Archive for November, 2011

November 27, 2011

Is Slashing Defense our Best Choice?

by Steve Dana

Facing the possibility of seriously cutting the Defense Budget, maybe we should think about withdrawing our military forces from bases located in foreign countries? Wouldn’t we save a bundle if we didn’t have our forces spread around the world? Considering the way many of them feel about us, pulling out seems like a win/win for everyone; right? How many of the host countries celebrate our presence on their soil?

I am not advocating that we withdraw our forces, quite to the contrary, but shouldn’t we think about it? Doesn’t it make sense that we reaffirm that assumptions regarding our national interests made many years ago have not changed? At the same time, our supposed allies can reconfirm that our presence is advantageous and desirable to them as well or maybe not.

We pay a lot to have a military presence in many of these countries which enables the host countries to allocate a much smaller portion of their own budgets for their own defense and military while substantially increasing our cost. Keep in mind that the cost is not just measured in monetary form; our military forces are made up from millions of young Americans that we ask to go in harms way to protect freedom around the world. Maybe I would feel different if our treaty partners asked their own kids to make the same sacrifice.

Since the European economy is significant, aren’t they capable of paying for their own forces? So what portion of our cost to protect their interests do they pay?

If they beefed up their own forces, couldn’t we support them from bases on American soil? And while we’re at it, who are we protecting the Europeans from? Since we already let almost every European country into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aren’t they all our allies now? So who is the threat? Since we didn’t let the Russians in, they must be the threat along with China since nobody else has the ability to project force significantly beyond their own borders.

Besides America, who funds NATO?  Besides America, whose forces constitute the muscle of NATO? Without America, what happens to political stability in Europe if we pull out of NATO?

What happens if we give NATO a notice of intent to reduce participation over the next five or ten years?

The same questions could be asked about mutual defense treaties between America and a bunch of Asian countries like Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines. 

If we closed American bases in all those foreign countries, what would happen besides our Defense Budget going down? Or, would it go down? Would the world become less safe if the United States of America did not have bases in all these places supplemented by a Navy that patrols international waters around the globe? Isn’t that an important consideration?

How would a withdrawal of American forces affect the aggressive tendencies of countries wanting to have a louder voice in international politics?

When you get right down to it, isn’t our military presence around the world the only reason things are as safe as they are? What is that worth to our allies and ultimately to our own people? Shouldn’t we be asking that question?

If our Army had not driven Iraq out of Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990, what would the Middle East look like today? If our troops weren’t stationed in Saudi Arabia, would Iraq have control of all their oil too? How would that affect our national strategic interests or more importantly, how would it affect our NATO allies? Would a Middle East controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood be a threat to Great Britain,France or Germany?

What would those countries have done had we held back and done nothing in 1990?

Consider the plight of Israel. If our forces were not in close proximity to that country, what do you suspect would happen to them? The fact that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons means they will put up a good fight if they are attacked, but there is not much protecting them from an increasingly hostile Middle East.

The lessons we learned over the years taught us that it is easier to defend our own shores if we maintain a presence in those foreign countries. If we prevent destabilization of our “allies” they are more likely to actually be allies.

There are good reasons for America to have presence in all these far off foreign countries, both tactical and strategic. I’ve listened to the rationale from knowledgeable retired Army officers I respect so I don’t doubt that we need to keep our forces in place, the problem is that not everyone shares my concern about the intent of many of our supposed allies and clearly many of the countries that would benefit if we failed.

So is slashing Defense our best choice as we work to balance our budget? I’m concerned that many in our own country are prepared to find out the hard way.

November 16, 2011

Sequestration or Castration; You Pick!

by Steve Dana

We have just under a week for the “Super Committee” to complete the work outlined in the Budget Control Act of August 2011 and the progress reports are not encouraging.  Characterizing the committee as “Super” may have been a mistake considering every aspect of their work plan has been anything but super.

In my view, when the Budget Control Act was passed, Republicans gave away the farm.  They gave the President and Congressional Democrats the ability to raise the national debt by 20% over 16 months without one meaningful concession; not one!

Politicians talk about cutting spending by thirty or forty or a hundred billion out loud then follow that with “over the next ten years” in a muffled voice.  I’m not sure it really matters what they say since they don’t adopt and follow budgets anyway.  But that was the deal.  They would reduce spending in budget cycles starting in 2013 out into the future when many of them will be long gone and out of office.

