I have been busy teaching a class this week (complete with 10 hour days, but at least I get paid for it all) so haven’t had time to troll the news sites as is my wont. I got an email from a friend discussing some discussions he had with his wife and since he knows that I tend to favor his side of many discussions he asked for my ideas for meaningful responses.
BTW, the use of the word ‘argument‘ isn’t meant to be confrontational, though it has developed that connotation over the years. It is more a debate-like element whereby you have researched statements prepared for expected ‘attacks’ (also not pejorative). Anyway, civil debate (so shockingly missing in our society these last couple of decades) doesn’t mean that the people involved lack passion or are not serious and/or fixed in their beliefs. Instead, civil debate means you stick with the subject of the debate and discuss verifiable facts that can be agreed upon. Opinion does not constitute fact, opinion is a colored interpretation of facts. Opinion, btw, can never be wrong as an ‘opinion’ is simply a belief held by someone (articulated or not). So, my intent isn’t to have colorless, passionless calm (boring) discussion of relevant facts, my intent is to change minds through the presentation of facts and an impassioned set of arguments bolstering my opinions I have woven around the facts. This is not to say that I am immune to other peoples arguments, just that I am going to voice my opinions forcefully, just with the caveat that I might change my opinions after exposure to new facts or to arguments wrapped around those facts. So with all that blather out in front, here are some of my arguments based on my friend’s comments…
Military Spending
It is a fact that our country spends huge amounts of our resources on our military. Something on the order of $700 billion dollars each and every year (which, btw, does NOT include the wars!) or around 30% of the revenue (tax dollars) pulled in by our government. I have variously heard quoted that our budget is as much as the entire rest of the world combined or ‘just’ more than the next 10 most expensive militaries in the world (not sure which is more scary). While not exactly a fact, it is commonly accepted as true that in any fight against a sophisticated adversary that adversary is highly unlikely to challenge us directly and instead will battle us on some sort of field where we lack such an overwhelming advantage (such as the cyber area). It is just as commonly held that against any unsophisticated adversary (read Saddam Hussein) fielding a WWII-based army and stupid enough to take our military on directly will be wiped away as so many cobwebs. Where opinion comes in is at what point is massive overkill against unsophisticated adversaries enough and at what point does spending 30% of our taxes developing weapon systems almost certainly to be made useless against a sophisticated adversary a huge and unnecessary drain on our economy (unless you consider it stimulus money to help make the rich already richer, in which case, perhaps 30% is way too low).
I suggest that our plethora of carrier battle groups is well past the point of diminishing returns and more than likely one (or just possibly two) on either side of the country would be more than adequate for any unsophisticated adversary and I strongly believe totally useless against any sophisticated adversary (super sonic missiles are actually quite cheap to deploy (when compared to carrier battle groups) and if, say, the defenses could handle 1,000 simultaneous incoming attacks, simply use 2,000 and saturate the defenses). The original intent of developing long-range fighter bombers was to reduce the reliance of having to reposition carrier battle groups (which while fast in comparison to walking, is very slow in comparison to the flight of even sub-sonic jets) to deliver a pointed diplomatic message. With the capabilities of the new super sonic cruisers coupled with the well established aerial refueling, sending a message from the US heartland to anywhere on the world in a dozen hours or less is quite trivial. Sure waging a war is a bit tricky, but really, in any war with an unsophisticated adversary we are simply going to move in and stage our equipment locally and against any sophisticated adversary, as I have tried to point out, our carriers are such huge, high value targets, that they will almost certainly be taken out even as the declaration of war (presuming they even bother) wings its way across the aether.
Since I am firmly in the belief that any new war against a sophisticated adversary will be largely fought in the cyber realm (meaning the bad guys have a big read button to push that will plunge our infrastructure back into the dark ages in about 300 milliseconds) and while our military has made substantial efforts to harden their systems, knowing how trivial it is to use social engineering to compromise networks, I doubt that anything short of putting AI in charge of our networks (Skynet anyone?) will allow us to respond in enough time to keep our military from being degraded (presuming, naturally, they don’t just sink the carriers to begin with). I am sure that any sophisticated adversary will be a deep student of Sun Tzu and will never, ever take us on at our strengths, so pissing away 30% of our treasure each year to me is a criminal waste of resources (particularly in our struggling economy and with our infrastructure falling to pieces around our ears). Also, all these bases scattered around the globe, while they look great on maps, a lot of the money we send there stays in the local economy (which the Philippines realized too late when they allowed us to leave Subic Bay), meaning that money is being spent to stimulate some OTHER country’s economy, not ours. Sure that is fine for the global economy, but at this time I think we are better focused on trying to jump start our economy rather than sustain others (though that is indeed a rather short-sighted idea; however, there are better ways to stimulate any economy besides creating bombs and tanks).
