The Public Policy
Buttered Guns
“The fatal arithmetic of imperial decline.”
As the guarantor of the international system, the United States cannot afford to substantially scale back its current responsibilities, whether in Europe, where Vladimir Putin’s Russia casts a pall on the general peace; in East Asia, where China is rising and North Korean provocations are almost regularly scheduled events; or, of course, in the greater Middle East.
— Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
To say that America cannot afford to scale back its current defense responsibilities is not the same as saying it can afford to maintain them indefinitely. Given the past and present fiscal incontinence of both Republican and Democratic parties over the past decade, such sentiments as Thomas Donnelly’s have been called “fiscal moonshine” by at least one critic in a recent exchange in Foreign Affairs (November/December 2009).
In recent year’s the United States has become a debtor nation to China, demonstrated self-evident impotence in the face of Russian aggression toward neighboring Georgia, been unable to restrain Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons, and increasingly embroiled and preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan to the near exclusion of other pressing geopolitical priorities such as the Pacific rim, the international trade regime and even Mexico.
Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said, “One war at a time”?
By historic standards discretionary spending for military spending, as a percentage of GDP, is small. The problem is that mandatory spending, including entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, combined with interest payments on the national debt, is in the neighborhood of 60 percent of the federal budget. Yet, many Americans seem oblivious to this looming threat to national defense and international security, whatever their views on current military campaigns.
In a recent “After Action Report” on his November 2009 tour of Afghanistan and Kuwait, General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret)., clearly states, “We are unlikely to achieve our political and military goals in 18 months.”
“This will inevitably become a three to ten year strategy to build a viable Afghan state with their own security force that can allow us to withdraw,” writes the General. “It may well cost us an additional $300 billion and we are likely to suffer thousands more US casualties.”
“Afghanistan and Iraq are an immensely costly war running in excess of $377 million a day in FY10 Constant dollars (WWII was $622 million per day),” notes McCaffrey. “US Defense outlays for 2009 are $657 billion (or 4.6% of GDP…the highest since 1992).”
Noting that “in FY 2009 the war in Afghanistan cost $55.9 billion in regular appropriations with an additional supplemental of $80.73 billion,” McCaffrey predicts, “Clearly Afghanistan will run with a burn rate in excess of $9 billion per month by the summer of 2010” [emphasis added].
You may or may not be impressed by these casualty rates and dollar figures, depending on whether or not you believe the Afghan war implicates existential threats to the United States. Either way, we are talking about real costs, human and monetary, in the midst of a near tripling of the national debt by the Hill Democrats and the Obama administration. Evidently, they felt that their denunciations of previous Republican profligacy justified going two steps further toward fiscal insanity. Didn’t Vice President Cheney say deficits don’t matter? This may be the only issue on which they agree with the former Veep.
The crucial question is: can we continue to have guns and butter, indefinitely, without coming to terms with the fundamental and structural imbalance that is driving the nation to a fiscal meltdown?
In an extended essay in the December 7 issue of Newsweek (“An Empire at Risk”), the right-of-center economic historian Niall Ferguson expressed fear that “if the United States succumbs to a fiscal crisis, as an increasing number of economic experts fear it may, then the entire balance of global economic power could shift.”
“Military experts talk as if the president’s decision about whether to send an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan is a make-or-break moment,” says Ferguson. “In reality, his indecision about the deficit could matter much more for the country’s long-term security. Call the United States what you like-superpower, hegemon, or empire — but its ability to manage its finances is closely tied to its ability to remain the predominant global military power.
Pointing to deficits bigger than anything seen in 60 years, “only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942,” Ferguson says, “We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war.” Moreover, total debt held by the public, excluding government agencies, but including foreigners, will rise from $5.8 trillion (with a “t”) in 2008 to $14.3 trillion in 2019 — “from 41 percent of GDP to 68 percent.” Projecting to 2039, the federal debt held by the public will reach 91 percent of GDP in the low-end estimates and 215 percent in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) high-end one, more than double the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.
Ferguson outlines a number of gruesome outcomes resulting from these developments, but the paramount point from a military perspective is that
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (103) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/29/buttered-guns
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 1.29.10 @ 7:03AM
When it comes to the defense, as compared to interest, of any Nation the bottom line is that of it's power to protect itself. Today we have a class of peoples, illegal immigration, welfare kings and queens, so-called double dippers who just as soon have We the People pay for their cell phones, the two cars in the driveway, the home they could not afford, yet were able to buy even while being on welfare, and a host of other problems that contribute to the national debt, This class of teet suckers are growing even further in numbers as the community organizer-n-chief allows the increases we have seen this past year to grow and for what, oh yeah, their votes.
While I agree with the concept of mind your own business, not that of others, we must be able to reconize our strenghts in the area of hard work, production, distribution networks, education, ethics and morals, we will never catch up with the potential of every man woman and future adults to enable our strenghts to holds us together in a common cause to be that of a free people if the head of this current snake is not felled from it's ugly ideology.
The common sense approach left the scene years ago when the "gipper" exited stage right and on the scene came the left mental illusions of "I'm getting mine" before this trip is canceled approach from Bush I, Klinton, and most recent the little o.
Having served from the Nixon admin. thru the G.W. admin. I have seen much left to be desired from this country's citizens. There have been more "protected class rackets" sperned out of thin air than I am willing to write on this comment section this morning. One thing stands out the most, any time we have a D marker behind a name the end result is, somehow the Constitution gains more protected classes out of it, and of course this entitlement attitude has greatly spurned our debt at the same time almost placed the very foundation of our freedoms at a higher risk say the least of what happened to our armed forces readiness programs, of which without there will be no financial, or litteral freedoms available if we continue on this course. I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the line but it occures to me with out the freedom to grow out of our strenghts as a free people, we are toast in the not too distant future. Untill We the People get back to the foundation of We the People, not all of us in the big gubmint, we stand little chance of the bottom feeders ever leaving our ranks, eventually they will over ride the system with their wants while nothing on their part is contributed for their existence.
