What was missing from your analysis, IMHO, is any discussion of the implications of the MIC, the Military-Industrial Complex, being on the warpath against the taxpayer and our civil society.
Raymond, the US spends less on military spending as a percentage of annual GDP than it did during the Reagan years.
And percetage wise, it spends FAR LESS than a nation like North Korea, or the former Baathist Iraq.
But since you're comparing Federal expenditures to that of the Eisenhower administration, let's make some real comparisons in terms of actual Federal spending between military and social programs:
From 1961:
library.arizona.edu
Most people don't realize it but nearly 3 out of 5 dollars spent by our national government goes for national defense. Another dollar goes for paying the cost of past wars (interest on the national debt, veterans benefits, etc.) and for other items of national security such as foreign aid and space technology. Only about 1 out of every 5 dollars goes into non-defense expenditures.
Almost 3/5 of ALL (not just "discretionary") Federal spending went to the military during Eisenhower's administration.
But now? Well, all of those who want to cut the heart out of military spending "conveniently" rely upon discretionary spending figures, which is that part of the budget left over after entitlements and debt obligations (interest) is paid out. But entitlements make up something like 1/2 of the total Federal Budget.
Check out the charts at this link that shows how much increased spending in the Federal Budget has gone to entitlements (at the expense of the military budget).
research.aarp.org
Entitlement spending makes up 50% of the total Federal Budget. That means that military spending (which is 45% of the "discretionary" budget) is now equivalent to 1 out of 4 dollars of the Federal Budget., or almost a COMPLETE REVERSAL of the budget "Mo" Udall was complaining about under Eisenhower.
Thus, the "military industrial complex" is not nearly as powerful (as a percentage of GDP and/or Federal expenditures), as it was during Eisenhower's administration.
And here are some other indicators of interest.
concordcoalition.org
So sorry to burst your bubble on military spending Raymond.. But I DO agree that there are quite a few boon-doggle programs (of which the "Stryker" is revealing itself as being one of them since it cannot be airlifted on a C-130). But I'm a supporter of the F-22 and ATF (especially its VSTOL and supersonic capabilities)...
I was also a supporter of the "Crusader" concept, but it, like Stryker, was too big, too heavy, and not nearly as mobile as it would need to be.
There is no one as DOD who would deny that spending needs to be closely scrutinized and pet projects should not be initiated unless properly analyzed as to its fieldability and efficacy.
Hawk |
