Trimming Defense

Disclaimer: I am a veteran of 23 years of military service, and am now employed by a defense contractor to support a set of offices in the Pentagon.

With Congress scrambling to figure out how to keep spending lots of money at the same time it slashes the budget, the search is on for the proverbial low-hanging fruit ... the things that can be cut from the budget with the least amount of political pain. One of the places these cuts are often sought is in the military budget, which is - admittedly - enormous, and which can probably use some judicious trimming.

But where do you trim, and how, and what is the real savings you get when balanced against the risks you take?

When the so-called Supercommittee (the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction) last year failed miserably in its mission to trim billions of dollars from the federal budget (because Democrats wouldn't cut social programs and Republicans wouldn't consider raising taxes), it started the clock ticking on a set of mandatory cuts to the budget which would begin in 2013 (safely after the presidential election). The vast majority of those cuts would come from the defense budget, which is always an easy target.

Let's talk about the whole subject of defense, shall we?

The preamble to the Constitution states that one of the purposes of the new government was to provide for the common defense. The Founders knew they were living in a dangerous world, and that an army and a navy were important to protecting the independence of the new nation. But they were, as we are today, conflicted about the desirability of maintaining a large standing army. They'd just fought a war against a king who deployed a huge, professional army against citizens seeking redress of their grievances, and were tired of being forced to care for an army viewed not as a means of protection, but as a means of coercion. A mark of the Founders' concern about the domestic role of the military appears in the Bill of Rights: the third amendment states that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." And federal law, in the so-called posse commitatus act (18 USC I 67, Section 1385) forbids the government from using the Army "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" to enforce domestic law.

In our own recent history, we saw President Hoover deploy the Army to clear the peaceful protesters of the Bonus Army from the streets of Washington in 1932, and today we see armies in places like Syria and Libya used not for defense against external threats, but as instruments of repression.

Yes, we Americans have a love-hate relationship with the military, and it's one of the biggest genes in our national DNA, along with the worship of firearms (but that's a subject for another time).

So, when it comes time to reduce the federal budget, the military is hard-wired into our thinking as a prime target. The question becomes not, do we need an Army (and Navy, and Air Force) but how big ought those services be?

The Department of Defense spends a great deal of time and effort wrestling with this question, and the long and tortured history of Quadrennial Defense Reviews, blue-ribbon panels, study groups, Congressional hearings, and similar things is far too long and complex to summarize here. Suffice it to say that a lot of voices are heard when we try to decide how large our military should be: The President (who is, under the Constitution, the Commander in Chief of the armed forces), the Congress (whose members have a vested interest in protecting military spending in their own districts), the Department of Defense (which has to come up with an affordable strategy to counter the most probable threats), the individual Services (which each have their own priorities for manpower and weaponry based on their warfighting strategies), and ... of course ... the defense industry, the so-called military-industrial complex warned about by President Eisenhower (himself a retired four-star general) in 1961.

No doubt about it ... a strong military is expensive. The money spent on a single tank, aircraft, or naval ship could fund hospitals, schools, or important public services in many places for years. But is that money wasted?

Consider the economic impact: The enormous defense budget and the military-industrial complex it supports provides employment for millions of Americans (yours truly included). With a rate of unemployment remaining stubbornly over eight percent, tossing tens of thousands of military personnel and others employed in defense industries into an economy that can't find jobs for the people already there doesn't seem like a particularly good idea, at least in the short term.

Consider also the fact that we still live in a dangerous world. The threat of a global cataclysm on the order of World War II is pretty remote, as is the threat of nuclear war. We've withdrawn from Iraq and are on the way to disengaging from Afghanistan. But the world is still full of those who would do us ill, and not all of them are rational thinkers. Would you like your future to depend on the whims of a Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or an Hugo Chavez?

So what am I trying to say with all this bloviation?

Just this: we need to trim back our defense spending. But we need to do it rationally and not all at once, which would just make our current economic problems that much worse. If Bilbo were President (God help us!), here are a few things he would recommend (because, as we've seen, Presidents aren't empowered to do much of anything on their own):

1. Close all military facilities in Europe and bring back all forces to bases in the United States. The Europeans can worry about their own defense...there is no particular reason for keeping significant forces in Europe more than 70 years after the end of the Second World War.

2. Close all military facilities in Japan and South Korea and rebase the forces in the United States. It will save money, stop giving North Korea an excuse (however bogus) for its ludicrous and dangerous geopolitical antics, and remove part of China's excuse for the massive expansion of its military.

3. Invest in a strong, homeland-based Navy and Air Force for immediate power projection.

4. Refocus the Army away from large battlefield formations to a structure based on special operations forces. The likelihood of fighting a major ground war against a large land army is pretty remote, compared to the likelihood of having to fight the al Qaedas of the world.

