A US soldier stands at the Qayyarah military base during the ongoing operation to recapture the last major Iraqi city under the control of the Islamic State (IS) group jihadists in October 2016 (Photo: YASIN AKGUL/AFP/Getty Images)American military superiority has eroded seriously in the last decades. This was the conclusion of the latest report by the National Defense Strategy Commission, a bipartisan body charged by Congress to evaluate the U.S.’ defense capabilities.
The commission said the erosion was to such a “dangerous degree” that “America’s ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt.”
The report further stated, “If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting.”
It notes that due to the superiority of American military power in the past, the U.S.:
has deterred or defeated aggression and preserved stability in key regions around the globe
ensured freedoms around the globe on which American and international prosperity depends
given America unrivaled access and influence
prevented America from being coerced or intimidated
helped to avert a recurrence of the devastating global wars of the early 20th century, which required repeated interventions at a cost of hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives
“Put simply,” the report states, “U.S. military power has been indispensable to global peace and stability—and to America’s own security, prosperity, and global leadership.”
One of the main reasons America has seen its military edge slip away is budgetary cuts, which have prevented “essential … modernization” that have contributed to shortfalls in readiness.
By Joseph Curl• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Sometimes, especially lately, it’s depressing to think about the future of the U.S.
The economy has been in the doldrums since Barack Obama took office, and, in a slew of ways, is actually worse now. Median incomes are the lowest since 1995 [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html], the workforce is its smallest in nearly 50 years [http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/data-shows-millions-of-americans-falling-out-of-the-workforce/], real unemployment is running at 16.6 percent [http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx], and all those 20-something kids who should be working are moving back home with their parents. [http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/living/parents-moving-home-millennials/]
But that’s not the real problem. See, on top of all that, we’re $17.5 trillion in debt.
The last time America was debt free was 1836. That lasted one year. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt was less than $1 trillion. When he went home to California, the debt was three times that. George H.W. Bush pumped the debt up to $4 trillion. Bill Clinton ran it up to $5.6 trillion. And by the time George W. Bush left office, the debt had nearly doubled to more than $10 trillion.
In Mr. Obama’s first four years, the debt has soared more than $7 trillion.
How’d we get here? Consider this: When Mr. Obama went to Brussels this week, he took a 900-person entourage, three cargo planes, two 747s, a slew of support planes, a phalanx of Marine One helicopters and nearly 50 vehicles for his motorcade.
That was for a 24-hour stay.
But it’s not just that. America has been so rich for so long, it just can’t get used to the notion that it’s not wealthy any more. It’s as if America is the wife of a billionaire who finds herself suddenly divorced. No more suites at the Ritz-Carlton, time for the Days Inn. Oh, and get used to mac ‘n’ cheese.
There’s a puzzling puzzle that virtually no one seems to notice: If America is the richest country in the world, why doesn’t everyone owe us money? Why do we owe China $1.2 trillion? Hell, we owe ourselves $4.4 trillion. (more…)
Vladimir Putin and his American apologists like to blame NATO’s post-Cold War expansion for his territorial conquests, which ignores that the alliance refused in 2008 to let Georgia and Ukraine even begin the process of joining. Those are the two countries the Russian has since carved up, and the question now is whether Russia’s expansionism will slap Western leaders out of their self-defense slumbers.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen sounded the alarm last week in a visit to Washington. “I see Crimea as an element in a greater pattern” of Russian strategy, he told an audience at the Brookings Institution. Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, he said, is “a wake-up call” that “must be followed by increased European investment in defense.” He might have included the U.S.
The combined GDP of NATO’s 28 member states tops $30 trillion. Yet with few exceptions, most notably Poland, NATO defense expenditures have declined since the end of the Cold War. The nearby table shows the relative defense spending in 2013 for some key NATO countries as a share of GDP. Only four members—the U.S., U.K., Greece and Estonia—spent at least 2% of GDP on defense.
At 1.9%, France last year fell short of the 2% that is supposed to be the technical requirement for membership. Mr. Rasmussen’s Denmark spent 1.4% of its GDP on defense, Angela Merkel‘s Germany 1.3%, Italy 1.2%, and Spain 0.9%. This is what a country spends if it thinks its main security threat is Belgium.
And the trend is down, as a majority of NATO members reduced defense spending in 2013. Among the more drastic defense cutters last year were Canada (7.6%), Slovenia (8.7%), Italy (10.3%), Hungary (11.9%) and Spain (11.9%).
The U.S. reduced its overall spending by an estimated 2%. That might not sound like much, but American spending comprised 72% of all NATO defense expenditures in 2013. Under President Obama’s latest budget proposal, U.S. defense spending will fall from 4.6% of GDP in 2011 to 3.5% in fiscal 2015 and 2.9% by 2017 when he is supposed to leave his successor a country stronger than he inherited. On present trend it will be weaker.
