Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Defense and the Budget
Because Republicans refuse to raise taxes (ever) and Democrats refuse to cut entitlements (ever), the big loser in yesterday's deficit reduction deal is defense spending. As Ezra Klein explains,
...[The] real hit comes in stage two: if the second round of deficit reduction isn’t signed into law, the “trigger” that will make automatic spending cuts absolutely savages defense spending.
Let’s stop there and talk about the trigger, as it’s arguably the most important part of the deal. In his remarks on Friday, President Obama said he would support a trigger if it was done in “a smart and balanced way.” The implication was that it had to include tax increases as well as spending cuts, as a trigger with just spending cuts wouldn’t force Republicans to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in this deal does not include tax increases.
What it includes instead are massive cuts to the defense budget. If Congress doesn’t pass a second round of deficit reduction, the trigger cuts $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Fully half of that comes from defense spending. And note that I didn’t say “security spending.” The Pentagon takes the full hit if the trigger goes off.
The other half of the trigger comes from domestic spending. But Social Security, Medicaid and a few other programs for the poor are exempted. So the trigger is effectively treating defense spending like it comprises more than half of all federal spending. If it goes off, the cuts to that sector will be tremendous -- particularly given that they will come on top of the initial round of cuts. Whether you think the trigger will work depends on whether you think the GOP would permit that level of cuts to defense.
On the one hand, I am among those who think you can really cut a lot of money from the Dept. of Defense budget over the next 10 years by trimming personnel costs -- paring down the force structure of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps after Afghanistan, raising TriCare premiums and adjusting retirement and pension programs. On the other hand, I can't help but shake this sinking feeling that the United States became Europe a little bit yesterday, and not in the good our-espresso-is-now-better way. Democrats and moderate Republicans have decided they would rather keep expensive entitlements than rebuild our military after two exhausting ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and turn our focus to the security challenges of East Asia. And conservative Republicans claim to value the military and believe in more robust defense spending, but they refuse to raise taxes to pay for the advanced military capabilities they want.
So we're left with defense spending that will almost certainly decline precipitously over the next decade, and those of us who work as defense analysts will remain usefully employed, ever scrambling to explain to policy-makers how they need to match their ambitions to their available resources, and how if they reduce their available resources, they will need to adjust the scale of their ambitions as well.
As a younger voter, I continue to be alternately depressed and angered by the selfishness of the generation older than me. Just a few decades ago, the United States was the largest creditor nation. We are now the world's largest debtor nation. The older generation continues to draw more from entitlement programs than they ever contributed and also refuses to raise taxes, meaning the burden for both perpetually doing more with less and paying for entitlement programs we ourselves will never enjoy falls to my generation and the one below me. It's just incredibly frustrating. But hey, it's a democracy, and if that older generation of voters wants a United States that is less ambitious but fatter and happier, okay.
Very, very frustrating.
Very, very frustrating.
Define "raising taxes".
Define "raising taxes".
I am also of your generation.
I am also of your generation. I am also a defense analyst. And I, for one, while despondent about the reported contents of the deal and the way the whole debate has been carried out, am actually glad that defense is being targeted.
Ambition abroad has gotten the US little but pain in the last decade. Intervention in Afghanistan has cost us in blood, treasure, reputation, and opportunity cost far more than it has been worth in preventing AQ from attacking us again. CT and law enforcement are a better way to go. Meanwhile, there is a lot to fix at home.
Our military is too large and effective - it tempts politicians to use it when the core interests of the nation are not at stake (Iraq, Libya, etc.) and it tempts us to use force when other options are better (such as the legal route with, perhaps, Al-Awlaki). The world is not our responsibility, and we do a terrible job of managing it. We have become a blind, clumsy empire; better that we be a cautious republic again.
I'm struggling with the "a
I'm struggling with the "a little more like Europe" phrase. I understand what you mean, but I'm wrestling with whether that really is a bad thing or not.
"it tempts politicians to use
"it tempts politicians to use it when the core interests of the nation are not at stake"
The counter-argument is that we had a large, effective military (20 divisions) that we lobotomized (10 divisions) in the 1990's, but that didn't prevent wars of adventure in the 21st century where we couldn't effectively occupy what we conquered.
