Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

[SavageEagle]

Foreign aid is a tiny fraction of what our government does with our money, and most of it goes to Israel.

This statement is so full of fail.... Please. I'd like to see where you came up with that.

 

[antsi]

And it is because of this political reality that we are totally screwed.

The fact that it is politically untenable to even consider elimination of the largest Ponzi scheme (Social Security) in the history of the world speaks volumes of how far this nation has strayed from the path laid out at its founding.

I tend to agree with you in principle - we'd be better off if this thing hadn't been done in the first place. Now people are dependent on it, and it is politically unfeasible to completely eliminate it.

However, as messed up as the program is, it can be made fiscally sustainable with some reasonably do-able tweaks. They would be painful and require sacrifices, but not nearly as painful or sacrificial as it will be if we continue on the present course.

This budget simulator shows the effects of various tweaks on the deficit. There are some fairly manageable changes, like raising the retirement age a few years, getting rid of the ss tax exemption for government employees, etc., that can make the rickety ship seaworthy.

It is true that one of our big problems in addressing the deficit is that there are entrenched political interests that oppose any change you could suggest.

However, I think an even bigger barrier is how people just throw up their hands and say it's an insoluble problem - or, say it can't be solved unless X (X being something completely radical and unfeasible).

The problem isn't really insurmountable - yet. At this point, some relatively manageable changes could make a big difference. If we put off the changes for a few more years, though, our debt is going to grow large enough, and with it our debt service obligations, that we will get to the point that a complete economic collapse becomes inevitable.

 

[antsi]

This statement is so full of fail.... Please. I'd like to see where you came up with that.

The second part may be untrue, but the first part is true. Foreign aid is a cup of water in the ocean of our debt problem.

 

[Joe Williams]

One of the sources I was looking at was the CIA. I think it's possible they would anticipate that China's self-reporting would be inaccurate and would make allowances for that.

Even if not, and Chinese military spending were - say - 200% more than we think it is, we're still outspending China by 3 to 1.

What margin of superiority over China do you think is necessary?
snip.

Depends on what you think is cheap. The Chinese think the lives of their soldiers is cheap. We've taken the approach of using technology (which equals big dollars) because most think money is cheaper than blood.

Clearly, there are quite a few people here who share the Chinese viewpoint that it's preferable to spend the blood of our military members instead of cash.

 

[SavageEagle]

The second part may be untrue, but the first part is true. Foreign aid is a cup of water in the ocean of our debt problem.

I oh don't dispute that Foreign Aid is a bane of our existence. However, to say that MOST or even an exceptionally large chunk of our FA is going to Israel is BS. We give them intel, and sell them arms, but we don't give them a whole lot of anything.

 

[chraland51]

Don't cut my social security! I have paid in to that giant ponzi scheme for over 40 years and would like to get some of my involuntary investment back before I die. If our fearless leaders do cut social security, they had better dam* well cut their own pensions that are currently guaranteed and go onto the same health care system that they are shoving up my a$$ without my permission. Oh, how I long for the fabulous 50s when in the summer you would see many a boy riding his bicycle down the street with his .22 rifle over the handlebars on his way to the marksmanship class in summer recreation. Like sung by Edith and Archie Bunker, those were the days.

 

[gunowner930]

One of the sources I was looking at was the CIA. I think it's possible they would anticipate that China's self-reporting would be inaccurate and would make allowances for that.

Even if not, and Chinese military spending were - say - 200% more than we think it is, we're still outspending China by 3 to 1.

What margin of superiority over China do you think is necessary?

And how much debt servitude are you willing to take on - putting ourselves economically at the mercy of the Chinese - to maintain your desired level of superiority in arms?



To answer this question in detail would require expertise I do not posess. However, it would not necessarily require elimination of any particular program; you could simply reduce existing programs by that amount.

Also - again out of my expertise - but many defense experts are critical of our current patterns of military spending. Often, these folks say, we purchase expensive systems not because they are most useful to our forces, but because they are manufactured in the districts of powerful Congressmen. The same criticism has been levelled in regard to some bases. That might be a good first step in reducing defense department spending - look rationally what our forces really need, and eliminate all spending that is purely political.

Just as you say the Chinese spend more on the military than they admit, we also have a lot of earmark spending hidden in other areas of the budget. If you really want to eliminate earmarks, you should look at the hidden favors to powerful Congressmen in addition to the obvious ones.

This is one of the major problems with trying to control the deficit. Everyone has their favorite program they don't want to see touched, and everyone has programs they don't like for ideological reasons and would like to see eliminated entirely.
Free market conservatives say "eliminate social security!" and liberals reply "you're trying to balance the budget by starving the elderly!"
Pacificists say "slash defense spending!" and national defense fans reply "you're trying pay off the debt in our soldiers' blood!"
As a political reality, none of the government's major programs are going to be eliminated entirely. Saying you want to balance the budget this way is akin to saying you'll balance the budget with magic unicorns, because it isn't going to happen.
However, I don't believe there's any government program that couldn't survive a 10 or 20% cut and still be able to function reasonably well. Any realistic approach to balancing the budget is going to be more along these lines.

Fair enough, I guess it all depends on which source you get the information from on China. I don't think we're going to agree but I just feel the military is the wrong place to start looking for major cuts. It would be nice to pull all of our troops back to U.S. soil and stay out of foreign conflicts. That would save a lot of money, however with our commitments around the globe of defending nations such as Iceland (no standing army) have put us in a position where we really can't make significant cuts to the military. I understand there is some money that gets to defense that is wasted, however you can't cut military spending 20% and not lose capability.

