Buy bonds, or not

[pecunium]

Fred Clark, the invaluable, Slacktivist is talking about some of the inanity the present politicians are floating, which is bonds to parallel the Victory and Liberty Bonds of WW2.

Mind you, as he says, the problem isn't the idea of floating bonds to pay for things, but rather which things they choose to try and pay this way.

The bonds issued (and bought) in WW2 paid for, not the TVA, not the WPA, nor any of the other projects the feds did to restart the economy, and build the infrastructure we're still using today, no, they paid for the war.

I have to disagree with Fred in one point, but it's niggling, he says,"That's not the case now. If you're not enlisted in America's military, you're not involved in the war in Iraq. You have neither the obligation, nor the opportunity to contribute to or sacrifice for the war effort. And your president insists that this is the way it should be."

The bit about the president insisting that's the way it should be is spot on, it's part of why the ban on coffins has been enforced. But there are a lot of people out there who are, intimately involved in the war without being in the service. Wives, husbands, sweethearts, parents, grandparents, children and siblings of the Soldiers, Marines, Seamen and Airmen (brownie points to those who know why I ordered them thus) who are sweating their days out in the front lines, are all involved; and in ways more arduous than those who are doing the sweating.

Fred's got some nice ideas, and insights, about those magnets (and how to make them mean something), but he missed one of the real reasons there won't be any war bonds (though his appreciation of why bonds for rebuilding won't work is spot on... we don't have the money to invest).

Those bonds would be a popular comment on the war. If we asked the people, right now, to pay for this, out of pocket, the troops would be on thier way home in a month. If we made wars pay as you go, then perhaps such stupidities as this one (which is breaking the bank, and doing internal damage to the Army of a sort not seen since the early '70s) might be a trifle less easily committed.

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

I don't think buying bonds is going to help the troops on the ground when Rumsfeld, the military procurement officers, and other Pentagon Pukes are shoveling billions into black holes. The money is (or was) there to support the troops far better than they're being treated now. The problem is the corrupt Bush administration and it's inability to account for it's actions, track where all the billions we're throwing into Iraq are going, and it's unwillingness to change, or admit wrongdoing.

I wish to god we could find something impeachable that Bush has done, get him out, and put someone sane in charge.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The specific Bonds (or donations, depends on how it's structured) that Slacktivist is advocating, would help the troops.

The would also separate the wheat from the chaff, which would make me feel better about putting yellow feathers on the cars of yellow ribbons.

TK

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Soldiers, Marines, Seamen and Airmen

Relative number of personnel in theatre? I know it's not the order in which the services came into existence, nor is it the order in which service members would appear on parade. But I'm looking forward to seeing the answer.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It is the order in which the services came into existence, but I made a mistake, for some reason I was placing the Navy as after the Corps (which I always found amusing) but it seems they precede, on paper; but without ships. So I goofed.



Army
June 14, 1775.

Navy
October 13, 1775

Marine Corps
November 10, 1775

The Air Force, as you may recall came some time later.

Parade order is set, as I am sure you know, by date of first Commission. June, November, and December, 1775, repsectively. Again, the Air Force was late to the Party, and most of it's early members used commissions granted by the Army, or the Navy.

So, it the question is, sadly not properly answerable, because I mis-recalled the facts.

Mea Culpa.

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Hrmn... I didn't make the parade order clear.

Army, Marines, Navy Air Force.

The Marine Officer’s Guide, section 1823, states “To avoid conflicts at parades or ceremonies, the places of honor are allocated in order of Service seniority…” Likewise, in Military Customs and Traditions, it is stated that “Precedence among military units vary much as among people - is normally determined by age.”

In theory, this criteria for establishing the parade precedence of the various armed forces would seem to be very straightforward and easily comprehendible. However, in practice this is not the case. There exists among the various branches of the services a divergence of opinion on the issue of dates which mark the beginnings of their respective branches....

However, seniority of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is obscured by the divergent elements of the intentions of the Continental Congress as compared to the realization of those intentions. Although the intention of the Congress to established an Army is apparent in several resolutions of June 1775, the realization of those intentions was not effected until 1 January 1776 when General Washington states in his orderly book, “This day giving commencement to the new Army which in every point of view is entirely Continental.”