We the People must reign in these intitlement programs, ban any and all welfare from anyone other than the most needy among us, get these croocked political in the prison cells where they belong and work to strenghten all citizens in their quest to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labor without the interferences of this gubmint. What is needed the most is strong leadership, you know the type, this one says no and you don't have a right to it, We the People don't owe you squat, now get a job pay your taaxes and thank the good Lord I havent made you a slave vrs. a free person.
Alan Brooks| 1.29.10 @ 8:42PM
NR (sorry to plug the competition; but I wont reveal the author's name) has a great piece on imperial overstretch in its current issue.
laptop screen filter | 9.9.11 @ 4:20AM
This is a cycle,it can let the computer screen to keep clean laptop screen filter
Melvin| 1.29.10 @ 7:52AM
Granted the entitlement programs for the, "Disssssaaaadddvannntaged" are many and rich, but there is one entitlement program that more often than enough gets conveniently overlooked.
That entitlement program is White Collar entitlement. Agricultural subsidies, manufacturing subsidies, subsidies given to Hewlett Packard in North Carolina to relocate a desktop computer manufacturing plant in the Triangle area and then close shop, subsidies for the motion picture industry to make films in the various states, and this list is as long as the deficit.
I did a cursory search in the depth of the white collar entitlement programs and people it is in the billions upon billions of dollars. Tom Brokaw gentleman farmer even gets thousands of dollars of farm subsidies for his farming hobby.
I thought in how this problem could be fixed, and I came to the conclusion that the current political state of this country and the political climate makes a fix all but impossible.
The only solution to this entitlement program across the board is a political upheaval the by us that is so large and powerful that the current political status quo from the city all the way up to Washington D.C. is so completely overwhelmed it collapses under it's own weight and only then can we rebuild as our founding fathers intended us to do.
Mike | 1.29.10 @ 10:19AM
Melvin,
Thank you for this post.
Other examples of entitlement programs for the well healed would be unnecessary military bases and defense systems that are maintain more for jobs than for any real security need.
As for Social Security: after contributing to SSI since the age of 16, I guess I do feel entitled. Just can't help myself on this one.
Al Adab| 1.29.10 @ 11:45AM
Plenty of blame to go around over the years. Neither is without sin. Can we not all agree that subsidies; government redistribution; selection of winners and losers by Govt. all are policy errors?
The idea that a Representative or Senator should "bring home the bacon" in the form of federal (taken from taxpayers first) money or projects is the underlying problem.
In the early days of the Republic this debate took the form of "internal improvement" that is Federal projects within any single state. The Constitution does not authorize any such expenditure and while even Madison though it a good idea, he wrote that the Constitution would need to be amended to allow it. Instead we began to ignore what we didn't like and here we are.
Mike| 1.29.10 @ 12:25PM
Al Adab,
You make excellent points in your post. Concerning bringing home the bacon, I think we need to be realistic about the origin of the problem. It is not elected officials who are doing this willy nilly for their own murky reasons. They are simply responding to their constituents, or at least those who vote. As Pogo said, We have met the enemy and he is us.
Al Adab| 1.29.10 @ 1:12PM
I can't disagree with your analysis. However, I would suggest that those holding office are culpable in that they pander to the wants of constituants against the interests of their oath. Those who demand and those who "feed the tumor" both share responsibility.
Mike| 1.29.10 @ 3:31PM
But we are a democracy of people, not oaths.
It would be interesting to know how many people work for the Federal, state and local governments and how many people work for companies that rely on government contracts. Assuming they see their self interest as being tied to continued government spending, they constitute a formidable constituency. Throw in the citizens who receive entitlement money and you have a significant number of people. While I don't this this, I suspect many, if not most teabaggers, do not fit into any of the categories listed above, excepting possibly entitlements.
I think it is safe to say that government workers and workers in companies (and the companies) depending on government contracts are better organized to pursue their interests than are the teabaggers who are decidedly not organized.
The road looks daunting for those who pine for a return to Jeffersonian democracy. And what if these people are no longer in the majority?
Al Adab| 1.29.10 @ 5:22PM
Sorry, not a democracy at all. A Republic where the people are the sovereign and the government is limited to its enumerated powers ONLY.
Even Hamilton stated that the necessary and proper clause referred to enumerated powers alone.
Stuart Koehl| 1.29.10 @ 8:27AM
The fundamental problem is not what the United States spends on defense, nor is it overextension in the war against Islamic terror, but rather unconstrained growth in entitlement spending, which is squeezing out not just defense, but ALL discretionary spending from the Federal budget.
Today, even with wartime supplemental appropriations, the U.S. spends barely 4% of GDP on defense. As recently as 1990, that figure was 6.1%. In the interim, the economy grew rapidly, which means though we spend more on defense in absolute terms (in constant dollars), the defense burden is actually less than it was.
However, in that same period, entitlements have exploded due to new programs and the expansion of existing programs. With the Baby Boomers now beginning their retirement, entitlement growth will accelerated, even absent Obama's health care reform boondoggle.
Given the current trend lines, by 2015 or so, entitlement spending will absorb ALL of the Federal budget, unless taxes are raised astronomically or the U.S. takes on an unsustainable debt.
