Charlie Rangel’s poverty draft
Flagwaver sends us a link to the link to Charlie Rangel’s latest attempt to restore the draft called the “Universal National Service Act“. Basically, it calls for a military draft supplemented by a draft into “civilian service in a Federal, State, or local government program or with a community-based agency or community-based entity”. If I read the thing correctly, there are no exemptions, except attending high school, attending college and a hardship/disability. By the way, the President gets to decide whether you’re drafted into the military or the civilian program, if you don’t make a choice before you’re drafted.
The period of service is for two years, and there’s no conscientious objector exemption, for those of you so inclined. But Rangel explains the purpose of his bill;
It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
Seriously? Is that in the Constitution? Since when are we subordinate to the government who now levies arbitrary obligations on us…us, you know the People who formed the more perfect union, established justice, etc….
Funny how it’s the democrats who have trying to subordinate the population to the threat of a draft since Richard Nixon rendered it asunder. It was Jimmy Carter, who raped the military of training, pay and equipment, who restored draft registration when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and he suddenly realized that no one wanted to join the military. Most young people don’t register for the draft these days anyway, even with no threat of a draft, so how is Rangel going to round up the folks to register?
And why legislate for a draft now, unless they plan on making military service Jimmy Carter-painful again. Yeah, you folks who weathered the Clinton years have no idea how bad it can get.
All they’re going to get in the first few rounds are the derelicts who didn’t finish high school, and the poor and uneducated who can’t get into college for whatever reason. So, yeah, this is a really great idea whose time has come. Or. Not.
Category: Congress sucks, Liberals suck
Bah. The Heinlein approach would be better.
See Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
In a perfect world, Charlie Rangel would be spending some time with Bubba in federal PMITA prison for tax evasion. But as noted, nothing’s perfect.
100% correct about the Carter years and the military, Jonn.
Clinton’s “peace dividend” was bad. But it was “lassez les bontemps rouler” compared to the Carter years.
NHSparky: probably one reason why Rangel keeps running for office. He leaves office, he becomes fairly easily prosecutable. Not so easy to prosecute a sitting Congresscritter.
The difference between Reagan and Carter was felt almost on day one….
VOV: to be fair, part of that was the rather large pay raise Carter did in his last year to try and buy military votes. But yeah, attitude-wise the change was apparent on 21 Jan 1981. And things got better from a material/operational standpoint for the next decade-plus.
That old blowhard is always proposing legislation. How much of it gets passed?
Right at the start of cutbacks in the military, he wants to start up the draft again? Well, how is he going to pay for it?
He should come out of his office once in a while and smell the fresh oxygen.
This article almost qualifies for Bizarro World status as well….except when it comes to Rangel Bizarro is a routine occurrence.
My uncle was Vietnam era enlistee who tells me that some of the best people he worked with were draftees, but in a country that has decided it doesn’t have the resources to keep illegal aliens incarcerated until they are deported or is unable to prevent illegals from using public resources illegally the idea that we would now somehow have the resources to track and process the 26 million Americans who are between the ages of 18-24…..if we can’t track and process 11 million illegals I wonder how Mr. Rangel proposes we fund this?
The bill includes females but has an age and service postponement curiosity. It applies to citizens and other residents of the US, Guam, etc. between the ages of 18 and 25. That would mean that it applies to those 19-24. Not. Only half of that 18-25 is true. The bill explicitly applies to those 18 but not those who have reached age 25. The induction to military or civilian service can be postponed until the age of 24–if one is in school. Huh? One can postpone until the age of ineligibility is attained? Somebody else is welcome to put the fine tooth comb to this but, aside from trying to form obamaman’s private, alternative civilian army, I’ve had enough of it. Screw ’em.
I weathered the Clinton years and thought it was bad. I can’t imagine how you age challenged folks felt during the Carter years.
Just remember folks, John Kerry said himself that “It’s every American’s right to be stupid.” So… Charlie Rangel is just exercising his right.
@11 I bet you can imagine that it sucked….but the contrast with the good under Reagan fades the suckage rather nicely….
