TPMCafe
« Obama Showers Bibi With Love, Plus Me & General Petraeus | Home | Goldberg Watch: Jeff Moves Toward Call For Bombing Iran »

Liberal-Libertarian Breakthrough

user-pic

I've been writing for a while on the possibility of a Liberal-Libertarian coalition on issues like our imperial overstretch, This morning Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul have written a very strong piece in the Huffington Post on this very subject.

As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.

By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion -- more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.

It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.


This is a movement that needs wide support from both left and right. Until most Americans realize that there is a better Life After Empire, we will be trapped in a pinched view of the American future. Write Frank and Paul and tell them of your support.


25 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Can anyone understand why the same people who applaud, support American imperialism are also vehemently against having to pay taxes?

user-pic

Easy.... they can steal from those we conquer to support the country.

C

user-pic

This is not only greater that the sum of all discretionary spending programs combined. Its also greater that the military spending of all other countries combined.

user-pic

I agree but where are the rest of them? Where are you Senator Amy? Senator Al?

Nothing will change until we refuse to vote for it. They made some cosmetic tweaks to the Bush policy. Took his General. Took his Secretary of Defense. Installed Hillary the Hawk at State. Same wars. Same out of control budget. Same war profiteers. Same war for profit mercenaries.

That's what we voted for and that's what I will not vote for in 2010 and 2012.

user-pic

This is awesome news, but...

..all we'll see next is a different kind of unity - between John McCain and Barack Obama.

user-pic

...not to mention neo-lib triangulation. Brilliant setup for Obama to play manly Commander in Chief. Great script. Somebody deserves an Academy Award.

user-pic

This 'breakthrough' reflects back upon a letter that was sent to the Fiscal Commission on May 27, 2010. The signers of the letter were Senator Wyden and Reps Frank, Jones and Paul. The Commission was established by presidential executive order on February 18, 2010 when the Congress failed to establish it as requested by the president.

There is a lot of chatter that President Obama has curtained off any military cuts from this Commission's consideration, but there is no basis for that.

Obama, April 27, 2010:

Now, I have said that it’s important that we not restrict the review or recommendations of this commission in any way. Everything must be on the table. Of course, this will mean that our friends in the media will ask me and others once a week, or once a day, about what we are willing to rule in and what we are willing to rule out. It’s an old Washington game – and one that has made it all but impossible in the past for people to sit down and have an honest discussion about putting our country on a more secure fiscal footing. So my message is simple: we’re not playing the game. Because I want this commission to be free to do its work.

The Commission's report is due no later than December 1, 2010.

user-pic

Frank threw out some interesting numbers this morn: We have "tens-of-thousands" of American troops stationed throughout Europe (all of which can well afford to 'protect' themselves); we have 15,000 marines stationed on Okinawa (still?); we have 28,000 troops stationed at the Korean DMZ (even though South Korea is a rich and prospering country quite capable of 'defending itself.

He added that because of a variety of new state-of-the-art weapons, fighting an enemy no longer requires that we be just next door. (Alexander the Great was probably the greatest general to have ever lived, but he fought his battles in 300 BC and this is 2010 AD.)

user-pic

Also in South Korea Gates made a decision to make SK an accompanied tour -- which means families, who need facilities including: high-rise apartment buildings, schools, gymnasiums, a splish'n'splash water park, etc etc. all being built at Camp Humphries.

There is no limit to what these people are brazen enough to do with our money.

user-pic

It's equally amazing how freely we distribute 'stimulus' money to foreign countries while at the same time screaming bloody murder if anyone suggests we distribute it in this country.

Apparently the former is fiscally sound while the latter is fiscal suicide?

user-pic

Great. Ron Paul. Surely one of the most powerful members of Congress.

user-pic

Are there any powerful members of Congress? Let's go out on the street and ask passersby to name ten members of Congress. Okay, five. One?

user-pic

Uh...so what percent of total spending is the military budget if you *do* add in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ryan and Grim and Shahien Nasiripour have a great peace up at Huffpo, looking at some recent deeper polling, and the extent to which most Americans really *don't* give a fig about deficits unless they're told to by reporters and uh...the White House! They point out the idiocy of it all, even in terms of electoral politics (Oh, Rahm! Oh, Axelrod!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/mayberry-machiavellis-oba_n_636770.html

But I got to thinking about polls and war spending: do polls ask people's opinions about it? And if so, any deeper polling? It might be interesting, as support wanes, and there are fewer jobs, and people start twigging to the fact that this recession may be deepening, and last a long, long time.

user-pic

Actually, what they said was (if I may put it in my terms) that when someone is asked a poll question that they don't know much about they will answer according to what they have read or heard recently in the media, thinking that is the best answer. Like if one were asked what laundry soap was the best the answer might,be the one that advertised the most because who knows which one is really best.

In this case I'm told (I lack a teevee and don't read newspapers) that a Mr. Peterson is promoting deficits as a problem, so that's the answer they tend to get.

