The Cost of War & Our Military Empire
While America debates how soon we can bring our troops home from Iraq, it's worth noting that -- more than 60 years after the end of WWII -- the US still has more than 50,000 troops in Germany and 30,000 in Japan.
In fact, the US has over 500,000 military personnel deployed on over 700 bases, with troops in 150 countries -- including 37 European nations.
It makes you wonder, as Ron Paul asks, in this time of deep economic crisis, why not just bring them all home?
The $3.1 trillion budget for fiscal 2009, signed by President Bush, raised military spending to inflation-adjusted levels not seen since World War II.
Defense spending is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Medicare-Medicaid ($739b), and Social Security ($700b) are bigger.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, this year, the Pentagon will spend $607 billion for its day-to-day operations. Winslow Wheeler, a sharp-eyed bean counter at the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Budget Committee before joining the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank, puts the figure at $609 billion.
But who's counting?
Either way, the figure is more than the total combined military spending of every other country in the world. Put another way, the spending amounts to $1.2 million per minute, or $1.7 billion per day.
But the defense budget didn't include supplemental requests to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House later asked Congress for $70 billion in supplemental war funding. Requesting the funding in installments allowed the White to avoid revealing the true costs of the wars.
Money for the Energy Department to work on the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the Selective Service, Homeland Security, healthcare for war veterans, and other defense-related spending pushes the total far higher.
Add up all projected defense-related spending for fiscal 2009 and $607 billion balloons to $750 billion — almost a third of all U.S. federal spending today. To put it another way, if the Pentagon were an independent country, it would be the 10th richest in the world.
By year's end, the cost of the Iraq war will rise to $694 billion, making the conflict the most expensive in US history, besides WWII.
To get a feel for the true costs of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, check out the following. It illustrates one of the many reasons that our budget is busted and our debt ballooning:
http://costofwar.com/
Jumat, 17 Juli 2009
Selasa, 14 Juli 2009
What Does $1 Trillion Look Like?
According to Goldman Sachs, the U.S. government may sell a record $3.25 Trillion of debt this fiscal year ending September 30, in an attempt to end the steepest U.S. recession in half a century.
This additional debt will be added to the current $11.25 Trillion national debt, meaning the total debt will probably exceed the entire GDP before the year is over. Last year, the GDP was $14 Trillion, but it is undergoing a serious contraction this year.
Meanwhile the budget deficit has already reached $1 Trillion -- the first time it has ever reached that lofty sum -- and it is expected to reach $1.84 Trillion by the end of this fiscal year (Sept. 30).
We shouldn't be surprised if the deficit reaches $2 Trillion, as these numbers have already gotten so completely out of hand. And once you're talking a about a trillion, what's a few billion more, right?
With all this talk of trillion of dollars, and the figure being tossed around rather casually, perhaps we should put $1 Trillion in perspective.
A stack of $1,000 dollar bills four inches high would equal $1 million.
A stack of $1,000 dollar bills 358 feet high would equal $1 billion.
A stack of $1,000 dollar bills 67.9 miles high would equal $1 Trillion.
You could line the side of the road from Springfield, MA to Albany, New York with $1,000 dollar bills -- stacked on their sides -- and that would equal $1 trillion.
The following graphic provides a better understanding of amount of money we're talking about. Bear in mind, this is only $1 Trillion; the federal budget for ONE YEAR is $3.6 Trillion, and our debt will soon exceed $13 Trillion.
http://www.pittsburghgrapevine.com/forums/display_topic/id_84/
According to Goldman Sachs, the U.S. government may sell a record $3.25 Trillion of debt this fiscal year ending September 30, in an attempt to end the steepest U.S. recession in half a century.
This additional debt will be added to the current $11.25 Trillion national debt, meaning the total debt will probably exceed the entire GDP before the year is over. Last year, the GDP was $14 Trillion, but it is undergoing a serious contraction this year.
Meanwhile the budget deficit has already reached $1 Trillion -- the first time it has ever reached that lofty sum -- and it is expected to reach $1.84 Trillion by the end of this fiscal year (Sept. 30).
