Molotov

Representative Freeman, TX wrote:With the brutal attack on the MSA by our neighbor, the USA, it has been made clear that the armed forces of the MSA must be strengthened as soon as possible. I therefore propose these changes to the federal budget.

The federal budget will be changed by:

Army +2 credits
Navy +2 credits
Air Force +3 credits

One time expenditure of 10 credits for the creation of a national civil defense plan in order to respond to any conventional or nuclear threat. This includes the training of civilians employed under state and federal agencies.

Speaker of the House Jeanette Johnson, MO wrote:This proposed legislation has hereby been assigned to the House Committee on the Budget, for review and all other necessary legislative actions.

Representative Freeman, TX wrote:The enemies of the Mountain States of America are actively seeking a moment to strike our great nation. By failing to pass this bill, will we be showing our enemies our lack of responsiveness to their attacks, severely damaging national security. I ask my colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible.

5 Neo Conservative votes in favor.

Representative Gilbert, IA wrote:If the past year has shown us anything, it is that the military of the Mountain States of America is under-equipped and unprepared. We have neglected our fighting men and women, and as a result we are now threatened by our neighbors to the east. The United States has launched a series of air strikes and merchant raids against this nation, and our own armed forces have been nigh incapable of preventing these attacks. A total overhaul of our defensive capability in air and sea is required, and to do this our military will require the funds necessary to develop or procure equipment and to train personnel. The treaty of Saint Paul may guarantee our territorial integrity, but it has been made clear by the United States that it has no such guarantee of our sovereignty or safety. In the wise words of the Greek Thucydides, "As the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". We cannot afford, surrounded as we are by parties who preserve our nation by reason of simple convenience, to be perceived as weak.

Progressive Conservatives vote 6 IN FAVOR

House Majority Leader Geoffrey Wise, P-IA wrote:Where, exactly, will this money be going to? Empty ear-marking of funding is fiscally irresponsible at best, and simply throwing money at the Defense Department without an analysis of our present situation to back up such a drastic measure is downright dangerous. I urge my colleagues in every party to reconsider their opinions on this act, and perhaps contemplate the nature of such a sudden departure from the Neo-Conservative mantra of financial responsible.

Until a suitable amendment both explaining the nature of this increase in funding and making it more appropriate towards our present circumstances, I refuse to partake in some sort of massive frenzy of paranoia and recklessness.

11 Progressive Liberal votes AGAINST

3 Progressive Liberal vote PRESENT[In Abstention]

Representative Thomas Higgins, KS wrote:Given the current state of affairs, I find myself in agreement with Representative Wise, that this act will not rectify any of the problems that may have been revealed by the US attacks. We cannot simply throw money at the problem and hope it goes away, but rather we must determine what it is our country needs to adequately defend itself, and then we can discuss the rearrangement of funds.

8 Progressive Moderate votes AGAINST

2 Progressive Moderate votes PRESENT (Abstention)

Representative Milton Murphy, TX wrote: Thank you, Representative Wise. We have all been shaken by recent events, but it's time the Far-Right calmed down and stopped trying so desperately to reap political profit off of the tragedy.

6 Socialist Votes PRESENT.

4 Socialist Votes AGAINST.

Representative Andrea Hernández, TX wrote: Indeed, but now that the issue of National Security has been brought up, some of us would like to once again bring up the proposal for a Socialist Defense Policy. We believe that a correct implementation of the SDP can do a great deal towards preventing and increasing our civilian readiness for future attacks or events like them.
At this moment, I'd like to outline the basic objectives of the SDP:

• The creation of Citizen Self-Protection Militias. This is a basic keystone of the Socialist Defense policy and as such has already been brought up before Congress. The details of this initiative have already been laid out, and the record can be freely consulted at any time. Regardless, it is true that this aspect of the SDP mostly concerns defense from inner threats and land invasions, and is therefore not as immediately relevant as other aspects, although cooperation and complementary interlocking between all aspects is a key principle of the SDP.
• The establishment of a nationwide civilian bomb shelter and underground bunker network. A significant expense, to be sure, but one whose necessity has been painfully demonstrated with the deaths of the Freedom 33. It should be noted that the civilian population is the one currently left most vulnerable to air raids by our enemies. This aspect of the Socialist Defense Policy will not only provide shelter but also turn every neighborhood into a veritable fortress, manned by brave people trained not only in the Citizen Self-Protection Militias, but also in the mandatory military service that is another keystone of the SDP.
• Subpoint: an upgraded radar and early warning system, as well as routine drills and training to use this network, establishing a permanent federal agency to oversee and maintain it always at the ready.
• Mandatory military service. This is not, as the once-dominant Conservative faction of the Republican Party would have it, some sort of scheme to enroll every citizen of the MSA into the armed forces, but rather a plan to institute a mandatory military service for all men and women upon turning 18, to be served for a total period of one year. The citizens fulfilling this military service would be assigned to serve under the wing of the armed forces nearest and best able to do it, as coordinated by the Department of Defense. The Right-Wing should be pleased to hear that we recognize that this aspect of the SDP will necessitate a significant increase in funding for our armed forces, except this time the money won't go to the pockets of large arms industry interest groups but into a real, patriotic investment towards a battle-ready, war-prepared people. By the time the mandatory military service is done, the young men and women who served in it will be ready to take up arms at any time and serve in the Citizen Self-Protection Militias or the regular Military valiantly if they so choose. Coupled with the final aspect, this will finally make our country impregnable to foreign attack, as well as instill patriotic and solidary values into the hearts of future MS Americans.
• A National System of Civilian Weapons Caches. Possibly the most controversial point, at present the SDP contemplates for this system to be handled initially by the National Guard, which is to open up the caches and distribute its contents (an assortment of weapons and equipment necessary for national resistance and defense to be determined by a DoD task force) to the civilian population, preferably through the Self-Protection Militias, who are to be eventually and gradually handed over control of these caches. Recognizing the potential dangers of this aspect, we propose that this system be put under strict Congressional oversight, as well as from the DoD, so as to prevent and immediately punish any misuse of these resources.

We know these plans are ambitious, and we know that they will meet stiff resistance from the traditional political establishment, and yet we present them nonetheless, so that the people of MS America may know them and judge for themselves which political factions are just out there shouting slogans and empty statements, and which have a serious perspective of the real and hypothetical needs of a besieged democracy in the event of war.

Now begins the long and arduous task of bringing these plans into fruition, already anticipated by the presentation of the Citizen's Protection Bill earlier this year. We will present these plans as separate, complicated, bills in the manner that we see that we can work towards getting them passed. This fight won't be easy, but it is necessary; not flashy, but patriotic; not jingoistic and cheap, but a real solidarity-fueled national struggle, one whose influence we can already feel walking on the streets of Houston, and in the minds of many.

The Socialist Defense Policy, my fellow Americans, is the future of our National Security.

Representative Christopher Miller, Texas (R-L) wrote:There is ample merit in the defense policy repeated above by Representative Hernández. One significant problem with it is its unacceptable name. Not only is it a partisan terminology that is used, it is also the remnant of a collapsed regime, and as such stained.