 

[Woodsman]

...It is true that one of our big problems in addressing the deficit is that there are entrenched political interests that oppose any change you could suggest.

However, I think an even bigger barrier is how people just throw up their hands and say it's an insoluble problem - or, say it can't be solved unless X (X being something completely radical and unfeasible).
...

Agreed.

And this is the problem as I see it. Anytime someone starts to talk about reforming this nightmare one group goes out and starts fanning the flames of emotion. The other group does such a pi$$ poor job of explaining the details, the other group wins and nothing gets accomplished.

Neither group has the backbone to stand up and say, we are all (everyone, not just the general population) going to have to take a hit. Everytime this can gets kicked down the road, the problem grows. And very soon I'm afraid this is going to hit critical mass.

 

[level.eleven]

I oh don't dispute that Foreign Aid is a bane of our existence. However, to say that MOST or even an exceptionally large chunk of our FA is going to Israel is BS. We give them intel, and sell them arms, but we don't give them a whole lot of anything.

They were the largest recipient of foreign aid up until the invasion of Iraq. I believe 2004 was the last year they were #1.

 

[SavageEagle]

They were the largest recipient of foreign aid up until the invasion of Iraq. I believe 2004 was the last year they were #1.

Ok, well, I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see the numbers.

 

[Lex Concord]

Don't cut my social security! I have paid in to that giant ponzi scheme for over 40 years and would like to get some of my involuntary investment back before I die. If our fearless leaders do cut social security, they had better dam* well cut their own pensions that are currently guaranteed and go onto the same health care system that they are shoving up my a$$ without my permission. Oh, how I long for the fabulous 50s when in the summer you would see many a boy riding his bicycle down the street with his .22 rifle over the handlebars on his way to the marksmanship class in summer recreation. Like sung by Edith and Archie Bunker, those were the days.

It could be done in a way that current obligations are met without creating new ones.

Give folks a choice (for once) and let those who wish to opt out do so, possibly even with a lump sum payout based on what they have paid in (just like a real pension plan).

I do not question, antsi, whether we can make it financially sustainable. The question is whether we should, and I believe the only proper answer to be a resounding no.

While I understand why many are loath to approach the "third rail", the idea that such a morally repugnant and disrespectful abuse of private property and individual choice is something we should strive to protect does not compute with me, political fears notwithstanding.

Eventually, Social Security should be nothing more than a footnote in some history book as, not only would we have been better off if it had never started, but we will be better off if we find a way to kill this economic parasite once and for all.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I would end social security by ending enrollment.

The SS tax will still be necessary for those grandfathered into the sytem, but the amount of cash needed to sustain those pensioners will go down every year as people die off and aren't replaced.

Eventually the whole SS thing just quietly goes away.

 

[downzero]

Ok, well, I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see the numbers.

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

First thing that came up on Google shows Israel as by far the number one recipient.

I'll look for more, and more credible, later.

 

[SavageEagle]

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

First thing that came up on Google shows Israel as by far the number one recipient.

I'll look for more, and more credible, later.

Yes, please find a more credible source than some website no one's ever heard of. Thanks.

 

[longbow]

I will offer to store several Bradleys and ammo to help reduce storage costs. I'll even allow a few Strykers to be kept in the barn.................

 

[antsi]

I would end social security by ending enrollment.

The SS tax will still be necessary for those grandfathered into the sytem, but the amount of cash needed to sustain those pensioners will go down every year as people die off and aren't replaced.

Eventually the whole SS thing just quietly goes away.

Maybe eventually, but right now we are facing the imminent retirement of 48.5 million baby boomers. If changes aren't made to the system, it will bankrupt the entire US economy long before those 48.5 million die off.

 

[antsi]

Here's an example: the Pentagon says they don't need a new GE engine for the joint strike fighter; they're happy with the Pratt and Whitney engine they already have.

Congress says those engines are made in our districts, and we want those jobs.

OK, so if you say you don't believe in "stimulus" - government creating jobs by buying unnecessary things to create jobs - then put your money where your mouth is. Stimulus via defense spending is no different than stimulus via building bridges.

 

[Andyland]

well, if I am paying every congressman or ex congressman 165K+/yr for every term served, I bet there is a lot of "retirement"money going to pay for the same people who caused this problem.
I can save you millions by limiting how much they get. Your SS is limited, why shouldn't their retirement be limited?

 

[mrjarrell]

Saving millions? We've moved far beyond the point where saving millions is even relevant.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Aside from savage cutbacks in federal government agencies and social programs, the Joint Chiefs could save some money if they were allowed to do their jobs (e.g. evaluate the current and future military threats to the nation, create a strategic and logistic plan to defeat those threats; contract appropriate weapons systems to apply their strategy - within strict budget limits - AND THEN NOT HAVE CIVILIANS CHANGE THE DAMN STRATEGY MID STREAM!!!! How much money have we wasted by not buying the original numbers of F-15s, F-22s, B-1s, the AGS, Comanche, etc.

Granted, the biggest cost of all the Services is personnel costs, but we've already pared our military to the bone to respond to a two-front war (think China in the East and Russia in the West) and don't have enough Reserves to handle an invasion from the south. If we try to fight future systems being fielded by the Chinese and Russians with what we have now, we'll not only be outmanned; we'll be outgunned as well. Our current technological advantages are keeping our death count down in asymmetrical warfare, but that wouldn't apply if we return to the conventional war scenarios of the 70s and 80s in Europe. And if Europe goes, we won't be terribly far behind.