…like poverty and rehabilitation programs and other social programs which are more beneficial to mankind. Whereas that verbiage “more beneficial to mankind” has a nice emotional over-tone to it, it is disingenuous and misleading. Stating apparent “noble” causation rhetoric does more harm than good and the over emotional get rather over emotional. Many take the emotional stance and completely disregard the safe-guards the American Military Might guarantee to the Free World. Without the American Armed Forces being the highest trained and most effective armed force in the world today, there would be no social programs to fund.
Others, such as me, know that the budget for the American Military is but a drop in the bucket as compared to the size of the GDP of the United States. Declaring anything else other than that fact is an untruth. To be able to fully understand how small the military budgets are in comparison to the nation as a whole, let us grasp how large the American economy is. First, here is a chart of the various GDPs of each and every state and the District of Columbia. The data can be viewed at
Strange Maps and was published in June of 2007.
1. California, it is often said, would be the world’s sixth or seventh-largest economy if it was a separate country. Actually, that would be the eighth, according to this map, as France (with a GDP of $2,15 trillion) is #8 on the aforementioned list.
2. Texas’ economy is significantly smaller, exactly half of California’s, as its GDP compares to that of Canada (#10, $1,08 trillion).
3. Florida also does well, with its GDP comparable to Asian tiger South Korea’s (#13 at $786 billion).
4. Illinois – Mexico (GDP #14 at $741 billion)
5. New Jersey – Russia (GDP #15 at $733 billion)
6. Ohio – Australia (GDP #16 at $645 billion)
7. New York – Brazil (GDP #17 at $621 billion)
8. Pennsylvania – Netherlands (GDP #18 at $613 billion)
9. Georgia – Switzerland (GDP #19 at $387 billion)
10. North Carolina – Sweden (GDP #20 at $371 billion)
11. Massachusetts – Belgium (GDP #21 at $368 billion)
12. Washington – Turkey (GDP #22 at $358 billion)
13. Virginia – Austria (GDP #24 at $309 billion)
14. Tennessee – Saudi Arabia (GDP #25 at $286 billion)
15. Missouri – Poland (GDP #26 at $265 billion)
16. Louisiana – Indonesia (GDP #27 at $264 billion)
17. Minnesota – Norway (GDP #28 at $262 billion)
18. Indiana – Denmark (GDP #29 at $256 billion)
19. Connecticut – Greece (GDP #30 at $222 billion)
20. Michigan – Argentina (GDP #31 at $210 billion)
21. Nevada – Ireland (GDP #32 at $203 billion)
22. Wisconsin – South Africa (GDP #33 at $200 billion)
23. Arizona – Thailand (GDP #34 at $197 billion)
24. Colorado – Finland (GDP #35 at $196 billion)
25. Alabama – Iran (GDP #36 at $195 billion)
26. Maryland – Hong Kong (#37 at $187 billion GDP)
27. Kentucky – Portugal (GDP #38 at $177 billion)
28. Iowa – Venezuela (GDP #39 at $148 billion)
29. Kansas – Malaysia (GDP #40 at $132 billion)
30. Arkansas – Pakistan (GDP #41 at $124 billion)
31. Oregon – Israel (GDP #42 at $122 billion)
32. South Carolina – Singapore (GDP #43 at $121 billion)
33. Nebraska – Czech Republic (GDP #44 at $119 billion)
34. New Mexico – Hungary (GDP #45 at $113 billion)
35. Mississippi – Chile (GDP #48 at $100 billion)
36. DC – New Zealand (#49 at $99 billion GDP)
37. Oklahoma – Philippines (GDP #50 at $98 billion)
38. West Virginia – Algeria (GDP #51 at $92 billion)
39. Hawaii – Nigeria (GDP #53 at $83 billion)
40. Idaho – Ukraine (GDP #54 at $81 billion)
41. Delaware – Romania (#55 at $79 billion GDP)
42. Utah – Peru (GDP #56 at $76 billion)
43. New Hampshire – Bangladesh (GDP #57 at $69 billion)
44. Maine – Morocco (GDP #59 at $57 billion)
45. Rhode Island – Vietnam (GDP #61 at $48 billion)
46. South Dakota – Croatia (GDP #66 at $37 billion)
47. Montana – Tunisia (GDP #69 at $33 billion)
48. North Dakota – Ecuador (GDP #70 at $32 billion)
49. Alaska – Belarus (GDP #73 at $29 billion)
50. Vermont – Dominican Republic (GDP #81 at $20 billion)
51. Wyoming – Uzbekistan (GDP #101 at $11 billion)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a convenient way of measuring and comparing the size of national economies. Annual GDP represents the market value of all goods and services produced within a country in a year. Put differently:
GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + (exports – imports)
Although the economies of countries like China and India are growing at an incredible rate, the US remains the nation with the highest GDP in the world – and by far: US GDP is projected to be $13,22 trillion (or $13.220 billion) in 2007, according to this source. That’s almost as much as the economies of the next four (Japan, Germany, China, UK) combined.
