Expensive health care, the war in Afghanistan and the Guantanamo terrorist trials
Editor’s Note — The following are three speeches made by Rep. Duncan on the House floor during November 2009.
Government is the reason for expensive health care
Before the federal government got heavily into health care in the mid-sixties, medical care was cheap and affordable for almost everyone. Doctors even commonly made house calls. We took what was a very minor problem for very few people and turned it into a major problem for everyone.
The people want medical care that is less expensive and less bureaucratic. The bill that we will apparently vote on later this week is 1,990 pages of bureaucratic gobbledygook. It will make health care even more expensive and even more bureaucratic. As Senator Joe Lieberman said on “Face the Nation,” this bill, “will actually hurt the economic recovery and our long-term financial situation.”
The pattern seems to be that the federal government makes a problem so bad that the only solution people can see is for the government to take it all over. But a famous man once wrote that there is a simple solution to every human problem, one that is neat, plausible and wrong. This bill is the socialist approach, and all it will do over the long haul is make a bad situation even worse.
Afghanistan not worth one more American life
Madam Speaker, this morning I was honored to go with five other Members, three Democrats and three Republicans, to have breakfast at the Pentagon with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The Secretary is a kind man and this was a very nice thing for him to do. I have great respect for Secretary Gates.
The purpose of the breakfast was to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. When I got this invitation, I wondered if I should go, since I have been very much opposed to our war there. However, I decided that the only right and fair thing to do was to go listen to what he had to say.
Unfortunately, I still believe that what we are doing in Afghanistan is a horrendous waste that we cannot afford. I also believe that Afghanistan is no realistic threat to us, unless our war there continues to anger so many people around the world.
George C. Wilson, military columnist for Congress Daily, wrote recently: “The American military’s mission to pacify the 40,000 tiny villages in Afghanistan will look like mission impossible, especially if our bombings keep killing Afghan civilians and infuriating the ones who survive.”
General Petraeus said this summer we should not forget that Afghanistan has been known as the “graveyard of empires.”
Congressional Quarterly reported on Sept. 17 that members of both parties were, “fretting openly about a lack of progress in the conflict.”
As much as Americans love our troops, we need to realize that the Defense Department is not just a military organization. It is also the world’s largest bureaucracy. Every gigantic bureaucracy always wants to expand its mission and frequently exaggerates its challenges so it can get more money and personnel.
The Taliban guerillas have almost no money, and a top U.N. anti-terrorism official said recently that al-Qaida is having, “difficulty in maintaining credibility.”
National defense is the most legitimate function of our federal government. However, that does not mean Congress should automatically or blindly approve the Pentagon’s every request or never criticize its waste.
Much of what we are doing in Afghanistan is of a civic, charitable or governmental nature, like building schools and teaching agribusiness. But the Defense Department should not be the “Department of Foreign Aid,” or much of our military primarily a very large version of the Peace Corps.
In March, the president promised a “dramatic increase” in our effort in Afghanistan, including “agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers.” Why, when we are $12 trillion in debt, are we spending mega-billions in Afghanistan doing practically everything for them? We are spending money we do not have on a very unnecessary war and jeopardizing our own future in the process.
Many people think that all conservatives support this war. Well, I believe that there are many millions of conservatives who do not and who want us to bring our troops home, the sooner the better. In fact, this war goes very much against traditional conservatism.
When I was in high school, I worked as a bag boy at an A&P grocery store making $1.10 an hour. I sent my first paycheck, $19 and some cents, as a contribution to the Barry Goldwater campaign. I am still one of the most conservative members of Congress. But this war has required huge deficit spending, almost half a trillion in war and war-related costs for Afghanistan. Fiscal conservatives should be the people most upset about this. This war has spent mega-billions in foreign aid, because probably at least half of what we have done and are doing there is of a civic or charitable nature. Traditional conservatives have been the strongest opponents of massive foreign aid.
We went into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan under U.N. resolutions, yet conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of the U.N. Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest opponents of world government because it is too elitist and arrogant and too far removed from control by the people. We should not now support what is essentially world government just because it is being run by our military.
I am a veteran and I am very pro military, but I am for national defense, not international defense. I know that the leaders of Afghanistan want us to keep spending hundreds of billions there, but we cannot afford it. We cannot afford it economically, and as far as I am concerned, it is not worth one more American life.
I know that when leaders of the Defense Department and the State Department and the National Security Council all get together in their meetings, that all of the pressures are on getting involved or staying involved in just about every military, political or ethnic dispute all around the world. I know that they want to be considered as great world statesmen, but eight years in Afghanistan is not only enough, it is far too long. It is time, Madam Speaker, to come home. It is time to start putting our own people and our own country first once again.
NYC terror trials defy all logic
People all over the nation are upset and angry about five of the Guantanamo terrorists being scheduled for trial in New York.
This is happening only because President Obama issued an executive order in the early days of his administration stopping the military tribunal process.
The Congress — both House and Senate — voted by large margins in 2006 to try these terrorists by military tribunals.
This could have been done in Guantanamo.
But President Obama overruled Congress by his executive order, and the Defense and Justice Departments then started the process of bringing the terrorists to trial in this country.
This will result in very large legal and security expenses that would not have been necessary if these men were tried at Guantanamo.
To try all these terrorists here — the first five and others later — creates a very unnecessary security risk for untold numbers of people.
I hope President Obama will listen to the outcry of the American people and not continue to insist that all these terrorists be tried in the United States.
The families of our victims deserve better.
U.S. Rep. John Duncan represents Tennessee’s 2nd District. He has been named among the five most fiscally conservative members of Congress by the National Taxpayers Union and is one of the few members of Congress to receive the Citizens Against Government Waste’s Super Hero Award. Duncan can be reached in his Washington, D.C. office at (202)225-5435.
