Yeah, he made a stupid comment about our military, and I'll deal with that in a bit, but there's something much more troubling about this clip via hot air and Fox News something that I haven't seen anybody else comment on.. Here's a transcript:
FN
: ...a recent and very detailed study from the Heritage Foundation, Congressman, found the following and we're going to put that up.13% of recruits are from the poorest neighborhoods. That's less than the national average of people living in those neighborhoods.
97% of recruits have high school diplomas. Among all Americans, the graduation rate is under 80%
And blacks make up 14.5% of recruits for the military, the national average is 12%.
Congressman, in fact, contrary to what you've been saying, isn't the volunteer army better educated and more well to do than the general population?
CR:
Of course not. I want to make it abundantly clear that I have been advocating a draft ever since the President's been talking about war, and none of this comes within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. But I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
Let's start by giving you the link to the Heritage report referred to by Chris Wallace. And here are a couple of key excerpts.
First, on recruit income levels:
From 2003 to 2005, the representation of the highest-income quintile rose 0.68 percentage point, from 22.17 percent to 22.85 percent. As conflict in Iraq continues, youth from wealthy areas continue to volunteer for duty despite increased risk. Additionally, over the course of these three recruit years, representation from the poorest quintile has decreased dramatically. The representation among recruits of the lowest-income quintile fell nearly a full percentage point, from 14.61 percent in 2003 to 13.66 percent in 2005.
Next, on education:
The previous study noted the significant difference between the national recruit high school graduation rate of 98 percent and the national youth graduation rate of 75 percent. This strong distinction continues among the 2004 and 2005 recruits when compared to the national educational attainment levels reported by the Census 2004 American Community Survey (ACS).
So now we are assured that Chris Wallace wasn't just making this stuff up. It is true that today's military recruits are better educated and more well to do than the population in general.
And what was Rangel's response to these facts?
He rejected them out of hand. No facts, no numbers, no logical rebuttal. He just spouted his talking points without regard to reality. Denial may not be just a river, but Mr. Rangel is apparently drinking deep from its waters. Not ten seconds elapsed between a recitation of the facts and then the complete rejection of reality. It really points out the danger we are all in when politicians become more interested in running for government instead of running the government. Rangel is more interested in scoring political points than he is in making sound policy decisions for the United States. He's more concerned with beating down the Republicans than he is with beating the nation's enemies. That's why he ignores the facts; they are irrelevant to his mission.
That's why he isn't fit to be trusted.
As for the subject of his rant, our military, the important point isn't that he thinks only those who have no options join up, but this sentence right here:
No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits.
Notice anything missing in his statement? Something that reveals a blind spot in his outlook?
Isn't it possible that some young men and women join up because they feel they have a duty to serve their country? And maybe, just maybe, they believe that their duty is even more important when we are at war? Wouldn't that explain why the Heritage Foundation study shows that recruiting among the higher economic brackets has actually increased as the war progressed, while it fell off in the lower brackets? Could it be that those of us who have the most to loose are the ones most willing to fight to protect it?
But it seems that Mr. Rangel believes that the only reason to join the military is to get something out of it, like better job opportunities, or an education, and that the only time that is a decent bargain is when we are at peace. I know he must have believed differently at some point, since he joined the military in 1948 and fought with bravery in Korea. I don't know what has happened to him to change his mind over the last 50 years, but I think that Mr. Rangel has been in Congress so long that he's forgotten what it means to actually serve your country instead of feed off of it like a blood sucking parasite.