the dark corners of the Internet, a level of influence and power they should never have. This power to effectively make threats and intimidate leaves no legitimate criticism of Islam in the media safe, and guarantees more threats will be made on the whim of a few Muslim fundamentalists. This vicious cycle is Tocquevillian: The greater level of accommodation given, the more whetted the petitioners’ demands become. Where is the line drawn? When do free citizens uphold and defend their rights to offend, speak, and promote their ideas freely?

It is an even greater sad state of affairs when on the South Park website, Parker and Stone, the creators of the show, noted, “Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too.” Evidently, Comedy Central has no concept of where to drawn the line on accommodation, and instead did great disservice to the right of free expression to avoid offending Muslims. When even civil discourse becomes self-inhibited and opinion muted, a civil society has indeed done severe harm to itself. As Buckley noted, “the laws asserting the freedom of the press, like most laws, depend for their fortitude on public backing.” But rather then provide such needed support and allow for a public dialogue (of which many people in the world have no privilege of), Comedy Central lost an opportunity Americans (and the West) still need to confront between the clashing of Islam and liberalism. South Park’s network sadly opted for avoidance and appeasement, and the liberties and civil discourse we all enjoy have been tarnished because of it.