Republicans in the House have set their sites on reducing the deficit. They do not have a choice. Cutting the deficit is what they ran on in 2010. It is what they will run on in 2012. Their plan is to cut $261 billion from the federal budget over the next ten years. It is also their intent that spending cuts will not be extended to the Pentagon. The $683 billion spent on defense last year, roughly 20% of all federal spending, is off limits. That is unfortunate for many Americans. On the agenda of the GOP is a plan to cut food stamps. Despite President Obama's best efforts, 46 million Americans receive food stamps, up from 33 million in 2009. The average monthly benefit for a family of four is $500. In all, the program costs the government about $76 billion a year, and that out of a budget of $3.5 trillion. That is an amount deemed extravagant enough to get the GOP's attention.
Since the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 U.S. defense spending has increased at a breathtaking rate. U.S. defense spending has increased by 81% since 2001 alone. 20 years after the demise of our greatest rival, defense spending is increasing. This is because, rather than viewing the demise of the U.S.S.R. with relief, the U.S. has come to view it as an opportunity. 45 years of frustrated ambition has to be made up for. We won the Cold War and to the victor go the spoils.
The U.S. spends more on defense than any other nation in the world.
According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, world wide defense
spending in 2010 was $1.6 trillion. The U.S. spent $680 billion of that. In fact. the U.S. spent six times more than our growing rival,
China. But then we have a world to defend. China only has a country.
The United States is not in jeopardy. Aside from Chinese and Russian ICBM's, there is absolutely no military threat to the nation. The only threats that exist are to our interests. This is where the problem lays. Because the U.S. has interests everywhere it must be prepared to defend everything, from Africa to Asia. That is an expensive obligation. It is growing more expensive every year. That might be one reason the U.S. is working so energetically to rid the world of enemies. We just cannot afford them.
U.S. defense spending is a byzantine array of research, weapons, and material. Rather than focus spending on proven weapons and existing technology, the U.S. continues to research and develop weapons that there is no need for. Even though our supremacy in the air is unchallenged, we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing new aircraft. Our ability to control the oceans is unmatched yet we are spending billions on new warship designs. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program alone is budgeted for $11.4 billion.The Navy is planning to build 11 new destroyers every year for the next 15 years. In 2011, the defense department spent $2,2,00 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. For many republicans in Washington, that is not enough. Despite the rhetoric of a "War on Terror" the vast majority of defense spending has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We do not need F-35s and guided missile destroyers to fight terrorists. Terrorists have neither navies or air forces.
A strong military is viewed as essential to America's interests. The world is a dangerous place, at least for us. But aside from North Korea, it is our policies and ambitions that put us at odds with the world. It is our absolute and blind loyalty to Israel that puts us in conflict with the Middle East. It is our efforts to retain our hegemony in the Pacific that will put us in conflict with China. It is our lingering distrust of Russia that still fuels our policy of containment.
The advocates of American global dominance contend that any ebb in U.S. power will create a vacuum that will quickly be filled by others. But what they ignore is that an economic collapse will cripple U.S. power far more dramatically than any proposed cut in defense spending. Without the lure of financial assistance much of the world would soon fall away. Despite the self serving rhetoric in Washington, apart from those seeking to overthrow their governments or preserve their regimes, the U.S. has little appeal for much of the world.
Throughout the history of the U.S. our power has been measured by our economy. We triumphed in WWI and WWII not through the strength of our deterrence but through the strength of our economy. A technologically and economically ascendant U.S. would be a deterrent far more fearsome than a few hundred fighter planes and a few dozen submarines will ever be. As it stands, a protracted conflict would strain the U.S. military greatly, particularly if we were to suffer significant losses in men and material. Without the economic resources to replenish our forces, any real war would be a risky adventure. Our economy is at the breaking point keeping the military we have. China could ruin the U.S. without firing a shot.
U.S. spending is going to go down eventually either by choice or by necessity. It is up to us. We just cannot afford to spend money as we have been spending. When the time comes that we will have to actually balance the books we will have to set priorities. One choice will be between a strong military and a strong country. Many nations have viewed their military as a source of strength. Some might recall the old days where Soviet leaders stood proudly as a near endless array of tanks, soldiers, and missiles paraded before them and swarms of fighters flew overhead. Those days ended when the Soviet Union collapsed in destitution. All the military might the Soviets could muster could not compensate for a crumbling economy and an increasingly impoverished population.
The strength of the U.S. has always lain with its economy. Through out most of its history, the U.S. has maintained a modest standing military. Instead it relied on its ability to create an army and the industrial capacity to equip it with quality weapons on short notice.The Japanese learned that lesson the hard way in WWII. It is that ability that we are putting in jeopardy with our ruinous financial policies.
As the U.S. mulls the idea of a war with Iran we should must not forget that there is a larger world out there. An increasingly stretched U.S. military and tightening financial circumstances will not be to our benefit. The last century ended with the U.S. on top. There are still 88 years to go in this century. Unless we get our priorities straight, the way things are going we will be lucky to finish the century in the top five.
The poor do not vote in large numbers and, when they do,
they do not vote Republican. 46 million hungry Americans and a sagging
economy will do little
to help maintain America's edge in global affairs. But to the armchair
strategists and global theoreticians in Washington the real game is geopolitics. The poor are going nowhere. The debt is still a largely
abstract issue. True
adventure is only found off shore.
In their efforts to tackle the deficit, Republicans in the House want to cut food stamps by $8 billion over the next year. $34 billion over the next decade. The question we should be asking is whether shaving that $8 billion from a $680 billion defense budget would be better for the nation. I guess that depends on who you ask. On the other hand, if we were able to do something about the $211 billion we paid in interest on the debt last year you wouldn't have to ask anyone. We could just write a check for both and build a school or two with the change.
