Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: Is the U.S. Military Affordable

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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.

  2. #42
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SethB View Post
    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.
    Small amount? *insert inappropriate language here*

    Channeling half the U.S. Defence Budget into industrial investments would probably suffice tot run around the economy.

  3. #43
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Defense spending is only about 20% of Federal spending. And that doesn't include local and state spending, either.

  4. #44
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  5. #45
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Some agree with you, many do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    ...(actually, more than 900 if you count the hidden positions in non-DoD budgets) ... 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.
    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.
    "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.
    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.

    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.

  6. #46
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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.

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Megalopolis
    Posts
    83

    Smile Affordable? Yes.

    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.

  8. #48
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default Thanks Ken

    Saved me more time than I want to admit in composing a reasoned response...
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4

  9. #49
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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

  10. #50
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  11. #51
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    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.

  12. #52
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I don't dispute that. We can disagree on the amounts

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Strange statement. Both the deficit and the bogus, so-called 'entitlements' are a long term problem.

    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.
    ...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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Social peace and funding for school education cannot easily be given up in order to balance a federal budget.
    Didn't suggest that, either -- where do you get these ideas???

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 demobilization. The Cold War is over, after all - and South Korea is more than capable enough to handle North Korea on its own.
    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.

    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...

  13. #53
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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 "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.



    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.

  14. #54
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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

  15. #55
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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.
    Well, either those few rich entrepreneurs dropped babies real fast and didn't care enough for them to keep them from becoming poor workers - or the poor people working in the West had come from the East.

  16. #56
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Interpreatations of many things can differ; thus we have

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    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...
    The 19th century 'social peace' thing isn't so important here...
    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.
    Austerity measures that hit the poor by cutting transfers will cause social troubles and unrest, that's what's counts.
    Again, you miss the point. Are you doing that purposely?

    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.
    By the way; Germans rather think of Erhardt and his Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy) at the keyword Sozialer Friede (social peace).
    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.
    ...Europe had no uncolonized West where the poor could go and grab natural resources to fix their economic problems.
    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...

    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.

  17. #57
    Council Member qp4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dirkadirkastan
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    The Army:
    Combine division BCTs into two larger BCTs instead of four each. This will reduce the number of HQ positions.
    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.

  18. #58
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    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.
    In short, it's violating the principle of subsidiarity.

    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.
    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.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  19. #59
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qp4 View Post
    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.
    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.

  20. #60
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post

    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.
    Here it be
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •