The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Nartional Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nartional Budget. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Defense Spending, Foreign Aid, Human Services, Tax Rates, And "World Police Force"

When I started keyboarding here, my intent was to look closely at defense spending and foreign aid in relation to Human Services Mandatory Spending. We all know, despite our reticence, Mandatory Spending must be trimmed, modified or adjusted in some way.  With acknowledgement of the need to adjust mandatory programs, I will admit to amazement at the graphic above which depicts FY2011 Defense Spending in relation to US Foreign Aid (spending).  Since, I am offering admissions,  allow me to also admit the chart is a bit misleading. My overall point in writing here is related to GOP efforts to slash and burn any program outside Defense while refusing to tackle our deficit and budget issues via increasing revenue.  

All said, the stark and obsessive reality of 58% of the nation's Discretionary Spending on defense is pure overkill, hierarchically convenient (for military brass)  and  'turfdom' for congressional (members).

With aforementioned recognition of a growing (baby boomer) problem with Medicare as part of Mandatory Spending, I continue to wonder why  cuts in defense spending and increase in revenue should not offset the need to slash Medicare.  Even raising the Medicare eligibility age seems a slap against the nation's middle class and lower income strata. It just does not seem a balanced approach and the majority of pooled respondents indicate a preference for a balanced approach to deficit issues.

Since we started this webpage, our commitment to, comment about, and tracking of how we spend as a nation has been consistent.  We continue to receive graphic representations of "spending." One of the most prevalent area of social media graphic representation these days are defense spending and and in some cases aid to foreign nations.

Federal Discretionary and Mandatory Spending 2011
(Specific) Federal Discretionary Spending 2012

Click for larger view  (larger view is a must to facilitate reading)

A few closing points or questions. When will rational minds devote more attention to defense spending?  Even the crafty wire-brains in North Korea and Iran, know full well any attack on this nation would lead to releasing a form of extinction certain to render them dead.  Other countries will not take up arms against the largest consumer market on Earth. I think this is especially true of China and Russia.  As Rachel Maddow and others have posited, "we spend billions on 1950s weapons system."  The real threat is far less costly and has a major anchor in cyber systems.  Other than in South Korea and possibly Japan, due to North Korea, how necessary is our presence in worldwide presence as illustrated below. 

Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 Countries…This covers 75% of The World’s Nations. 
December 31, 2011 overseas deployments
Total Active Duty1,414,000
Air Force – 332,724Army – 558,571
Marines – 200,225Navy – 322,629
The Top 14 Countries Where the United States has Active Troops
US Deployment Facts | Top 14 Countries Where US Troops are Deployed
Click here to see larger version of Top 14 Places to Find Troops

The United States employees around 81,425 local foreigners across the World.

All data considered and the case made for need to 'make adjustments' to certain human services programs, there is something wrong with rhetoric such as, "We cannot cut defense spending."  

Since this screed has a greater context of deficit spending and the US National Budget, the graphics above are hard to 'swallow' without some attention to people who are paying taxes at rates that contribute to the nations economic collapse in 2007/2008. 

If we are going to continue with over half the nations discretionary spending devoted to what amounts to a world police force, why not have people who stand to lose more (and can afford more), pay more in taxes?   The question is based in a  very basic form of deductive reasoning, but validate question.