Social Safety Net
I am a strong believer that when everyone is better off, everyone is better off. Sounds brain dead? Well, if the poorest people are unable to contribute to the economy, then the middle class suffers and indeed even the rich ‘suffer’ (at least insofar as they could be richer still, though I am of the belief that the average rich person (who after all, already has more money than sense (a status to which I aspire!)) is more concerned with keeping others from competing than getting even wealthier). Today the world’s major economies are all run via consumerism, meaning the driving force behind the success (or failure, as we are experiencing) of a country’s economy is the ability of its citizens to purchase goods and services. Hence, when a large enough segment of the population is unable to contribute to the economy by purchasing goods or services then the economy can start a downward spiraling economy which drags everyone else with them (though, as noted, the rich still stay rich so have absolutely no incentive to give a damn).
So, with that as preamble, a weak social safety net means that when the inevitable economic downturn happens the economy launches into a downward spiral making the trough of the downturn much deeper, steeper and wider. So, with nothing more than enlightened self interest (which I firmly believe left the GOP a full generation ago!) one would expect endless champions of a strong safety net. Of course, just like our bloated military, it is quite possible to have too much of a good thing and I cherish the idea (but feel that the reality has left us) that here in the US it is possible, through perspiration and inspiration (and a great deal of luck), to self make yourself into the top of the 1% and I do NOT advocate the European goal of such progressive taxes that some professionals don’t even bother working a full 40 hour week because then they would be working for free.
How much is optimal? That, of course, is an area subject to a huge amount of debate, but I would say that too little is when a modest string of hardships causes the individual or family that experiences it to permanently join the ranks of the poverty stricken. Too much, clearly to me, is when taxes need to get so progressive that the incentive to improve one’s financial situation is removed. The happy middle ground? I think that for the average person that the social safety net should proved complete protection from the average series of average setbacks. Since the average person doesn’t experience much in the way of setbacks, clearly one should be evaluating those of the average who are subject to setbacks in order to form a baseline. You shouldn’t have to become homeless and destitute because you had some unexpected (really, are there any other kind?) medical bills.
This, of course, brings us to health care. It is my firm belief that a weak public health care system causes a huge drag on society and the economy. Just like I believe the average person should have a financial safety net, I also believe the average person should have a health/medical safety net to keep them from becoming long-term disabled. Our current system of socialized medicine (and I am NOT talking Obamacare!) is if you show up at an ER, they must treat you. Thus, the poorest of us (note that it is of ‘us’, they are not ‘them’!), being unable to afford any sort of medical care, then use the most expensive medical care there is (ER visits) and generally only after their condition has deteriorated to the point where the only remaining remedies are expensive treatments. Our societal cost could likely be an order of magnitude lower if, instead of ER visits, these people had ready access to free, full-service clinics.
Conclusion
I am going to have to get back to class here, so I am going to quickly sum up… Those who blather that strong social safety nets are a drain on the economy are clearly not thinking and those who think doing so is coddling the poor clearly haven’t had any cause to attempt to utilize what dribs and drabs our society has provided. Of course there will always be people who try to game the system, but rather than focusing on them (of course, (economical) steps should be taken to minimize it), the focus should be on those who really benefit from the (modest) hand up out of the gutter when they have taken a tumble. Not only is it moral and ethical (subjects I tried to avoid as being too touchy-feely and ‘liberal’) to support those less fortunate than ourselves, but it is also enlightened self interest. Beyond the notion that one day _you_ might need that hand up, if such a safety net helps to keep our economy stronger then we all benefit (even the wealthy; they get an even worse sense to money ratio).
Great write up. Too bad class is interfering with your blogging =)