Posted by Donny Ferguson at LP.org. Reposted to IPR by Paulie.
Dear friend,
Did you hear? Obama’s cutting the budget!
Unfortunately, it’s only $100 million, which comes out to 0.0027 percent of the $3.6 trillion in spending he is imposing on current and future taxpayers. Much of it is simply things like buying office supplies in bulk, or one-time cuts that do nothing to cure long-term spending problems.
And according to senior White House official, speaking to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, "said Obama will point to cuts already being proposed."
Obama’s budget calls for around $11,755.00 in spending for every man, woman and child in America. But his “cuts” — which aren’t even new reductions — come out to only around 32.7 cents per person.
Yes, Obama believes that by cutting 32.7 cents off the price of an $11,755.00 financed purchase, he’s offering you a great deal.
Well, Libertarians know better. Obama is doing this out of desperation, and there’s a reason he’s scrambling to take credit for tiny spending reductions other people came up with.
Outraged Americans gathered in parks and town squares across the country last week to vent their outrage at his and the Republican Party’s out-of-control spending. Twenty House Democrats voted against his budget because even they couldn’t stomach his economy-crushing deficits.
Less than 100 days into office and much of Obama’s out-of-touch agenda is already on the ropes. His big-spending, big-governing Republican counterparts aren’t faring much better. Despite plummeting approval ratings for Obama, the GOP is still hugely unpopular.
Americans are looking for a party with a plan to reduce spending, eliminate deficits and restore prosperity.
It’s certainly not the Republican Party. Their “alternative budget” released a few weeks ago continued the Bush policy of expanding the size of government and running up deficits. The only difference between theirs and Obama’s budgets was that theirs was only a close second in the race to expand government the fastest.
That’s why the Libertarian Party is proposing real, specific spending reductions — reductions that will go much, much further to reduce taxes on our children than Obama’s raindrop-in-the-ocean repackaging of already-proposed cuts.
So what are they? How are Libertarians going to reduce the size and cost of the federal government and stave off trillions of dollars in higher taxes on our children?
Here are just a few of the reductions we back. You can find more in the Cato Institute’s “Handbook for Policymakers, Seventh Edition.”
• Avert the oncoming fiscal crisis in Social Security by indexing initial benefits to changes in prices, instead of wages. Saves $47 billion annually by 2018. Without reforms like this, the program will go bankrupt or force trillions of dollars in destructive new taxes or borrowing.
• Turn Medicare into a block grant and freeze federal spending, forcing states to pursue cost-cutting reforms. Saves $227 billion annually by 2018.
• Eliminate the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration, a $352 million corporate welfare program.
• Eliminate the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, another $369 million in corporate welfare.
• Eliminate the Energy Department’s nuclear energy research programs, $695 million in welfare that should be undertaken by nuclear energy investors.
• Turn Head Start over to private charities, saving $687 million annually. Since its inception Head Start has shown no substantive increase in inner-city literacy rates.
• Eliminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs, saving nearly $2.5 billion a year.
• Eliminate funding for the United Nations and other international programs, saving nearly $1.6 billion annually.
• Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, saving $350 million annually.
• Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, $278 million a year in welfare for wealthy arts patrons.
• Eliminate the Small Business Administration, $530 million in welfare for businesses.
• Eliminate the $935 million a year in Postal Service subsidies and force them to further privatize operations.
Those are just a few cuts, a “twelve step program” if you will, which alone save taxpayers $282.3 billion. That comes out to $921.78 in savings for every man, woman and child in America, and there would be a lot more savings than that to come with future reductions.
Compare that to Obama’s piddling 32.7 cents.
The Republicans had 14 years to do it, and instead exploded spending every year. Obama is happy to spend even faster. Libertarians are the only candidates with the willpower, and the concern for their children and grandchildren, to do it.
That leaves the Libertarian Party as the only party with a rational, sensible program to stop the destructive explosion in federal spending. Government growth, spending, taxation and borrowing are out of control, and it threatens not only our prosperity and freedom, but that of our children.
Obama’s 32.7 cent dog-and-pony show, if it even happens, does nothing to avert the oncoming bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, or head off the trillions of dollars in new taxes he and the Republicans are heaping on future generation.
The only way to get real fiscal reform, starting with $282.3 billion in common-sense reductions, is to elect Libertarians.
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
[email protected]
PS – If you are receiving this email, and have not yet become a member of the Party and wish to do so, please click here to sign up to become a member of the only political party dedicated completely to cutting taxes and maximizing liberty. If you need to renew, please do so by clicking here.