And on "The older generation
And on "The older generation continues to draw more from entitlement programs than they ever contributed," you might be right about in the aggregate. I don't know. But I do suspect that if I'd put all of my Social Security payments over the past 40 years into the stock market then bought an annuity at retirement, it would top whatever I'm going to get out of Social Security.
My suspicion is that entitlements are a good deal for the lower half of the socio-economic scale, but not so much for the upper. Half.
Congradulations on
Congradulations on discovering one of the limits of democracy: the fairest deal of all is the one where you get something for nothing. For the record, the real crack in the base of the pillar was LBJ pillaging social security by unfencing the way the social security monies were separated from the general fund.
What SMG said. Andrew, your
What SMG said. Andrew, your "oh woe is me" attitude is wasted here. Any economist could tell you the problem that we're facing - record high spending, due to two wars that have stretched on way longer than needed, huge tax and bailing out the banking and real estate industries; and record low revenues, driven by huge tax cuts. You accurately note the Repubs' lack of willingness to actually pay for the military they want, but you malign the Dems for valuing entitlements more than rebuilding the military. That's pretty awful slander. The Dems want a strong military just as much as anyone else. It would be more accurate to say that the Dems don't see any need to reduce entitlements to pay for defense spending when there are legal vehicles available to remedy that (e.g., tax increases).
The inability for any congressman to stand up to the Tea Party fanatics will destroy the government, if allowed to continue. We want a strong military and a good retirement - that's not unreasonable. But until we have political leaders who recognize that it isn't our role to dominate and rebuild the world's failing countries, then our military will always be in a process of desperate rebuilding and deployment. We need to scope back our ambitions and be more selective in our engagements. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and leaving Libya to the Brits and French would be a nice start to reducing future deficits and rebuilding the Army. Ambition can be vice if not moderated - don't forget that.
"My suspicion is that
"My suspicion is that entitlements are a good deal for the lower half of the socio-economic scale, but not so much for the upper. Half."
Actually, the historical record is interesting. In the 19th century the upper half used fraternal societies' mutual aid compacts to meet their needs for things from healthcare and insurance to amusement and civic responsibility. In the 20th century these services morphed into corporations serving the upper half and government programs serving the lower half. An attempt was made to go back to this model with the introduction of not-for-profit HMOs, but the HMOs abandoned the not-for-profit model to the advantage of their officers and boards, the same reason the not-for-profit fraternal societies providing health and life insurance evolved into corporations. Any corporation you see whose name includes "mutual", such as Mutual of Omaha (life insurance), was once a not-for-profit organization. For another take on this, check out the book by David T. Beito:
From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967.
For too long -- namely, my
For too long -- namely, my entire adult life -- we've expended blood and treasure overseas in pursuit of intangibles. The decades change, but the dubitable reasons we go there (capacity building, good governance, counternarcotics, "responsibilities" to other nations citizens) remain the same. There are too many idealists and not enough pragmatists in DoD. The O-8 and above crowd have never met a theater they don't like. And the J2, J4 and J5 types, specialties dominated by careerists across all the branches, abdicated their duties long ago and thus have never met a policymaker they can say no to.
My fear is that the we atrophy specialized skillsets immediately, followed by a sharp rise in attrition and the recapitalization of most of our hardware.. But that may be worth the hidden trade-off: a DoD that lacks the logistical tail to meander the globe, 1/3 or even 1/4 of its original size, devoid of careerists.
The incentive to prosecute...whatever it is we're prosecuting without a viable national security strategy kind of loses its appeal when there are no more incentives and things like per-diem subsidized, liquor-soaked symposiums in Brussels, Kabul, Ballston, Pentagon City and Tampa are no more. I, for one, would much rather have our military looking, thinking and behaving like a circa-1944 force than whatever this abomination is we have today.
It's not an AVF -- it's an AEF.
I'm of the older generation
I'm of the older generation and will be drawing Social Security within eight years. However, not all of us are opposed to higher taxes, and some of us "unselfishly" agree that sacrifices should be made, so please don't continue to paint us all with the same brush!
