Is the U.S. Military Affordable

[Ken White]

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.

[slapout9]

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...

Steve is right but so is Fuchs to great extent, by claiming land they essentially had free capital something that can't happen today. My Great Grandparents simply staked a claim on a piece of land that had a water supply. At the time I didn't understand a lot of what they said when they talked about never having a job and never really having any money but living quite well. They saved their Social Security Checks (literally put them in a drawer) because they didn't no what to do with them and they certainly would never trust or use something called a Bank Early settlers were the original Hippies, it was all about Land, Labor and Tools and being a good neighbor. I think there is lesson in UNlearned in there somewhere.

[Steve Blair]

Steve is right but so is Fuchs to great extent, by claiming land they essentially had free capital something that can't happen today. My Great Grandparents simply staked a claim on a piece of land that had a water supply. At the time I didn't understand a lot of what they said when they talked about never having a job and never really having any money but living quite well. They saved their Social Security Checks (literally put them in a drawer) because they didn't no what to do with them and they certainly would never trust or use something called a Bank Early settlers were the original Hippies, it was all about Land, Labor and Tools and being a good neighbor. I think there is lesson in UNlearned in there somewhere.

Actually the Homestead Act was a little more complicated that someone just claiming land. They had to prove it up (in other words homestead and start putting in crops), and there were some other requirements as well. And as far as the original settlers being Hippies...that looks cute in retrospect but the reality on the ground was far different and very harsh.

I could go on about Frontier history, but that's diverting the thread as Ken pointed out.

[slapout9]

Actually the Homestead Act was a little more complicated that someone just claiming land. They had to prove it up (in other words homestead and start putting in crops), and there were some other requirements as well. And as far as the original settlers being Hippies...that looks cute in retrospect but the reality on the ground was far different and very harsh.

I could go on about Frontier history, but that's diverting the thread as Ken pointed out.

Yes, but the point none the less is they were essentially given free capital and the associated risk with it. And based upon my own real life personal history is wasn't that complicated at all, the size was determined largely by what you could control (homestead) and that was largely based upon the size of your family.....hence the problem that would arise when families grew the land disputes followed. The reality of how harsh it was depended on where that land was and what natural resources were associated with it(game,fish,timber,water,minerals,etc.) as history shows some people,families did very well indeed.

[bourbon]

The Tyranny of Defense Inc., by Andrew J. Bacevich. The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2011.

In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower famously identified the military-industrial complex, warning that the growing fusion between corporations and the armed forces posed a threat to democracy. Judged 50 years later, Ike’s frightening prophecy actually understates the scope of our modern system—and the dangers of the perpetual march to war it has put us on.

[Cole]

The Tyranny of Defense Inc., by Andrew J. Bacevich. The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2011.

Thanks Bourbon. But perhaps a quote from his article that the percentage of overall military spending was 50% of the federal budget back then and that it represented 10% of GDP would have put his article in better perspective. I also hear all the time that the top tax bracket back then was 90%.

A quick trip to see what things cost in 1960 reveals this.

$12,700 cost of a NEW house
$2,600 cost of a new car
$220 cost of 23" TV
$20.30 cost of electric razor
30 cents cost of can of Ravioli
25 cents cost of gallon of gas
20 cents cost of loaf of bread

What this shows me is that food and electric devices are still very much a bargain relative to 1960. For instance, I can't imagine paying about the same for a can of Ravioli or a loaf of bread today as a gallon of gas, or $240 for an electric razor. And actually gas is pretty cheap today, too, even at $3 a gallon.

Use that 25 cent cost of 1960 gas as a baseline and multiply by a factor of 12. That same factor correlates pretty well to a car (12 x $2,600 = $31,200) which is a relative bargain considering the modern features you can get for a car that price today. Where that factor fails is in the cost of a house. If you use the median price of a price in the midwest and south, the current price tracks closely with 12 x $12,700 which is $152,400. But try paying that much for a house on the east or west coast and you are in for a rude surprise.

So I would advocate that many of the economic ills we face today are directly attributable to the artificial inflation of houses and incomes in our nation's primary commercial coastal hubs...like Boston. Also, the cost of paying for college is higher today relative to 1960, because apparently professors with Ph.D.s seem to think they are worth more money.

The cost of state civil servants in many of our nations hubs is also driving many problems. California for instance, may have a half trillion dollars in underfunded pension obligations. In San Jose, where I'm originally from, a police officer STARTS at over $80,000 and can make much more with overtime. So Mr. Bacevich's big city contemporaries are contributing to the problem as well, through both high salaries and high pensions. And the fact that Professor Bacevich lives near Boston tells me he probably owns a house worth considerably more than 12 times the average price of a new home in 1960...which in turn drives up prices of neighboring homes, which in turn drives up salaries of all folks living near Boston...increasing that 1 in 7 poverty rate and making affordable, safe, quality housing nearly nonexistent if you desire a reasonable commute.

I also would argue that the threat of an actual nuclear explosion in a major western city is every bit as real a threat today due to the extremists that Bacevich seems to think are an exaggeration. After all, both North Korea, soon Iran, and current Pakistan and India have nukes and targets they would be inclined to use them on either as extreme individual leaders, scientists, or military personnel in those states or while selling them to state-sponsored terrorists (except India). Unlike Russia and China in 1960, extremists don't view MAD the same way. We never experienced any actual attacks by Russians or Chinese since 1960 which is hardly the case reference extremist states and the terrorists they breed.

