President Obama has embarked on a grand strategy that seems to relegate the United States to the status of just “one among many.” The president has firmly rejected the idea of American exceptionalism and the status of the United States as the “indispensable nation” that must provide the “public good” of security. His actions with regard to the domestic economy have also made it difficult, if not impossible, for the United States to increase defense spending in the future if such a response becomes necessary. This is a radical shift and a dangerous one.
And let's put to rest the idea that the defense budget is big enough that this makes no difference:
Critics of U.S. defense spending shrug their shoulders, arguing that the United States spends more on defense than the next ten countries in the world. But this is misleading. U.S. defense spending reflects the role that America has played in the world since the end of World War II: U.S. military forces essentially have provided an international “public good” by underwriting the security on which global stability, interdependence, and ultimately prosperity depend.
It has been the United States that ensured access to the “global commons” — especially freedom of navigation, which is essential to the prosperity arising from free trade and commerce — and airspace. It has been the United States that has deterred the behavior of potential aggressors in the international system. If the U.S. forces that provide this public good are stretched too thin because they are underfunded, the result will be a decline in global stability and prosperity, something already evident over the past few years. World War I illustrates how rapidly an interdependent world order can collapse if the rise of aggressive powers is not checked.
The United States has underwritten international security with a defense budget that, while high in absolute terms, nonetheless represents only about 4 percent of gross domestic product and about 15 percent of the federal budget. But under the present administration, the defense budget has been asked to bear the burden of any proposed cuts. For example, the sequester imposed 50 percent of spending reductions on defense. And the Obama administration has chosen to cut defense spending while doing nothing about the continuing expansion of entitlement programs, which make up 80 percent of the federal budget.
By the way, I'd forgotten that Chuck Hagel was a signatory to the Global Zero report recommending reductions in US and Russian nuclear forces to 450 apiece.
I read that entitlements comprise about 2/3s of the federal budget. OASI is not an entitlement, really. What happened to the multi trillion $$ surplus and where did the increased payroll tax $$$ go?
ReplyDelete"For more than a quarter of a century, the United States government, under FIVE presidents, has hoodwinked the American public into believing their Social Security contributions would be used for future Social Security benefits when, in fact, all of the surplus Social Security revenue was used to fund such things as tax cuts for the rich, two wars, and other government programs. "
- See more at: http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/#sthash.gX7WgZZu.dpuf
Also in the above cited link, under the heading "How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People:"
ReplyDelete"In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund."
Loved it back in da day, the Irishmen (Tip too) locking horns (President Who & of what? lol?)
ReplyDeletePresidents don't spend money. The House of Representatives does. Also, tax cuts for "the rich" or anybody else never need to be paid for.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund#axzz2uRmmDR50
ReplyDeleteWhen in 1939 the Roosevelt administration proposed various amendments to Social Security, congressional hearings and debate on the proposals saw extensive airing of the reserve fund controversy. Critics accused the administration of “embezzlement” and repeated the charges that the reserve was merely IOUs, and that Americans would be taxed twice. No embezzlement was occurring, defenders retorted; there wouldn’t be any double taxation, and the much-maligned IOUs were the safest investment around—U.S. government bonds. They raised a valid point: holding the surplus as cash was silly, and buying private securities was not allowed. So where else could the Reserve Fund money go but into Treasuries?10 By now three years old, the reserve-fund controversy had become a serious blow to Social Security’s prestige.
On the recommendation of Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, the Social Security Amendments of 1939 created an Old Age and Survivors’ Insurance Trust Fund at the Treasury. This was done for the express purpose of ending the controversy. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee during the hearings on the amendments, Social Security Board Chairman Arthur Altmeyer stated that the purpose of the trust fund was “to allay the unwarranted fears of some people who thought Uncle Sam was embezzling the money.”11
Creation of Social Security’s trust fund, then, was a public-relations ploy.
So? Nice to know the supposed "rest of the story" I suppose, but it is what it is. Your ilk has been fighting social security since way before its inception and is still fighting it. You can look up Ronnie's glowing speech about it when he signed the Payroll Tax bill he proposed and rammed through Congress back on April 20, 1983.
ReplyDelete"This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to social security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have our pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire…"-Ronald Reagan, April 20, 1983
And, get your facts about matters such as the budget and how many voters regret voting for Obama in '12. So-called entitlements are 66% of the federal budget, not 80% as your linked author states, unless my author is lying here at http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
Two-Thirds of All Federal Spending Was Mandatory in 2013
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with other entitlement programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and housing assistance, make up 60 percent of all federal spending. Including interest on the debt, the share of the budget that is mandatory spending is two-thirds.
That's called unsustainable.
ReplyDeleteDon't pick on OASI though. We paid into it. And the full faith and credit of the USA is behind it. Your beloved Ronnie said so.
ReplyDeleteThat money is gone. The program is awash in unfunded liabilities. It's time for the nation to let its citizens divise their own plans for their sunset years, with an actual rate of return.
ReplyDeleteGo back and watch the 1964 Time for Choosing speech. He talks pretty pointedly about government raiding the Social Security fund for general purposes.
ReplyDelete