Perhaps the first look by the
Perhaps the first look by the Pentagon ought to be the tremendous amount of money paid to defense contractors, particularly those with ties to political heavyweights. I agree with the comments that Republicans are unrealistic if they expect to have a huge defense budget and no tax increases. I can also understand the frustration of the younger speakers who think my generation is getting a "free ride"; however, perhaps you need to rethink your generation's position. Why is it so unthinkable to have a defined benefit retirement pension? Why is it wrong to want everyone, including retirees, to have access to decent healthcare? both of those things cause less societal expense in the long run--preventative health care, decent living conditions and a certain level of disposable income mean more independence, better health, less time in nursing homes and less uncompensated medical care provided in emergency rooms and hell hole institutions warehousing elderly indigent people.
Just because the business/corporate side have been successful in defining "success" as not having to pay benefits to its labor source, not having to pay a fair percentage of taxes, not having any responsibility to the communities from which it draws its labor and to whom it sells its goods and services, and most of all, by paying out gigantic bonuses and showing huge increases in profits every quarter does not mean its definition is correct. We are not turning into Europe. We are turning into a third world country; losing the middle class stability necessary to maintain societal structures including a work ethic, valuing education, family integrity, delayed gratification in order to achieve a reachable and realistic goal of doing better for ourselves and our children.
The Tea Party believers are nuts; but many of them see themselves as trying to get back what they see as a vanishing time when an ordinary working family could own a home, send their kids to decent public schools, feel their jobs were stable and when they reached 65, they could retire with a decent pension and play with the grandkids. They know it's gone, they are just blaming the wrong people.
What, exactly, is so nuts
What, exactly, is so nuts about not wanting a society that pays for itself and doesn't equate "ambition" with an eager readiness to make war on everyone?
My impression, and I am actually pretty well studied in it, is that everything the federal government has increasingly taken control of over the last 50 years has gotten progressively more fucked up. Why is it nuts to think the solution is to back off from ever more government solutions to those problems?
"The Dems want a strong
"The Dems want a strong military just as much as anyone else. It would be more accurate to say that the Dems don't see any need to reduce entitlements to pay for defense spending when there are legal vehicles available to remedy that (e.g., tax increases)."
The Dems want a strong military, except their crazed insistence on unrestrained entitlement spending ensures the US military will be gutted.
Why should we raise taxes to pay for defense spending when it's not defense spending that's breaking the bank? If the Dems had not spent the last few years massively raising entitlement spending, I'd be a little more sympathetic to their calls for tax increases, but as it is their sudden interest in fiscal responsibility seems absurd and hypocritical.
And that leaves aside the fact that NO level of tax increase could possibly pay for the envisaged levels of spending on entitlements. It's mathematically impossible to tax our way out of the hole, so spending cuts are coming one way or another.
This is a strong discussion.
This is a strong discussion. I am so glad the CAPTCHA we installed now allows this kind of thing without spam. Thanks, all.
I'm 67 and draw Social
I'm 67 and draw Social Security, which amounts to a little less than $900/mn after medicare premiums. I most certainly never supported the imbecilic supply side concept that you can raise as much revenue by cutting taxes as by raising them. So perhaps your comments were a bit too broad brush.
You had me until your last
You had me until your last paragraph and comment about the selfishness of the older generation and your emotion surrounding it. For one, older generations "sell out" younger generations in most collective bargaining or negotiating arrangements, the latest one being the NFL. Ask a teacher in NJ or a police officer in NYC if they have the same benefits as a newly hired teacher or cop. Life is not going to be fair, everyone is not going to get the same deal. There is always going to be a fault line between generations. Historically defense spending goes in 20 year cycles, both up and down, and we are now about to start a down cycle. My problem with the cut in defense spending is it will hurt the high tech industries with the kind of jobs we need more of instead of less.
@Visitor @7:46 AM, I'd argue
@Visitor @7:46 AM,
I'd argue that the problem is that we didn't cut *enough*. 10 divisions - to do what, exactly? Unless the Russians invade the Baltics, there is no credible large ground-based threat to US interests. Cut the Army to a few divisions and reinstate the draft. Ideally, the draft would start with the children of serving Congressmen and Congresswomen. The military has become a caste apart, and the powerful have little discincentive to throw them into the fire. This alienation and bellicosity must end.