We shouldn't be surprised if the deficit reaches $2 Trillion, as these numbers have already gotten so completely out of hand. And once you're talking a about a trillion, what's a few billion more, right?
With all this talk of trillion of dollars, and the figure being tossed around rather casually, perhaps we should put $1 Trillion in perspective.
A stack of $1,000 dollar bills four inches high would equal $1 million.
A stack of $1,000 dollar bills 358 feet high would equal $1 billion.
A stack of $1,000 dollar bills 67.9 miles high would equal $1 Trillion.
You could line the side of the road from Springfield, MA to Albany, New York with $1,000 dollar bills -- stacked on their sides -- and that would equal $1 trillion.
The following graphic provides a better understanding of amount of money we're talking about. Bear in mind, this is only $1 Trillion; the federal budget for ONE YEAR is $3.6 Trillion, and our debt will soon exceed $13 Trillion.
http://www.pittsburghgrapevine.com/forums/display_topic/id_84/
The Debt and Interest Rates; a Vicious Cycle
The interest on this year’'s debt will cost taxpayers $565 billion, or 4 percent of GDP. That number will only increase in coming years. And naturally, with a shrinking GDP, it will become an ever increasing percentage of the overall economy.
While budget expenditures are increasing, government revenues so far this year have dropped 18 percent from a year ago. Government income and revenues are going in the wrong directions.
Our massive debt will put upward pressure on interest rates.
According to government projections, each 1% rise in interest rates will add $50 billion annually to the debt, and eventually $170 billion annually over time.
If the economy were to recover, demand for credit by the private sector would rise, meaning the government’s borrowing costs would also increase. That would raise interest rates for everyone. This makes for an odd conundrum; do we hope for a recovery at the expense of higher interest rates?
So we've begun a vicious cycle; the growing debt will eventually increase interest rates, and increasing interest rates will only further add to the national debt. Paying debt interest gets us nothing in return; it doesn't generate economic growth.
The government's falling revenues will spur the government to issue more bond debt, which will eventually have to be paid back with interest.
According to Citi Group, the federal government will sell more than $5 trillion in new debt this year and next.
The cavernous hole we're in just keeps getting continually deeper.
The interest on this year’'s debt will cost taxpayers $565 billion, or 4 percent of GDP. That number will only increase in coming years. And naturally, with a shrinking GDP, it will become an ever increasing percentage of the overall economy.
While budget expenditures are increasing, government revenues so far this year have dropped 18 percent from a year ago. Government income and revenues are going in the wrong directions.
Our massive debt will put upward pressure on interest rates.
According to government projections, each 1% rise in interest rates will add $50 billion annually to the debt, and eventually $170 billion annually over time.
If the economy were to recover, demand for credit by the private sector would rise, meaning the government’s borrowing costs would also increase. That would raise interest rates for everyone. This makes for an odd conundrum; do we hope for a recovery at the expense of higher interest rates?
So we've begun a vicious cycle; the growing debt will eventually increase interest rates, and increasing interest rates will only further add to the national debt. Paying debt interest gets us nothing in return; it doesn't generate economic growth.
The government's falling revenues will spur the government to issue more bond debt, which will eventually have to be paid back with interest.
According to Citi Group, the federal government will sell more than $5 trillion in new debt this year and next.
The cavernous hole we're in just keeps getting continually deeper.
Budget Deficit Highest Since WWII
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the budget deficit this fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30) will be $1.84 trillion. For the 2010 fiscal year, the estimate is $1.26 trillion.
Measured against the economy, this year’'s shortfall is 13 percent of the gross domestic product. Next year’'s deficit would be 8.5 percent of GDP. These deficit projections are the highest in more than 60 years, since the end of World War II.
Economists generally agree that a country'’s annual deficits should not exceed 3 percent of economic output.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the budget deficit this fiscal year (which ends Sept. 30) will be $1.84 trillion. For the 2010 fiscal year, the estimate is $1.26 trillion.
Measured against the economy, this year’'s shortfall is 13 percent of the gross domestic product. Next year’'s deficit would be 8.5 percent of GDP. These deficit projections are the highest in more than 60 years, since the end of World War II.
