–
January 29, 2010Posted in: News, Politics, War and Peace
It is fiscally responsible for President Obama to scrutinize government spending and to cut costs where ever possible, especially when his Administration finds inefficiencies, waste and failed programs. So I applaud the idea, but his method is flawed.
The President is right that he cannot begin the process with non-discretionary spending because it will take a much longer and involve high political wrangling to get that done. I think a bi-partisan commission to look at ways to appropriately fund social security and control the cost of Medicare and Medicaid would be helpful, especially since it looks more likely than ever that if there is any healthcare legislation it will be weak and do little to control costs in the way the President originally intended.
Obama’s plan as explained in the news will affect domestic programs like Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; while leaving the largest portion of the discretionary budget, military spending, untouched. At a time when the nation needs investment in human services and people need help, if we must tighten our belt, then the military, which is notorious for wasteful spending, must do so as well. But more to the point, is U.S. massive military spending effective? Are we as a nation safer? If not, then we have reached, at best, a point of diminishing returns and at worst, the government is wasting tax payer money on a failed policy. I think we have both problems.
U.S. military operations have more and more people in the Muslim world believing that the war on terror is a war on Islam. As U.S. operations kill civilians, family members and friends are being radicalized. The spread of the ideology that motivates acts of terror against the US cannot be stopped with a gun. It must be countered with better and more persuasive ideas. Bombs only scatter the horror and the anger just like an explosion scatters flesh and bones.
The 911 Commission reported that al Qaeda’s funding before September 11, 2001 was about $30 million a year. Since then, because of pressure around the world on funding sources, their “budget” is something considerably less. According to a June 22nd Associated Press article by Kathy Gannon, the United Nation’s estimates the Taliban via the drug trade in Afghanistan may gain revenue of $300 million a year. The article went on to say that there maybe access to another $5 billion from informal money transfers from Pakistan.
These numbers are minuscule compared to U.S. spending. According to a David Isenberg piece on the Huffington Post the Congressional Budget Office estimates “carrying out the Pentagon's 2009 plans for 2010 and beyond -- excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some much smaller military actions elsewhere – would require funding averaging at least $573 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) from 2011 to 2028.”
Since 2001 the U.S. has increased military spending by at least 35%. So even then, with the world’s largest military budget of hundreds of billions, the largest nuclear arsenal, Navy, Air Force, economy and superior technology the massive spending could not stop 19 hijackers from using U.S. airliners as make shift weapons to kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens.
With a change to strategy that does not rely on force, we could easily trim our military budget, divert some funds to domestic investment that can create jobs and strengthen our infrastructure for a more efficient economy that would increase government revenue. We could use funds to strengthen positive civil society in poor regions of the world that breed despair and recruits for al Qaeda. Military spending is not the only component of a strong national defense. A weak economy led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The U.S. is not immune to the same fate.
About Michael T. McPhearson
It is fiscally responsible for President Obama to scrutinize government spending and to cut costs where ever possible, especially when his Administration finds inefficiencies, waste and failed programs. So I applaud the idea, but his method is flawed.
The President is right that he cannot begin the process with non-discretionary spending because it will take a much longer and involve high political wrangling to get that done. I think a bi-partisan commission to look at ways to appropriately fund social security and control the cost of Medicare and Medicaid would be helpful, especially since it looks more likely than ever that if there is any healthcare legislation it will be weak and do little to control costs in the way the President originally intended.
Obama’s plan as explained in the news will affect domestic programs like Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; while leaving the largest portion of the discretionary budget, military spending, untouched. At a time when the nation needs investment in human services and people need help, if we must tighten our belt, then the military, which is notorious for wasteful spending, must do so as well. But more to the point, is U.S. massive military spending effective? Are we as a nation safer? If not, then we have reached, at best, a point of diminishing returns and at worst, the government is wasting tax payer money on a failed policy. I think we have both problems.
U.S. military operations have more and more people in the Muslim world believing that the war on terror is a war on Islam. As U.S. operations kill civilians, family members and friends are being radicalized. The spread of the ideology that motivates acts of terror against the US cannot be stopped with a gun. It must be countered with better and more persuasive ideas. Bombs only scatter the horror and the anger just like an explosion scatters flesh and bones.
The 911 Commission reported that al Qaeda’s funding before September 11, 2001 was about $30 million a year. Since then, because of pressure around the world on funding sources, their “budget” is something considerably less. According to a June 22nd Associated Press article by Kathy Gannon, the United Nation’s estimates the Taliban via the drug trade in Afghanistan may gain revenue of $300 million a year. The article went on to say that there maybe access to another $5 billion from informal money transfers from Pakistan.
These numbers are minuscule compared to U.S. spending. According to a David Isenberg piece on the Huffington Post the Congressional Budget Office estimates “carrying out the Pentagon's 2009 plans for 2010 and beyond -- excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some much smaller military actions elsewhere – would require funding averaging at least $573 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) from 2011 to 2028.”
Since 2001 the U.S. has increased military spending by at least 35%. So even then, with the world’s largest military budget of hundreds of billions, the largest nuclear arsenal, Navy, Air Force, economy and superior technology the massive spending could not stop 19 hijackers from using U.S. airliners as make shift weapons to kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens.
With a change to strategy that does not rely on force, we could easily trim our military budget, divert some funds to domestic investment that can create jobs and strengthen our infrastructure for a more efficient economy that would increase government revenue. We could use funds to strengthen positive civil society in poor regions of the world that breed despair and recruits for al Qaeda. Military spending is not the only component of a strong national defense. A weak economy led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The U.S. is not immune to the same fate.