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams.
@visitor - 9:44 "Why should
@visitor - 9:44
"Why should we raise taxes to pay for defense spending when it's not defense spending that's breaking the bank? If the Dems had not spent the last few years massively raising entitlement spending, I'd be a little more sympathetic to their calls for tax increases, but as it is their sudden interest in fiscal responsibility seems absurd and hypocritical."
Wow, okay, so you don't believe in reading either defense budgets or US government documents. We've been fighitng wars for 10 years that cost us in excess of $100 billion/yr, and watched the DOD budget go from $300B/yr to more than $700B/yr, without any tax revenues or offsets. Tell me how this is not breaking the bank. And maybe you were confused by all the health care reform talk over the last few years, it was the Dems insisting on health care reform that saved billions from being added to health care costs. The Repubs are the ones making it worse for health care/Medicare/Medicaid reform.
"And that leaves aside the fact that NO level of tax increase could possibly pay for the envisaged levels of spending on entitlements. It's mathematically impossible to tax our way out of the hole, so spending cuts are coming one way or another."
No one's asking to only tax our way out of the hole. But when the Repubs refuse to consider ANY tax increases at all, even if we match $3 of spending cuts to every $1 of tax revenue, then it's a deliberate shake-down by a ruthless party who really doesn't care if they crash the economy in the middle of a depression.
Social Security was invented
Social Security was invented in 1935! Blaming “self-indulgent boomers” for it's problems defies history and logic. When the government comes to you and takes your money without giving you any choice in the matter, how is that you being “self-indulgent?” Instead of discussing something rational like the demographics underlying the issues or the sheer size of the baby boomer generation, again, not their fault, Exum indulges in his own made up frustrations. Perhaps Exum has a mommy complex or something? He seems to like his parents even less than he likes facts or actual analysis.
I disagree with the premise
I disagree with the premise that Americans are unwilling to make sacrifices to pay for their spending. Polls show that the majority of Americans feel that the deficit should be closed with a mix of entitlement cuts and tax increases.* See http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts... .
More to the point, they are making an appropriate amount of sacrifice, as Bruce Bartlett points out here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health-care-costs-and-the-t... . It's just that the sacrifice is going to help pay for health care costs.
I'm Canadian, so we'll use my country as a comparison with the US:
Taxes as a % of GDP:
Canada: 32.3%
US: 26.1%
Taxes + private health care spending as a % of GDP:
Canada: 35.4%
US: 34.7%
Not that far apart.
Look, obviously you guys need to raise revenues. However, if your country reduced the cost of health care from 17% of GDP (the current level) to 10% of GDP (which is what it is in my country), you could raise taxes without families and corporations feeling any change in outlay. You would then be left with a deficit of around 500 billion (using a rough, back of the napkin calculation with your GDP currently at 14.5 billion), which is very reasonable considering a 9.1% unemployment rate. Get your costs down to 8% (the OECD average), and you're looking at a deficit of 200 or so billion. Add in a slowly growing economy, and you're set.*
Note: this doesn't excuse the Republicans from their current obstructionism- which is what it is, given the Democrats basically gave them every thing they asked for. It's also very simplistic, and doesn't address some issues as to how you could raise the taxes effectively.
*Speaking as a Canadian, when we had our awful deficit in the 90's, the then government achieved annual surpluses by raising taxes, cutting spending, and enjoying an economy that grew from anemic to robust. As it really worked for us, and I'm a member of the party that formed those governments (partly because it worked so well, mostly for other reasons), I tend to favor the philosophy of this approach. YMMV.
"I'd argue that the problem
"I'd argue that the problem is that we didn't cut *enough*. ....and reinstate the draft"
Well, then, I suggest you agitate for the Regular Army to be disbanded. If small is what you want, then why have more than the USMC and SOCOM on active duty? An expanded Army Reserve and National Guard would become your strategic reserves in depth that would back up the USMC and SOCOM in the event of a major war, and even rich kidz could fit a couple years of being drafted to reserve duty into their schedule -- they could fit it in during the first couple years of college.