Likewise, the Navy which the Congress created by resolution in October 1775 was not to be realized until several months later. The process of procuring and outfitting ships as well as enlisting and commissioning personnel was a time-consuming one. The commander in chief of the Navy and other officers were not commissioned until 22 December 1775.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, even though established by resolution on 10 November 1775, was actually a force in readiness before the Army or the Navy. Samuel Nicholas was commissioned a Captain of Marines on 28 November 1775, a month before the first officer of the Continental Navy was commissioned. Indeed, the Marine Corps’ claim to being the oldest integral force in being results primarily from fortunate circumstances. The Corps was much smaller and more closely knit than either of the other services, and its origin was not complicated by the existence of provincial and local forces already in the field. Thus, the Continental Marine force was all regular Marine from the beginning during the period when the Army was an amorphous mass of mixed Continentals and militia, and the Navy lacked ships. The Marine Corps appears, therefore, to be the first truly “federal” armed services branch.

The question of seniority of the armed services is further confused by the fact that nearly all of the original Colonies placed militia, ships, and troops serving as Marines in action at the opening of hostilities, before the establishment of the Continental Congress. It could be argued that these forces, having been taken under Continental pay and control, constituted the beginning of the American Army, Navy, and Marines.

Thus, it seems that no definitive case can be made for establishing the relative seniority of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. In fact, the only facts that correspond with the present parade order of Army, Marine Corps, and Navy respectively, are the dates when their first officers were commissioned, in June, November, and December of 1775. It appears that the present order of parade precedence has evolved over the years, perhaps initially based on early opinions of the actual dates of origin of the services. In any case, the present order of parade precedence has become one of our foremost military customs and as the foregoing has indicated, there appears to be little evidence to support any change in that order. The present order of parade precedence is indicated in DoD Directive 1005.8 as Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. Therefore, by analogy, the order of display of colors should be in the same order.

From: UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
HISTORY AND MUSEUMS DIVISION

TK

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

It's interesting that the original two battalions of Marines provided for in the enabling legislation of 10 Nov 1775 never actually got created. The intention was to have a First Marine Battalion for service in the field and afloat, with a Second Marine Battalion as the training battalion. But since the training got split up among the various Navy Yards, it never worked out that way. The Marine Companies were created in a piecemiel fashion throughout the Revolution.

But all that's beside the point. Getting back to your post, this idea of issuing bonds to pay for the war is one I'd love to see implemented, just so somebody would get a quick reality check.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

I'd have considered war bonds on 9/23/01. My position on them on 9/23/05 is rather different. If my taxes won't support the troops, there are several private ways I can contribute to their present and long-term welfare. I do not, at this point, trust this administration to spend either my tax dollars or my bond purchases in a prudent and honorable manner.
As for bonds for the reconstruction, I daresay several municipalities will be voting bond issues for this in the near future, and I will be able to purchase those instead.

I will however, support freezing the tax cuts, and if Bill Frist thinks I'm in favor of saving his finances from the burden of the estate tax, well--guess what, doctor?

[ckd]

As I commented on Fred's blog, I bought my ribbon magnets on post at Ft. Bragg, from the women of an air ambulance unit's FRG, in a room full of worried wives and (hopefully only temporarily) fatherless kids.

Thank you for recognizing Blue Star mothers, brothers, and so many others.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

doing internal damage to the Army of a sort not seen since the early '70s

Not that this doesn't ring true, but what sort of damage? My conservative relatives insist that Clinton and his "peace dividend" damaged the army by letting it get smaller after it wasn't fighting the Commies anymore.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Wrong on three counts.

1: The Peace Dividend was initiated by Bush Pere, with the BRAC list of 1992, from the Commission which sat from 1990-1992.

The present structure (with 54 percent in the Reserve Component, and much of that composed of essential support functions, was also initiated under Bush Pere, as Force XXI, carried to its ne plus ultra with Rumsfeld's plan of attack in Iraq.

2: The argument that a small army is harmed, in; and of itself, from being small is nonsense. It's only a problem if it's too small to do the deed, for as long as needed. The British Long Service Army was more than adequate to fight the Germans in the battles in Belgium, but lost too many people to be more than a touchstone in the rest of WW1.

3: The damage is that of being worn out from being mis-applied, overstreched and undersupported. The middle-corps, the Captains and Majors, Sergeants and Staff Sergeants, the backbone of the enlisted and the bread and butter of the officers, are leaving. Without making a national committment, and making the country bear the burdens, all the weight has to be carried by the troops.

The Guardsmen and reservists, are leaving. The parallel to the Long Service Army is apt, those who have the institutional knowledge are leaving, which means only the super-annuated, who have an investement they can't walk away from, and the juvenile, who don't yet have the culture and the experience are left.

That will take years, if not decades, to recover from.

TK