PPS – If you have not yet contributed, please consider a donation right now of $25, $50, $100 or $1000 to the Libertarian Party. Your contribution will be used to grow the Party and expand the message of liberty. From ads to outreach, every dollar goes towards leading the liberty movement in its fight to restore the Constitution and maximize freedom.
Wow, just realized that whole thing ended 20 years ago. I feel old.
From the article: “All told, America spent more than $13 trillion (in today’s dollars) to win the Cold War.”
Not to keep troops stationed abroad, but ‘to win the Cold War.’
Not sure if the author goes on to explain what this means, but I’d guess he just added up all the Cold War defense budgets.
He may even have included some DoE spending, assuming he knows that department’s budget includes nuclear weaponry expenses in either authorization or appropriations legislation (weird situation as they account for it one way in one act, and the other way in the other).
Here’s the url to the article I mentioned and the costs Bandow mentions is only 13 trillion.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/06/23/228079/index.htm
The US clearly has far and away the largest military budget in the world, but that doesn’t adequately reflect the disproportionate spending in this area. Most of the other big spenders on defense in the world are friendly toward the United States. Are we really worried about a military invasion from the United Kingdom (OK, they did it once before…).
Also, aren’t there billions in stimulus spending for the military?
Well it would be nice if the national website was updated to include some information of the foreign deployment of U.S. troops just for a start.
The Navy has some “speciality” bases, but generally it’s fleet is kept intact and ready to go out of central places.
For example, I’m familiar with the sub bases in Groton, CT and Kings Bay, GA but also know that when I was stationed in Norfolk, there were quite a few subs moored at the docks.
The Navy has some submarine specific bases – don’t really know why, but I’d guess its because of the strategic missiles. The surface combatant fleets are homeported all together. Naval air stations are separate but usually nearby.
The primary Marine bases are each home to a MEF, which by definition includes all Marine capabilities.
a different paul,
As I said, I wasn’t necessarily trying to advocate a position. All I as trying to say that the supposed Bandow argument was plausible if it took into account certain things, which I think the data suggests is certainly more than possible. Yes, this means, factoring in all costs beyond homeland defense. I didn’t say that as a matter of policy that’s the only thing I think we should focus on, I said it was possible that given that criteria Bandow’s supposed argument could have been correct. I wasn’t trying to say it was or wasn’t ‘nutty’ as you would say, only that it was possible, and that assertions to the contrary were premature.
I’ll give you that I could be wrong on the Navy, as I’m not as familiar with its operations as I am the Army, Air Force, and Navy, but does the Navy not base certain operations at different bases? Obviously, I’ll lose on the school argument (I didn’t even think that through, so thank you for pointing that out), but does the Navy not perhaps some bases that are more heavy in concentration or the primary base in a certain type of craft than others? Like I said, my Navy knowledge is cloudy at best, and it doesn’t *really* matter, but it might be nice to know for future reference so I don’t incorrectly state such a claim again.
Erik: “Unfortunately, it does little to address how many out of 1,083,027 have jobs related to over-seas defense.”
Well, geez, if you take it to that level and consider all costs associated and potentially associated with something other than actually repelling an invasion across our border… then sure, darn near the entire defense budget could apply.
But it sounds to me like you’re getting into nutty territory with that argument. I believe people want to hear proposals for moving forward from where we are now – not hearing what we should have done 200 years ago, or 64 years ago, whatever the argument might be. If what you’re saying is that the military should be sized for only what is needed to repel such an invasion, you’re just not going to be relevant given where we are now.
“The air force and navy work in this same manner. Often only certain ships and/or aircraft and certain specialty departments are primarily located in one locale (consider, for example the specialty of the Charleston, SC base which has the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC).”
I’ll grant you the Air Force does have like squadrons on many of its bases, but with the Navy you mentioned a school. Not applicable. The second fleet is located primarily at Norfolk.
I want the government shrunk to the size where I can drown it in a bath tub. And then I want to hold its head under water until its arms stop flailing and the final bubble pops up.
Michael,
That was a good portion of the basis of my argument. Not only have we not seen the report that may or may not exist, but we don’t know how it reached the conclusions it did. To rule out that it could have reached the conclusions of which you speak seems a little silly to me.
@ 35 line 5 the last word should be their.