The problem is killing entitlement programs, which fall under the heading of "mandatory spending" i.e., Congress does not have to reauthorize any bills or reappropriate money--it just happens, automatically, once the new year begins.
Mandatory spending now accounts for more than 60% of the Federal budget, the other 40% being "discretionary" spending that Congress must actually reappropriate and reauthorize every year. Defense is the largest piece of that, accounting for about 20% of the Federal budget. That leaves only 20% of all discretionary spending subject to the Obama faux freeze.
Clinton was able to kick the entitlement can down the road because his administration had the advantage of a rapidly expanding economy that pumped in new revenues, and the end of the Cold War that allowed a 50% cut in military expenditures (3% of GDP by the mid-1990s); Clinton's surplus came almost entirely from defense cuts. Had 9/11 occurred in 1997, instead of 2001, the onus for deficits would have fallen on him, because the rapid expansion of entitlements began on his watch; G.W. Bush only continued a trend that had already begun.
Congress and the American people have a nasty habit of ignoring problems until they become catastrophes. This will probably fall into the lap of whoever sits in the Oval Office in 2013, and this time he will not be able to paper it over with cosmetic cuts to social programs and draconian reductions in defense. Our defense spending, at 4% of GDP, is barely adequate to the modest tasks we have taken on; further cuts will cause the entire strategic edifice to collapse and only encourage adventurism on the part of potential adversaries--not just terrorists and rogue states, but emerging peer competitors such as the Red Dragon.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.10 @ 2:16PM
Stuart, thanks again.
I sure would like to have you write for T.E.A.M. AMERICA. www.myteamusa.org
We have a whole bunch of folks on the phone every day talking to tea parties and Repub chairmen across the country.
See what you think about our strategies and mission. You might want to start with our "gateway" site http:judgeroy.wordpress.com
Richard Baker| 1.29.10 @ 8:37AM
Ah, liberals. Throw money down the vote buying welfare rat-hole and to hell with the hostile world that we, unfortunately have to deal with. As an example, I ask the question of you lefties. Was the Shah better/worse than the Revolutionary Iran that Carter husbanded? Part of the problem is that we are becoming friends with our enemies and enemies of our friends. This is NO way to run a railroad.
Lockandload | 1.29.10 @ 10:27AM
(The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 230 plus or minus years.
Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.
Is that our current debt is over 12.3 TRILLION dollars and when you add in unfunded liabilities - it becomes early 120 TRILLION DOLLARS - It just begs the question - exactly what does the "winner" get??? And who will that be??
History can be a bummer
Stuart Koehl| 1.29.10 @ 11:41AM
Your chronology is a bit off. The Roman Republic was founded ca. 505 BC and lasted until 31 BC which is 474 years (give or take.
The Roman Empire begins with the accession of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus after Actium, 31 BC, and lasted in the West until AD 476, which is 507 years. If we consider the Eastern Roman Empire as a continuation of the Roman Empire, then we can say it lasted, at a minimum, until the Latin sack of Constantinople in 1204, which is 1235 years; or until the final conquest of Constantinople in 1453, which is 1484 years--a good run by any measure.
There were times during the history of the Roman Empire that it seemed on the verge of dissolution. Specifically, at the end of the crisis of the 3rd century, the 50 year period between the assassination of Severus Alexander in 235 and the accession of Diocletian in 284, the currency was debased, the administrative structure in disarray, and the borders overrun by barbarians. Yet within 15 years, an entirely new administrative structure was erected, the currency restored (the gold solidus would remain the benchmark currency of Europe down to the 14th century), the borders secured and stability reestablished.
In relative terms, Rome was frequently in a worse situation than the United States is at present, yet persevered and recovered time and again. Pessimism is for wussies.
Al Adab| 1.29.10 @ 11:47AM
Romanov family celebrated its 300th anniversary of regime in 1905.
Nonetheless the point is well taken, nothing lasts forever, but vigilance and devotion can extend the life.
PulSamsara| 1.31.10 @ 3:16PM
Rome was not 'great' at all in 500 bc (the Tuscans were far greater during this time) It was a backwater with less significance than America in 1790. In fact - many of these dates don't jive. Just because a society exists does not mean it has met a standard of excellence or 'greatness'.
Edward Weeden| 1.30.10 @ 10:13AM
I've got two more numbers for you:
- In Foreign Relations, it's the equivalent of 1936/1937 in Europe
- In Domestic Politics it's the equivalent of 410 A.D. in Rome
Stuart Koehl| 1.30.10 @ 11:20AM
The comparison to the thirties might be apposite, but comparisons to Rome in AD 410 are not. In the first place, most people don't understand what happened in AD 410. It might have shocked St. Augustine, but in Rome life went on, and within two or three years the city was as rich as it had ever been. Moreover, Rome had ceased to be more than a symbolic center of the Roman world since the middle of the third century, when the capital was essentially in the field with the emperor on campaign, or in one of the northern Italian cities such as Milan, or in the New Rome, Constantinople. The city of Rome really did not suffer greatly from Alaric's "sack", which might be seen as an ad hoc distribution of tribute; the Vandal sack a couple of decades later was much worse--but even then, Rome continued to be a large and prosperous city until the Italian Wars of Justinian the Great in the sixth century, by the end of which it was a rustic village of only 25,000 people.
PulSamsara| 1.31.10 @ 3:11PM
The US has not been a 'great civilization' since 1790. A brilliant upstart - sure - but a great civilization - No. We were clearly in ascendancy from 1865 on but could not be counted a 'great civilization' until 1945 with the competition in ruins. If we have any ambitions of future greatness - we had better remove our collective head from our collective arses - both sides of the isle and AT HOME even more than in Washington. - completely tired of hearing the blame pushed off to a Washington bogeyman. You're to blame ! And so am I.
