Let’s talk about federal budgets! (Big Boy Toy edition)
Posted: June 8, 2011 Filed under: Domestic Policy, U.S. Military | Tags: defense spending, military toys, US presence in Asia 18 Comments
I just wanted to put in my two cents on what I think should be first on the federal budget chopping block. I think this nifty graph from The Economist puts our defense budget into perspective.
ON JUNE 8th China’s top military brass confirmed that the country’s first aircraft carrier, a refurbishment of an old Russian carrier, will be ready shortly. Only a handful of nations operate carriers, which are costly to build and maintain. Indeed, Britain has recently decommissioned its sole carrier because of budget pressures. China’s defence spending has risen by nearly 200% since 2001 to reach an estimated $119 billion in 2010—though it has remained fairly constant in terms of its share of GDP. America’s own budget crisis is prompting tough discussions about its defence spending, which, at nearly $700 billion, is bigger than that of the next 17 countries combined.
One has to ask why our defense spending “is bigger than that of the next 17 countries combined” while we basically share only two borders with countries that can hardly be considered hostile. What’s the purpose of all this spending?
Just recently, US Defense Secretary Gates announced that the US would maintain a strong presence in Asia despite its budget problems.
Defense News reports that the U.S. military would expand presence in the area with a facility in the Indian Ocean shared with Australia.
The U.S. will also begin deploying new littoral combat ships (LCS) capable of operating in shallow coastal waters to the region to perform exercises and military maneuvers alongside others in Asia. The Singapore defense ministry has stated that the U.S. is looking at deploying one or two LCS’ in the area.
The U.S. is also getting supplies into position to speed response in the area if another natural disaster hits. The most recent disasters in Asia were the massive Japanese earthquake and resulting tsunami. Gates also noted that he worries the region needs to establish “rules of the road” for solving conflicts over resources in the South China Sea peacefully if more than one nation lays claim to a resource.
Gates Said, “I fear that without rules of the road, without agreed approaches to deal with these problems, that there will be clashes. I think that serves nobody’s interests.”
Gates also stalked about future weapons that would be coming to the region to improve the ability to defend the area. One of the future weapons programs cited were drones. The Global Hawk is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that can fly a programmed path and refuel in air — it completed its first flight in 2010. Global Hawk can soar to 61,000 feet and stay on target for up to 30 hours. The first Global Hawk has now arrived at Grand Forks Air Force Base.
Do we really need all these toys to protect us from asymmetrical threats like terrorists? Just thought I’d put this out there for your consideration.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Dak, I was just running through my reader and came across this:
New Low Paying Jobs Will Lead to High Debt » New Deal 2.0
People are running up debt for basic expenditures. That’s not good. It’s also why businesses are expanding their consumer products lines elsewhere. Because incomes are going up elsewhere. We’re really going to have to scale back our expenditures and that’s not good in an economy where 67% of GDP goes to households. We’re going to be downsized for some time to come which is why cutting government spending to balance the budget is a loser’s game. It’s just going to exacerbate the problem. We need a vigorous program of government spending designed at keeping jobs and providing new ones. It will get worse as more teachers, cops, firefighters and highway workers get laid off at the state level. It’s a downward spiral and credit can only go so far.
This is really scary.
I caught a GOP mouthpiece this morning and his recipe for the future is: continue lowering taxes, cut costs [which means everything and anything that smacks of social benefits] and increased support to our national defense.
Strange how few politicians wish to address the gargantuan cost of our War on Terror, specific wars that are now a decade long. Feel any safer?
I’ve also read that when you add all the extra supporting costs onto the military/defense expense sheet, the massive bureaucracy, the cost of life and limb, we’re in the neighborhood of 1.2 Trillion dollars per year. Our outlay of costs have actually skyrocketed since the end of the Cold War, where presumably the wolf was at our door. Defense contractors are making out splendidly, concocting more and more high-tech weapons, which in a number of cases are less effective for on-the-ground, reality-based combat. The American middle-class? They haven’t done so well.
Which begs the question: Who is the real enemy???
There’s also the black budget that funds CIA operations.
it’s time to get out of these wars………….think what the hell we are doing to our soldiers who are now working on four or five tours in the wars………….that is not a good thing for families. Once they have served in the war zone they shouldn’t be allowed to go back another time. Let some other families step up to the plate.
It’s really sad, because the young get out, can’t find jobs to support their families, and rejoin, go back to war, then are more than likely to come home in body bags.
We just lost five soldiers in Iraq on Monday……….no body talks about it.
It really says something about our morality when our young people have to join the military because there are no other jobs available for them.
I say, get out of the endless wars, and bring them back and work on infrastructure at home. Our roads are terrible and we need to work on energy independence and education.
May as well have a draft.
Hillary Clinton subject of new comic book
Not only should we end the wars, but we need to bring our military home from the “friendly” nations that we maintain installations. There are over 700 friendly countries that we are in – we’ll save billions by doing so.
How dare they expect citizens to maintain and unnecessary force.
oops – meant that we have over 700 installations in friendly nations
Dak, your question is a very important one.
It seems that there is a war-mongering aspect to the U.S.
If they could take half of that obscene expenditure and put it to health care….
But the priorities are pretty evident.
I also think there’s the fact that so many industries couldn’t profit without defense contracts.
That’s the big one right there. What would Halliburton and GE do without wars?
Indeed. War is our greatest industry and what we manufacture these days…end of Empire stuff
we are playing out line for line .
Great observation Dak. With China’s growing economy and aggressive tendencies, it is strategically sound to maintain a presence in that region of the world. However, the number and cost of many of our installations worldwide is too high and mostly unnecessary. With the allies we have around the world, and the fact that so many people use our war fighting equipment, we should be able to make alternative agreements that would cut costs while maintainin stability.
And now a word from our sponsors…..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_debt_bondholders
Hillary 2012
Love that graph in a lolsob way.