How We Can Save Three. Hundred. Billion. Dollars.

As our current POTUS starts spooling up a semi-serious response to dealing with the deficit...an issue that has been kicking around since I was a child...I find myself preparing to be unsurprised by one nearly inevitable outcome.

Cutbacks will be proposed, of course.  Some tax hits for the richest of the rich and major corporations will be pitched out there, right on cue for the 2012 election cycle.  But one particular thing is unlikely to be brought to the table.  Obama is unlikely to address our out of control military spending.

Yes, we all Support Our Troops (tm).  We all love America, and want her to be safe and secure.

But there is simply no sane argument for our current level of military spending.  None whatsoever.  Where we are, as 2009, is in a place where we spend $687 Billion dollars every year for our military.

As context, in 2009, number two in the military spending race was China.  The People's Republic of Selling Us Stuff That We Used Make Ourselves devoted $114 Billion dollars to their various military branches in Oh Nine.  Next up was France, at $61 Billion, and then Great Britain, at $57 billion and change.

Using a little second grade math, we see that...hmm...we spend...ahh...hold on...got it!  We spend almost exactly six times as much on our military as China.   Assuming that spending equals military competence on the field of battle (dubious, I know, but let's run with it), America might be taxed in a military exchange in which we found ourselves faced by a hostile coalition comprised of China, France, the UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Israel, the Netherlands, Greece, Columbia, Taiwan, and Poland.   Those militaries, combined, are roughly a match for ours on a dollars-spent basis.

Is that the future for which we are preparing?

'Cause if it ain't, what in the Sam Hill do we think we're doing?

There is no reason for a Constitutional Republic to be so inordinately overarmed.  Were we an imperial power, or an expansionist fascist state, I could see the rationale.  It would be an evil rationale, but at least it would jibe with the broader story we tell ourselves about the values of our nation.  Now, though...we've got a coherence problem.

John Boehner's basement...and he's still afraid...

Yeah, yeah, we all like to feel secure and strong.  But at a certain point, feeling insecure stops being about reality, and starts indicating that there's some real mental problems going on.  We are, as a nation, just a little crazy.  Those who argue that our current level of spending is necessary for our defense are like that highly twitchy neighbor down the street who has a wall-full of AR-15s, a man-portable M-134, and 15,000 rounds of assorted ammunition in his basement because he's sure someone is out to get him.

We do not want to be that guy, no matter what John Boehner says.

What would make the most sense from a budgetary standpoint...not that it will happen, of course...is standing down our imperial army.  But to what level?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that our warfighters aren't the best in the world.  Blasphemy, I know, but it's just a thought exercise.  We can say forty Hail Pattons when we're through to make amends.

Let's say that the Chinese...the number two world power...could defeat America if we spent the same amount on our military as they do.  Yeah, we're not at war, or even formally enemies, but no-one wants America to be defeated.

So what if we spend twice as much as the People's Republic of China?  Would we feel secure being twice as armed as they are?

No?  Really?  Their command of kung fu coupled with their ability to put on some really amazingly coordinated Olympic opening events has you a little freaked out?   Alright, you wuss.  How about we spend three times as much as China?  For every one gun they have, we have three.   For every tank, we have three...or one that is three times as good.

And remember, our soldiers are the Best In The World.  Right?  Right?  Don't tell me you don't think so!  Given three times the resources, the men and women of the United States Military couldn't prevail?  You aren't going there, are you, my friend?

I thought not.

That would mean savings, on an annual basis, of nearly $300 Billion dollars that our government currently spends...and doesn't have. 


Sigh.  I really wish America wasn't so totally insane.

Lurponomics

I'm a fiscally conservative person.  I don't believe that debt is good.  Period.  While I'm happy to spend freely if the resources are there, I vigorously resist the idea of buying things I can't afford.  If I can't buy it now, I won't.  I would rather live simply than be in debt.

This is a foundational value.   I drive cars I can pay cash for.  I have a modest home.  My wife and I have have one credit card, which we pay off every month.  We live very slightly under our means, whatever those means may be.  Over the last twenty years, this has helped build a comfortable nest egg.  If you pay now, and build up savings with whatever remains, then life will be more manageable.   It is for this reason that I get, without fail, at least a dozen solicitations for new credit cards every week.  Every one of those solicitations is torn up unopened and recycled.

Looking at the economic state of our nation, I find myself completely at odds with both political parties.  The idea that government can spend without taxing convinced me long ago that the American right is completely insane.  It's been thirty years, folks, since the trickle-down and supply-side lurping of Reaganomics spread like sweet delusion across the gullible of this nation.  That hole is just getting deeper.  It isn't just a conservative problem, though.  The left is equally delusional.  Honestly, the point at which I first realized all would not be well with Obama was with the passage of the stimulus.  TARP, which was designed to be repaid, seemed necessary.  It unlocked a seized-up system.  But the stimulus just dug us deeper and deeper into hock, at a time when going into hock had nearly cost us our economy.  It was nuts.  It was as ill-advised as doing a couple of shots to ward off a hangover.    Heck, it was worse than that. 

It was the economic equivalent of meth.  Debt may be the engine that drives our economy, but it is a false energy.  Debt-driven spending is not real growth.   Yeah, it stimulates.  Stimulants like meth are great at that.  You feel real good for a bit.  Then, less good.   Then, crappy, but you'll do anything to feel slightly less crappy.  Eventually, you find yourself spent and broken and toothless, living on a stained mattress in some guy's shack in back country Gansu Province.

As Republicans continue to shout for lower taxes, and both Democrats and Republicans keep guzzling down debt to expand our security apparatus and our social entitlement programs, I find myself despairing for our nation.  The will to do what is needed to change direction...meaning, we pay taxes sufficient to provide for the common defense and support the general welfare, and reduce our spending to levels that make the income/outflow match...that will just isn't there. 


The last week has been particularly painful.  Watching the deficit reduction commission's recommendations get shot down, and then seeing the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration continued by our current administration is as agonizing as watching a dear friend on a self-destructive bender.  You know the type.  Tomorrow will take care of itself.  All they care about is their next fix.  Reality is nowhere to be found.  And we need to grasp reality right now as a nation.

To keep government at non-austerity levels, we'll need to pay for it.  That means ponying up, "patriot."  If you want to keep taxes where they are, then we need less government.  Not empty rhetoric about less government.  Real cuts.  That means across the board.  It means standing down our imperial military, and replacing it with something more fitting a constitutional republic.  It means reduced benefits for the elderly and those in need.  It means fewer subsidies for farmers.   Whichever way, there needs to be some level of diminishment, as we scale back to sustainable levels. It means effort, and struggle, and a bit of shared fiscal pain...not just by the rich, but by everyone.  Real recovery involves real effort.

But suggesting we all work together to shoulder a mighty burden doesn't get you elected.  It doesn't poll well.  

We'd rather elect reality television politicians, who'll happily pitch out sweet crystal fantasies until that morning America wakes up on that nasty mattress with a mouth full of rot and realizes we lurped America's greatness from our children.