I can only imagine how good it felt standing up to the microphone and looking into those TV cameras telling viewers how we negotiated hard and got the best deal we could for not just our side, but for the American people.  “We agreed to increase the national debt by another 20% between now (August 2011) and January 2013 (just before inaugurating the next President) in exchange for spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion over the next ten years to be determined by a “Super” Committee made up of twelve members of Congress; half from the Senate and half from the House; half Democrats and half Republicans before Thanksgiving of this year.  Failing in that mission, a process called Sequestration will be implemented where every department will suffer equal percentage budget cuts to achieve the stated goal.”

For the Democrats on that podium, that was a euphoric feeling, knowing they had bent over the Republicans again.  Don’t you remember a sly smile from Harry Reid as he talked about slashing $1.2 trillion, knowing full well it would never happen?

For the Republicans on the podium, I’m not sure what they felt. I know they should have felt like a kid in Jerry Sandusky’s shower room.

I guess I’m too damn stupid to see how that agreement was in any way good for Republicans; on any level.  And frankly for the American people either.  But what do I know, I’m just a fry cook?

Number one, we authorized increasing the debt when we said we wouldn’t. 

Number two, we agreed to a spending reduction process that had no meaningful reference points and no down side for the Democrats.  Sure, cutting some of those social programs would cause the Dems to wince a little, but considering the hurt it would cause for R’s it was a hit they felt was well worth it.

If the Super Committee cannot negotiate a deal with the Republicans they just punt and allow the “Sequestration” to cut the budget which will target Defense spending at a time when we have already cut their budget significantly. 

Now as we approach the drop dead date for the committee to finish their work, we’re still hopelessly deadlocked.  No, wait, the Republicans are starting to talk about some tax increases as being okay.  The Speaker is warming up to the idea of a tax increase for those rich bastards just so we never have to face the prospects of SEQUESTRATION. 

How can the Republicans be afraid of Sequestration at this point?  What they should have been afraid of was the CASTRATION they went through when they voted for the Budget Control Act at the start of this process.  Were they just stupid or is the fix in?

The National Debt will increase to $16 Trillion, tax rates will be raised for rich bastards and spending will not change one iota.

I’m beginning to believe Jack Abramoff was right when he talked about how lobbyists own our elected officials.  It may not be Jack pulling the strings, but someone with interests different than mine certainly is.

November 14, 2011

Super Committee Agonizes about 3.2% Cut

by Steve Dana

Did you ever wonder why when the government decides to increase spending it happens next week but when they talk about reducing spending it’s always in budget cycles five to ten years out?  Does that really make any sense?

I really only care about what they will cut in their next budget and the one after that because there is some likelihood those same elected officials will still be around to be held accountable.

The Super Committee is agonizing about reducing spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 trillion over ten years.  Considering the fact that federal spending increases 8% per year and that is considered a “no growth” budget.  So what are they cutting the $1.2 trillion from?

Where else in the world could that happen? 

If the budget is $2.4 trillion per year in 2011, then a no growth (8%more compounded) budget for 2012 would be about $2.6 trillion; $2.81trillion for 2013, $3.02 trillion for 2014 and on up to a total of about $37 trillion over the next ten years. 

Remember, that is how much cash the federal government will spend over the next ten years when they consider an 8% increase in spending a no growth budget.  They say they are trying to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion during that ten year period which amounts to about 3.2% of the $37 trillion.  And they are agonizing?

I’d settle for a no growth budget being a zero percent increase year over year and no cuts.  If they just capped spending at $2.4 trillion per year then over ten years we would only spend $24 trillion instead of $37 trillion.

Then if you consider that the government only takes in $1.8 trillion per year at the current level and that is not subject to the 8% growth rate.  Generally a revenue growth rate of 3-4% is considered good and 5% is great.  Let’s assume for this simple analysis a growth in revenue of 3.5% per year over the next ten years.  Revenue received totals only $21.8 trillion when compounded.

Our current national debt is about $14 trillion and without reducing spending but actually increasing spending 8% year over year and experiencing 3.5% growth in revenue each year our national debt increases by another $15 trillion to about $29 trillion.

And the Super Committee is agonizing about cutting $1.2 trillion.  There is also word that they are trying to make a “really big deal” and cut $4 trillion over ten years or slightly more than 10% of the $37 trillion total.

Could this discussion be any more absurd?

We need real spending cuts not a slowing of the growth rate.

If that weren’t bad enough, consider how you react when you are elected to Congress in 2016 and someone trots out this agreement to cut spending in some future budget cycle.  Do you feel obligated to cut spending or kick the can to the next guy?

What happens if no future Congresses agree to make the cuts promised in 2011?  What obligation does a future Congress have to honor agreements made by the Super Committee?

In a word; NONE.

It would be a good start to adopt a budget because that would indicate that the Senate finally came to the table.  It would be better if we capped spending.  It would be great if we could actually reduce spending.