The Obama theory of “collective security” is that as the U.S. retreats from its historic commitments in Europe and the Middle East, allies will step up to deter aggressors and protect Western interests. NATO budget cuts suggest otherwise.
The cuts have created “gaps in meeting core NATO tasks” and resulted in “forces that are not ready, not trained, and not sufficiently equipped,” according to a 2012 study by the U.S. National Defense University. In plain English, this means that if Vladimir Putin sets his sights on NATO’s eastern periphery—by targeting the Baltic states, for example—the alliance may not have the capability to resist even if it has the political will.
European powers in recent years have shelved entire divisions and weapons systems. The British Royal Navy doesn’t operate a proper aircraft carrier. The Netherlands in 2012 disbanded its heavy-armor division, and France and the U.K. each now field a mere 200 main battle tanks. France has cut its orders of Rafale combat jets to six a year from 11. This isn’t even a Maginot Line. (more…)
Republicans in Congress are being accused of fighting a “war on the war on poverty,” in part because of a tiny cut in the food stamps program last week. Democrats charge that these “cuts” will take food from the mouths of hungry children, and they claim this is an example of how Congress has shred the safety net for the poor.
Never mind that this is the food aid program that has tripled in cost and doubled in participation in just the last decade. Even during the economic recovery, the number of recipients — one in seven Americans — continues to grow.
Federal budget data confirm that rising enrollment and cost is the real untold story of almost all welfare programs in America today.
Just 18 years ago Republicans and Clinton Democrats joined together to pass landmark legislation to “end welfare as we know it.” But today, welfare has been redesigned and expanded, not reformed.
The traditional cash welfare program, once known as AFDC, has shrunk — thanks in part to strict work requirements. But the new-age welfare is a conglomeration of dozens of income-support programs — some aren’t even labeled welfare — as generous and costly as ever.
In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $746 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But this doesn’t include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one’s income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That’s another $250 billion a year. All told, federal income transfer programs (not including Social Security and Medicare) have hit $1 trillion. (more…)
Two very differing articles regarding the President’s new budget proposal. The first article is from the Wall Street Journal and gives detailed and concise reasons why the President’s proposed budget will not promote faster growth and a healthier economy.
The second article is from the New York Times regarding the President’s proposed budget which doesn’t miss the chance to blame Republicans for the budget impasse. Nancy
April 110, 2013
The President’s Priorities
Debt in 2014 will hit 78.2% of the economy.
President Obama is pitching his new budget proposal as a fiscal peace offering to Republicans, but the details suggest everyone should expect more conflict. The fiscal 2014 plan he released Wednesday is a very slightly modified version of his previous budgets that reduces the deficit by raising taxes and trading defense cuts for more domestic spending.
The real news is that his budget ratifies much of the spending increase of the first term and tries to lock it in. He wants the feds to spend $3.78 trillion next year ($11,944 per American), which would still be 22.2% of national output nearly four years into an economic recovery. Before the financial panic in 2008, the government was spending about $1 trillion less, or closer to $2.7 trillion a year and an average of 20% of GDP—and President Bush was no slouch as a spender himself.
Mr. Obama wants federal spending to grow to $4.45 trillion by 2018 fueled mostly by the exploding costs of his Affordable Care Act. This spending surge appears smaller than it is only because the government will bank large reductions in military spending as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wind down. But unlike in the 1990s, this peace dividend will be spent.
The budget’s supposed bow to Republicans is Mr. Obama’s proposal for a modest change in annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security. “Chain CPI,” as the change is called, would cut spending by about $130 billion and raises taxes by about $100 billion over the next year. We support the concept, but the White House also slips a mickey into that proposal (see below).
Even with this inflation change, federal spending would grow by more than if Mr. Obama simply let current law continue. This is because the President wants to eliminate the current caps on discretionary spending under the budget sequester that are set to save close to $1 trillion over the next decade. He wants to repeal the sequester that is providing the only spending cuts in at least a decade. (more…)
**FILE** The Pentagon, across the Potomac River from Washington,
The miscalculations have come back to haunt the armed forces at a time when tighter budgets are forcing it to curtail basic war-fighting preparations such as training, ship and aircraft repairs, and overseas deployments.
Pro-defense conservatives, however, say that despite the procurement mistakes, the country needs a robust military to confront an array of threats — and that costs money.
Still, how the Pentagon misspent billions over two decades has relevancy for the future.
Money devoted to doomed programs such as the Army’s Future Combat System or poured into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could have come in handy today. Analysts say that if the Pentagon had better-managed the research, development and acquisition of satellites, vehicles and planes, the force in 2013 would be more modern and more resilient against automatic spending cuts, or “sequestration,” that began March 1.
“Of course they would have more money available to do other things,” Thomas Christie, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester from 2001 to 2005, told The Washington Times.