Economists generally agree that a country'’s annual deficits should not exceed 3 percent of economic output.
Senin, 13 Juli 2009
US Bank Closings
2007 - 3
2008 - 25 (more than in the previous five years combined)
2009 - 53, and counting. It's only July.
The FDIC’s list of “troubled banks” stood at 305 at the end of the first quarter, the latest data available. By the end of 2008, the agency expected bank failures to cost its insurance fund around $65 billion through 2013, up from an earlier estimate of $40 billion. However, its problems have grown continually worse.
The FDIC has $53 billion to cover $4.4 trillion in deposits. Does that make you feel insured?
2007 - 3
2008 - 25 (more than in the previous five years combined)
2009 - 53, and counting. It's only July.
The FDIC’s list of “troubled banks” stood at 305 at the end of the first quarter, the latest data available. By the end of 2008, the agency expected bank failures to cost its insurance fund around $65 billion through 2013, up from an earlier estimate of $40 billion. However, its problems have grown continually worse.
The FDIC has $53 billion to cover $4.4 trillion in deposits. Does that make you feel insured?
Sabtu, 28 Oktober 2006
POLITICS, SEMANTICS, AND A REALITY CHECK
Most political observers feel that next month's mid-term elections will be a referendum on Iraq, and even on the president's handling of that war. And considering the latest polling data, Republicans, who've been arguing "stay the course" for well over a year, should be worried.
According to the latest Newsweek poll, conducted just last week, a majority of Americans (54%) think that military action in Iraq was wrong, and 65% think the U.S. is losing ground in Iraq. And in a CNN poll, conducted two weeks ago, 64% of respondents said they oppose the war.
Perhaps with that in mind, this week the White House announced it will no longer use the term "stay the course" in discussions about Iraq. Press Secretary Tony Snow said the White House wants to emphasize its flexibility on achieving its goals and no longer wants to talk about sticking to one approach.
Timing is everything in politics, and with elections looming, its difficult to say if the president's timing couldn't be better, or worse. Does this change in semantics make the president seem as if he finally "gets it", or does it simply make him seem out of touch and out of step with the rest of the country?
While many Democrats running for office this fall have been calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, Republicans have consistently derided the idea as "cutting and running".
Meanwhile, polling data aside, the recent White House move was likely prompted by the fact that a commission backed by President Bush has agreed that 'stay the course' is not working and that a phased withdrawal is now on the table. While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III has agreed on one principle.
"It's not going to be 'stay the course,' " said one participant. "The bottom line is, [current U.S. policy] isn't working…. There's got to be another way."
In a recent television interview, Baker, a longtime Republican and Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration, said, "There'll probably be some things in our report that the administration might not like."
Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and, incredibly, bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting. Iran, if you remember, was famously on President Bush's "axis of evil" list, along with Iraq and North Korea. Now the U.S. may use one "evil" nation to help subdue another.
While the president talks of "winning" in Iraq, many wonder just what exactly that means. To spell it out, communications strategists working with House Republicans circulated a three-page memo last week that describes winning as, "helping the Iraqis achieve stability and security and doing it as quickly and effectively as possible in order to bring our troops home.''
Of course that says nothing about democracy, which many thought the U.S. had been fighting for all along. But then again, the reasons for the war have changed numerous times. Now its about stability and security. Sometimes you take what you can get, if you can get anything at all.
According to Baker, instead of trying to bring democracy to all nations in the Middle East, the U.S. should define success as achieving "representative government, not necessarily democracy."
So much for good intentions. Perhaps we'll have to leave it to the history books to decide why over 2800 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq.
Copyright © 2006 Sean M. Kennedy. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Most political observers feel that next month's mid-term elections will be a referendum on Iraq, and even on the president's handling of that war. And considering the latest polling data, Republicans, who've been arguing "stay the course" for well over a year, should be worried.
According to the latest Newsweek poll, conducted just last week, a majority of Americans (54%) think that military action in Iraq was wrong, and 65% think the U.S. is losing ground in Iraq. And in a CNN poll, conducted two weeks ago, 64% of respondents said they oppose the war.