And that is quite a sum and quite a large economy. Another interesting place to study is the
2007 GDP Official Exchange Rate page.
In an interview at the
Center for Defense Information, there is an in-depth and at times boring set of videos and interviews on this subject and other related subjects.
"PENTAGON POCKETBOOKS and POVERTY"
NARRATOR: The year the United States will spend $280 billion on its military, far more than any other nation. In fact, we spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. We're clearly in a league of our own when it comes to military spending.
Over the next five years, each family in this country will be asked to pay an average of $13,000 for military spending. That's enough for a down payment on a house.
Why is US military spending still so high, despite all the talk of defense reductions?
Dr. BOROSAGE: What people don't understand is the military budget's come down from its height in the mid-80s. But in the early 80s, we doubled the budget in peacetime, the largest military buildup in the annals of history. And so, basically, what we've done with all these cuts is we've brought it down primarily to a -- basically to a normal Cold War level.
NARRATOR: Some point out that military spending takes a smaller share of our economy now.
Dr. IKLE: Defense spending as a percent of the federal budget and defense spending as a percent of the gross national product is now at its lowest since the early years at the end of World War II, before the Cold War really started. And then during the Korean War, when there was a big war going on, and also during the Vietnam War, it wasn't much higher. It was up to 9 percent, if I remember correctly, of the gross national product. And during the Reagan years, it was at times I think around 6 percent at the high levels, and now it's, if I remember correctly, below 4 percent.
NARRATOR: Despite a growing economy, poverty in this country is getting worse, not better. An astounding 39 million US citizens now live in poverty. And the gap between rich and poor is growing faster here than in ten European countries.
Mr. FALLOWS: There's a way to illustrate the differences in wealth between the US and Western Europe and Japan that Americans don't often notice, because it has to do with what part of the society is best off. If you're at the top of society, it's clearly best to be in the US. The US has the most luxuries, the biggest houses, the nicest lives, the greatest resorts. If you're going to be in the middle or the bottom of society, it's often better to be somewhere else. I would much rather be the worst off person in Japan or the worst off person in Germany than the worst off person in the United States.
NARRATOR: One in every four young children in the US lives in poverty. But the United States is last among nine industrial countries in the share of children it raises out of poverty with government assistance.
Some doubt such programs will work here.
MS. ECKERLY: We have spent well over a trillion dollars on the war on poverty since the beginning of the 1960s. And if you look at the results of all that spending, we have more children born out of wedlock, more divorced families. We have the greater social breakdown, a greater crime rate. So, I don't think you can say that more federal spending will improve the quality of life in the United States in terms of poverty.
NARRATOR: For comparison, the "War on Poverty" cost one trillion dollars. But the four decades of the Cold War cost more than $12 trillion.
Dr. BOROSAGE: The Europeans are much more accustomed to a higher level of government spending. During the 40 years of the Cold War, they built social democracy. They provide day care for children, and health care for every adult and for every citizen, and cradle to grave education, and paid family leave when you have a child, and a mandated by law four weeks paid vacation, and a whole range of social benefits that they've built up with the industrial prosperity of the Cold War. We ran the Cold War. We spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars manning the barricades across the world.
If one can wade through the plethora of details, there is much more to be found here. One thing is for certain…the United States is not Europe and to compare the United States in social spending with Europe is pretty much wrong-headed. While the United States kept Europe free from the Russian Empire, the
Evil Empire, Europe did little else but reap the rewards thereof.