@12 Would that he did so on a much lower scale of regularity……
Age challenged here. Enlisted for the first time in June of 78. The general consensus among many civilians was that you were a fool at best for joining up although my dad supported me 100%. My recruiter failed to show up at 5 AM on the day he was supposed to take me to AFES then called me a couple hours later begging for another chance. I guess he slept in. But by now I had aquired a case of cold feet and second thoughts. After a lot of pleading and the guy’s voice cracking like he was going to cry right there on the phone I relented and agreed to go the next day. Fast forward to 2013 and now I’m still in uniform albeit the Guard.
Anyway, yeah I remember well the Carter years and this is starting to feel eerily similar.
@9-solve both problems at once-Draft illegals!!! Now before you say I’m crazy (which BTW, you won’t be the first) think it thorugh. Illegals get drafted for a 10 year term of service (minimum), they learn English, they learn the customs, rules and laws of America, they get resident alien/citizenship AFTER they’re discharged. How do we pay for all of this? simple, we take the ICE budget that would be used to keep them locked up and transfer it to the military. Additionally, we take all the MRAPs and ammo that DHS has and use it for training since the military is the ORIGINAL Department of Homeland Security, not some political hack and her minions.
While campaigning, Carter, like Obama, said upfront what he intended to do. While discussing the upcoming election with my NCOIC I was surprised when he said he was going to vote for Carter. When I mentioned that Carter had said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget my NCOIC answered that politicians always say stuff like that. As a DS maintenance type, I got to deal with trying to keep aging equipment running with spit and baling wire in a VOLAR Army. Then as now the media was caught up in the candidate cuteness. Anyone remember Carter’s Atomic Peanut CB handle? I learned then to take politicians at their word.
Yes, a draft is Constitutional. Not a good idea, but legal under the law of our great Nation.
US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8: The Powers of Congress
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
So yes, if Congress legally authorizes (“necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”) the use of a draft to ‘organize’an army, then yes, the draft is in line with the US Constitution.
I can see it as nothing more than a tax funded indoctrination service for future democratic voters. It will be staffed and supervised by libtards, who will use every spare moment to extoll the virtues of socialism while handing out minimum wage “paychecks”. Alumni will probably have little or no job skills, a Government employee’s work ethic and a sense of entitlement.
Is it really worth discussing an idea that doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day? Does this bill have even one co-sponsor?
As for the Carter-era military, I enlisted in August, 1980 so I got to see the tail end of it. It wasn’t pretty. This was at the time when if a kid from a middle-class suburb (like me) mentioned that he was enlisting, people would seriously ask “Why? Can’t you find a real job?” It was assumed that the military was a last resort for those who couldn’t make it elswehere and the recruit-pool reflected that (a guy in my basic training company shot his finger off on the rifle range – just to give you an idea of the rocket scientists who were going into the infantry at that time) Weed and other drugs were easy to acquire on- and off-post and without urinalysis testing, it was hard to bust anyone unless they were caught in the act.
That’s the bad news, but remember it took years – almost a decade, really – of post-Vietnam “malaise” to bring that about (from everything I’ve heard and read, the Army started going downhill in about 1970 as Vietnam started drawing down. Maybe some of you who were in then can confirm or deny that.)
If you read the wording, this isn’t a draft. This is straight up conscription for a period of two years. Sure, this might work in some places, like Israel. However, other places it doesn’t work out so well, like North Korea, China, Iran…
What concerns me more is that it is the President overseeing the entire thing. As if, by that wording, it makes it all fine and good.
If they had proposed something like this under Bush, wouldn’t the media have completely exploded? But, since it is under Obama, it is okay?
Is it really worth discussing an idea that doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day?
Yeah, because it says something about the state of affairs of the average voter/citizen when they have, for OVER FORTY YEARS, sent the same corrupt sumbitch back with at least 80 percent of the vote every time to propose shit like this.
Go to a public school in his district and do a mass ASVAB, and see how many can cut a 31, let alone a 50.