David Govett | 1.29.10 @ 11:42AM
Educating Americans is fundamental. From a critically thinking populace flows a healthy economy and a strong military. Cogito ergo sum.
Dan Phillips| 1.29.10 @ 1:57PM
"As the guarantor of the international system"
Where precisely is the authority to play that role in the Constitution? What Article or section authorizes it?
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 6:25AM
This is akin to environmentalists acting as though human beings were not an integral part of the ecosystem. The United States is embedded in an international system, and all of us benefit from its stability and order. The United States is the guarantor because nobody else either has the will or the wherewithal to do so.
If you believe that this is not a legitimate constitutional role for the United States, then you should consider what the world would look like without the American sheriff keeping the bad guys in line. Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and if the United States should withdraw into its own borders, who would fill the immense vacuum we would leave behind?
The world has changed significantly from the time the fledgling United States was a weak and tenuous strip of territory clinging to the Atlantic coast, and separated from the rest of the world by the broad moat of the Atlantic Ocean (which at the time required some 60-90 days to cross). Even then, the country was not self-sufficient, and depended for its prosperity on foreign trade. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to give in to the isolationist impulse, attempting to keep the country aloof from the ongoing wars in Europe through his ill-considered Embargo Acts, which ruined American commerce and ran the country into a deep recession. Only the absence of a viable second party allowed Jefferson's mini-me James Madison to succeed him.
The thirties, that low and dishonest decade, was the last time the United States indulged in isolationist fantasies, which were put to rest forever by Pearl Harbor. The ensuing Cold War with the Soviet Union ensured that we would remain engaged with the rest of the world thereafter. Our emergence as the last superpower standing prohibits our going back.
Yet, as voices on both the left and right indicate, isolationism is an American reflex, and it requires an act of will to suppress it, because it is too easy to think that geography can provide us the security it did when ships had sails and Conestoga wagons were the fastest way of going across the continent.
PulSamsara| 1.31.10 @ 3:25PM
"This is akin to environmentalists acting as though human beings were not an integral part of the ecosystem."
I understand your point but surely - humans are a 'different' animal - When, for the first time, we blew into ash and rekindled forest tinders over 200k years ago - we blew the 'nature' equation all to hell. From that point it has always been a question of formulating a new equation.
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 4:53PM
We are not alone as tool-making and using animals. In addition to chimps and several other primates, one can look at beavers, otters and even some birds that manipulate and even alter the environment. That does not put them outside of the environment, anymore than it puts human beings on the outside; we are all inextricably part of the ecosystem, and that we happen to be self-aware does not alter than fact. Environmentalists try to act as though mankind were somehow apart from nature, on the outside, looking in.
Isolationists do much the same thing with the international system. They act as though the United States is not part of it, or if it presently is, can choose to opt out. This is the logic of people who do not know how the world works, or whence all the material benefits they enjoy come. They don't understand that what happens in some obscure Waziri, Yemeni or Somali village can come back to bit us days, week, months or even years down the road.
Isolationism is a tacit acceptance of defense in depth, because a preclusive defense--keeping all the bad guys out all of the time--is just not possible any more (if it ever was). Defense in depth will require Americans to surrender more of their freedoms and to live with greater insecurities, all of which will have social costs.
Forward defense--"playing Globocop"--as some put it, is actually a very small price to pay for the benefits that come from maintaining order and stability in the geopolitical system.
Consider that the recession which followed 9/11 cost us more wealth than the eight years of war that followed it. Consider the cost of two small, preventive wars in light of what the next major attack on American soil will cost. Or, for that matter, the cost of a catastrophic attack in Western Europe or Japan.
Richard Baker| 1.29.10 @ 3:21PM
Dan:
Are you advocating the major theme of the America First movement?
S.L. Toddard| 1.29.10 @ 3:40PM
Imagine that? Putting America First? Who ever heard of such a thing.
Dan Phillip| 1.29.10 @ 4:11PM
I don't know if the America First movement was explicitly constitutionalist, but yes I am advocating conservative non-interventionism.
victor| 1.30.10 @ 2:38PM
"Dan Phillip":
"but yes I am advocating conservative non-interventionism."
"Where precisely is the authority to play that role in the Constitution? What Article or section authorizes it?"
Yes, where precisely is that exactly in the Constitution, eh?
Dan Phillips| 1.30.10 @ 3:18PM
Victor, I don't get your point, or else you are not making it well. The Constitution does not authorize the US to be the "guarantor of the international system" whatever that Orwellian terminology is supposed to mean. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers envisioned a minimalist military necessary to protect our shores from invasion, fight the Indians, keep down insurrections, etc. not one sufficient to police the world.
victor| 1.30.10 @ 3:39PM
You stated "but yes I am advocating conservative non-interventionism."
Where is that in the Constitution?
"fight the Indians, keep down insurrections"
Same for that too.
Dan Phillips| 1.30.10 @ 5:25PM
"The Congress shall have Power To ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" - Article 1, Section 8
Any more questions?
I see your point now. The question is one of "original intent." Keep in mind that there was a serious debate at the Convention about whether we should even have a standing army. A Convention that debated that clearly did not intend for the US to play GloboCop so to assume for us that role is as clearly an unauthorized function as is Federal meddling in education for example. It’s called enumerated powers and original intent. It is what conservatives are supposed to believe. Study up on it. You might learn something.
