Additional money requested for equipment repairs and more
military operations: $75 billion. Money to quiet other
international conflicts, like Palestine and Darfur: $5 billion.
Total price tag for the War on Terrorism (including the requested
$80 billion): at least $300 billion. Total U.S. government aid to
tsunami relief: $350 million.
Seeing Bush’s budgeting priorities for peace and freedom
in the world: priceless.
There are some things money can’t buy. For everything
else, Bush has the Senate.
I can’t remember the last time the Senate denied the Bush
administration anything. It’s very possible I’ve
overlooked something, but it seems like what Bush wants, Bush
gets.
The request for the $80 billion is expected to pass with no
trouble. That is on top of the request last summer for an
additional $25 billion for the war effort, and senior Bush
administration officials say they expect the government to submit
another major “spending request” next year, according
to the Los Angeles Times.
I realize that, despite anyone’s personal opinions on
national intervention, we’re already deeply entrenched in
Iraq. The money is needed, even if I disagree with the strategy.
And the U.S. Senate is never going to question the request for
money when it is being employed to better the conditions of the
troops, which many civilians here have personal ties to.
It’s not about the Iraqis anymore, as House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told CNN. “This is money for our
troops. No one is going to have a problem with that.”
Well, I have a problem with that. I have a problem with that
statement, to be precise. Even if you took that last sentence
completely out of context, I would have a problem with it.
I am always worried when critical analysis is deemed
unnecessary. Still, the idea of self-evaluation ““ however
evidently good it appears to be ““ seems lost on our
good-and-evil, rhetoric-touting administration.
When I asked political science professor Matthew Baum his
opinion on this reluctance toward introspection, he responded by
making a distinction between supporting troops and supporting
policy.
“Clearly, at the end of the day we need to support our war
effort,” he said. “But the notion that you can’t
criticize a policy because (the troops are) in harm’s way is
dangerous.”
I think that’s a very important distinction that is easy
to forget when responding to attacks on opposition to the Iraq war.
I don’t want people to die, whether they are Americans or
Southeast Asians. Still, I cannot be silent amid flawed policy.
That is why we have a system of checks and balances. On the
government level, I feel like that responsibility might be failing
me.
This is partly the reason why I am firmly in favor of a
legislative branch here at UCLA. In fact, I am surprised that we
have a system without different branches of government. If the Bush
administration attempted to distance itself from the Senate like it
did from the United Nations, I can only imagine the outrage that
would ensue.
A system running solely on an executive branch would, I suppose,
come to decisions faster and more efficiently. Brian Neesby, the
student responsible for the push for an Undergraduate Students
Association Council senate, brought up a comic but valid point
about efficiency.
With a twinkle in his eye, he said, “I think that
there’s a point to be made that the most efficient form of
government is a monarchy.”
I have to agree. Efficiency is often highly overrated in our
commercial society. We need a shift in priorities toward making
sure minorities are represented in a majority-run environment.
Diversity ““ whether it be ethnic diversity or the
conservatism that is a minority ideology at a liberal university
““ needs to be valued above efficiency.
Neesby has a dream for increased representation for all
students, whether they are independent, part of a slate or neither.
And he wants a division of tasks so that work can be executed with
more expertise and, as it would turn out, with more efficiency.
All this is wonderful, but what was most important to me was the
obvious, unstated fact ““ that another branch may in fact
dilute power and create more bureaucracy. And while I usually
despise some seemingly unnecessary twists of Murphy or U.S.
bureaucracy, in this case I think the benefits outweigh the
costs.
I find the fear and hostility toward critically judging ruling
bodies, whether they be international, U.S. or university
governments, deeply disturbing. I cherish a system of checks and
balances. A legislative branch of the USAC government seems not
only inherently, but logically, a very important step for UCLA.
After all, if we can’t improve our student government
while we are here, how do we ever expect to improve our nation once
we graduate?
Hashem loves to hear thoughtful criticism. Critically
analyze her work at nhashem@media.ucla.edu.