By now you may have heard from neoconservatives that “catastrophic” defense spending cuts will kick in on January 2, 2013. This is completely misleading and ignores the reality of the military budget. There are no scheduled military spending cuts despite the best efforts of the Republican establishment to convince us otherwise.

Washington has once again cleverly disguised a spending increase as a “cut.” President Obama is only cutting $480 billion in military spending from the bloated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline that predicts government spending over the next ten years.

He is merely reducing projected military spending, as opposed to cutting current spending. This means that military spending will increase at a slightly slower rate than previously anticipated over the next decade.

But real fiscal conservatives aren’t satisfied with reductions in projected spending—we want real, substantial cuts. No serious discussion about reducing our $15.8 trillion national debt can occur without putting military spending on the table.

Now there is a difference between military spending and defense spending. A large chunk of military spending has nothing to do with the defense of the United States. I mean, why the heck are U.S. troops still in Afghanistan?

The rate at which the military budget has expanded is outrageous. Current U.S. military spending is higher than at any time in our entire history and accounts for nearly half of all military spending on earth. U.S. military spending has doubled when adjusted for inflation over the past decade.

Candidate Obama criticized George W. Bush’s spending on overseas wars on the 2008 campaign trail. But President Obama beats George W. Bush when it comes to war and military spending. Under President Bush, military spending averaged 3.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product. It has increased to 4.9 percent—a full percentage point higher under President Obama.

Don't be fooled by fuzzy Washington math. Obama isn't really cutting military spending like he should.

While strolling through news sources today I couldn't help but notice the New York Times column calling for people in my age bracket to be conscripted. Author Thomas Riggs puts forth his case as to why we need to re-institute the draft and some methods for doing so. Like many who have called for a draft in recent years, he uses that same concept of "building citizenship" and "shared sacrifice" ideas advocated by those who see the military as a sacrosanct institution. Taking some pointers from some of the "anti-war" draft promoters he even mentions that this would be a good driving force against war (because that obviously worked really well last time [eye roll]).

Too libertarian for being shackled into either military or "civil service" jobs? Don't worry -- you can opt out. Riggs writes:

...libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

That part actually sounds good -- but only if that means I get to keep my taxes that pay for these services as well. It only seems fair that if I ask nothing from Uncle Sam, then Uncle Same should ask nothing of me, but of course Riggs doesn't even hint at this compromise.

With all this talk the a new draft hitting the New York Times it raises a question that I've had ever since my Constitutional Law classes in college. What about the Thirteenth Amendment? Just so we're clear on what it says, the full text of the amendment is:

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You see, it's that whole "involuntary servitude" language that tells me that the draft is, besides being immoral, simply unconstitutional. The draft is nothing more than forcing through legal statute individuals into service. As we all know, the draft is not optional once instituted -- just ask Muhammad Ali, who lost the heavyweight championship because he refused to be drafted.

Despite President Barack Obama's announcement of the Third End of War in Iraq, the people of Iraq continue to suffer under unrelenting violence all the while the toll from civilian deaths continues to climb. While America was celebrating Independence Day on July 4 with colorful explosion of fireworks, Iraqis were treated to non-celebratory explosions of car bombs and death squads. 19 people were killed and 52 wounded. And that was just one day.

Over 100 people have died and more than 200 wounded in Iraq last week in a spate of violence that continues unabated.

Angela Keaton, who is director of operations at Antiwar.com, recently gave a great interview in which she said, among other things, this:

Daily Bell: What is your sense of the world today? Who is primarily behind most major wars today? Is it NATO and the West?

What is going in the Middle East? Please give us your reactions to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Angela Keaton: Here’s where you ask variations on all the same questions, which is the key to the answers.

1. When we discuss power, we are discussing people who behave badly. These people sometimes find their interests aligned. No dark conspiracies needed. People should watch old t.v. soap operas, read classic novels or observe children. That would be far more helpful in understanding the hows and whys.

2. People are pack animals besotted with hierarchy. We adore status, class and categories, the last of which allows us to stick things in boxes without having to think critically or use the most basic discernment. It also allows for the one true and real conspiracy: language. “Women,” “The Gays,” “The Arabs,” “The Jews” don’t exist. Only individuals exist. Mock Ayn Rand all you wish but the concept of the individual as something real and vital is not only morally righteous but would be a consequentialist step toward peace. Recognizing individual human dignity makes bombing and torturing people more difficult.

3. Treat someone poorly long enough and he or she will eventually react either with passive-aggressive resentments or with direct action.