5. Reduce the number of general and flag officers in the armed services by about half. Although the direct savings in pay may be modest, each GO/FO (Pentagon shorthand for general officer/flag officer) has an expensive support tail of secretaries, executive officers, aides, and office real estate that makes his (or her) cost considerably larger than pay alone, and consumes manpower resources that could be more profitably used elsewhere.

Most of my military friends would think I'm nuts for advocating most of these things, but I think they're all reasonable, even though the devil will remain lurking in the details. There's only so much money to spend, and we need to spend it wisely.

We have a responsibility to provide for the common defense, after all.

What are your thoughts?

Have a good day. Thank a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine for being free to have it.

More thoughts tomorrow, when we return to our discussion of the Constitution.

Bilbo

A Brief Tax Rant

If you want to watch a Republican's head explode, say something positive about taxes. Actually, nobody likes to pay taxes but, as we see every day, everybody likes the things taxes pay for. What we really want is something for nothing ... or something that, in true Wall Street fashion, is paid for with someone else's money.

But let's be realistic for a minute.

If we want frivolous things like schools, police and fire protection, and an army, we're going to have to pay taxes. The issue is not whether or not taxes are necessary - they are. The real issue is twofold: how to fairly assess and collect the right amount of tax from individuals and businesses, and how to decide what those taxes will pay for.

What constitutes fair in the tax debate is, of course, a matter of opinion. If you have an income of $20,000, any amount of tax taken out may seem unfair. If you have an income of $1,000,000, it may seem unfair that you are asked to pay a larger portion of that income in taxes. Fair is relative.

Here's an example of a tax issue that makes me go AARRGGHH!!

I commute to work every day using a so-called SmarTrip electronic card which is loaded with money that is debited each time I tap it on a Metro turnstile or a fare box on a bus...

One of the ways I can add money to this card is by designating a small, IRS-approved part (currently $130) of my pre-tax pay to be automatically loaded to it each month. This helps pay for my daily commute, keeps a car off the roads, and provides me with a modest tax savings. Is this fair, when compared to benefits not enjoyed by people who don't commute? Probably not. But it's my little tax break, and in a deep and cobwebby part of my fundamentally conservative heart, I'll defend it fiercely.

Now, the IRS has recently decided that the commuter benefit must be more tightly regulated to prevent abuse. My SmarTrip card has been automatically partitioned to separate money for commuting (by bus or train, which is not taxed) from money used to pay for parking (which is not supposed to be paid for with the pre-tax commuting benefit). The fact that you might have a multi-stage commute which requires you to drive to (and park at) a Metro station to catch your bus or train is immaterial. Is this fair?

This is a small but, to me, very annoying tax issue. The law provides all sorts of loopholes which allow some categories of well-represented taxpayers to avoid paying tax on huge amounts of money, while Congress (not the IRS, who are just the enforcers of the laws Congress passes) wants to make sure that I'm not abusing that untaxed $130 per month on my SmarTrip card.

I don't have a big point or message today ... just an observation on one small part of the stupidity of the anti-tax movement and the equal stupidity of the tax code that Congress has written - one that offers benefits and protections to those who can afford Platinum-Plus Representation^TM from the representative they've bought and paid for.

The rest of us, just suck it up and fill out that 1040. Take solace in the fact that you're doing your part to support the job creators.

And if you believe that, I can make you a good deal on a bridge.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Unkindest Cuts of All

Yesterday on Facebook I was taken out to the intellectual woodshed for a wire-brushing by my friend Bob, who took me to task over his contention that I was “casting blame [at our political classes] very one-dimensionally.” He accused me of “…devolving into dogmatism …,” noting that, “All your spears seem to be reserved for the Republicans and you have no criticism for the other side…”

Yes, I tend to be hard on Republicans because I'm basically conservative, and I expect better behavior and clear, rational discussion of serious issues from people that are supposed to be thoughtfully and seriously conservative. Unfortunately, there appear to be no rational, thoughtful Republicans left … only a bunch of unyielding, unthinking demagogues led around by the nose by Grover Norquist and the Tea Party, reduced to shouting slogans and petulantly refusing to compromise on any issue.

All that said, in one regard I agree 100% with the Republicans (incredible as that may seem): government spending – in relation to income – is out of control. Both parties are at fault, even though Republicans insist it's all the fault of the big-spending Democrats (it's worth remembering that the Republicans are the party of a president that fought two wars on credit while cutting the taxes that might have helped pay for them). Democrats, on the other hand, believe there’s nothing wrong with spending money we don't have on social programs that are often of questionable value. Every member of Congress tries to bolster his or her chances of reelection by steering government spending for the benefit of the home district, or to curry favor with particular unions, ethnic groups, special interests, or whatever. It's a game everybody plays, and it's cynical and disingenuous for either side to claim otherwise.