Rangel is just trying to make a point that the burdens of war should not have to be carried by the same people over and over.. Because people such as yourselves never saw a war they didn’t want to fight as long as they weren’t the ones actually fighting it.
There never was a distinction drawn between draftees and enlistees that I recall, other than one of the former saying, “You mean, you asked for this?” At chow, it was “RA” or “NG” not draftee and enlistee. Honestly, that was it. Draftees and enlistees had two-year commitments and the same reserve obligations at ETS.
@22 That was a pretty racist remark, but asvab scores only need to be a 31 for Infantry and other combat jobs and somebody needs to do them because we all know you certainly don’t have the balls for it, conservatives like you are content to let everybody else do their fighting for them.
The Dude: so you’re OK with people being forcibly conscripted to fight in a war, but not with people who volunteer doing so?
Having a draft from 1940-1973 did not keep us out of World War II, Korea, the Quemoy/Matsu crisis, Lebanon (1958), the Dominican Republic, or Vietnam. Lack of a draft from 1973-present did not keep us out of Grenada, Panama, Iraq (1991), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan, or Iraq.
By the way: you did know that about 3/4 of the troops who served in Vietnam were NOT draftees – right? And that barely over 1/3 of the draftees from 1965-1973 (38%) ever served in Vietnam?
http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm
Um, dude…I’m not speaking based on race. I’m speaking based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You know, shitty public schools, shitty education, shitty ASVAB scores, dontcha know. See how that works? Color is irrelevant, and I had the records, STEAM, and ASVAB test data for an area with a population of almost 25 million people to back my shit up. What do you have besides a terminal case of butthurt?
Oh, and in case you weren’t aware, it’s MORE likely for an enlistee to come from a household whose income is in the top quintile than one in the bottom quintile.
Now go fetch your fuckin shine box.
@26 I am against war period.. But I understand the point that Rangel is trying to make, he knows the draft isn’t coming back but he also knows the danger of a ever widening gulf between civilians and the military.
@23. “…the burdens of war should not have to be carried by the same people over and over….”
Who are “the same people”? And why the civilian service obligation unconnected to any CO or religious issue? And why the age 24 limitation? And why postponements because one opted for college? Is a college-educated soldier better than one with a GED or two years of college?
The fuck he cares, dud.
It’s a nice little class warfare ploy that plays into your false claim that only the poor enlist/serve.
And it’s total bullshit. Red meat for the crowd, nothing more.
Ahhh the “racist remark” defense. Please explain to us how talking about an entire district is racist. You do realise that there are more than black people in his district right? If Conservatives have no balls then why is Combat Arms mostly Conservatives? I’ve been an 11B for 19 years, what were you?
Sparky, 2008 Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates both have sons that are combat veterans, but that doesn’t fit the “only the poor go to war” narrative.
The Dude: pray tell – how is stating the provable truth “racist”? Rangel has never received less than 80% of the vote in any Congressional election in which he’s run. His corruption is obvious, even to the late Helen Keller.
Yet his constituents keep voting for him. At some point, it becomes obvious that they’re OK with reelecting a crook.
In Rangel’s case, that happened before he was even elected to Congress. Rangel was initially elected by the same district that re-elected Adam Clayton Powell multiple times after his blatant corruption was exposed. Powell was even more corrupt that Rangel.
Nah, Rangel’s district (at least the one he’s got now) covers parts of Manhattan and the Bronx. But it’s a good reliable Dem district (Cook PVI has it at D+41.)
However, to throw dud’s race assertion into the shitcan with all his other spunk-laden tissue waste (seriously, dud, nobody cares if you like LemonParty or not, just don’t tell us about it, mkay?) I can absolutely demonstrate public schools which were predominantly white which did worse than schools in black/Latino neighborhoods, and ones with large Asian percentages which (contrary to popular belief) didn’t do worth a shit.
But hey, dud–you keep on believing what you want.
NHSparky: Wrangel represents largely the same geographical area today that he did when first elected in 1970. Precise boundaries and district numbers have changed, but his district has always been essentially upper Manhattan.