J Mooney Ham is but one of the proponents of having either no military or one that cannot project international power. His statement is utterly insane:
War is so bad terrorism is at least somewhat preferable to it -- at least if all human life is considered of equal value.
The air of knowing of what one speaks is apparently odious with this one. This mindset, among others is the reason to have a strong and vibrant military. Someone has to be willing to protect this poor child from itself and be allowed to be as free as it pleases to be so he can utter such nonsense at will. If he tries this same verbal rhetoric say in Iran…
Many of us Watch Dogs of Big Government and Earmark Pork Spending monitor the various budgets throughout the US Government Industrial Complex. At
Global Security, therein are the various budgets of the US military and related industries. Most of the non-constructive critics of the United States get agog at a particular page where it is
plainly obvious the size and depth of the United States Armed Forces. Please note, however, that the statistics placed for the United States is four years ahead of the rest of the other nations.
For FY2008 for the US, there is a note of particular interest that most either ignore or pretend does not exist:
Note 6 - The FY2008 budget requests $481.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense base budget, an 11.3 percent increase over the projected enacted level for fiscal 2007, for real growth of 8.6 percent; and $141.7 billion to continue the fight in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)
The fiscal year (FY) 2004 Department of Defense (DoD) budget request was $379.9 billion in discretionary budget authority -- $15.3 billion above FY 2003. The fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress 07 November 2003, authorizes DoD to spend $401.3 billion. The fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, which actually provides the money, became law 30 September 2003.
On April 16, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2003 $79 billion wartime supplemental to cover the needs directly arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reconstruction of Iraq. The Defense Department received $62.6 billion as a result of the emergency supplemental bill.
On Nov. 6, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2004 $87.5 billion supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill provides $64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including about $51 billion is for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and $10 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom. The remaining $22.8 billion in non-DOD monies will cover costs with Operation Noble Eagle and support for allies in the war on terror.
To publicly denounce the War Funding Bill which was passed recently, just prior to Christmas 2007, as overkill or to declare that the funding is just too much, please note that a small fraction of that budget is for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was called this to throw distraction and chaos into the rhetoric. The bill is actually the
Omnibus Bill. It isn’t strictly for the military and the military is only getting $70B of the $555B passed.
Also, consider that the funding recently passed several months late is loaded with the usual freebie monies for earmark and pork (read that wasteful) spending. In this recent Bill, there were over
9,000 earmarks “air-mailed” into the Bill but are not legally binding but are often honored. We call that, buying the vote. Ethical? Non-ethical? At any rate, President Bush or, any other President, is not bound to honor those earmarks that are not part of the legislation but still accompany the Bill to the President’s desk.
Also, a much unknown option but a
legal one, the President can issue by
Executive Order not to allow earmark spending if a
pork issue is embedded with the
legislation.
[…] "Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks that Congress included in a massive spending bill. Earmarks are special interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks. And they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress. The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I'm instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill." […]
Some things never change. One of the earmarks is a $1M Woodstock Museum. I was at Woodstock and to have a museum is truly unnecessary.
The National Taxpayers Union will see to it the museum and other wastes of tax dollars are stopped short in their tracks.
Whereas the military funding is quite a bit of money, overall, it is a mere drop in the bucket in comparison to the gigantic Federal Budget. In essence, claiming that the US Government spends more on its military than everyone else in the world combined is truly a non-issue.
The Bills recently passed are:
H.R.1585Title: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
H.R.2764Title: Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
The Senate last night approved a $555 billion omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year, shortly after bowing to President Bush's demand for $70 billion in unrestricted funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats had vowed only weeks ago to withhold any Iraq-specific money unless strict timelines for troop withdrawal were established, but they instead chose, on a 70 to 25 vote, to remove what appeared to be the final obstacle to sending the spending bill to the White House, where Bush has indicated he will sign it. Senators then passed the omnibus bill, 76 to 17.
How much is too much and who makes that call? When the Bills are packed with pork spending, how can anyone determine what is being spent on what?
I mentioned all of the above to actually address the issue at hand. Why does the United States spend more on its military than other countries spend on theirs combined? There are several answers to this. The same reason the bulk of United Nations activities are primarily United States Troops. We can. The same reason that the rest of the world, in their direst of times of need call upon the United States for help…friend or foe. We can. The same reason other countries don’t. They are not capable. If the United States doesn’t do it, who will? The answer is this, actually: because we can. The United States is the leader of the Free World.