Thanks
Gentlemen I did say “I believe”. That was at least ten years ago and a lot has taken place and I have read a lot since then so i could be mistaken. However given the Obama’s emphasis on openness it might be worth demanding that the admistration give us some answers on the annual costs and maybe a historical perspective as well. Maybe we should ask people to write the senators and Congresspersons and ask the question.
There are also a lot of ways to sell this. Just talking about the need to withdraw the troops might not be the best way to open.
I would also suggest that most military equipment stationed overseas (such as an F-22, and the cost to build and maintain it) are not related to homeland defense. Yes, some equipment would likely move back to the states because its deployment overseas is part of our worldwide ‘defense’ plan for home, but surely most of it is not necessary to defend us from attack. How many people seriously think someone will try to invade the continental United States?
Also, I’m sure you’ could try to tell me the ‘base budgets’ for American bases, but those budgets incorporate costs in the research and development done at them, which may or may not be linked to overseas expenditures (this is an almost impossible figure to ascertain). Such numbers would also fail to address the costs of personnel in service to handle overseas (as opposed to domestic) mission operations.
a different paul,
The last set of statement you made… could they not be argued in conjunction with this supposed Bandow argument? You yourself just said we have obviously “gotten ourselves into a lot of defense commitments.”
“Excluding U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States spends about $102 billion a year to run its overseas bases, according to Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. And in many cases you have to ask what purpose they serve.”
source: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/empire-of-bases
That’s just base maintenance (personnel, building costs, etc.). That doesn’t include all the money we spend investing in weapons and technology not intrinsically linked to defense. Nor does it include any money spent on foreign entanglements.
I crunched the numbers and only 1,083,027 out of 1,454,515 active-duty personnel are located stateside. At first, this nearly 2/3rds majority would appear to confirm your hypothesis. Unfortunately, it does little to address how many out of 1,083,027 have jobs related to over-seas defense. As I said, if you’re based in Kentucky, but working on Iraq projects, this hardly amounts to national defense in my mind.
Source:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/rg0902.pdf
This already shows that least 1/3 of personnel costs alone are not spent in homeland defense.
And, no, I’m not confusing ‘army’ with military. The air force and navy work in this same manner. Often only certain ships and/or aircraft and certain specialty departments are primarily located in one locale (consider, for example the specialty of the Charleston, SC base which has the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC).
Btw, your point about the divisions in Korea, for example took what I said out of context. I was referring to the fact that we don’t mobilize them to fight ground wars. They obviously have troops that can fight ground wars, but they’re stationed in a manner to either defend where they are (i.e. South Korea) or be deployed to a conflict nearby. They are not used for homeland defense.
“I’d also like to add that I think it could be easily argued that only a fraction of the current budget would be needed for defense.”
Well, 99/100 is a fraction, but I’m with you in that the military is ripe for cuts… and it knows it. The budget isn’t staying at its current levels.
If you want to make your argument stronger, note the number of countries above $10 billion in defense expenditures, and note the percentage of those that are formal allies. Also, among those who aren’t formal allies is Switzerland, and I doubt too many defense scenarios include a sneak attack by the Swiss.
“I’d estimate that a very, very high percentage of our defense budget is not spent on protecting America alone.”
Obviously. We have gotten ourselves into a lot of defense commitments.
“These ‘huge’ mobilizations of which you speak are because the U.S. is the primary station (I admit as much) for the type of military personnel used in those operations (but not necessarily ‘most of our forces’ as you have determined).”
I disagree, if you are arguing most of our forces aren’t stateside usually, and pretty sure I’m correct on this point, but not interested in web searching to prove it.
“The military is set up in a way that each fort bases a different type of personnel (for the most part, obviously some personnel [such as medical] are stationed everywhere in small numbers).”
You’re equatting Army with military.
“The bases overseas are not set up to fight ground wars, which is why you don’t see a mobilization from them.”
Disagree there, too. Okinawa is home to the entire 3rd Marine division, Korea has an Army division I think (maybe a brigade) poised to defend the country, Germany had been home to a sizable armor/mech presence during the Soviet days… in other words, the forwarded postured ground forces. And if you’re included all overseas forces, don’t forget the varying fleets, with their full complement of combat forces. The real reason you don’t see deployments from Korea or Germany to whatever bush wars are flaring is because their commitments there still exist. Likewise, the military has coalition training operation commitments, and those have been maintained even during the Bush years.
a different paul,
I’d also like to add that I think it could be easily argued that only a fraction of the current budget would be needed for defense. Just look at other countries. We have 47% of the world’s military budget, but we don’t have 47% of the world’s population. Yet other countries have proven to be safe from military attack with much more appropriate budgets per their area and population. Yes, we have a large population and a large area to cover, but our numbers are still ridiculous in proportion.
