It’s time to re-orient the nation’s
priorities, in order to fund real needs
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
James Madison, 1795
Secretary Robert Gates’ announcement that he’ll seek to trim Pentagon administrative costs and to bring the explosion of spending in military contracting under control is a worthwhile initiative, but it’s a far cry from what’s needed to put the nation’s spending priorities back on a responsible course.
Even in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and at a time when the nation’s deficit is at record levels, the U.S. continues to devote the vast majority of its available federal resources to the military.
If you exclude Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are dedicated to the nation’s retirees, fully two-thirds of every tax dollar raised in the United States today goes to the vast Pentagon bureaucracy, to our ongoing wars, or to pay for the long-term human toll of those wars. As of this year, the U.S. military will consume approximately $850 billion, while all federal taxes (excluding Social Security and Medicare) will generate just over $1.2 trillion in revenue.
President George W. Bush’s Global War on Terror contributed mightily to this massive run-up in Pentagon spending, but there is little evidence that largesse has actually improved our nation’s security. Indeed, it could easily be argued that by shortchanging so many other priorities, from education and the environment, to renewable energy, to efficient transportation, Washington’s fixation on the military is undermining our nation’s economic security.
Real national security isn’t measured by the number of bombers or warships we can field, or by the number of high-priced generals sitting behind a desk somewhere— especially when much of that military excess is paid for with money borrowed from China.
At a time when the U.S. is rapidly falling behind the rest of the world in terms of the quality of its schools, the number of college graduates, access to broadband communications, and improvements to energy efficiency and renewable energy, we only weaken ourselves as a nation when we unnecessarily pour so many of our scarce resources into building our capacity for war and occupation. While no one questions the need for a strong U.S. defense, our vast Pentagon budget has little to do with defending our borders.
Mostly, it’s about money and jobs, and a gravy train for contractors that’s fueled by a revolving door of influence-peddling and outright corruption. No one could rationally argue that Gates’ announced cuts would somehow weaken our defenses. Instead, the legions of congressmen who have complained have cited lost jobs in their home districts as their reasons for bucking the defense secretary.
Sadly, whatever savings are achieved by Gates’ plan won’t go towards more productive uses, nor will they be used to trim the deficit. Instead, the money will be redeployed elsewhere within the military budget.
We applaud the defense secretary for recognizing that the defense budget is riddled with inefficiency. Yet, until he and the Obama administration are ready to approve actual and meaningful reductions in the vast Pentagon bureaucracy and bring our unnecessary wars to an end, our real national security will only continue to suffer.
All makes total sense to me. Long overdue. But there are those folks out there who will disagree, but not offer any reasonable alternatives. They will likely comment soon. That is their right ... but sadly comes from too far on the right.
The current occupant has been in power since January 2009 and has not done anything about this travesty--very sad. Like Marshall, he blames Bush but offers nothing but empty words, complaints and promises. Given the current pace of spending by Democrats and cash lined pockets of career politicians from both parties, it's clear that the largest federal programs ALL need to be cut and re-structured although I don't see much hope. If the anointed one can't do it, certainly nobody can.
While we seem to have a basic agreement here, I disagree that he "offers nothing but empty words ..."
Iraq is drawing to a close and there should be savings. This has been too slow to come, but it is now "arriving". Gates (who speaks for the president, or better) has promised cuts (did you perhaps miss that in the article?)
Rather than continue to throw fuel on the pessimistic viewpoints, let's watch and wait ... and gosh, do it with faith and hope. I do.
Empty words and empty deeds are one and the same. Barack Obama is getting fire from within his own party which should be telling.
Let me riddle you this--what's worse; 1. The out of control state government that allows the L.A. school district to spend $578 million to build a public school (in a district that is always begging for more money and bows to the teacher's unions) or
2. untold billions (trillions?) spent by the military and career politicians who continue to make sure that money flows?