Yes, the real issue, as the Republicans rightly point out, is spending, which absolutely must be brought under control. Simply raising taxes to generate a larger amount of money to spend only makes the problem worse. But when the deficit is as huge as it is, refusing to even hypothetically consider the possibility of maybe discussing raising taxes to help lower the deficit strikes me as, to say the least, irresponsible.

So, we have to cut spending, and we have to at least think about taxes. The two are related, no matter how much the hyperconservative right would wish it otherwise. Today, I'll talk about cutting spending. On Sunday, I'll look at taxes.

Disclaimer: everything I know about economics could be placed in a thimble and still leave room for a herd of elephants and a brass band. I'm just sayin' ...

Let's start at the beginning. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…”

That seems pretty clear to me: Congress can spend money, and has the authority impose taxes to get the money to spend. So far, so good. The devil is, of course, in the details.

What are the common defense and general welfare functions of government that tax revenue should pay for? The Constitution doesn’t say. They are easier to identify at the state and local level of government – things like police and fire protection, schools, and sanitation are services we generally expect our local (state and below) governments to provide. The higher one goes in the government, though, the less obvious are the things we can all agree should be paid for by tax revenue – most of us would probably agree on the need for an army, a court system, and the general legislative and executive mechanisms of government, but how about educational standards? Regulation of commerce? Social Security? Food safety and purity? Air traffic control? Workplace safety? Protecting minorities from discrimination? Aid to poor families? Printing every government publication in both English and a million other languages (because why should immigrants have to learn to speak English)?

Riddle me this, Batman: what should we cut, and by how much?

It’s easy to throw out sound bites like “$4 trillion in cuts,” but when you come down to naming the specific things to cut that will add up to that $4 trillion, you’ll be deafened by the bellowing of all the oxen being gored. Every government program you can name has its ardent defenders who can marshal great throngs of supporters, petitions with thousands of signatures, and reinforced platoons of expensive lobbyists to argue that it is vital to the life of the Republic and can’t possibly be terminated or reduced in any way.

So, what would you cut?

I have some suggestions (which I'll post here in a few days), and many people have logged their suggestions at websites like The National Taxpayers Union and Representative Eric Cantor's "You Cut Citizen Review of Government." But it's Congress that will have to make the tough decisions and incur the wrath of the constituents who will be angered by specific reductions.

I wish I had the answers, but I don't. I have ideas, and so do many others. What we don't have are leaders with the political will and courage to make the tough decisions in spite of pressure from vested interests (including you and I) ...

What should we cut? And what else do we need to do to dig our way out of the current economic crisis? Come back on Sunday, when we'll look at the unpleasant but necessary topic of taxes, and continue our discussion of the things we should cut.

Have a good day and a great weekend. Tomorrow is Cartoon Saturday, and not a day too soon.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Something to Read

I stumbled on this wonderful Time Magazine article by Fareed Zakaria over the weekend: How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality. It says everything that people like me - fundamentally conservative, but appalled at the shameful behavior of today's Republican party - believe.

Nobody can possibly disagree that government spending is greatly out of line with revenue (what we used to call taxes, but that makes Republicans' heads explode, so we can't say the word any more). Simply raising taxes to increase revenue without responsibly reducing government spending is as stupid as the Republican approach of slashing responsible regulations on business and industry and cutting taxes on the wealthy while throwing everyone not in the upper classes under the proverbial bus with huge spending cuts that, in many cases, amount to a - dare I say it? - tax increase on the lower classes.

Time to get real, Republicans. Read Mr Zakaria's article and think about what he has to say.

I know you won't, but it's one of the safer of the fantasies I have.

Have a good day. Think. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Another Look At Titles...

Back in March of 2008 (when dinosaurs roamed the earth, in Internet terms) I wrote a blog post called My Title's Better Than Your Title. It was my reflection on our penchant for giving ourselves grand titles to establish our position in social, political, and economic hierarchies, and in it I told the story of why I would like to have the distinguished title of Illustrious Potentate.

I think the whole subject of titles and honors is fascinating, and since writing that post I have come across many other titles that I've found interesting, if - sometimes - unfortunate. Consider the handle of this fellow from the Small Business Administration who was mentioned in a recent summary of movements of senior government officials:

Director, Disaster Credit Management System Operation Center

Wow ... let me dust off my degree in Linguistics for a moment while I think about this one.

On reflection, I'm pretty sure I understand what this gentleman's responsibilities were: they probably involved directing efforts to ensure that small businesses have access to credit to help them recover in the wake of disasters...to rebuild facilities, replace stock, make payroll, etc.

But that's not how I read it at first.