I’d estimate that a very, very high percentage of our defense budget is not spent on protecting America alone.
a different paul,
These ‘huge’ mobilizations of which you speak are because the U.S. is the primary station (I admit as much) for the type of military personnel used in those operations (but not necessarily ‘most of our forces’ as you have determined). The military is set up in a way that each fort bases a different type of personnel (for the most part, obviously some personnel [such as medical] are stationed everywhere in small numbers). The bases overseas are not set up to fight ground wars, which is why you don’t see a mobilization from them.
And Bandow could have easily made the argument that we wouldn’t need such a large full-time military if we weren’t overseas all the time or operating overseas as is. Again, neither of us have seen his supposed argument, so it’s almost pointless to bicker over. Much like the ‘geo’ debate I got pulled into earlier, I’m simply stating that to rule something out is ridiculous.
“…but you also have to factor in how much of that ‘manpower’ is used for foreign entanglements.”
No you don’t. If you’re arguing the size of the armed forces, that’s a different argument than keeping them overseas.
They get paid regardless.
Most of our forces are stateside most of the time, if looking at the past 64 years. That’s why during Desert Shield, for instance, we had a huge mobilization from here to there – not Korea to there, or Germany to there.
Actually, I believe the F-22 IS getting axed, and they’re keeping the F-35 (the joint strike fighter) instead, but I could be wrong.
But the problem is that even as much as the programs are, there’s a whole lot more to cut than just them.
a different paul,
It’s the inflation adjusted numbers that matter most.
As for your ‘manpower’ argument, that may be true (but not in maintenance and operation costs, not salaries), but you also have to factor in how much of that ‘manpower’ is used for foreign entanglements. We have over 700 bases in 130 countries – any cost not spent on American soil for American defense (i.e. if it’s a base in Kentucky but it’s training to fight offensive wars in Iraq) is considered a foreign expenditure in my opinion. Again, neither of us have read the supposed Bandow study, so it’s a moot point because we don’t know his argument. I’m only stating that it’s possible.
Tomcat – but watch for programmatic cuts, that can be easily explained in a one-liner. For instance, with three new generation fighters now under development, that ought to be ripe for hitting an elimination, for instance of the joint strike fighter.
Another thing, if you look at these suggestions, they’re condenced down to one line explanations that are easy to explain. When you cut the DoD budget by 50%, you have to explain what you’re cutting: R&D? Personnel? Overseas bases? Navy ships? What?
So, cutting the defense budget raises questions that are difficult to explain in a sound bite. It’s a shame too, because those cuts could save the US taxpayers a ton of money.
I just looked at your link. I’d say the average since ’47 is definitely under $250 billion, in non-inflation adjusted dollars. Probably closer to $225 billion.
Every government program is sacred to someone. There are plenty of people who back cutting the military, especially in defending Europe from a long-gone Soviet threat, Japan and Korea which can easily protect themselves, etc
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t cut down on defense spending, just that it’s not going down easily. The argument may have been to take what we can sell much easier to the public as a whole. Financing art when people are losing their homes isn’t a hard sell right now IMHO.
Please note that I’m not saying I think this is all that needs to be done. I’d personally prefer to see cuts go a LOT deeper.
“So far I’ve found it to be over $300 billion since at least ‘77.”
I’m guessing it was less in the late 40s, 50s and 60s – though most likely ramped up for Vietnam, so maybe you’re right – about the total defense budget averaging higher than $250 billion.
“It is possible that Bandow’s estimate adjusted for inflation, which could easily put that figure on the table. It’s been well over the $250 billion number you’ve suggested for quite some time now, and that’s without adjusting for inflation.”
Okay, but remember I said the entire defense budget… I threw that out there assuming everyone would understand how ludicrous this is.
Out of the entire defense budget, the biggest cost is manpower. And those salaries are paid regardless of where the servicemember is stationed.
Then there are programmatic acquisitions – or the procurement lines of the budget.
Then there is operations and maintenance, which includes all maintenance at depots and locally, and all operations, including stateside training. This category also includes the costs associated with keeping troops in Germany and Japan, among others.
There’s also military construction, ammo procurement (separate from procurement), and research and development.
It easily averages $250 billion.
