Military spending makes up such a small portion of government spending that suggesting we cut that amount by half and then not producing any cost estimates just doesn't make sense.
Defense spending is only about 20% of Federal spending. And that doesn't include local and state spending, either.
Only?
By that measure pretty much everything is "only".
We're talking here about an annual bill on the order of about USD 800 Bn (actually, more than 900 if you count the hidden positions in non-DoD budgets)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2007.png
Halving the military expenditures (including some coast guard, nuclear "energy" budget and DHS budget positions) would in itself suffice to eliminate the deficit in a few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20..._Increases.png
"Foreign aid (reportedly the favourite target for fiscal conservative rhetoric) is "only" and "small" and unable to contribute significantly to any cost savings.
So-called "Defense" is a huge chunk and deserves to be called the reason for the federal budget deficit.
First, that "hidden position" bit is dearly beloved of the left but it's not totally correct; the $782B figure in your pie chart is fairly accurate, possibly even a bit high because some DoD money is spent on pensions, retiree health care, public school offsets and many more such esoteric items; more social welfare than defense related...
Regardless of the accuracy of your figures, your suggestion is one approach. There are others. One such is to balance intake and outlay. The Federal Government takes in over 60% of governmental revenue nationwide but it makes less than 40% of all government outlays and disbursements. The imbalance is redistributed by grants and transfers to State and local governments who really spend almost 70% of total government outlays in the US.
Aside from being inefficient and a source of political corruption, that system is expensive as a huge bureaucracy at all three levels of government is involved with requesting, approving and transferring those funds. Just redistributing tax intakes to more accurately reflect governmental level responsibilities would save billions.
That doesn't even get into the national programs that are not the business of the Federal government and which probably should not exist in their current form, many of these so-called entitlements started small and logically but exist in their current forms solely to buy votes for Federal politicians.I agree in part -- our Foreign Aid budget needs to be larger and I have no problem with that increase coming from the Defense budget which I believe is excessively large and itself contributes to fraud, waste, abuse and corruption simply because its too big to be managed sensibly. Moving some funds from DoD to foreign aid and intel would lessen the need for military deployments and thus achieve synergistic savings."Foreign aid (reportedly the favourite target for fiscal conservative rhetoric) is "only" and "small" and unable to contribute significantly to any cost savings...So-called "Defense" is a huge chunk and deserves to be called the reason for the federal budget deficit.
However, while I agree that some reduction of the defense budget is logical, proper and overdue, the entire US Taxing and Budget process, profligate Federal politicians and runaway 'entitlements' are also in dire need of scrutiny. It is not nearly as simple as you seem to think and write.
Well, if we can't afford to protect the world, then enjoy it while it lasts.
Great power politics are not a lot of fun...
As it stands, just under 60% of Federal spending is mandatory; it is some form of entitlement.
I just don't see the pressing need to make such drastic cuts.
Is the US Military Affordable? In a word, yes.
I do not, in totality, consider the so named Military-Industrial Complex to be
overly expensive on the grand scale, given the scope of the present "Garrison Earth".
Geostrategic policy is the most necessary requirement for continued global stability.For his part Secretary Gates should be investing in his legacy by crafting the successor policy to Containment, which should serve to fill the present vacuum about the Eurasian Earth Island.
Additionally; another premise I would not accept is that of the necessity of a
profession of arms to the defence of any nation-state. Were such the case the US would have lost every war before WWII, to include the Revolution. I am convinced of the moral snd strategic benefits of the Cincinnatican system of warfare in which great men set down their civil careers as planters, scholars, business leaders for a period of conflict sufficient to defeating an enemy, but not so lengthy as to defeat themselves through a backward minded militarism which over-rides the economic & social order of a healthy culture (ex: Imperial Japan).
Yes, such men are still to be found about the US & The West & the Cincinnatican system of warfare is still being successfully applied (ex: Guardsmen/Reservists who meet the same standards as Professionals/Regulars & execute the same wartime Missions).
I see recommendations you've made here, some with which I wholeheartedly agree. I would further recommend the follwing cost saving techniques at the policy level:
-disestablishment of the DOD, for redundancy. I recommend reversion to the Military of 1776-1947, led by The War Department, which still exists as the Department of the Army which embosses it's documents with the official seal of the "War Office". ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...artment_of_War
-establishment of a staff for the Sec'y of Defense/War more in keeping with LTG Gavin's NME/DOD Staff than with the Calhoun Bureaus although I find both practicable. Ref: The back of his book War & Peace in The Space Age.
-transition to an Air-Mech Strike Force, highly mobile & deployable world-wide, prepared to win decisively & rapidly in land warfare on a three dimensional battlespace.
-development of specific & flexible response courses of action in order to satisfactorily replace "Massive Atomic Retaliation at a Time & Place of Our Choosing" with Maneuver Missions
-discontinuation of the bonus programs which dilute patriotic fervor & zeal with self centredness in the worst expression of the "me" generational impact on our land.
-expansion of military operations into space exploration for purposes of resource exploitation, scientific achievements, research & development & strategic defense.
