|
Explaining
why America is broke is rather simple. All we have to do is look at two
separate and distinct problem areas: public unions and defense spending, then
generalize the problem. Let's start with a look at defense spending.
Here's an article on Foreign Affairs magazine by William Pfaaf
making a solid case How Militarism Endangers America . The
article is subscription, but a decent sized synopsis and lead-in follows:
Summary:
The United States has built a worldwide system of more than 1,000 military
bases, stations, and outposts -- a system designed to enhance U.S. national
security. It has actually done the opposite, provoking conflict and creating
insecurity.
WILLIAM PFAFF wrote a syndicated column that appeared in the International
Herald Tribune from 1978 to 2006 and contributed political
"Reflections" to The New Yorker from 1971 to 1992. His latest book,
The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy, was published in June.
[Article Start]
It is time to ask a fundamental question that few government officials or
politicians in the United States seem willing to ask: Has it been a terrible
error for the United States to have built an all-but-irreversible worldwide
system of more than 1,000 military bases, stations, and outposts? This system
was created to enhance U.S. national security, but what if it has actually
done the opposite, provoking conflict and creating the very insecurity it was
intended to prevent?
The most compelling arguments for opposing this system of global bases are
political and practical. U.S. military bases have generated apprehension and hostility
and fear of the United States, and they have facilitated futile, unnecessary,
unprofitable, and self-defeating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now seem to
be inviting enlarged U.S. interventions in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of
Africa. The 9/11 attacks, according to Osama bin Laden himself, were provoked
by the "blasphemy" of the existence of U.S. military bases in the
sacred territories of Saudi Arabia. The global base system, it seems, tends
to produce and intensify the very insecurity that is cited to justify it.
AN ACCIDENTAL EMPIRE
The United States' present global military deployment does not seem to be the
product of conscious design, nor was it assembled absent-mindedly. In part,
it is the natural result of bureaucracy left unchecked. At the end of World
War II, a precipitous dismantling of the U.S. wartime deployment was halted
only by the outbreak of the Cold War. The United States' intervention in
Vietnam brought some base expansion in Southeast Asia, but after its failure
in Vietnam, the U.S. military was determined to have nothing further to do
with insurgencies and quickly returned to reorganization and retraining for
what it still considered its primary mission: classical warfare in Europe in
the event of a Soviet invasion. This eventually led to the brilliant
blitzkrieg against Iraq in the first Gulf War, fought under the Powell
Doctrine of popular support, overwhelming force, focused objectives, and
rapid withdrawal.
America's
Misdirected Missile
I am 100% in agreement with the synopsis and prelude as presented above. Here
is a second article on the same subject. This one is courtesy of the Business
Spectator.
Please consider America's Misdirected Missile by Alexander Liddington-Cox.
The latest
WikiLeaks scoop for The Age is a cable from the
United States embassy in Canberra expressing concern to Washington about
Australia's ability to meet its purchases of military equipment. Australia's defence budget currently sits at around $22 billion a
year and, apparently, US diplomats were left unimpressed by the efforts of
Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation
chief Stephen Gumley to explain how Australia would
meet its aims to increase military spending, as laid out in the White Paper.
While the article didn't reveal whether or not the cable's author appreciated
the irony of a US official lecturing anyone about measured military spending,
this graph should really be passed on to them – just in case.
While this graph puts the US defence budget at
$US711 billion in 2009, that doesn't include a number of
"off-budget" items that, on some estimates, push US defence spending above $US1.3 trillion. And yet, America
continues to drown in debt with only modest efforts to reign in how much it
puts towards guns, tanks and missiles. Now, being the world's superpower
invariably comes with a large military budget and sure some cash can go missing.
But in 2002, then Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
admitted that on some estimates the Pentagon had lost track of $US2.3
trillion in transactions and there was no way of ascertaining how the money
was spent. How long will it be before the US really does something about its
own military spending problems?
For a
complete graph and additional commentary, please see the article.
There is no rational reason for such spending. So how does it happen? The
answer is the same way we are stuck with collective bargaining and absurd
public union wages and benefits. Let's compare.
Public Unions
In the case of public unions, union members lobby vociferously for untenable
wages and benefit packages. Greedy politicians willing to accept bribes to
get reelected, go along. On any threat of reduction in benefits, union
organizers get out the vote with massive fear-mongering campaigns promising
ruin if they do not get what they want. At election time unions donate
massively to candidates willing to back union sponsored agenda. Over time,
school boards, city halls, and legislative bodies in general get packed with
politicians accepting bribes (campaign contributions) from the unions.
Warmongers
Greedy politicians willing to accept bribes to get reelected, support massive
defense budgets. Defense contractors as well as those receiving handouts from
defense contractors label anyone not in favor of wars and massive military
spending as "soft on defense". With massive fearmongering
campaigns, including pictures of nuclear bombs going off, those organizations
are able to whip up public sentiment to do whatever they want, which
essentially is to spend more on defense. Every soldier in another country is
another soldier that needs to be equipped. At election time defense
contractors donate massively to candidates willing to waste more money on
needless wars that do not need to be fought. Over time, legislative bodies in
general get packed with politicians accepting bribes (campaign contributions)
from warmongers.
Unfortunately, "compromise" is such that taxpayers get stuck with
the worst of both. We have baseless wars and untenable defense spending. We
also have untenable collective bargaining rules, untenable social handouts,
and untenable union wages and benefits.
General Terms
It's easy to generalize the above example. I received this email from reader
"Kevin" after I wrote the above but before I posted it. Kevin had
seen the union example above as I had used it previously. Kevin writes ....
Hello Mish
Here is the corporate lobbyist problem in a nutshell:
Organizations of all types lobby vociferously for untenable subsidies and tax
breaks. Greedy politicians willing to accept bribes to get reelected, go
along. On any threat of reduction in subsidies or increase in taxes, the
organizations get out the vote with massive fear-mongering campaigns
promising ruin if they do not get what they want. At election time
organizations donate massively to candidates willing to back their agenda.
Over time, board of directors, city halls, and legislative bodies in general
get packed with politicians accepting bribes (campaign contributions) from
the organization.
Kevin had written
"corporations" but I changed it to "organizations" to be
more broad-based. The above describes quite nicely what happened with health
care legislation and it sure helps explain earmarks as well.
In case you missed it, please see Interactive Map Showing Where $130 Billion in Earmarks Went, by State,
District, and Politician.
The big problems are military spending, public unions, and entitlements.
However, problems big and small are everywhere you look, and the process of
buying votes and seeking special favors is generally smack in the midst of it
all.
Republicans keep campaigning for "small government". It certainly
would be nice if they delivered for a change. Unfortunately, Republicans will
not give in on military spending (nor will Obama quite sadly), and Democrats
won't budge on entitlements.
Compromise in D.C. most often means taxpayers get the worst of what each
party has to offer.
Mish
GlobalEconomicAnalysis.blogspot.com
To
sign up for a free copy of Sitka’s Monthly Client Newsletter,
please register your email address at the bottom of the Sitka Pacific
Commentary Page.
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Thoughts
on the great inflation/deflation/stagflation debate as well as discussions on
gold, silver, currencies, interest rates, and policy decisions that affect
the global markets.
|
|