Your only problem will be that our response to a major war will look like Britain's response to WW I, where their professional regular army lasted just long enough before it was ground up to provide the time for Kitchener's New Army to field itself. Recollect that the average lifespan of an American sniper when the AEF first deployed to Europe during WW I was about 10 days in the front trenches. Call for defense cuts knowing that just as the price that was extracted from us by the Greatest Generation was treasure (in the form of social security benefits of which many used 5x the value that they paid into the system), the price we will extract from the next generation will their blood.
"There is no free lunch"
First, regarding the comment,
First, regarding the comment, "My impression, and I am actually pretty well studied in it, is that everything the federal government has increasingly taken control of over the last 50 years has gotten progressively more fucked up." - I don't really argue the point, (though I would defend the Marine Corps and the FBI as two pretty well run government programs.) But here is my question, I realize that govt is easy to bash, but what is your alternative? Corporations? Let's be clear, if we hadn't had the govt to keep corporations in check, there would be no fish, dead oceans, lead and every other damn pollutant in your drinking water, the financial system would have crashed, people dying of food borne illness every week, anitbiotics would have already been useless twenty years ago, etc. etc. etc. - there are alot of things that the govt does and for good reason. Blanket statements like yours are borne out of a lot of frustration, but ultimately are dangerous.
I don't advocate getting rid
I don't advocate getting rid of the Active Component Army because 1) we do want _some_ deterrent / rapid response capability (though of course the Marines are more rapid) and 2) we need them to be the well-trained nucleus around which a larger force could coalesce if needed. Don't think I'm talking about getting rid of the Army entirely; I just think it (and the other services) are too large right now and too insulated from the population.
As for "a major war" I am still unclear on why we fear one. Britain might; Latvia certainly should; Vietnam has cause for concern; but a land war threatening US territory is not going to happen. Now, if you want to talk about defending NATO Europe, that's another question - but that gets into burden-sharing issues with the Europeans, too.
You buy that? "... but they
You buy that?
"... but they refuse to raise taxes to pay for the advanced military capabilities they want."
The "tax raises" discussed were the elimination of the "Bush tax cuts." That is a pure political issue of zero substance. Getting rid of the "Bush tax cuts" will not cause the harm that the right worries about and it will not raise the revenue that the left wants.
Returning top marginal rates to pre-2003 levels is more likely to result in more realizations of ordinary wealth being deferred, rather than in higher income tax revenues.
Given the nature of this recession/recovery, as the economy recovers, most wealth gained by the wealthy will likely be in capital gains, dividends, or tax exempt realizations. Raising ordinary income tax rates will not result in higher revenues being extracted from those gains.
Wealthy people generally have greater access, and have greater incentives, to employ tax attorneys and/or very good CPAs to adjust their tax planning in order to avoid any increases in ordinary tax rates (or other minor tax reforms).
I refuse to get my knickers
I refuse to get my knickers in a twist over this agreement for several reasons:
(1) This agreement isn't even a budget yet. It hasn't even been voted on. If it is approved and makes it into the budget, it still doesn't matter much. Appropriations are what matter and they often differ from budget amounts.
(2) If this $600 billion does make it into the budget, you can bet that it will be heavily back-loaded so that the majority of cuts fall toward the end of the 10 year period. Since no Congress can bind any future Congress, the only numbers that count are the numbers for the period ending on January 20, 2012.
(3) Even if the whole $600 billion were to be cut from appropriations over a 10 year period, that would total less than 1% of the total DoD budget and wouldn't effect the base number at all -- it would reduce the rate of increase a little. That's all. Surely, with the abysmal tooth-to-tail ratio we have now, we can find 1% savings without harm to the capabilities of the force to perform its mission. And if those geniuses on the Joint Staff and their civilian counterparts can't find savings of at least that much, I'd be happy to volunteer myself and some of my veteran buddies (for free) to help them out.
