Sirs,
It is surely a sign of the political weakness and vulnerability of the Left that they are now reduced to transparent chicanery. Edward Kung's letter (published Thursday November 24th) is a clear example of such obvious artifice; in arguing that the U.S. government must solve its debt problem by simply cutting military spending, he betrays not simply a personal ignorance as to the broader causes of that debt (i.e. the long term absence of both monetary and fiscal restraint), but the desperation of the Left to avoid re-examining the pragmatic and technocratic premises of their Statism.
Pace Kung's desperate turn to Ron Paul-esque isolationism, consider the facts: the largest proportion of Federal government spending in the U.S. - by far - goes into social programs. The largest of these are social security and the twin health programs of medicare and medicaid. Together with non-defense discretionary spending allocated by Congress, these areas of spending comprise nearly 60% of the Federal budget, compared to the 20% allocated for defense expenditure.
Moreover, we must remember that the current U.S. government has increased the debt in a mere three years by approximately the same amount (U.S.$4 trillion) as which the previous government increased it in eight years. That was not accomplished by any increase in military spending. That was accomplished by the application of quasi-Keynesian policies. Whose voices were the loudest in advocating these policies three years ago? Those of the Left.
It is the Left that is to blame for the U.S. debt problem, together with the inept Republican party which, as the current crop of abysmal Presidential candidates indicates, is shot through with the same pragmatic and technocratic operating premises which so animate the otherwise now rotten carcass of the Left. The debt problem is a consequence of the long term application of policies and programs originating on the Left (abetted by the fools on the Right), and this is why it is also the Left that is to blame for President Obama's failure to support Taiwan.
Why? They elected him.
Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.
(Sent: Thursday 24th November 2011. Unpublished by the Taipei Times).
Thursday 24 November 2011
8 comments:
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My understanding, at least from the data I've been reading, is that even if the United States were to spend zero dollars in the next FY on defense, it would still come up strongly in the red. Of course, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are hard to find information on, but if the United States were to cut spending on defense to zero (besides the Iraq and Afghan wars), it would still be quite far in the red next FY.
ReplyDeleteCut military spending: makes sense to . . . ?
Oh Nathan - you even ask like it's a question...
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. government debt is over $14 trillion. U.S. defense spending per annum is between $600-$800 billion whereas social and other discretionary spending meanwhile is over $2 trillion per annum.
See here for a grimly amusing take on it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to see as much of the defense industry privatized as possible (Pentagon procurement is as famously wasteful as British MOD procurement is famously skinflint).
However the point is that the welfare state is finished; and the Left are still even now, afraid of the obvious conclusion - which is that the premises underpinning their paradigmatic view of society have been thoroughly invalidated.
And in case that makes me sound like a lunatic - there is at least one mainstream academic in the U.S. who seems to agree with me.
Oh, Mike, I must have miscommunicated again. I was actually being sarcastic. The average Joe in the United States (and even some not-so-average Joes, who ought to know better) believes erroneously that US debt is primarily caused by military spending (although the amount of waste that occurs there is atrocious as well).
ReplyDeleteCase in point, several months ago, I posted something on my Facebook page (yes, I now know better than to post anything of any substance there, a lesson learned the hard way) about countries with the highest debt-to-GDP ratios. At the top of the list was, you guessed it, Japan--something like 230%, the same Japan which hasn't spent more than 1% of its GDP per annum on defense since Nakasone (the mid-1980s) and hadn't spent that much before him, either (not since the Pacific War). I used it to refute what some were posting elsewhere--about "all that debt being caused by high military spending" and whatnot. I used Japan as a shining example* of how it has little to do with military spending. Someone piped in and said, "Wow, I thought Japan wasn't spending much on its military. Just look at that debt. And people are complaining about China. Japan must have the biggest military int he world." I did a facepalm right there.
Cutting military spending will only benefit those in Washington who seek to allocate those resources elsewhere--pet projects and "social reforms." And, well, the Chinese. I believe a general recently asked Washington to "relieve the tax burden on ordinary people" by "cutting US defense spending." Yep, the US spends a lot on its military--and it needs to, as much of the world depends on US security guarantees, free shipping lanes, and the like. A great deal of waste could certainly be eliminated from military spending, but a great deal more could be cut elsewhere as well. Of course, that would infringe of some Congressional turf, not to mention undermine the fiscal policies of presidents since Wilson. Oh, and that pesky problem from the state-socialists/welfare staters.
*Actually, if you look at the information from 2010, you'll see that very few nations which spend high amounts (per GDP) on defense are often not even within the top 50 nations when it comes to highest debt-to-GDP. I think something like less than 20% of the nations that fall within those top 50 (highest percentages) spend anything near the most on defense, irony of ironies. (The United States does fall within the top fifty, but it is not within the top ten, if my memory serves me correctly.)
"Oh, Mike, I must have miscommunicated again. I was actually being sarcastic."
ReplyDeleteSorry Nathan, sarcasm can be difficult to identify in writing - at least, it is for me.
"Someone piped in and said, "Wow, I thought Japan wasn't spending much on its military. Just look at that debt. And people are complaining about China. Japan must have the biggest military int he world."
Are you sure he/she wasn't being sarcastic? ;-)
But yes, facebook isn't exactly a Library Of Alexandria.
"Yep, the US spends a lot on its military--and it needs to, as much of the world depends on US security guarantees, free shipping lanes, and the like..."
Agreed, and I think it is things like this for which we have to have alternative answers to straightforward state funding. Can shipping lane security be run as a business with competition preventing any one company from become parasitic?
"Actually, if you look at the information from 2010, you'll see that very few nations which spend high amounts (per GDP) on defense are often not even within the top 50 nations when it comes to highest debt-to-GDP."
That's because some of them are places like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Syria and so on where there's simply no question of State provision of welfare, because the rulers of those places are more into murder than "skoolz 'n ospitals".
Hmm... lists. You know what I don't like about lists? They're hypnotic - I'll get sucked into reading about the Wallis and Futuna islands or the history of Eritrea or some other obscurity.
"Are you sure he/she wasn't being sarcastic? ;-)"
ReplyDeleteHa! Good point, although after I pointed out my original purpose for posting that, he realized his mistake/misread.
"Sorry Nathan, sarcasm can be difficult to identify in writing . . . ."
That's why I apologized for not being clearer.
"That's because some of them are places like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Syria and so on where there's simply no question of State provision of welfare . . . ."
Sure, I understand that. But the fact that Japan's debt problem wasn't a major issue until after the bubble days (after which the United States suggested Japan undergo "fiscal stimulus" measures) is certainly indicative. I'm sure you're aware of this; I was just pointing this out as one of the cornerstones of what I think is probably a major part of both of our arguments, unless I'm misreading.
"Agreed, and I think it is things like this for which we have to have alternative answers to straightforward state funding."
Yep, but until we have such "alternative[s]," which I support, our support has to be behind what is currently keeping those lanes, etc., open, cognitively dissonant though it may be (and I certainly find it so). Most who argue for a massive and immediate cut in military spending don't understand how much their lives will be affected by it.
Incidentally, I thought you might be interested in this.
ReplyDeleteDamn thing didn't link. Let's try that again.
ReplyDeleteThat must have been written by either Crystal Hsu or Amy Su.
ReplyDeleteThe next government - whoever it is - will keep coming back to these stimulus measures, and some of them may "work" as short term fixes, however the better long term approach would be monetary reform along with not just fiscal reform, but a broader program of depoliticization, i.e. cutting back the scale and scope of government.