“The Joint Strike Fighter,” Mr. Christie said. “We would have been halfway through the program at half the cost if things had been managed property. I think we screwed that up by trying to combine three different capabilities in one airplane, and then mismanaged it even beyond that. Here we are, 2013. We almost should have finished buying the thing.”
Ben Freeman, national security investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, said poor management has “immensely” affected the armed forces today because misplaced money could have been used to make the force more combat ready.
“One of the problems with sequestration, and one of the reasons all the services are saying ‘it’s so devastating, it’s so devastating,’ is because they’re getting such little bang for their buck,” Mr. Freeman said. “When they do have to cut money from it, it cuts a lot because they’re not getting a lot for that money that they have spent.” (more…)
‘Approximately 136 hotel rooms for 893 room nights.’
Jeryl Bier
March 22, 2013 9:46 AM
Vice President Biden and his entourage spent a little time in London in early February during his first foreign trip of the second term of the Obama administration. A document released today revealed that the cost of lodging in London alone was close to half a million dollars. The contract was awarded on January 30, 2013 to the Hyatt Regency London for a total of $459,388.65.
Due to obvious security concerns, such contracts are not open to the competitive bidding normally required on government contracts. The accompanying document justifying the “sole source” contract notes that the vice president’s group required “approximately 136 hotel rooms for 893 room nights.” Based on these figures and the total contract price, each hotel room at the five star hotel cost the U.S. government about $500 per night.
The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available. However, just like his London hotel, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel. Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer, “Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free.” The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.
Messrs. Cogan and Taylor are professors at Stanford and senior fellows at the Hoover Institution. The macroeconomic model used in their research was published last month in the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, with updated results at Hoover’s Economic Policy Working Group website.
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: According to our research, the spending restraint and balanced-budget parts of the House Budget Committee plan would boost the economy immediately. With the Budget Committee’s proposed tax reform included, the immediate impact would be even larger. The entire plan would raise gross domestic product by one percentage point in 2014, equivalent to about a $1,500 increase for each U.S. household. Ten years from now, at the end of the official budget horizon, we estimate that the entire plan would raise GDP by three percentage points, or more than $4,000 for each U.S. household……
The reductions in the growth rate of spending are to be achieved primarily through entitlement reforms. The Affordable Care Act would be repealed. Medicaid and food-stamp administration would be turned over to the states. Medicare would be fundamentally reformed. Anti-fraud measures would be applied to federal disability programs. Among the major entitlement programs, only Social Security would remain unchanged; this is a deficiency in the plan. As for discretionary spending, the House budget plan would provide for only slight reductions from the levels that are set by the budget sequester.
This week the House of Representatives will vote on its Budget Committee plan, which would bring federal finances into balance by 2023. The plan would do so by gradually slowing the growth in federal spending without raising taxes.
Still, the plan has been denounced by naysayers who assert that it would harm the economic recovery and that, at the least, any spending reductions should be put off until later. This thinking is just as wrong now as it was in the 1970s. (more…)
Mr. Van Dyk served in Democratic national administrations and campaigns over several decades. His memoir of public life, “Heroes, Hacks and Fools,” was first published by University of Washington Press in 2007.
As a lifelong Democrat, I have a mental picture these days of my president, smiling broadly, at the wheel of a speeding convertible. His passengers are Democratic elected officials and candidates. Ahead of them, concealed by a bend in the road, is a concrete barrier.
They didn’t have to take that route. Other Democratic presidents have won bipartisan support for proposals as liberal in their time as some of Mr. Obama’s are now. Why does this administration seem so determined to head toward a potential crash and burn?
Getty Images
Even after the embarrassing playout of the Obama-invented Great Sequester Game, after the fiasco of the president’s Fiscal Cliff Game, conventional wisdom among Democrats holds that disunited Republicans will be routed in the 2014 midterm elections, leaving an open field for the president’s agenda in the final two years of his term. Yet modern political history indicates that big midterm Democratic gains are unlikely, and presidential second terms are notably unproductive, most of all in their waning months. Since 2012 there has been nothing about the Obama presidency to justify the confidence that Democrats now exhibit.
Mr. Obama was elected in 2008 on the basis of his persona and his pledge to end political and ideological polarization. His apparent everyone-in-it-together idealism was exactly what the country wanted and needed. On taking office, however, the president adopted a my-way-or-the-highway style of governance. He pursued his stimulus and health-care proposals on a congressional-Democrats-only basis. He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction and stabilized rapidly growing entitlement programs. He opted instead to demonize Republicans for their supposed hostility to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
No serious attempt—for instance, by offering tort reform or allowing the sale of health-insurance products across state lines—was made to enlist GOP congressional support for the health bill. It passed, but the constituents of moderate Democrats punished them: 63 lost their seats in 2010 and Republicans took control of the House. (more…)
![[image]](https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AQ650_1budge_NS_20130410174803.jpg)