S.L. Toddard| 1.29.10 @ 3:32PM
The sad fact is that the infantilized American electorate will never support any candidate who proposes to do what must be done in order to avoid a total collapse. Americans will only elect "leaders"/liars who tell them they can keep their entitlement programs and their fun little wars and won't have to pay for them ever with higher taxes. Democrats will not contemplate ending or federalizing Big Government boondoggles like social security or medicare or (soon) Obamacare. Republicans will not contemplate ending Big Government boondoggles like nation-building, liberal Wilsonian democracy-crusades and world-policing. The identity of both groups is dependent entirely on the Big Government schemes they advocate and passionately cling to, even after it has become clear that the reckless continuation of these policies will mean the eventual ruin of the nation. So, that ruin will come, while each side demands the other side give up their expensive, failing projects all the while never contemplating giving up their own.
If only there were enough sensible people in Vermont for the Second Vermont Republic movement to succeed in seceding. We Americans once seceded from remote imperial rule in order to govern ourselves. It's time to do so again. Unfortunately, Americans are no longer truly American, and so instead of rising up in moral outrage at the mess - at the bloated, un-American empire - the liberals and neoconservatives have made of their republic and smashing the political parties responsible, they will waddle, docile and drooling, toward the fate this corporatist empire now shares with all empires.
Oh well - we had a good run.
Christopher Holland| 1.29.10 @ 4:10PM
I never saw anybody work so hard to unload an empty cart.
victor| 1.30.10 @ 3:16PM
"S.L.Toddard":
*.... ....... ... .... ........*
The First American Revolution was started with far fewer people than the Second American Revolution will be.
The primaries this year are coinciding with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, perhaps you have heard of them?
They will be followed by Fort Ticonderoga, the Declaration and others right up to Nov 2, 2010.
There will be many disenfranchised and unencumbered democrats later this year.
There will be many more such anniversaries all the way up to Nov 2012.
You can sit up in your ivory tower and sulk or you can join us in commemorating Oct 19, which is just two weeks before the election, either one will be appropriate, as in either case we will win and Obama will lose.
Remember, the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time.
PulSamsara| 1.31.10 @ 3:36PM
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: All the newly branded 'Revolutionaries' who are running ashamed from the old 'brand' they, themselves created, are going to save us now. It must take some strong soap to wash you hands that quickly - and that thoroughly.
Richard Baker| 1.29.10 @ 3:35PM
The static in the ether is being disturbed again. Anyone know why?
victor| 1.30.10 @ 2:52PM
Yes, I believe that is Toddard firing up his microwave oven, hair drier and beef jerky dehydrator all at the same time.
Either that, or Old Sparky is being turned on.
Blogengeezer | 1.29.10 @ 5:12PM
Much better for humanity to follow the lead of Free Market Capitalism, than the debased Progressive, Fascist Socialism to Communism that has, over it's short but Deadly History, been responsible for well over 120 million 'human fertilizer' aspects. In that respect it did remove, with collateral damage notwithstanding, more than a substantial load of Living Humanity, from the surface land mass of the earth. To the reportedly popular, Agenda Driven Political and Media supporters of that system today, That is a major Plus.. Reference to 'The Georgia Guidestones'..
All of these detriments to humanity, are intrinsically tied to the Liberal Left, which by Parasitic means, grew Tendrils into the muscle of the Political parties. Only by a radical surgical operation, with No Painkillers, will this infectious, deadly disease be successfully dug from its cellular Host. 2010..then again in 2012..
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 6:32PM
The American Spectator : Buttered Guns USA Cws links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margin Call| 1.29.10 @ 7:14PM
Only in America can neo-cons think that it's sound policy to continue the folly they've undertaken for the past 9 years. The military industrial complex and friends have been fighting trumped up faux wars ever since the end of WWII and the Korean War.
The US military complex has been in it's WWII mindset that has not changed one bit since 1939 and think it's sound economic policy and "smart" to flush 5% of GDP down the toilet every year when we are at peace, and even more when we are at war.
The economic malaise we are now facing lies at the feet of the neo-cons and the $2.5 TRILLION dollars we have committed for the wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the neo-cons want another $2 TRILLION to go fight in Pakistan & Yemen. The disgusting irony in all of this is the neo-cons and Republicans in office that all think they are "tough" were all draft dodgers, but I digress.
I'm sorry but to the real Americans in this country (read: citizens and individuals, not corporations) these phony conflicts and trumped up needs for "security" haven't benefited them one bit. They are worthless! While neo-cons get to swagger and defense companies gorge themselves at the trough, Average Joe American doesn't get any value out of it.
When Clinton came into office, and used the "peace dividend" to pay down the debt and focus on citizens rather than defense contractors the economy boomed and he ran surpluses because for the first time we could tell the neo-cons to shut up and go away, Average Joe American did EXTREMELY well! As soon as the Bush II clown came in destroyed the American middle class and lower class. If you are claiming you "fight for America" you are on you're heels as your rhetoric doesn't measure up to actual FACTS!
The military is out to defend the homeland, not destroy America and the American way of life as it has been doing for the past 50 years. Your game is up. Your margin call is coming. China will be telling you what you will be doing. Since American politicians cannot and will not stand up to the industrial - military complex our creditors will force us. Thank god someone is!
Stuart Koehl| 1.30.10 @ 9:45AM
Margin tosses around some interesting numbers, but unfortunately for him they are both baseless and reflect almost total ignorance of the economic aspects of the U.S. defense sector.