I don't often disagree with you, Andrew, but I do on this one. The response is all out of proportion to the threat. And if you feels this stung by our current smoke-and-mirrors "agreement," what's are you going to sound like when the time comes to make real, deep, and serious cuts in the defense and homeland security budgest, which will happen eventually if we're to get our financial house in order.
Also, as a member of the "generation older than me" that you refer to, it bothers me that you blames this situation on us. Most of my generation have not yet hit retirement age and thus aren't yet drawing Social Security or Medicare. Most of us are still working and paying taxes, which fund purchases from your defense contractor sponsors, who pay your salary. It also troubles me that you says nothing about the several trillion dollars that we've wasted on our two current wars but instead raises the old entitlements shibboleth. Entitlement reform is absolutely necessary but so is defense and homeland security reform. Each of those reforms will be difficult for people to respond to gracefully but really, the emotional level of this post isn't justified by the facts.
"But hey, it's a democracy,
"But hey, it's a democracy, and if that older generation of voters wants a United States that is less ambitious but fatter and happier, okay."
You lost me when you wrote this pap, Mr. Exum. Define "ambitious." What are your ambitions for the nation? Do they include continue to use OUR money (referring to we Americans here) to feed your fantasies of rebuilding third-world nations? Yeah, we all know you've had an epiphany recently, but we also know that you were one of the leaders of the pack favoring turning on the money spigot in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Mr. Exum, you've got a history of being a war lover; in case you missed it, wars cost an awful lot of money. We've never before seen where you've worried one bit about how those wars you used to love so much were being funded with borrowed money. I know, I know, you're actually a pacifist now. You don't REALLY favor spending borrowed money and also wasting American lives in propping up hopelessly corrupt nations in the Mideast, do you?
As one from the generation you've excoriated here, let me share some of my wishes with you, Mr. Exum. First, I wish that all Americans would be fatter and happier, something that might be achievable if you war lovers would get on board the movement aimed at ensuring there are no more stupid wars. I also wish with all of my heart that the right-wing death party in this nation, AKA the Republican Party, you know, the one favored by so many military personnel, would somehow receive a message from God (they're big on that) that it's OK to raise taxes when you're hopelessly in debt and millions of your fellow Americans are out of work. I further wish that ninety percent of the people working at defense think tanks have an epiphany wherein they come to their senses and realize that their efforts are meaningless in any sense other than that they perpetuate the war machine. It's my fervent wish that these people will go out and find honest employment somewhere, although I do understand honest employment might be hard to come by these days because of the deficits and consequent high levels of unemployment, mostly attributable to a right-wing president who was dearly loved by the think tankers because he cut taxes in time of war.
Incidentally, Social Security is 100% funded through 2029. It pays for itself. That there is nothing in the trust fund now only means that our government has stolen, er, borrowed it. And what exactly is wrong with living like Europeans? They live longer and increasingly have a far better living standard than do we wonderful Americans. Of course, they don't fantasize about conquering the world the way many Americans do, so I guess we have to view them as slackers, don't we? With guys like Mr. Exum, there's apparently no room in Manifest Destiny for lives well lived.
“The effectual truth of
“The effectual truth of modern commercial republics is that they require professional, reasonably well-paid soldiers because no one else in such republics is willing to spend a lifetime preparing for war.” Hamilton
Of course you want to cut
Of course you want to cut personnel and benefits like pensions. Another tool for corporate greed that has unrestrained cost overruns attached to contracts. What a lack of originality, thought, or common sense.
As to the discussion upthread
As to the discussion upthread concerning the intergenerational conflict over entitlements, here is a link to the 2011 Trustee's Report on Social Security and Medicare: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Here is what is interesting. The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent until 2029. The Disability Insurance (DI) fund is projected to become exhausted in 2018. And the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is considered adequately financed until 2040.
In contrast:"Part B of Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays for doctors' bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the INDEFINITE FUTURE because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year's expected costs."
Amazing. The only reason the HI, DI, and OASI trust funds are supposedly in crisis is because congress has made the political decision to not fund them. So why aren't these funds funded the same way Parts B and D are funded?