Perhaps with that in mind, this week the White House announced it will no longer use the term "stay the course" in discussions about Iraq. Press Secretary Tony Snow said the White House wants to emphasize its flexibility on achieving its goals and no longer wants to talk about sticking to one approach.
Timing is everything in politics, and with elections looming, its difficult to say if the president's timing couldn't be better, or worse. Does this change in semantics make the president seem as if he finally "gets it", or does it simply make him seem out of touch and out of step with the rest of the country?
While many Democrats running for office this fall have been calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, Republicans have consistently derided the idea as "cutting and running".
Meanwhile, polling data aside, the recent White House move was likely prompted by the fact that a commission backed by President Bush has agreed that 'stay the course' is not working and that a phased withdrawal is now on the table. While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III has agreed on one principle.
"It's not going to be 'stay the course,' " said one participant. "The bottom line is, [current U.S. policy] isn't working…. There's got to be another way."
In a recent television interview, Baker, a longtime Republican and Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration, said, "There'll probably be some things in our report that the administration might not like."
Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and, incredibly, bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting. Iran, if you remember, was famously on President Bush's "axis of evil" list, along with Iraq and North Korea. Now the U.S. may use one "evil" nation to help subdue another.
While the president talks of "winning" in Iraq, many wonder just what exactly that means. To spell it out, communications strategists working with House Republicans circulated a three-page memo last week that describes winning as, "helping the Iraqis achieve stability and security and doing it as quickly and effectively as possible in order to bring our troops home.''
Of course that says nothing about democracy, which many thought the U.S. had been fighting for all along. But then again, the reasons for the war have changed numerous times. Now its about stability and security. Sometimes you take what you can get, if you can get anything at all.
According to Baker, instead of trying to bring democracy to all nations in the Middle East, the U.S. should define success as achieving "representative government, not necessarily democracy."
So much for good intentions. Perhaps we'll have to leave it to the history books to decide why over 2800 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq.
Copyright © 2006 Sean M. Kennedy. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Selasa, 19 September 2006
ON GOD, RELIGION, AND THE LAW
No matter how much things have changed through the ages, much remains quite the same. We still live in a time when Christian conservatives would like to legislate their religious beliefs on the rest of us, though we might not necessarily share their views. These people claim to know God's will -- it's in the Bible, they say. Of course, Muslims think that God's will is found in their holy Koran. And yet, Buddhists and Hindus have their own texts and views.
But some of us believe that God is infinitely unknowable to our limited, and comparatively meager, human minds. God is vast; we are small and meek. Who are we to speak for God, and determine His or Her divine will?
None of this deters those who claim to have divine wisdom, or a window into God's heart and mind. They seem to know God's position on matters such as Terri Shiavo, and other unfortunate souls like her. They also know what God thinks about contraception and gay marriage. But to claim knowledge of God's will certainly isn't a humble position. It is bold and brash, perhaps even insolent.
In fact, some Christian conservatives are so assertive in their views, and so convinced of their own righteousness, that they'd like to force the rest of us to adopt their views -- to think like they do. And if we can't -- or won't -- they'd still like to impose their will, in the form of laws, on all of us. After all, in their view, those are God's laws. So their religion, by this logic, should dictate the laws for everyone.
Well, not in my view. I prefer a more Libertarian perspective. You live your life, and I'll live mine -- as long as we don't hurt each other.
Here's a fine definition of Libertarianism:
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle."
Laws don't exist naturally. They have to be written and enacted by people. They are not written to allow things, but to disallow them. In the natural state, all things are allowed. But then people agree on a consensus of what is not allowed and subsequently make laws proclaiming certain behaviors illegal.
For example, people of the same sex marrying wasn't illegal until people decided to make it illegal. That required action.
Those who oppose gay marriage, for instance, might say that its legalization would force them to accept it. But allowing people to exercise their free will is not the same as imposing your will upon them. That's the difference between a Libertarian view, and the views of others who are comfortable telling the rest of us what to do. Now I'm not gay, or even a strong supporter of gay marriage, but Libertarians oppose any laws restricting personal or consensual behavior.
