I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Go to War (again)

Anyone who pays marginal attention to the news knows China and Japan are teetering on the precipice of major conflict. They are disputing the ownership of a little set of islands in the East China Sea, known as the Daiyuo Islands in China and Senkaku Islands in Japan.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta implores the United States to remain neutral. However since my fellow Millenials and I already face over $3 trillion dollars in wars that we had had no say in waging, now that I can vote I want to make my opinion loud and clear: no war (Ferraro 2012, Mount Holyoke College).  

Political jargon aside, this is a lot of money. 

Photo credit: http://www.peaceway.net/images/signs/PeaceWaysigns5.gif

Growing up watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, I heard the saying, “children pay for their parents’ wars.” It was most likely 2002, following the September 11^th attacks and President Bush was advocating invasion of Iraq. When I complained about the cost that would inevitably be dumped upon my generation long after the war ended, my parents, both born in the early 50’s countered that they experienced a similar situation. They had not voted for or against Vietnam yet they paid for it. In fact, they even protested against it and still paid for it. It is an inextricable cycle.

This graph shows the steady increase in DOO budget compared to the 2000, pre-9/11 budget. The amount spent on oversea contingency wars does not steadily increase but rather drops down around 2009 when Obama took office. Since then it has once again steadily risen though not to the degree at which it rose during President Bush's presidency. 
Photo Credit: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVMxM0w78aI64W-0T82xqBxRIjgEVM5eJEZJLF_xdhTEs0tpsjjrrjfbuFLWZkhywuy_BhXZs9nS5klvpVzfWGQgAbxHiKymElmyiErduiPXUo7pkb5NVdmYCvPGsR9Lt4W1Ofpohyphenhyphen5A_T/

I do not agree with this cycle. How is it fair that a group of people has to pay for something it had no say in? Yes, I realize the simple answer is “Life is not fair.” But there has to be a way to finance a current generation’s experience without drowning the next generation in debt. My immediate thought is to insist that the Federal Government not spend money it does not have. This prevents excessive interest costs as well as excessive expenditures. But realistically, can a nation afford to be stingy in a time of war? Not if it expects to win.

Another alternative is to lower the voting age. Some may argue that since an American is not considered an adult in the legal sense until he or she is eighteen, he or she should not be eligible to vote. Can you really quantify an age at which a person is competent to vote? Part of me believes age is irrelevant: you should be allowed to vote when you make an effort to get educated about the issues and can make an informed decision. One could argue that based on that standard, many Americans do not deserve their vote. So why not allow a fourteen year old to vote? The future is theirs too.

Significantly fewer members of the rising or incoming generation vote compared to members of the generation currently in power and the one that just relinquished it. In my opinion, their votes are significantly less imperative than those of the rising generation because it is the rising generation who will primarily be affected by whatever policies passed. 
Photo credit: http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/PrcntByAge.gif

I don’t presently have a satisfactory solution to prevent children from financing their parents’ wars. But what I can and will do is be cognizant of my decisions as a voter will affect both my and my children’s financial future. They should not have to pay for my mistakes – literally.

Thus far it seems as though the conflict between Japan and China will diffuse. Regardless, I do not approve my tax dollars to get involved in a war between Japan and China. Moreover, I do not approve my tax dollars to fund another war until the soldiers in Afghanistan come home.

Follow Up: Elephant Poaching and the Ivory Trade

“It is difficult to know exactly how many people have died.”

This weekend the New York Times posted another article about elephant poaching and the ivory trade. While not an extension of the article described in my blog post from September 12^th, it does further investigate the consequences of such a lucrative “sport.” The author of the Op-Ed column, Louisa Lombard, examines the loss of human life in addition to that of the majestic elephant.

The spoils of an ivory seizure in Kenya. The 1,550-plus pounds of ivory, valued at an approximately $750,000 US dollars, was guessed to have come from 50 adult male elephants. DNA testing can be used to determine from where the elephants had originated. 

Photo credit: http://www.awf.org/blog/huge-ivory-seizure-two-men-arrested/ 

One of the most sobering figures in her article is the lack thereof. As the first line of this post implies, no one knows exactly how many people have lost their lives by getting involved on either side of the war for ivory. Some groups keep track of how many guards are lost. No one even attempts to record the number of poachers killed.

What can be done to effectively stop the slaughter of both human and elephant life in the name of ivory? Lombard acknowledges that “human management” of the crisis (ie wildlife conservation) is relatively futile. She instead claims that, “curbing the demand for ivory is, in the end, the only way to curb both elephant and people life.” Yet I do not understand how such reduction in demand is possible. The countries with the highest demand for ivory cherish it for its religious connotations, not its construction properties or beauty.

Intricately carved ivory religious figurines. The notion that ivory honors God is evident in Buddhism and Catholicism.

Photo credit: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/19/illegal_ivory_trade_in_thailand/

Asking the Chinese to relinquish their love of ivory equates to asking Americans to omit “one nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance: it’s simply not going to happen.

I wholeheartedly support freedom of religion (though I myself am unreligious). But in a situation like this, where religion is tied up in other global conflicts, I feel hypocritical. Pretend such ivory demand existed in the United States. I believe I would advocate for regulations restricting the import and sale of ivory, whether it be used for religious purposes, piano keys, trinkets, etc in order to protect the elephants. But if ivory is believed by some religions to honor God, then are restrictions on its import and sale a violation of the First Amendment? Is asking a person to reconsider what he or she uses to honor God imposing upon his or her religious freedom? To me, it feels like it does.

In that case, how do we attempt to balance the two?  One solution I thought of was using elephant meat to feed starving villages. At least in that respect, the death of an elephant serves a bigger purpose than fueling the ivory trade. Yet that solution fails to protect elephants as a species and inevitably would create a whole assortment of other problems.  No answer will be the perfect solution. Sadly, more humans and elephants will have to die until that solution emerges.