Far from being economic giants driving (and some would say distorting) the American economy and society, defense is a relatively minor player. The largest U.S. defense company, Boeing, had 2008 revenues of some $61 billion, of which only $31 billion came from defense contracts. Lockheed Martin had the most defense revenues of any U.S. company, with $39.5 billion. To put this in perspective, Walmart had revenues of $404 billion in 2009. Walmart is larger than the top ten U.S. defense companies combined.
Nor are defense exports a significant element of the U.S. economy. Total U.S. defense exports globally amounted to only about $12 billion in 2008, as compared to total U.S. exports of $1.8 trillion.
As to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2002 the U.S. defense budget has amounted to 4.0-5.0% of GDP, as compared to 6.2% under Ronald Reagan (when, inter alia, the economy was much smaller); this amounts to an average of $550 billion per year in constant dollars. Approximately one-fourth of the total defense budget has been devoted to wartime requirements and operations, which is about $137 billion per year, or $1,100 billion ($1.1 trillion) for the entire war. In other words, the war has absorbed about 1% of U.S. GDP each year since it began in 2002.
Our deficits and economic woes have many causes, but excessive defense spending and the cost of fighting Islamic terrorism are not among them.
victor| 1.30.10 @ 3:04PM
Hello Stuart,
You realize that you are tossing garlic before vampires, don't you?
Facts mean nothing to these people as they fully exemplify the American Educational System.
Since all they have are their own opinions, when confronted with facts, they run like scared little girlie-men.
In any event, it is good to know that there are those who read, retain and remember things as they were and not what we thought they were.
As my wife is often wont to say "I tot I taw a putty tat, I did, I did".
Fact is, the history they know, or think they know, never happened.
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 9:17PM
The American Spectator : Buttered Guns American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 10:36PM
The American Spectator : Buttered Guns | Drakz Free Online Service links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Yosemeti Sam| 1.30.10 @ 1:39AM
Christopher Holland,
Thanks - loads :)
Pingback| 1.30.10 @ 2:48AM
The American Spectator : Buttered Guns capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.30.10 @ 4:34AM
The Two Malcontents » Buttered Guns links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.30.10 @ 6:43AM
The American Spectator : Buttered Guns Federal Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 1.30.10 @ 12:18PM
Stuart Koehl:
Good message about the defense industry. Let's see. I used to be a Math teacher and I wonder which number would be greater, $40 billion for Lockheed/Martin or $400 billion for Wal-Mart? Bet my kids would have known. But some folks are of the mind, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I know what I know."
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.30.10 @ 2:28PM
Richard,
I don't know about you...but I am just so tickled that Stuart has come to our conversations here.
Stuart, again, thank you.
You keep taking words out of my mouth...and you say them better than I can. heh.
I would be fascinated to visit with you privately.
Please email me at kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com
Best regards
Solo| 1.31.10 @ 10:50AM
Stuart Wrote:
"Margin tosses around some interesting numbers, but unfortunately for him they are both baseless and reflect almost total ignorance of the economic aspects of the U.S. defense sector. "
Yes....and let me reflect the opinions of others here regarding your valuable contributions here.
Let us also not be tempted to take our own personal preferences on National Foreign Policy and imprint those opinions onto our founding document.
There is no such thing as a Constitutional decree that describes the proper use of our national resources to affect our national interests.
While it's true that the Constitution didn't specifically establish a "standing Army", it did authorize the Federal Government to establish a Navy. Jefferson then established the United States Marine Corps as part to the Dept Of the Navy. A sort of "boots on the ground" addition to our Federal Military.
If you have a problem with the Army, then just change their name to "Marines" and PRESTO!....your "Constitutional" objections to a standing Army evaporate in a puff of smoke!
Moreover....any suggestion whatsoever that our nation is Constitutionally required to be a sort of "Bunker America" is as misplaced as it can be and simply defies the facts of history.
The concept of projecting our power abroad in order to protect our interests here at home....in other words, a refutation of the concept that our national security interests are confined to our geographical borders...is as old as the Republic itself.
Jefferson projected our power abroad using the Navy, Marine Corp and even Mercenaries in order to attack a Nation/State of the Ottoman Empire--Not just "pirates" on the high seas but their nation of origin! (Quite the little "NeoCon", huh?)
Read Hamilton in Federalist Papers # 11 as to the potential use of a Federal Navy to tip the balance of power abroad in order to serve our national interests.
Consider "The Monroe Doctrine" whereby Monroe unmistakably announced our willingness to project our power beyond our geographic borders to prevent the establishment of a European influence within the Americas.
If you want to object to any particular application of power abroad, then do so on its own merits. Let's not pretend that your preferences are somehow encoded into our founding document because they're not!
To do so does as much damage to our Constitution as the Progressives would do. After all....they want it to reflect their preferences, too.
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 5:08PM
Opposition to a standing army is an American inheritance from British history: remembering too well the experience of Cromwell's major generals and their dragoons, the British developed a healthy suspicion of standing armies, not the least because, under the British system, the army (unlike the Navy) actually "belonged" to the king and was answerable to him alone.
Thus, despite the better judgment of men like Washington, Hamilton and Knox, the first Congresses refused to sanction a meaningful standing army, opting instead for a few companies of artillery and relying on the militia for the rest.
Experience on the Northwest Frontier and later in the War of 1812 showed that trust in hastily mustered citizen soldiers was a mistake, so a small but professional army was established along with a military academy to train officers. In both the Mexican and the Civil Wars, it was this professional army that provided the nucleus for the massive number of volunteer regiments that comprised the army.