I wouldn't force two people, of any persuasion, to get married. And I wouldn't keep two people, of any persuasion, from getting married -- assuming they're both legal adults (it's worth noting that age of consent laws are set by each state and vary from 14-18 years). But there are people who want to prevent others from getting married. There is a huge difference between those two positions.
Freedom shouldn't be measured in how little we're constrained by authority, or how much we're allowed to do, but rather by how much we're able to do.
Throughout the ages, philosophers and have contended that the paramount natural rights are the rights to life and liberty, which have long been considered the two highest priorities.
The following definition of Natural Law is useful:
"Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of the world, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. The theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism.
The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right : A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members."
As a society, we must join together in deciding which laws should be adopted. But we must remain free from constraints that have evolved, or resulted, from religious beliefs, sacred myths, patriarchal teachings, or any dogmatic concepts that remain open to interpretation. If a law is proposed that doesn't suit you, make a rational argument about why it is impractical, or harms somebody, or is in opposition to another useful law; but don't tell me it offends God.
Copyright © 2006 Sean M. Kennedy. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
No matter how much things have changed through the ages, much remains quite the same. We still live in a time when Christian conservatives would like to legislate their religious beliefs on the rest of us, though we might not necessarily share their views. These people claim to know God's will -- it's in the Bible, they say. Of course, Muslims think that God's will is found in their holy Koran. And yet, Buddhists and Hindus have their own texts and views.
But some of us believe that God is infinitely unknowable to our limited, and comparatively meager, human minds. God is vast; we are small and meek. Who are we to speak for God, and determine His or Her divine will?
None of this deters those who claim to have divine wisdom, or a window into God's heart and mind. They seem to know God's position on matters such as Terri Shiavo, and other unfortunate souls like her. They also know what God thinks about contraception and gay marriage. But to claim knowledge of God's will certainly isn't a humble position. It is bold and brash, perhaps even insolent.
In fact, some Christian conservatives are so assertive in their views, and so convinced of their own righteousness, that they'd like to force the rest of us to adopt their views -- to think like they do. And if we can't -- or won't -- they'd still like to impose their will, in the form of laws, on all of us. After all, in their view, those are God's laws. So their religion, by this logic, should dictate the laws for everyone.
Well, not in my view. I prefer a more Libertarian perspective. You live your life, and I'll live mine -- as long as we don't hurt each other.
Here's a fine definition of Libertarianism:
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle."
Laws don't exist naturally. They have to be written and enacted by people. They are not written to allow things, but to disallow them. In the natural state, all things are allowed. But then people agree on a consensus of what is not allowed and subsequently make laws proclaiming certain behaviors illegal.
For example, people of the same sex marrying wasn't illegal until people decided to make it illegal. That required action.
Those who oppose gay marriage, for instance, might say that its legalization would force them to accept it. But allowing people to exercise their free will is not the same as imposing your will upon them. That's the difference between a Libertarian view, and the views of others who are comfortable telling the rest of us what to do. Now I'm not gay, or even a strong supporter of gay marriage, but Libertarians oppose any laws restricting personal or consensual behavior.
I wouldn't force two people, of any persuasion, to get married. And I wouldn't keep two people, of any persuasion, from getting married -- assuming they're both legal adults (it's worth noting that age of consent laws are set by each state and vary from 14-18 years). But there are people who want to prevent others from getting married. There is a huge difference between those two positions.
Freedom shouldn't be measured in how little we're constrained by authority, or how much we're allowed to do, but rather by how much we're able to do.
Throughout the ages, philosophers and have contended that the paramount natural rights are the rights to life and liberty, which have long been considered the two highest priorities.
The following definition of Natural Law is useful:
"Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of the world, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. The theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism.
The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right : A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members."
As a society, we must join together in deciding which laws should be adopted. But we must remain free from constraints that have evolved, or resulted, from religious beliefs, sacred myths, patriarchal teachings, or any dogmatic concepts that remain open to interpretation. If a law is proposed that doesn't suit you, make a rational argument about why it is impractical, or harms somebody, or is in opposition to another useful law; but don't tell me it offends God.
Copyright © 2006 Sean M. Kennedy. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)