Both mentalities are bankrupting this country and things will get much, much worse. When as much money and power is held by so few people (unions, bankers, politicians, special interest groups, business groups etc.) nothing good will come of it. And to believe that one party or another holds a monopoly on that greed and power is part of the problem. I'm amused when I'm labeled a conservative by some simply because I see government as the problem. Let's face it--right now today--all basic measures of economic health continue to remain bad, and are only getting worse (or "falling more than had been predicted" is the usual non threatening phrase one usually hears in the media). Like no other time in my life, I can list off people I know who are either unemployed or are losing their house--or both. I'd like to be optimistic in spirit, but I'm making damn sure I'm being realistic in practice by being frugal and paying down my debt/mortgage. I'm upset that I'm unable to utilize more of my earned income to do both by a government that continues to use taxpayer money so ineptly. Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow/Keith Olberman/Marshall Helmburger are nothing more than opposite sides of the same coin doing/yelling/shouting/writing what they can to further their own "side's" viewpoints when at the end of the day, both "sides" are corrupt political parties. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
I would say that your #1 AND #2 are probably equally to blame (with perhaps an edge to #2 since I also believe that that is where the real power resides - what they want they get, including in government).
but then i ask ... what should we do?
As I see things, you singularly blame the government. Why not equally, at least, our "economy" and the business interests who "manage" it? You mention this, so i think you hold some agreement.
But, what should we do? The solution is not in attacking Mr. Helmberger's opinion pieces.
You are not giving enough credit to the power of unions then. I have several friends who belong to a union (construction and government workers) so I don't hate union workers. But when state and local governments that are staring down the barrel of unsustainable pension/wage promises to their workers are completely hog-tied to re-structure the system--even small changes-you can rest assured that power to thwart any reform comes directly from their unions. When my friends are embarassed by the actions of their union reps, it's saying something.
Solutions could be: Let's say that from say, January 1, 2012 on, no jobs that are ultimately funded by taxpayers can be unionized. Or no more guaranteed pensions for new hires--their investments should deal with the same ups and downs as my 401k plan should. The ability of unions to hold taxpayers hostage, and be totally unwilling to face the reality that most of us in the private sector face is borderline criminal. Barack Obama's blatant billion dollar "stimulus" handouts and payoffs to unions for their support is as criminal as the handouts and contracts given to the Halliburton's of the world. As a side note, why don't we ever hear about THAT (or Cindy Sheehan etc. anymore) in the Timberjay, Mpls Tribune, NYT, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS etc.? A solution would be for news organizations to simply portray the good and bad of both mainstream political parties without predjudice.
As far as blaming the government.. Well that's because it has become an entity that no longer represents the people and has such a concentration of power that to change it is becoming more and more difficult. It's come to pass that in my opinion, the government basically represents itself and the narrow interests of those who claim to operate it. For all the spin, promises and battles that are waged between the Dems and GOP, rest assured that one could not survive without the other. Like co-dependent drug abusers, they always have the other to blame/vilify or wage war with, which of course allows them to basically accomplish nothing but give the appearance that they are. If you're fighting for something, you're obvously too busy to do something crazy like, say, follow through on campaign promises which got them elected in the first place. The wealthy, well spoken and well connected--represented very well by both parties--have always had the upper hand (the lucky sperm as my liberal wife would say). Look no further than who will be representing the DFL for governor this fall! Mark Dayton was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and proclaims to be the best person to represent "working" people. It almost makes me gag. The fact that such people can attain power should be embarassing. It's like giving a "break" to an athlete time after time for breaking the law. Yeah he's nothing like us and a scumbag, but he sure can run fast and throw touchdowns!
Agreeable, common sense solutions are all around us, yet because of that concentration of power, are becoming virtually impossible to pass into law. Start with Congressional term limits--two, six year terms, period. Full disclosure of financial backers and special interest groups who support them. No lifetime golden parachutes either regarding any benefits. Come January of the year they are gone--they are off the taxpayer-paid rolls and back where they came from. How about writing into law that the federal government MUST balance their budget, like states "do" (wink-wink) every year. How about no longer having taxes paid "easily" and automatically out of our paychecks--we all need to pick up a pen and write a personal/business check every quarter to the various governments that use our money. You can bet that will get people asking about where their money is being spent! Anyhow, back to work.
Dang, Mr. K. I think we have lots of agreement here. And something I liked a lot, was you only brought Mr. Obama into your discussion once.
The sad part is, and I think you hint at it, it is not likely to happen.
But we'll see.