After the Civil War, the army, greatly reduced in size, was dispersed on the Western frontier. The Spanish American War attempted to use the same combination of regulars and volunteers as in the Civil War, but even though we won that Splendid Little War, many shortcomings were revealed, so by World War I a new system involving regulars, a state-operated by Federally supervised National Guard, and universal conscription was employed. This served us well until the 1970s, although conscription was actually in effect only for some 20-odd years.
Today, we rely on a two-tier system of professional regulars and the National Guard. Given that the era of mass armies is over, due to the prevalence of precision munitions and the increasing tactical complexity of irregular warfare, this will be the case for some time.
Thus, throughout its history, the shape of the U.S. Army has changed in response to the exigencies of warfare. The original militia system was abandoned for the simple reason it did not work. The volunteer regimental system likewise was abandoned when it ceased to be effective. The same with the conscript military. All of this was done under the auspices of the Congress and the Executive Branch, in full accord with the Constitution (which, as Justice Brandeis noted, is NOT a suicide pact).
But, if we want to be absolutely technical, the United States does not REALLY have a standing military at all. Congress authorizes the government to raise an army, navy and air force at the beginning of every fiscal year, and dissolves that military force on the last day of that fiscal year. Thus, the importance of the Defense Authorization Bill: if it does not pass, and no continuing resolution is put in place, then the military is legally dissolved until it is reauthorized by the Congress.
If Congress really doesn't think we need an army, they can simply vote not to reauthorize it.
Solo| 1.31.10 @ 11:23AM
Oh..and by the way of clarification:
Stuart.....I agree with you completely and my short essay was in no way directed at you.
It was directed at a few of the "Parchment Worshipers" here: Those who claim to revere the Constitution while having no frickin' clue as to what it means.
Richard Baker| 1.31.10 @ 12:13PM
Solo:
You are aware that the ideas contained therein are the raison d'etre for the document? The Founding Fathers were the most profound political thinkers in history. Supporting those ideas and the country they initiated is not "worship." Strange terms you use. Are you an American?
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 5:11PM
It helps, Mr. Baker, if one does not make an idol out of the Constitution or fetishize its every word. All clauses and amendments have a history, and understanding that history is the key to understanding whether a particular development is consistent or inconsistent with the intention of the Founders. If you can't do that, then, to quote Mr. Solo, you really have no frickin' idea what it means.
Alpon| 1.31.10 @ 3:11PM
Hurray, hurray ... some of us are finally getting to the 'real' truth. The world IS controlled by a few hundred, maybe a thousand or so, ultra rich, ultra secretive families. For all who still wonder why and for those that can't seem to understand what's going on in the world. For all those still divided by petty differences. For all those that still have a partisan mindset. In other words; us vs. them and Dems vs. Repubs. Let me present the ultimate evidence of world wide manipulation and control. Written over 150 years ago, by the evil doers, for the evil doers, this document has been denied by them as bigotry. But after you read it and see that all the plans and proficies have come to fruition there can be no denying the truth. They never denied the existance of this document, only to say it is racist and bigoted. They never deny the contents thereof. For over 100 years it has been hidden and censored.
Every citizen of the planet needs to read this book. It will rock your world and you will never be or think the same afterwards. I'm not selling anything. Unlike so many web sites trying to get rich by informing us of what we should already be aware of. My only motive is too circulate this publication. To help the citizens of the US and the world in general to see and discern the truth. The REAL truth.
At the risk of disappearing or being 'rubbed out' I am revealing this to all the world. The name of this tome is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". If you can't find it with your browser, as I said, they want this kept under wraps, I will provide it free as a WORD or PDF document. Just request a copy from alanponelli@hotmail.com. I will promptly reply and attach said doc to my email.
Let’s see how many people have a quest for the truth or just like to hear their own gums slam together.
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 5:13PM
Hush, Alpon. We know where you live.
Joe Heathen| 1.31.10 @ 3:24PM
G. Tracy Mehan, III, suggest you read "The Limits of Power; The End of American Exceptionalism" and "The New American Militarism; How Americans Are Seduced by War", both by COL (USA Ret.) Andrew J. Bacevich so as to acquire a more plausible perspective of your concept of "buttered guns".
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 5:12PM
Neither is particularly good. Poor Andy! He used to be a pretty astute military analyst. Now he's just a propagandist.
Joe Heathen| 1.31.10 @ 6:13PM
And what, prey tell, Stuart Koehl, are your core intellectual competencies that qualify you to identify COL Bacevich as a "propagandist"?
-
Perhaps such an act on your part could be construed as rendering you a demagogue.
Stuart Koehl| 2.1.10 @ 6:29AM
Well, let's see. I'm in the same business as COL Bacevich, I've been a military historian and analyst for more than thirty years now. I'm a fellow at a foreign policy think tank, and I have been a consultant for the Department of Defense, the intelligence agencies, several foreign ministries of defense and a variety of defense aerospace companies. I have written widely on defense and strategic issues, and worked with or studied under some of the leading figures in the field. I think I am qualified to make some judgments on Andy's work.
shipley130| 1.31.10 @ 4:36PM
Who is going to replace the "imperialist"? Africa or India? These countries are still buring animal shit for cooking and using animal shit to build outdoor "refrigerators", drinking and bathing in a shit filled rivers. I take the imperialists.
Richard Baker| 1.31.10 @ 5:19PM
Stuart Koehl:
To revere an idea is not to idolize it. Should we use the Code of Hammurabi instead? Intellectual disdain and smugness towards the documents is foolish arrogance. I'd warrant that there aren't 2 people extant today in the US who could crystallize the nature of man as succinctly as did Mr. Jefferson or James Madison. I recognize genius when I see it. Your creation would be what then?