I think you meant “Queens” vice “Bronx” above, though.
Hondo–true dat–and only gotten more “reliable” with redistricting in NY state. Look at some of the gerrymandering that goes on there and it’s just amazing, really.
Oh, and dude? Calling someone a racist when you know you’re full of shit ain’t “debate”, FYI.
I like that line about “the danger of a ever widening gulf between civilians and the military.” It heartens me greatly, if correct. The civilians, I assume, are those w/o prior military service. In other words, they are not Veterans. Thus, there are the active/reserve/NG military and the Veterans versus civilians. But wait, many civilians are conservative types, especially those with family who are or were in the military. Thus, the “civilians” he speaks of must be mainly those on the other side, the ignoramuses, the progressives, the ones who are lost w/o gov’t guidance and protection. I like those odds. Widen the gulf.
NHSparky: interestingly, redistricting hasn’t necessarily helped Rangel that much. His last two elections were actually two of his three poorest showings, percentage-wise, in any Congressional general election (his first Congressional election was the third). Those 3 are the only Congressional general elections in which he’s ever gotten <90% of the vote.
He's also no longer running in a black majority district. Since 2000, his district has been predominantly (close to 50%) Hispanic, with the black population only about 30%. He's thus apparently been quite successful in convincing folks of all races/ethnic groups to "vote for the crook".
References to the Big Lebowski and White Russians aside, there is something peculiar in Rangel, who has a long history of both hating the draft and and the Army proposing the draft. From Rangel’s eyes: It gets a lot of unemployed youngsters off the streets of Rangel’s district and moves them far away – rather like Hurricane Katrina did. Were it not for the forced relocation from Katrina, tens of thousands of New Orleans residents would not have been able to move. To Rangel’s eyes that means votes, and a cleaner district to invite economic investment – a good thing for Rangel’s checking account! It gets a lot of unemployed youngsters off the streets – and contributing to Social Security, Medican’t, and paying income taxes. Rangel gets votes for saving the social safety nets. To pay for this millions-large army, taxes (the green meth of all pro-rape Democrats) must be increased exponentially. More tax revenue means more payola to get a slice of that revenue. Rangel’s a rich man, but not so rich that he can ignore paying his bills. The problem being high tax rates are unsustainable. No country in history has succeeded in keeping high tax rates, but historical facts are not the strong suits of pro-rape Dems. The downside that will be ignored by Rangel: A millions-large army must, at some point, be used. Professional paranoids across the globe will see the American draft as the start of an arms race. Since even Russia and China can’t match American quality, now multiplied by American quantity, new coalitions – anti-American coalitions will form. Strategies that negate quantity will be developed. Now Rangel may or may not want to use the millions-large army for anything more violent than transferring gang-wars down south, but the rest of the world will view the millions-large army as a tool to be used, probably against them. So this draft idea is cute. But the effects are to transfer crime out of NYC, exponentially raise taxes, and guarantee warfare using weapons that negate quantity, such as CBRNE-type weapons. There are lots of plusses for… Read more »
@20 – “the Army started going downhill in about 1970 as Vietnam started drawing down” – Yes, a trip to Vietnam was seen as a place to get promoted to your next pay grade by the Army senior officers, so that you could retire as a one-star instead of a bird colonel. That came from someone I knew when I went back home to finish college. He showed up at lunchtime one day wearing a jungle greens shirt with blood and bullet holes. I asked him about it; he would only say it came from his buddy.
Vietnam was also seen as a testing ground for the military’s new weapons, like Agent Orange.
There never seems to have been any reason for doing anything. If you dig up anything on the history of firefights over there, the Army repeatedly sent out platoons and squads to ‘take the hill’, and then were told to walk away from it, then go back and take it again. The body count was all-important, so the troops were counting dead pigs and dead chickens and anything else that was dead.
@ 6 VOV … “The difference between Reagan and Carter was felt almost on day one….”
One slight correction.
“The difference between Reagan and Carter WAS felt on day one….”
The Iranian’s released the prisoners within minutes of Reegan’s Innag, speech.