In conclusion, I should like to keep this discussion in perspective by recalling that the "US Military" whose costs we are debating is simultaneously the most genuine charity, greatest engineering operation, most giving aid organization, best friend to the opressed & enslaved of Our Earth & the single greatest force for goodwill & peace in the history of man. Let these
facts be candidly evaluated with a mind toward unintended consquences in the budgetary process.
With my best wishes,
-B.
Saved me more time than I want to admit in composing a reasoned response...
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
The real issue is the Economy...it is not growing.....it is shrinking, so tax collection is way,way down. If we restore the economy the deficits will shrink just as quick as they grew if we adopt a sensible tax policy. Like Ike had....Elvis was in the 90% tax bracket
Ken, the U.S. Department of Energy's Budget is more about nukes and nuke disposal than about energy. There are significant hidden budgets outside of the DoD budget. Those hidden positions exceed the total military expenditures of several NATO allies.
Changing the fiscal transfer network won't change much, for it's not relevant in the short or medium term whether the money flows through a federal account or not. Wash DC could cut a couple programs and keep its income for balancing its budget, but the states would need to compensate for that or else the economic and social effects could be devastating.
A modern Western nation is a complex behemoth. Cutting away parts can cause a total collapse, especially when the balance was already lost after a false step.
Social peace and funding for school education cannot easily be given up in order to balance a federal budget.
A few aircraft carrier, the F-35 project, CVN-21 and a few other CVs, Arleigh Burke flight IV and several army & marines formations could disappear and hardly any suburb or downtown would notice the loss.
You could call it demobilization. The Cold War is over, after all - and South Korea is more than capable enough to handle North Korea on its own.
The larger piece of that puzzle is that a significant US drawdown could provoke countries like Japan to remilitarize, which could lead to regional tensions.
Say what you will about the late unpleasantness, it had significant advantages over the preceding half century.
As for school funding, we don't lack for that, either. We just don't get much for it. I would consider that to be an important distinction.
and the fact that a lot of social welfare and support spending is in the DoD budget, contributes little or nothing to defense, really and which effectively offsets many of the other agency budget items.Strange statement. Both the deficit and the bogus, so-called 'entitlements' are a long term problem.Changing the fiscal transfer network won't change much, for it's not relevant in the short or medium term whether the money flows through a federal account or not.
Plus the defense budget is almost totally Federal, the States providing only a small amount for the National Guard. The distortion factor is an issue.Er, did you miss this I wrote above:"...Just redistributing tax intakes to more accurately reflect governmental level responsibilities would save billions." I didn't suggest cutting any social programs, I just think they do not belong to the Federal government and any sensible interpretation of the US Constitution supports me on that....Wash DC could cut a couple programs and keep its income for balancing its budget, but the states would need to compensate for that or else the economic and social effects could be devastating.I didn't suggest cutting much of anything. What I did suggest was reworking the processes to eliminate federal intrusion in State and local business.A modern Western nation is a complex behemoth. Cutting away parts can cause a total collapse, especially when the balance was already lost after a false step.Didn't suggest that, either -- where do you get these ideas???Social peace and funding for school education cannot easily be given up in order to balance a federal budget.
Your use of the Krupp-Bismarkian 'social peace' is interesting. We -- all nations -- had that before Otto jumped on Alfred's 'social peace' idea. Otto jumped on it to get not social peace but a complaisant citizenry. My personal belief is that was a poor bargain.Wouldn't hurt our capability that much so I could live with all that -- except the F-35; several reasons that needs to stay, not least to keep the Taifun and Gripen lines from getting too big.A few aircraft carrier, the F-35 project, CVN-21 and a few other CVs, Arleigh Burke flight IV and several army & marines formations could disappear and hardly any suburb or downtown would notice the loss.
Nor would said suburbs or downtown accrue much benefit. I truly do not believe you realize how venal our Congress really happens to be...You could call it that. The Left around the world would applaud. The Left here would applaud. I say it would be abysmally stupid and would invite even more subtle little attacks than the US currently receives -- and I'm not talking the small amount of overt stuff, I'm talking about the under visibility level sniping, cuts and little debilitating action that many, including some alleged friends, engage in.You could call it demobilization. The Cold War is over, after all - and South Korea is more than capable enough to handle North Korea on its own.
The"cold" war continues, just different plays and players. We suffer the penalty of being the big guy everyone loves to hate.
Cheer up; China and India will not be denied, mayhap before you die, they'll eclipse us. But I doubt it...
The "Welfare" part in the U.S. constitution can be interpreted differently. besides, shuffling accounts does not provide savings in itself. State legislators could do the same weird things to budgets as federal legislators.Er, did you miss this I wrote above:"...Just redistributing tax intakes to more accurately reflect governmental level responsibilities would save billions." I didn't suggest cutting any social programs, I just think they do not belong to the Federal government and any sensible interpretation of the US Constitution supports me on that.
The 19th century 'social peace' thing isn't so important here. Austerity measures that hit the poor by cutting transfers will cause social troubles and unrest, that's what's counts.
By the way; Germans rather think of Erhardt and his Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy) at the keyword Sozialer Friede (social peace).