So no. I don't think our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were worthless exercises or an example of the military-industrial complex, or that military contractors are thieves. Also believe value exists to local economies in having military bases, or military manufacturing facilities nearby. With the price of housing and union demands, civil manufacturing is pretty much dead for many things in the U.S. That is hardly the case for military gear. And it wouldn't have to be the case if those who live near shorelines in inflated real estate allowed off shore oil drilling and wind mills generating electricity. A few new nuclear power plants and oil refineries might help, too. After all, Iran is pumping out 2.6 million barrels of oil a month now thanks to military efforts, believe I read. Think how high the price of oil would be currently if they were still only exporting "oil for food."

Think how much more manufacturing we would generate in the U.S. if everyone studied history in college instead of math and engineering...oh wait...

[bourbon]

What this shows me is that food and electric devices are still very much a bargain relative to 1960.
Where that factor fails is in the cost of a house.

Cole, I think you need to examine changes in the past 50 years.

Simply put, the way a home is built in 2011 is more similar to the way it was in 1960, than the way consumer electronics were manufactured or food was produced in 1960 compared to the way they are today.

Modern technology and globalization has brought efficiency and competitive forces which have driven food and consumer electronic production costs downward. On the other hand, housing remains a labor intensive industry; and I do not believe that the housing industry has experienced the technological efficiencies or the competitive forces of a similar magnitude.

This is to say nothing of the role in which speculation has played in housing.

So I would advocate that many of the economic ills we face today are directly attributable to the artificial inflation of houses and incomes in our nation's primary commercial coastal hubs...like Boston. Also, the cost of paying for college is higher today relative to 1960, because apparently professors with Ph.D.s seem to think they are worth more money.
...
And the fact that Professor Bacevich lives near Boston tells me he probably owns a house worth considerably more than 12 times the average price of a new home in 1960...

Again, speculation in housing plays a large role. Also the tech and financial sectors of the economy are centered primarily in the commercial coastal hubs, and these industries have made for a disproportionate share of the past 20 years economic gains; as a result real estate prices followed similar growth geographically.

I would say the rise of college tuition costs has had more to do with the decline in state financing than it does with professor’s salaries. I would also look at the massive expansion of full-time support staff and administrative positions; you didn’t all these IT workers 20 years ago, and you didn’t need all the back office staff to deal with all these laws and regulations 50 years ago. The shift toward a focus on student amenities rather than academics also needs to be considered.

This forum has several Ph.Ds who are college professors, and I think most would say they could be making more money if they did something other than teaching (at-least in pre-2008). Maybe less so for the liberal arts types, but for someone like selil in IT, I am sure the difference is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual income.


Further, as a Boston University graduate and having had the privilege of taking Professor Bacevich’s American military history course, I can say that the school could easily double or triple his salary and still get its money worth. His course was the most rewarding educational experience I have ever had, and I say this as someone who at the time of taking the course was a non-matriculated student with a problem in motivation and a poor educational track-record in both experience and in practice.

Lest you have the impression that Professor Bacevich is some lefty academic jagoff or are unfamiliar with his background (which this article does not get into); it is notable that he is a West Point graduate and Vietnam vet who retired from active duty with the rank of Colonel. He is also an old school conservative and devout Catholic. This makes him a unique voice in the academic, for which he should not be brushed aside as a liberal academic elite.

And fwiw, Prof. Bacevich uses public transportation and shares a compact sedan with his family iirc. I would imagine such thrift extends to the rest of his lifestyle, including his house.

[bourbon]

The cost of state civil servants in many of our nations hubs is also driving many problems. California for instance, may have a half trillion dollars in underfunded pension obligations. In San Jose, where I'm originally from, a police officer STARTS at over $80,000 and can make much more with overtime. So Mr. Bacevich's big city contemporaries are contributing to the problem as well, through both high salaries and high pensions.

Yes, the cost of state civil servants is an issue. A bigger issue is losses to state pension funds from investment in mortgage-backed securities and toxic derivative crap, much of which fed into the housing bubble in the first place.

A few new nuclear power plants and oil refineries might help, too. After all, Iran is pumping out 2.6 million barrels of oil a month now thanks to military efforts, believe I read. Think how high the price of oil would be currently if they were still only exporting "oil for food."

Think how much more manufacturing we would generate in the U.S. if everyone studied history in college instead of math and engineering...oh wait...

I think you meant to say that Iraq is now pumping 2.6 million bbl/yr, but wrote Iran. But still in error you were on to something, and that is the significant influence that Iran now holds over the Iraqi government and its oil.

Speculation through commodity index’s drove the 2008 oil price spike, and while structural issues exist in the oil market the speculators remain a significant contributor to high oil prices today. Additional Iraqi production is a marginal issue next the speculators.

Besides, the traditional strategy has favored suppressing/red-lining Iraqi oil production – so I am not sure it is favorable for us. But you would need someone who studied history to explain that concept for you...