The President is granted the power to command the army by the Constitution. This title is one of commander in chief. This allows the President to have major influence in how the U.S's wars are fought. Congress also has some power--it and the President have to come up with a federal budget which Congress is authorized to approve. Congress can influence how much money goes to which interests, such as homeland securtity.
This is called the "power of the purse" and can be used to limit the amount of money spent on war and war efforts. Some people are of the opinion that Congress should use its influence on the purse of America to pull out of Iraq. Congress would do this by refusing to fund the war efforts any longer. However, the other side of the arguement is that the President say that Congress should stay out of such decisions and let the President handle wars. Congress and the President are not always of the same opinion and critics believe that such an image will encourage war enemies. They hold the belief that the President should have the power to make war policy decisions only to prevent this disagreement.
commander in chief- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States
power of the purse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse
The problem I have with the war dollars is this: the executive and legislative branches can't agree. The longer a country involves itself in a war, the more debt it accumulates. The United States is already something like $13 trillion dollars in debt. I think the President should not have the only say in how these war dollars are spent. It's harder for a large group of people (Congress) to all have the same personal agenda than it is for only one person (President). I'm not saying that Obama had his own personal reasons for staying in Iraq or that Bush had ulterior motives for going into Iraq, but if the funding for armies or homeland security is in the hands of one person, that leaves plenty of room for corruption. The stereotypical politician is sleazy, shady, and fraudulent and only wants power. Now, I know there are some politicians out there that fit that description perfectly. However, there are also many politicians who are looking for ways to improve the country and help citizens. It's irritating to have to put up a safeguard for cheaters when the majority are honest, but that way the U.S is safer from being overtaken by the will of a single person. This is why I think that Congress should have the most influence when it comes to war funding. War is expensive, and it is much harder to convince an entire house of people to think exactly the same way. This method would let more opinions into the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act
Opinon on issue #3: social security: http://rachelrachrachel.blogspot.com/2010/10/topic-3-social-insecurity.html
No comments:
Post a Comment