There's a reason why Europe's industrialised countries used some welfare programs to influence social problems and the U.S. did not; Europe had no uncolonized West where the poor could go and grab natural ressources to fix their economic problems.
And if you think that's what drove Western expansion in this country I'd suggest you go do some more reading. There were elements of that to be sure, but for the most part it was spurred by wealthy Easterners looking for new investments and/or areas to exploit. The "poor family with a covered wagon" might play well on TV, but it wasn't really the backbone of the expansion.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Opel and VW.
Yes, that word "welfare" can have differing interpretations. However, you're still missing the point;
The Feds take in the most money, so much that even in their wildest schemes, they cannot spend it all. Thus they pass a large quantity of funding down to States, local governments and even NGOs to spend on project of dubious merit. Because of the way the Federal budgeting process works, those funds are not provided to end user for best applications but for specific program items like this (LINK). That's a small amount but those types of thing repeat in every State. It adds up. The issue is both for what the money must be spent and the Federal diktat ability that overrides State and local desires and concerns. Add the not inconsequential costs of administering such inefficiency and simply allowing the proper level of government to do its own taxing for its responsibilities without intrusion for above would be a tremendous saving.
Of course, the problem with that is the centralizers and control freaks lose control...Yes, it is. I have watched the US in three generations go from a relatively free and wealthy nation with a number of innovative and forward looking people to a nation of introspective, risk averse folks who want the government to fix everything. That cannot happen, no nation ever has, can now or will ever be able to afford to do that.The 19th century 'social peace' thing isn't so important here...Again, you miss the point. Are you doing that purposely?Austerity measures that hit the poor by cutting transfers will cause social troubles and unrest, that's what's counts.
The issue is to stop transfers, yes -- but not to cut programs; I have not suggested stopping any program. I have suggested instead simply to support the program at the appropriate level of government. National defense is a federal responsibility, period. Social Welfare (in your definition), broadly, is a State and local responsibility. Education is a local responsibility.
Most Europeans with their relatively small nations -- Germany is smaller than Montana, France is larger but smaller than Texas -- long tradition of centralized government and until recently fairly homogeneous populations do not understand that federalism and a decentralized approach to governance is far more necessary in the US.I thought as much, so do some in the US who agree with that approach. I'm not among them, I'm with the majority in the US who think such 'peace' is an ephemeral chimera and views it with great skepticism.By the way; Germans rather think of Erhardt and his Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy) at the keyword Sozialer Friede (social peace).Steve Blair answered that, I'll only add that most people went to find land as you say -- and to work for those people he cited; a good mix. Little is as simple as you seem to wish......Europe had no uncolonized West where the poor could go and grab natural resources to fix their economic problems.
I'll also point out that most of those '"poor" you cite were recent immigrants who left Europe because they didn't want to be there, thought the opportunities in the US would be better. found that to be true, stayed here -- and are no longer European and do not think like Europeans; their values often differ markedly.
With that, we've bored everyone with this off thread chatter. We will disagree on most of that and that's okay. What we can agree upon, I suspect, and thus return to the thread is this:
Social welfare is arguably a federal responsibility but national defense is unquestionably federal. The US has fiscal problems that are self induced but adequate funding should be available to keep forces at current or somewhat lower levels with only slight degradation. Whether that's desirable or not is a policy question on which people can and will differ. The answer to the question "Is the US Military Affordable?" will not determined by anything written at the Small Wars Council. Time will tell.
I'm really at a loss here, are you not keeping up with the US Army at all? I understand there is bloat at the BDE and DIV HQs, but that's due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the experienced force that simply has to go somewhere when they get promoted.
More importantly however is that the US Army is using BDE and DIV HQs as plug and play units. The colors are pretty much there for lineage at this point, though each does seem to have its own character. It is the BDE and DIV HQ that not only control the battlefield, but contain the assets that aren't just trigger pullers. We need more of these, a BDE HQ is great for the number of battalions it trains, but in our current operational set we'd be better off with a BDE HQ for two or most three line BNs.
Few are the problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of concentrated firepower.
In short, it's violating the principle of subsidiarity.The Feds take in the most money, so much that even in their wildest schemes, they cannot spend it all. Thus they pass a large quantity of funding down to States, local governments and even NGOs to spend on project of dubious merit.
The reason is federalism and an American culture distrustful of centralized power and too diverse to provide a foundation necessary to support such a social contract.There's a reason why Europe's industrialised countries used some welfare programs to influence social problems and the U.S. did not; Europe had no uncolonized West where the poor could go and grab natural ressources to fix their economic problems.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
I do try to keep up with the U.S. Army, but I am no where near as knowledgeable as many who post on this site. I have a great affection for all things military, but my experience is limited to a stint in the Corps 20 years ago and 18 years of putting dope dealers in jail.
Have you read an article titled Why Small Brigade combat Teams Undermine Modularity? I apologize for my lack of computer skills or I would have linked the article. I do believe someone has linked the article under a different discussion. I may have missed the point(s) of the article so I am interested in your opinion of this article.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Bookmarks