Here’s a full chart with actual numbers versus inflationary adjusted numbers (GDP adjusted on the chart, meaning GDP adjusted for inflation):
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=539
correction: that table did adjust for inflation.
It’s still possible though since you said it only needed to be an average of $250 billion.
So far I’ve found it to be over $300 billion since at least ’77 (again, pre-inflation).
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/u_s_military_spending
a different paul,
It is possible that Bandow’s estimate adjusted for inflation, which could easily put that figure on the table. It’s been well over the $250 billion number you’ve suggested for quite some time now, and that’s without adjusting for inflation.
Not that I’m saying this article was ever written or proven correct or not, I’m just saying that if it were written it’s possible the figure is correct.
I think most Libertarians are so far outside the mainstream they are a little politically tonedeaf.
I would agree, but in a different way than you mean it.
If you use an average of $250 billion for the annual defense budget,
I believe it’s a lot higher than that. I’ll check.
“And it would sound great to a lot of other people, whereas cutting social programs and the arts would trip their wires.”
Politics is an art. I tend to find my artistic view more in line with Donny’s as represented from this release than that of most Libertarians. To mix my metaphors, I think most Libertarians are so far outside the mainstream they are a little politically tonedeaf.
Oh, and that referenced article was written in the mid-1990s? The $16 trillion total comes from multiplying $250 billion by the number of years from the end of World War II to today.
“Why not?”
Because the figure is huge. I think that’s bigger than the entire accumulative defense budget since World War II.
If you use an average of $250 billion for the annual defense budget, that comes to $16 trillion right there, and I’m not sure the defense budget average is that high.
In recent years (under Bush 43), its gotten stupidly big, but it hasn’t always been that big.
Every government program is sacred to someone. There are plenty of people who back cutting the military, especially in defending Europe from a long-gone Soviet threat, Japan and Korea which can easily protect themselves, etc.
Why not? This is over multiple years, of course.
And it would sound great to a lot of other people, whereas cutting social programs and the arts would trip their wires.
So, I don’t agree with your comment here.
I have to agree with adp. It looks like these cuts are the easiest “sells”. Defense spending is a sacred cow for a lot of folks, and don’t you dare propose cutting there.
Now, I do want to pull the US back to within our own borders, but let’s get what we can get and show that our ideas work, then take the rest later.
“I believe that Doug Bandow wrote a piece in the mid 1990s for Fortune that the U.S. had spent something in the area of $16 trillion to keep the troops stationed abroad.”
I don’t think so.
Nate, Michael – to me it looks like Donny is hitting the cuts that he feels are most easily sold politically. Its a good approach.
Talking about pulling back troops from overseas could trip a lot of folks’ trip wires.
To tie into another discussion, he’s taking what I would call a more mainstream vice radical approach, and I think that’s good politics. And $282 billion is real money.
Just a another comment before I trudge off to work this a.m.
I believe that Doug Bandow wrote a piece in the mid 1990s for Fortune that the U.S. had spent something in the area of $16 trillion to keep the troops stationed abroad. That’s a lot of money any way one looks at it and could have been used for tax relief, or any number of other projects.
I have tried to contact Bandow a couple of time without success. If anyone can confirm this with him, or knows his sources that would be something we could use. Please pass it on.
We also need to remember that Nixon closed the gold window because of demands on the U.S. Treasury from foreign banks. I will suggest that some of that demand came from the dollars spent abroad by the U.S. military. Sevicemen buying beers, going on ski trips and spending money for two decades in Europe.
The financial impact of this foreign defense welfare program is not something that we can sustain over the long haul. It has to be cut and unless the LP steps up and speaks out on this issue nothing is going to change. It is our issue to run with.
Nate’s on the right track. What I have read suggests we spend over $100 billion annually to keep troops in England, Germany, Italy, Korea, Japan and elsewhere around the globe.
Then there is another $100 billion according to some for corporate welfare.
And more money could be saved by opening the urban transportation market to competition.
There is a lot of money to be saved in Social Security and Medicare, I certainly understand those programs being listed.
But eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, organizations that are more than just “welfare for wealthy arts patrons”, saves less than a dollar per person. I notice the $762 billion military spending is not cut anywhere. How about starting by slashing the real money pits first and really saving the taxpayers money before going after programs that hardly make a difference cost-wise?
Oh wait, I forgot, apparently the Libertarian Party is all about a strong military, wasn’t that in a recent poll? Seems they are the anti-welfare party, not so much anti-warfare…
Thankfully the math is correct the second time around (I believe the original posting said it was 3%).