Stuart Koehl| 2.2.10 @ 5:55AM
Just in passing: Jefferson's contribution to the Constitution was close to nil; he also opposed the document as written and became leader of the Anti-Federalist opposition that morphed into the Democratic-Republican party, today known as the Democrats.
James Madison may have been a genius as a political theorist--that much is pretty close to undeniable--but he (and Jefferson) must rank close to the bottom of American presidents; their tenure in office, with the exception of the Louisiana Purchase (which I believe you will have to admit exceeded the constitutional limits of Presidential power) were unmitigated disasters.
Stuart Koehl| 1.31.10 @ 5:53PM
If one reveres the Constitution, rather than idolizing it, then one understands that it has to be applied in light of current realities. The world is not as it was in 1787; the United States is not as it was in 1787. The international role for the United States that you impute to the Constitution is no where explicitly stated therein. That role was determined by the implementation of the Constitution by the first generation of legislators and executives in light of their understanding of national interest. As that understanding changed, so did their interpretation of what the Constitution required of them--and within the first generation, too.
So, unless you take a position analogous to that of certain Protestant fundamentalists regarding the development of the Church in the post-Apostolic era (i.e., that everybody got it wrong for the subsequent 1500 years), you cannot say that the Founders actually held the opinions you ascribe to them.
Richard Baker| 1.31.10 @ 6:36PM
Stuart Koehl:
A constitution is by definition a set of rules one lives by. You sound like Ginsburg and the folks who want a living Constitution that is ever changing. Nothing has changed about the nature of man since the inception of the Constitution despite the prevailing whims. Its ideas are just broad enough to allow any situation to be applied to it. I also don't believe that man has changed much on basic ideas since the ancient times. The reason the Founders were the most profound political thinkers is that they were able to distill the very concept of man's existence into it's essence. Whether it be Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, or Enron, the Constitution can be applied in all cases. I believe in the strength of the Constitution and not its perceived flaws. Sadly, too many today take a simply worded document and insert a complexity that is not present within. That's why the Federalist Papers are valuable, as well.
Stuart Koehl| 2.1.10 @ 6:33AM
A Constitution does indeed set out rules, but not all rules can or should be construed with equal rigidity. In the case of the Constitution, those involving federalism, enumerate powers, checks and balances and the fundamental rights of the people should be observed as rigorously as possible. On the other hand, Article II gives the President, as commander-in-chief broad latitude in providing for the common defense and running foreign policy; Congress may declare war and funds warfare, but the President directs strategy and operations; the President negotiates with foreign powers, and Congress is limited to advice and consent on treaties. The Constitution does not lay out in any way, shape or form what the United States should do, or how it should behave in the international arena. That is left to the discretion and prudential judgment of the President, with the advice and consent of Congress.
Frank| 1.31.10 @ 9:12PM
Dear Mr. Mehan: Fine essay.
Fogel is an economic historian, who sees big trends. One of his specialties is population. While unexpected things may arise in future, it would still seem reasonable to keep in mind present trends, as Fogel must be doing, and not preclude possibility of their continuance. China has a large workforce and is a manufacturing powerhouse. This augers well for its continued progress.
Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the US military was modest in size and pay. Today's volunteer forces are a recent creation. Recruiting and understandable political support for military service have led to much money going toward pay and benefits.
If we consider the current recession to owe in part and perhaps indirectly to Big government over-commitments (Fannie and Freddie, Social Security and other entitlements), then military expenditures and international force projection are part of this larger issue of living within beyond our means.
Stuart Koehl| 2.1.10 @ 6:42AM
On the other hand, China faces a looming demographic crisis as a result of its one-child policy. Within this decade, China will begin to age rapidly, and the ratio of workers to retirees will mushroom. In addition, there is a profound imbalance of the sexes in the younger generation, with some 160 males under 30 for every 100 females, a result of sexual selection under the one child policy. As Mark Steyn noted, the Chinese will get old before they get rich.
Add to this the profound imbalance in the distribution of new wealth, the maintenance of unprofitable state-owned enterprises propped up by insolvent state-owned banks, rising calls for more political freedom among the educated class, increasing efforts on the part of the government to constrain dissent, and you have prescription for a major societal meltdown. I put the odds at 50/50.
Already we have seen the World Bank reduce its estimates of past Chinese economic growth by close to 40% (due to a lack of transparency in Chinese statistics amounting to outright fraud), and future projections show that double-digit growth is simply not sustainable.
Today, China's economy is about one third that of the United States (on a per capita basis, that puts it on par with Rwanda). Assuming that China can manage to average 7% growth per annum over the next fifteen years, while the United States manages just 3% (below the historical norm), then in 2025 China's economy will be just half the size of ours.
I'm old enough to have heard all this gloom-and-doom, Yellow Peril alarmism--though back in the 1980s it was Japan that was supposed to eat our lunch. They had a government-directed industrial policy. They had MITI to pick winners and losers. All we had was the working of the market.
Don't hear much about Japan overtaking the U.S. anymore. Look into the reasons, and see a striking parallel with China today.
Nil desperandum.
Pingback| 1.31.10 @ 11:06PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Buttered Guns [spectator.org] on Top links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.1.10 @ 2:04AM
Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 2.1.10 @ 7:08AM
Stuart Koehl:
Then what's a constitution for?
Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 5:48PM
‘Economy is killing people’ | EconomyIssues.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Converse | 8.12.11 @ 2:43AM
is good
gavin1 | 9.20.11 @ 7:06AM
A good post.
Do you know tablet computers . Need a tablet pc ? We supply kinds of tablet pcs, google android tablet, windows tablets. Wholesale tablets from China.