So it's a human response that's involved, even something that I or you (gasp!) might do, and it leads to the (my) conclusion that polls don't mean much since they are driven by the media and we know how reliable that is.

user-pic

Forgive me, I'm answering too many comments on too many diaries. Yes, they mentioned that part of polling response, but did you click on this survey? I think it's more what I was speaking about. Sorry I can't check to be poitive, but I really have to shuck some corn for dinner now!
;-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/unemployment-benefits-are_n_603368.html

user-pic

Good link. Thanks

It makes sense to cut military spending also. Why must it always be cut social programs.

user-pic

This is an idea that has deserved wide support for about 35 years and yet never gets it because the "moderate" Democrats are (as usual) too afraid to make any real and substantial reductions in the miltary budget because the Republicans will attack them. This ver modest initial foray into budget reduction for the Pentagon is almost laughable. They are talking about 100 Billion dollars a year for 10 years. That's just the tip of the iceberg for God's sake! We could easily cut 50% of the current pentagon budget and still be spending far and away the most on defense of any nation on earth. We could likely save three trillion dollars if our elected leaders in DC were serious about curtailing the deficit and bringing the "defense" budget in line with our actual defense needs.

user-pic

You're saying that that US doesn't need ten nuclear carrier fleets, and that manned combat aircraft are obsolete, and you're claiming there's no more need for heavy tanks and artillery to be maintained in standing armies, and that we don't need to be building a new military city in Korea? That there is absolutely no practical justification for all these expensive military trappings? Is that the heresy you're trying to promote, brother?

user-pic



Battling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobby . . .


The following is a 2007 Chamber of Commerce report.

Defense Trade: Keeping America Secure and Competitive (pdf)

Starting on Page 10:


The U.S. Defense Industry: National Defense Spending and the U.S. Economy

At the national level, U.S. defense expenditures totaled $474.4 billion, representing 3.8% of the U.S. GDP of $12.5 trillion in 2005. The portion of the defense budget most relevant to the defense industry is the investment portfolio, consisting of procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The investment program of the U.S. Department of Defense totaled $165.4 billion in FY 2005, including supplemental appropriations of more than 1% of the U.S. GDP. Defense investment, as a percentage of U.S. GDP, is estimated to continue to be slightly above 1% throughout the remainder of the Bush presidency and into the immediate future.

Although large, the U.S. defense industry is not as large as the popular perception of “a vast military industrial complex.” For example, the combined market capitalization of the five largest defense and aerospace firms is less than that of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Nevertheless, it is an industry that “punches above its weight.”

  • National defense expenditures totaled $474.4 billion in 2005.
  • National defense expenditures represented 3.8% of U.S. GDP in 2005.
  • Defense investment—procurement and RDT&E—was a little more than 1% of GDP in 2005.

Defense Spending and the U.S. Economy

Defense industry spending has a strong impact throughout the U.S. economy. Major industries that supply products and services to the U.S. defense industry include important services industries such as scientific research and development and engineering and architectural services. Other major industry sectors closely tied to defense and aerospace spending are wholesale trade, telecommunications, and aircraft.

Defense purchases in the scientific research and development industry are projected to total $47.1 billion in 2006, followed by projected defense purchases in the engineering and architectural services industry of $33.2 billion.

Other key industries that supply goods and services to the U.S. defense industrial base are
telecommunications and aircraft manufacturing.

Defense Spending and U.S. State Economies

While defense spending is important nationally, it also has important effects in specific parts of the country. States that are home to military installations and significant defense contractor activity, and thus derive important economic benefits from defense spending, are California, Virginia, Texas, Florida, Maryland, Arizona, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. Defense expenditures in these states represent nearly 55% of the projected
$491.7 billion in total defense purchases nationwide in 2006.

The U.S. Defense-Related Workforce

Another area where the defense and aerospace industry has a strong impact is on jobs. In 2006, defense-related industry employment totaled 3.6 million, representing 2.4% of the U.S. labor force. Below are highlights of the defense-related workforce:

  • Defense-related industry employment totaled 3.6 million in 2006.
  • Defense-related industry employment increased by nearly 50%, or 1.2 million jobs, between 2000 and 2006.
  • Private defense-related employment totaled 2.4% of total employment in 2006.
  • Total defense-related employment, which includes the U.S. Department of Defense military and civilian workforce as well as defense-related industry jobs, was 5.7 million in 2006, representing 3.8% of the U.S. labor force.

Although substantial concentrations of defense related employment are found in the federal government, the private sector plays an significant role as well. The aerospace product and parts manufacturing industry is heavily reliant on defense spending because it designs and constructs military aircraft. The navigational and measuring manufacturing industry designs and develops complex integrated electronics and guidance systems in aircraft, missiles, and rockets.

Finally, the search and navigation equipment manufacturing industry designs and builds radar, sonar, infrared honing, and many other tracking and location systems for use by the military. At the same time, the modern-day defense industry relies more and more on commercial off-the-shelf products, thus supporting numerous jobs in the private sector that are fully  intermingled with the non-defense production of goods and services.

More at: www.uschamber.com/NR/..../defensetrade.pdf


~OGD~

user-pic

Of course it's not only the CoC -- it's every senator and rep, plus a lot of mayors and such who depend upon the military budget to sustain their communities and districts with spending and employment.

user-pic

Pakistan Pays Price for Trucking in Afghan War Cargo

Drivers say rising violence and fuel costs since 2006 have forced them to double the rates they charge for the run to Afghanistan. That increase, plus the new Central Asian supply lines and other logistical challenges, bring the war’s cost to almost $1.2 million annually per soldier, 73 percent more than the $685,000 cost of a soldier in Iraq, according to a June 29 analysis by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

user-pic

You are "preaching to the choir" dudes.

user-pic

Also,Are your look at vivienne westwood jewellery,vivienne westwood handbags, its brand is vivienne westwood.It includes vivienne westwood earrings,vivienne westwood necklace,vivienne westwood bags and vivienne westwood wallet, vivienne westwood purses and so on. The brand vivienne westwood is more and more popular now.

user-pic

Now days,juicy couture became more and more popular,it includes juicy couture flip flops,juicy couture tracksuits,juicy couture watches,Particularly in summer.

user-pic

Do you have heard ed hardy ? Let's me introduce it to you,it contain ed hardy t shirts , ed hardy bags and and so on.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address