The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex

by: James Quinn August 13, 2008 | about stocks: BA / DIA / GD / LMT / NOC / PPA / QQQQ / RTN / SPY    

James Quinn

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children."

These must be the words of some liberal Democratic Senator running for President in 2008. But no, these are the words of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, five decades ago.

The United States, the only superpower remaining on earth, currently spends more on military than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. The U.S. accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending. Where did the peace dividend from winning the Cold War go?

 click to enlarge images

The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. The Cold War has been over for 20 years, but we are spending like World War III is on the near term horizon. There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.

So, why are we spending like we are preparing for a major conflict? The impression on the rest of the world is that we have aggressive intentions. The administration is posturing like Iran is a threat to our security. Iran spends $7.2 billion annually on their military. We could make a parking lot out of their cities in any conflict. Does anyone really believe that they would create a nuclear weapon and use it on Israel? Their country would be obliterated.

Defense spending had peaked at just under $500 billion in 1988. The fall of communist Russia did result in a decline to the $350 billion range from 1995 through 2000, and an economic boom ensued. Since 9/11 we have doubled our spending on defense.

This seems like an overly extreme reaction to 19 terrorists attacking our country. Bin Laden and his terrorist network numbered less than 10,000. The initial response of invading Afghanistan, defeating the Taliban, and cornering bin Laden in the mountains was supported by the entire world. The success of this response was sufficient to deter any other country from allowing terrorist organizations to operate freely within their borders.

The natural response of the United States should have been to increase spending on border protection, upgrading the CIA, and increasing our ability to gather intelligence. Instead, we spent billions on weapons, aircraft, tanks, and missiles. The neo-cons, led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, saw the 9/11 attack as their opportunity to change the world. They’ve gotten their wish.

Of course, we took our eye off of bin Laden and Afghanistan. The Taliban has experienced a resurgence, recently freeing 800 fighters from a prison. Bin Laden continues to issue videotapes exhorting his followers to continue the fight.

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech in January 1961 is a brilliantly perceptive analysis of the future of our country. 

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad. 

This last sentence describes what George Bush has managed to do in the last 5 years. The arrogance of believing that we could invade a country on the other side of the world and expect to be treated as liberators is beyond comprehension. Our reputation abroad has been grievously damaged. The voluntary sacrifices we’ve made in the U.S. were to receive tax cuts and multiple tax rebates, paid for by our grandchildren. President Bush has sacrificed by not playing golf for the last 5 years.

How noble. Not exactly the Greatest Generation, quite yet.

Did President Eisenhower envision that the U.S. would have troops stationed in 70% of the world’s countries? According to the Defense Department’s latest "Personnel Strengths" report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries and 10 territories. This is the greatest number of countries that the United States has ever had troops in. Why are we policing the world? What is the point of having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 troops in Japan? Germany and Japan each spend $40 billion per year on their military. Can’t they defend themselves at this point? We defeated them 60 years ago. It is time to leave. This is a prelude to decades of occupation in Iraq. Don’t believe the blather about withdrawal. The military has no intention of withdrawing.

It is a shame that after 9/11, George Bush didn’t read President Eisenhower’s farewell speech. I wonder if he has ever read the speech. Instead he chose to follow the “wisdom” of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. President Eisenhower’s words describe the crisis that occurred on September 11, 2001. 

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. 

A spectacular and costly response is what the Iraq invasion has turned out to be. We have now spent more money on this venture than any war in history except for World War II. And there is no end in sight.

I live in Pennsylvania. Taxpayers in Pennsylvania have paid $20 billion for our share of the Iraq war, so far. This amount of money would pay for 1,650,000 scholarships for University students for one year. Does a $20 billion investment in rebuilding Iraqi bridges that we blew up with $1 million cruise missiles make more sense than investing in our best and brightest young people? $20 billion would provide 24,000,000 homes with renewable electricity for one year. That is 20% of all the homes in the United States.

After paying their utility bills this coming winter, I think I know what the majority of Americans would choose. Some further perspective on this out of control spending is provided in the following chart:

President Eisenhower, as a former commanding general of Allied forces in World War II, knew exactly what the implications of having a permanent armaments industry were to the United States. He was also worried about the implications.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. 

These words were spoken 5 decades ago, but are just as true today.

President Eisenhower, as a former commanding general of Allied forces in World War II, knew exactly what the implications of having a permanent armaments industry were to the United States. He was also worried about the implications. These words were spoken 5 decades ago, but are just as true today.

The top five U.S. defense contractors generated almost $129 billion in revenues and $8 billion in profits in 2006, double the revenue and profits in 2000 when George Bush became President. The War on Terror has been a windfall for the defense industry and their shareholders. These companies have intertwined themselves into the fabric of our government and defense department. They contribute tremendous amounts of money to Congressional candidates and have thousands of lobbyists pushing for more defense contracts. Many politicians end up working for defense contractors (i.e. Dick Cheney) after they leave public service. This leads to conflicts of interest negatively impacting the American public.

It appears that the biggest winners of the War on Terror are the CEOs of the defense contractors. I wonder if they realized how rich they would become as they watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground. They have virtually tripled their annual income, while the average American scratched out a 20% increase over 6 years. They have managed to generate the tremendous profits and personal wealth while only employing 10% more employees. Boeing and Raytheon were actually able to reduce their workforce. How productive. These contractors will do everything in their power to retain and increase these fabulous profits.

President Eisenhower clearly understood the moral implications of a huge armaments industry and the costs to a free society. 