The United States covers the world, primarily the Free World, for potential threats to other Free Nations; Free Nations meaning nations not under Communist, Jihadi or dictatorial rule. If it wasn’t for the US Navy, Taiwan would have been invaded by China by now. Who else will protect Taiwan? If it wasn’t for the United States Armed Forces, South Korea would not exist and its people would be in the same paltry existence as the North Korean people. There exist many more examples of this. Having this capability to project and protect Freedom is this nation’s responsibility. If we were not capable, communist world dominion may have become a reality.
If it wasn’t for the United States, Great Britain would be the smallest province in the Russian Empire as the USSR began its trek across Europe after WWII. Our close friends and neighbors in Canada would not have the security they enjoy now if it wasn’t for the US Navy and USAF. No brag…just fact. As far as the US Government is concerned, an attack on Canada is an attack on the United States. That’s what allies are about.
Some say America needs to spend more on the war on poverty. I beg to differ. Free hand-outs and entitlement programs are unconstitutional and they have proven to be ineffective. The Constitution provides for the “opportunity” and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee it. The “General Welfare” statement does not mean Welfare Payments. It means security and safety from outside harm.
When the poor in America own cars, cell phones, TVs and refrigerators and freezers, check other countries and see what their poor own. Poverty is a choice. Define poverty. Again, the military spending v poverty spending is a socialist non-issue issue. Big Government demands its people be subservient and dependent upon to the government. Small Government is demanded upon to serve the people.
When speaking of “
poverty” in the United States it is always best to check the emotions and grasp reality. The excerpts below are from Robert Rector and he is the Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[…]To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6] […]
Note [6]: Comparison of the average expenditure per person of the lowest quintile in 2001 with the middle quintile in 1973. Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey: Integrated Diary and Interview Survey Data, 1972–73, Bulletin No. 1992, released in 1979, and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures in 2001, Report No. 966, April 2003. Figures adjusted for inflation by the personal consumption expenditure index.
Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
The adage that the United States would be better serving the nation by not “super-funding” the military and “super-fund” the poor is simply an entitlements expansion ploy and is clearly not required.
[…]For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2005 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.[7]
But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 37 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.[8] While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. [...]
The amount of monies spent on the American Armed Forces is but a spit in the ocean compared to what the American Government spends on and in entitlement programs which are in their very nature, unconstitutional. With American unemployment below 5% one can argue that the alleged vanishing Middle Class in America is due in part to some being now ranked as wealthy and most have jobs whereas the poor choose to be that way demanding the government pay their way.
One of the contributing factors to the “poverty” rolls is both legal and illegal immigration.
[…]Unfortunately, any effort to reduce the number of poor persons in the U.S. will be partially offset by current immigration policies. Each year, immigration (both legal and illegal) adds hundreds of thousands of new persons to the nation's poverty count. Overall, first-generation immigrants and their minor children account for nearly one-fourth of all poor people in the U.S.[37] […]
Approximately $600B compared to a GNP of $13.22T isn’t much. The scope of the poverty levels in the United States is a myth.
Sources include but are not limited to the following:
Four Percent for Freedom: The Need to Invest More in Defense[…] America's economy is so powerful, however, after years of underfunding military procurement that the U.S. could recapitalize and sustain military strength by increasing and maintaining defense spending at 4 percent of GDP. This policy, called the "Four Percent for Freedom" solution, would ensure that America's military remains capable and ready.
A policy of Four Percent for Freedom would also have a positive impact by focusing the national debate about the deficit where it belongs: on entitlement programs. These mandatory programs—not defense spending—pose the real long-term threat to solvency.
In addition, sufficient funding would promote more efficient use of defense dollars. Service chiefs would not have to maneuver funding each budget cycle to keep programs alive but could instead focus on long-term planning.
Finally, American power is an important stabilizing force in the world. The Four Percent for Freedom solution would help to reassure financial markets about American strength, reduce risk within the international community, and promote economic growth both at home and abroad.
No. America does not over burden itself on the Military Budgets but it sure does over tax its citizens for Socialist Programs.
Vote it up at
Digital Journal