Carter paid for their release by cutting some 8 billion dollars in frozen assets free!
@39 -DaveO — Naw, it’s just an employment scheme. Generating jobs with taxpayers’ dollars so that the newly- employed can pay taxes, too.
The real sign of a buildup to war is when old farts like me and Sparky get recalled to active duty after all these years of absence, not because we know so very much, but because we’d just be happy to have the money in retirement, eh, Sparky?
The cost-saving idea I had is to recommission all those old ships in the boneyard and refurbish them with modern equipment. Something like this:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=navy+history+video+of+submarines&mid=900DDB3AEF35381CAE7B900DDB3AEF35381CAE7B&view=detail&FORM=VIRE6
taxes (the green meth of all pro-rape Democrats)
I am so stealing that shit.
but because we’d just be happy to have the money in retirement, eh, Sparky?
Speak for yourself. I come back in at the same paygrade I left (E-6) with all the pays I was getting (SDAP, sub, sea, etc.,) and tax-free in the sandbox, and I’d STILL be taking a hell of a pay cut.
Sparky, this one’s for you.
Brit Oberon boats. Not bad for a smoke boat.
Actually, Sparky, when I said ‘happy to have the money in retirement’, I would lose money, too, but I’m speculating that it would be the opinion from the Big Them, because we’re all so broke all the time.
My experience is much the same as NHSparky’s: many kids today are lucky to score a 31 AFQT. We had twenty-somethings who might have been considered to have “underprivileged”, but who earned scholarships and loans to earn their college degree. Some of these kids were still unable to score the 50 AFQT needed to apply for OCS, and some struggled to score a 31. Two of the most memorable both possessed (and little more) Masters degrees. One was prior Service who needed to retake the ASVAB for admin reasons (the scores didn’t count), she scored a 2! Another kept calling wanting to go OCS, but couldn’t understand why his 40 AFQT wasn’t eligible.
These were products of East Baton Rouge’s school system. Some of the outlying communities and parishes aren’t much better. The funny thing is, though, that two area school systems–which became independent districts a few years back–are constantly fighting for #1 and #2 public school system in Louisiana.
I’m sure many parents would love to see their sons and daughters off to their mandatory service in a nice safe civilian position. Get Johnny out of the house and doing something besides smoking weed and playing XBOX. Many of those same parents would be fighting tooth and nail, however, if Johnny missed the chance to choose and got called up for the Army instead. Honestly, though, with up to 75% of our youth ineligible for military service, what good would any sort of conscription do? Some of the kids who have health problems, obesity, or other issues might be able to “serve” their communities, but what of the others? Would enlistment standards be lowered? Maybe lower the AFQT to 20, allow new male enlistees 30% body fat, and permit diabetics and others in who can live somewhat normal lives with proper monitoring and medicine? It’ll be the NCOs who suffer then, trying to keep Johnny away from the ice cream bar and making sure he has his meds with him.
I loved the kid who had mommy call irate that I couldn’t enlist him because he was allergic to bee stings and had to carry an epipen with him. Seems they didn’t consider falling out and having a potentially life-threatening case of anaphylactic (sp?) shock as a big issue.
Also in my experience it was the kid with the 32 QT who barely graduated adult school was far more likely to be the one who thought their shit didn’t stink than the 95 QT kid who just wanted to get some training and get the hell out of BFE. And yeah, we had a Statistician at the NRD to prove it.
DaveO (18),
Lotsa crap is or has been “legal” under the US Constitution.
But that, doesn’t actually make it right, does it.
Conscription is slavery. Once legal under the Constitution, it has long been outlawed.
Well, except for conscription, huh?
“Ronald Reagan was a more recent critic of the draft: ‘The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral. A draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending.’ In a 1979 column, he added:
“‘It rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the State — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.'”
~ “The Draft: Unwise, Immoral and Unconstitutional,” by John W. Whitehead
Jesus commands us to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” but to my knowledge, He never said that Caesar has a morally legitimate claim to the lives and labor of the people.