I’m thinking I hear a kicking sound!

November 14, 2011

Write the Rules, Take the Credit?

by Steve Dana

There’s been no shortage of media coverage for the expanding “Occupy Wall Street” protest movement across the country.  When it started in New York, you could tell that folks were angry, but interviews showed that many were gathered, but not to protest a common grudge.  Everyone seemed to have a beef, but more often than not, it was different from the next person.  That should have been a tip.

In an effort to justify protesting, the media tried to compare the O W Streeters to  TEA Party protesters but if you ever attended a TEA Party event, you never saw a spectacle like what has devolved in cities like New York, Denver and Oakland.  Certainly both sides have bad apples, but I can’t recall a significant TEA Party event where anyone got hurt, let alone be murdered.  TEA Partiers police their own events so the focus is only on the protest.  In spite of the fact that the TEA Party is not centrally organized; every chapter champions generally common goals; smaller government faithful to the Constitution, providing for the common defense, protecting personal liberties.

Not surprisingly, most of the media still insists the two movements are the same; in spite of the violence on the left.  I can’t help but wonder how they can spin that fiction even when confronted with the facts.

Some of the protesters given a chance to voice their reason for protesting, point to “fat cats” on Wall Street for their lack of jobs on the one hand but maybe the lack of opportunity to be “fat cats” themselves on the other.  Most of the interviewees complain about how they graduated from college with huge college loan debt expecting to be hired by some big company only to find they are unable to secure a job.  Few gave much thought to who might be their prospective employers as they were signing those loan papers but all have concluded it was a Wall Street conspiracy.  Unless they were planning on a public service career in which case they are angry for a different reason.

Occupy Wall Street protesters allege that robber barons with Wall Street addresses engineered the system that allowed them to get filthy rich(er).  Few of them really understand how the system works.  If they only knew. 

When I was a Snohomish city council member in the 1990’s I encountered a land developer who made the point so clear to me when he told me he had preferences but he really didn’t care what regulations we passed, he would analyze what the regulations allowed him to do, what they wouldn’t allow him to do and decide whether it made financial sense for him to invest in a project.  If it made financial sense to him, he would invest.

If that simple lesson doesn’t explain how business decisions are made and who/what is responsible for the debacle our country has endured over the past few years, then I guess I won’t get through to you.

Another thing, chiseling isn’t reserved just for capitalists.  If it were just capitalists gaming the system, they would have been driven away long ago, but then, who would have provided the jobs and the products and the tax revenue that pays for everything else?   Think about how you learn the rules in your world and interpret them to your own advantage.  Taking advantage of loopholes or stretching the truth or as a former accountant used to say, “venturing into the gray zone” is a behavior practiced by a good many of us.  Using poorly written laws and regulations to your advantage is not a crime, it isn’t even unethical.  In many circumstances, it’s thought of as being clever and ingenious.  That is of course unless it doesn’t benefit you. 

Being able to capitalize on a scale that might make you wealthy may be an advantage for folks who already have money, but it doesn’t deprive you or me from enjoying the same opportunity if we have a good idea and are willing to work really hard.

It’s clear to me that the burden for our dilemma lays clearly on the shoulders of those who pass the laws and write the regulations; City Councils, Legislatures and our Congress but don’t forget the regulation writing bureaucrats that work for them all.  Where would we be without our friends the bureaucrats?

If you are unhappy because General Electric exploited the tax code and ultimately paid no federal corporate income tax, look to the government that created the loopholes.  I have no great affection for General Electric but they didn’t write the rules, did they?

While I am singling out GE, can we really blame them for moving their jobs to foreign countries when our government eliminates incentives to keep jobs in America while at the same time telling them how important it is to develop a world economy by raising the standard of living in foreign countries.  Even if succeeding at that goal comes at the expense of jobs at home?  Ask yourself who promotes the “world economy” thing the most and if they are supporting a world economy are they doing so at the expense of our American economy.  Every manufacturing job that goes overseas in the name of world economy chips away at the middle class in America.

If you really want to blame someone because there are no new jobs in many industries still doing business in America, just look at the regulatory burden heaped upon those businesses and go back to the lesson I described above.  If it doesn’t pencil out to hire because of uncertainty or tax burden, blame the government not the business owners.  As much as you may not like it, share holders do look at profitability and the bottom line and sometimes make the choice to not invest in America.

Go ask your elected officials how they failed to propose, negotiate and pass legislation that either prevented middle class family wage jobs from heading overseas or created jobs in America by reducing risk and uncertainty  to a business thinking about locating in your town.

The answers the protesters are looking for will not be found in New York, Denver or Oakland but in Washington DC and every state capital in the land.