My first reading suggested that this gentleman was responsible for ensuring that the right people got credit for disasters. For example, he might have signed the papers and issued the press releases that gave Republican economic policies credit for the huge crater where our economy used to be. Of course, it's not all the Republicans' fault ... they just slashed government income by cutting taxes and gutted regulation of the financial "management" industry so that Real People's assets could be more efficiently looted. The Democrats did their part by championing expensive programs without considering how they might be funded - an issue which, had they considered it, would have been made a bit more difficult by the tax revenue no longer available.

Yes, there are plenty of people who should have credit for managing this disaster. Think about that when you go to the polls on November 2nd.

But you won't, because we Americans have woefully short memories to go along with our voracious appetites.

And I'll be happy just continuing in my effort to be an Illustrious Potentate. Or the best grandfather I can be ... which is probably better, anyhow.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Yet Another Taxing Discussion

Before we get to the meat of today's post, I must first announce - drum roll, please - the receipt of letter from Green Canary! I wrote to the ever-entertaining and slightly off-center Canary (self-described as, "Uncaged. Unhinged. Unusual.") after she responded to my last offer of a personal, hand-written letter, and she has done her part by writing back. This means that I am now owed two letters from previous recipients: my high-school friend and college roommate Ed, and good old Mike. I think Mike hasn't written back because he's waiting for his over-plucked goose to grow a new crop of quills. If you, treasured reader, want a letter of your own, send your snail-mail address to bilbo_the_blogger (at) yahoo (dot) com, and you, too, can have a personal letter of your very own to keep all the bills and junk mail in your mailbox company.

But enough of that ... there are rants to be ranted.

One of the infuriating things about the ongoing political buffoonery is the tendency of people on both sides of any debate to reduce complex topics to easily-parroted, bumper-sticker absolutes: black or white, yes or no, you're for us or against us, chicken or fish, etc, etc. The discussion of taxes is one such issue that is routinely reduced to meaningless polar opposites for purpose of counting political coup against opponents (as opposed to actually shedding light and understanding on an important topic).

In this regard, you may be interested in this article by Christopher Beam from Slate.com - Taxonomy: Beyond "Hikes" and "Cuts."

In this short, yet information-filled article, Mr Beam goes beyond the ordinary political bloviation about "tax hikes" - vs - "tax cuts" to explore the various types of political dodges that complicate the raising of revenue (note to the GOP and the Tea Party wingnuts: the Constitution (Section 8, specifically) does, in fact, give the federal government the authority to collect taxes). He distinguishes between (or is it among?) the following tax terms:

Tax Hike;

Tax Cut;

Tax Break;

Sunset Taxes;

Kicking-the-Can;

Incremental Tax Cuts/Hikes;

Derivative Tax Cuts/Hikes;

Do-Nothing Tax Hikes; and,

Patches.

I haven't gone into the details of each one, because Mr Beam's article does a very good job and it's worth your time to read it in full. It's not long, and it lends subtlety and nuance to a critical topic which is generally obscured by layers of pettifoggery and general political ass-clownery.

And in case you were keeping track, it's only 260 days until April 15, 2010.

Have a good day. Don't overtax yourself. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Government, Boo! Services, Yay!

The unfolding ecological disaster of the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has, if nothing else, clearly demonstrated the foolishness of those who demand smaller, less intrusive, and cheaper government, yet also demand all the things that larger government provides.

Every day the oil spill goes on, we hear people like Louisiana's conservative Republican governor Bobby Jindal thunder to the cameras, asking why isn't the federal government doing more to help us?

So, let me see if I have this right...

Big, expensive, and intrusive government is bad. Except when you need its help.

We see the same thing each time a crowd of older Tea Party activists demand lower taxes and an end to expensive government programs ... except for Social Security and Medicare, of course.

We saw it when the terrifying disaster of Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast. Everybody wanted Federal assistance, largely because no responsible planning and organization had been done at the state level ... but God forbid we should have to pay the taxes that pay for that assistance.

We can't have it both ways.

Bloated and inefficient government is indeed bad, and we Americans have a long-standing distrust of distant governments taxing, spending, and ruling by fiat without input from the citizens (just ask King George III how that worked out). The problem is that it's easy to rail about the evils of big government as long as we don't need the things big government provides, and it's hard to define just how big and expensive a national government needs to be. What are the legitimate functions of the federal government as opposed to state government? And what is an appropriate level of taxation to impose on the citizens to pay for it?

Unfortunately, we're not having that discussion. Instead, we're hearing nothing but overheated rhetoric that lost contact with social and economic reality. We're hearing populist claptrap that gets politicians elected, but doesn't solve problems.

So what do you think? If you want all the things a big, paternalistic government provides, but want lower taxes, tell me how you propose to pay for it. And don't tell me that you'll pay for it by "eliminating fraud and waste" - show me specifically what fraud and waste you propose to eliminate.

Because letting China finance your government is not a good thing.

Think before you demonstrate. Be realistic. Shouting slogans is easy ... coming up with reasonable, affordable programs is hard.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo