jump to navigation

NOTE: The spam filter is being unusually aggressive. If you comment does not immediately appear, it has simply been placed in moderation and I will approve it as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.

"Murphy was an optimist!"

The United States of Switzerland January 30, 2007 6:42 am

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : Politics, Touchy Subjects, United States
, trackback

Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

So, in your busy lives, do you have time to pay attention to what your Congress is doing? If not, you may find that you have to take time out of your busy life to spend two years in the military unless you are under 18 or over 42. This is straight from The Library of Congress.

H. R. 393 To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes. [Source]

This bill was introduced by Charles B. Rangel who, according to wikipedia, has "repeatedly called for the government to bring back the draft" with his justification being that a draft would make our military more representative of the American people rather than consisting of the poor and minority groups.

Rangel, "There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way[.]" Source

So, is HR 393 a sellout or a genuine belief that 7 out 10 people are missing the concept of the benefit of the draft?

Rangel is generally thought of as an ideologically committed liberal, but also someone who can be a pragmatic deal-maker. …Rangel is also noteworthy for his willingness to risk arrest for participating in political protests. [Source]

Interestingly enough, the last time Rangel proposed the draft, he voted against his own bill.

In 2003, Rangel introduced HR 163; legislation that would draft both men and women between the ages of 18-26 starting as early as June 2005. It was defeated 402-2 the following year in the House of Representatives, with Rangel voting against his own bill. Source

For more information see this AP article from November 19 and commentary at Knoxviews. Contact your representative and let them know you views. Contacting your representative is about as easy as reading this post.

Comments after advertisement


1. Bos - January 30, 2007

It’s a back handed protest against the war and the Bush administration. Like you pointed out, he’s brought the legislation up before. Your Rangel quote frames his position very well, “president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq…if indeed we had a draft.”

That quote also contains a pretty strong statement condeming Congress and the admin’s ethical standards.

2. djuggler - January 30, 2007

Well analyzed! I wasn’t even thinking as such. Certainly explains why he would vote against his own bill. Nice.