[barmar]

An excellent illustration of government policy tradeoffs.



It could work easily as well if it were expressed in terms of food/clothing for children on welfare, bridge repairs and other infrastructure jobs, etc.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Good one.

[kenberg]

Many years ago the humorist Art Buchwald presented a similar idea. Like me, he had trouble grasping budget numbers and he suggested using a fighter, the F-14 I think, as a standard unit. He envisioned a debate with a senator exclaiming "I'm not voting for any social welfare program that costs two fighters and a wing".

Like all good humor, there is some real point to it.

[barmar]

I guess it needs to go both ways. When you propose or debate social programs, the cost units should be military. Conversely, when the subject is military spending, the cost should be in social programs.

Dollars are too abstract. Especially when it's not even your own money, it's like Monopoly Money.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Monopoly money. Yeah.

There's an old story about Davy Crockett. After his first term in Congress, he was riding around Tennessee, stumping for re-election. He came upon a farmer in his field, and the following conversation ensued:

Farmer: "I know you. You're that Crockett feller."
Crockett: "Yes sir, I am, and I'm travelling the country, asking folks to vote for me for re-election."
Farmer: "Well, good luck sir. I have to tell you though that I won't vote for you, and neither will folks around here who listen to me, of which there are quite a few."
Crockett: "I'm sorry, what have I done to offend you?"
Farmer: "You had no right to spend my money the way you did."
Crockett: "I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about."
Farmer: "One of your colleagues in Congress suggested give a pension to the widow of a Naval officer killed in peace time. You voted for it. There is no provision in the Constitution allowing you to do that."
Crockett, after reflection: "Well sir, I suppose you're right. I assure you, it won't happen again."

In fact, the suggestion did happen again, and Crockett argued in Congress, long and hard, against it, and voted against it. The measure was defeated.

Or so the story goes, anyway.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-29, 12:46, said:

In fact, the suggestion did happen again, and Crockett argued in Congress, long and hard, against it, and voted against it. The measure was defeated.

Or so the story goes, anyway.

Crockett argued against providing a $100,000 lump sum to Susan Decatur, widow of the distinguished Commodore Stephen Decatur, who was killed in a duel with fellow Commodore James Barron. Decatur had served on a court-martial that had barred Barron from command for five years.

Times change.

Where I live today, copper mining was dominant from 1850 to 1930. In the 19th century, copper miners worked for low wages in dangerous conditions. They rented their homes from the copper companies and bought their food from the company stores. When a miner was disabled or killed on the job, his widow and children got no compensation and, with no way to pay for rent or food, his family was pretty well stuck.

Conditions like that led to militant unionism and clashes with the mining companies. In fact, miners were on strike during the Italian Hall disaster of Christmas Eve, 1913.

We live, we learn, and we redefine human rights as we go along.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2014-September-30, 10:36, said:

Crockett argued against providing a $100,000 lump sum to Susan Decatur, widow of the distinguished Commodore Stephen Decatur, who was killed in a duel with fellow Commodore James Barron. Decatur had served on a court-martial that had barred Barron from command for five years.

No doubt that was one incident that led eventually to dueling being prohibited to military members (UCMJ, Article 114).

[kenberg]

I knew nothing about this duel or the Crockett discussion of money for the widow.

From the cited reference:

Quote

Stephen Decatur died childless. Though he left his widow $75,000, a fortune at the time, she died virtually penniless in 1860

The whole thing has an air of unreality to it. If he had been killed in the same duel seven years earlier, during the was of 1812, then she would get a pension? We have to properly time our duels? And I gather getting killed in a duel was not a rare event for military officers (the Wik notes that the practice was leading to a shortage of officers). Did the Senate debate a pension for the widow after each such instance? With varying bequests, mostly governed by the whims of the moment? It all sounds crazy.

Some traditional values were not so valuable.

[helene_t]

The wars in the Middle East are destroying the lives of millions of people. And we are discussing things like oil prices and a few billions extra on the defense budgets and a few Westerner's getting their heads chopped off.

I am a bit ambivalent, though. I really don't know what the nett c-b of bombing Syria is and I suppose it could be so close to zero that the costs of the fighter jet fuel is what should make us stop doing it.

And of course, it is easy for a European to have a politically correct opinion (whatever that would be in this case). After all, it is mostly the Americans who pay for, and get blood on their hands, and have their soldiers killed (and their embassies bombed).

[kenberg]

It occurred to me that someone might ask the President if this is a war of choice or a war of neccesity, but he has explained that it is not a war at all, so I guess the question doesn't arise.

[blackshoe]

Barak Obama is a Master of Spin.