"Let's be clear, if we hadn't
"Let's be clear, if we hadn't had the govt to keep corporations in check, there would be no fish, dead oceans, lead and every other damn pollutant in your drinking water,"
And when the government really, really keeps corporations in check - to the extent that there are no corporations at all - you get really super-clean air, water, and soil, just like in the USSR!
"We've been fighitng wars for 10 years that cost us in excess of $100 billion/yr, and watched the DOD budget go from $300B/yr to more than $700B/yr, without any tax revenues or offsets. Tell me how this is not breaking the bank. "
Wow, okay, so you don't believe in reading what I wrote! The point is not that defense has grown in the past 10 years. The point is that entitlements have grown (and will grow) *even faster*. Defense will stop growing when we draw-down in Iraq and Afghanistan, while entitlements will keep increasing. If we reduce defense to ZERO, we still have unsustainable growth in entitlement spending.
To quote CBO: "Almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt comes from growth in spending on the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security." In short, it ain't defense that's the problem, and gutting defense ain't gonna fix it.
"maybe you were confused by all the health care reform talk over the last few years, it was the Dems insisting on health care reform that saved billions from being added to health care costs."
LOL if you think Democratic "reform" is saving, or will save, money, you are the one who is hopelessly confused.
Based on past experience, nooooothing saves money like a giant new entitlement program, eh chief?
/sarc
BUDGET FACTS: AS STATED IN
BUDGET FACTS: AS STATED IN 1999
A Presidential Commission headed by Alan Greenspan recommended in 1982 that payroll taxes be increased in order to partially pre-fund the retirement of the Baby Boomers, the largest generation in American history. But rather than saving the surpluses to prepare for the massive demographic shift, Congress has borrowed them ever since for other government programs and to make the federal deficit appear smaller.
Since 1983, $647 billion has been borrowed from Social Security's trust fund to lower the size of annual U.S. budget deficits. Money borrowed from the trust fund will have to be paid back through tax increases or benefit cuts once the Boomers start collecting their Social Security retirement checks.
While the Social Security system is running annual surpluses today, it will begin running growing annual deficits around 2012.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-releases/1998/0202/borrowing-socia...
Dear Mr. Exum, You should
Dear Mr. Exum,
You should have been a preacher, and I mean that in a good way. Thank you for this post.
The Democrats seem to always
The Democrats seem to always point to the defense departments budget as the reason for soaring spending and as a target for massive cutbacks. However, when viewed historically this isn't the case. We are only spending around 4.7% of GDP compared to mid-6% in the 1980s and were fighting two wars. It is because of massive cuts to the Defense budget that we have had to rely on contractors to such a large degree in Iraq and Afghanistan to augment or shorthanded military (sure poor planning played a part as well). Either we have a large and robust military to meet our security challenges or we cut back and forced to rely on private military corporations more and more.
* In terms of military benefits, I agree there needs to be reform. I am completely for a soldier who fought in combat getting the health care he deserves HOWEVER many uniformed personnel never serve in combat or enter into harms way and yet receive benefits beyond the rest of us. America has entered into a military obsessed phase where instead of rewarding sacrifice they are simply rewarding the uniform. A firefighter, police officer, or teacher who are helping to make our country strong deserve equal well treatment as our men and women in uniform who never see the hells of war.
* Finally Abu has been getting a lot of flak for the revenue comment BUT the data doesn't lie,
http://www.thestreet.com/stock-market-news/11078128/us-gdp-vs-revenue-vs...
Revenue is lower and spending is higher BUT the majority of this is because of the recession. People need to remember that Obama and Bush had to spend in order to save the banking sector from collapsing and most economists agree had to spend to help ease the economy out of recession which had created the revenue problem. The problem isn't spending or revenue... "ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID"
Here is a link to how social
Here is a link to how social security historically has been accounted for in the federal budget:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
There have been times it has been on-budget and times that it has not.
I hear there's some openings
I hear there's some openings for 'sharp young blue dog who understands defense.'
Run for the House in Tennessee.
Uggs boots are what are known
Uggs boots are what are known by some as sheepskin boots. These boots have been made in Australia for tens if not hundreds of years, and are well known all over Australia. However now they are making an impact on foriegn markets.
Add your comment