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. 

We have some of the brightest engineers in the country developing weapons to kill human beings more efficiently. There is an opportunity cost that is being paid. These engineers could be concentrating their brilliance on developing alternative energy solutions which could free us from our drug dependence on the Middle East. Which effort would benefit our country more, weapons development or energy independence?

President Eisenhower’s final words are the most chilling. 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. 

We did not heed his wisdom. Laurence Vance, author of What’s Wrong with the U.S. Global Empire?,contends that our foreign policy 

is not right, it’s unnatural, it’s very expensive, it’s against the principles of the Founding Fathers, it fosters undesirable activity, it increases hatred of Americans, it perverts the purpose of the military, it increases the size and scope of the government, it makes countries dependent on the presence of the U.S. military, and finally, because the United States is not the world’s policeman. 

War and non-stop conflict benefit the military industrial complex. It is in their best interest for them to support candidates that favor an aggressive foreign policy. This could lead to Defense companies using their influence to provoke conflict throughout the world.

In conclusion, I again turn to the wisdom of Ron Paul, the only presidential candidate speaking the truth to the American public. In a speech before Congress several months before the Iraq invasion, his words were reminiscent of President Eisenhower’s. 

The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits. 

If as a country we continue to allow our politicians and their military industrial complex corporate sponsors to spend $700+ billion per year on weapons, to the detriment of higher education, alternative energy projects, and national infrastructure needs, we will be paying an extremely high price.

We are in a classic guns or butter scenario. The Bush Administration has decided to choose guns while borrowing from our grandchildren and the Chinese to pay for the butter. This can work for awhile, but as deficits accumulate, the dollar plummets, and inflation rears its ugly head, our great country will decline as other empires who overstepped their bounds declined.

Disclosure: Author holds no positions in the stocks mentioned above

Related Articles

This article has 87 comments:

  •  
    Aug 13 10:00 AM
    Hear, Hear! beautifully stated. What has happened to this country? What ever would we do if the MIC companies did not need to exist? There are way too many people employed by an industry that needs to maintain a state of war in the world to exist. The undue influence of these companies is extreme and they play on the old standby of , ' if we dont get money then your constituents will be out of work.' maybe its time we say that that is OK. we will retrain them to do other things. why not funnel that ingenuity into constructive alternative energy production or infrastructure? Its truly nauseating to see what has happened since Ike gave that speech. He was aware of what was going on and today it is out in the open with Bush & Co almost daring people to stand up to him. America..sheeple...Wak... TFU!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 10:04 AM
    The most important money spent is on defense. The above anti defense rant is wrong wrong wrong.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 10:18 AM
    The 2nd responder must of course either be nuts or have lots of stock in Haliburton, Bechtel, Boeing, Blackwater, etc., you get the idea !! I think the first responder's argument is right on !!!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 10:49 AM
    CLH, what you might want to think about is the true meaning of defense. How many bombers, missiles and new ways of killing do we need for defense? why not put a small portion of what we currently spend into securing the borders (paying more border patrols), and disincentivising illegals from coming into the country that way (get rid of birthright citizenship as most other countries do). Preventive measures such as increased technology in LEGAL surveillance would go a lot further. The arms industry has become a self fulfilling prophecy which gives the illusion of defence. What would happen if we had another Bush illegal preemptive war and none of the soldiers showed up?
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 11:01 AM
    Also, the best defense is leaving other people the hell alone and not getting involved in their business. Who said we needed to be an empire? we dont need our forces in countries all over the world. non interventionism allows us to focus on us. if someone wants to come over and mess with us THEN we can kick some ass if we need to. Maybe if we stop making so many enemies we can live a bit simpler and with less fear.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 11:39 AM
    Where was this eloquent author when JFK was seeking the presidency and he accused Ike of overseeing a "missile gap" (Ike knew there was no missile gap because the "military industrial complex" built him U2 spy planes and Corona satellites so that Ike could know what meager missile capability the Soviets had (unfortunately he couldn’t divulge that classified information to rebut JFK's assertions in the 1960 election).

    Ike was miffed by the propensity of the DOD brass to oppose strategies to not spend money and to retard program growth, and thus the staff generals hated him for his efforts to limit defense spending. The DOD brass tried to undermine him for it. (Sounds a bit familiar as Mr. Rumsfeld also tried to exert civilian control over these "fruit salad" wearers in the Pentagon, also with a poor reception.)

    Hopefully the articulate author also knows that Ike was adamant that the US not retreat back into isolationism because 20th century technology had bridged the previous US security barriers of the 2 oceans resulting in forced US involvement in 2 major land wars in Europe in Ike's lifetime, and he was determined to maintain a US presence in Europe to prevent a 3rd.

    The dirty little secret is that most countries either cant or won’t spend appropriately on their defense (in lieu of socialized medicine and 35 hour work weeks). This is their right to do so, but in the event that peace breaks down it always affects the US either from a security standpoint or market access, which impacts the non defense economy that the well spoken author is so enamored with.

    Having myself worked in the Aerospace/defense industry for several decades, I might respectfully remind the author he may have forgotten the relentless string of consolidations and job displacement in this industry that occurred from the late 1980s well into the 90s. (I didn’t read many stories at the time about a corresponding retreating influence of the Military Industrial Complex, as it was becoming a smaller part of the US economy)

    Its widely known in many segments of the Defense industry that there is currently a brain drain, people who graduated from college in the 1960s are now retiring and somehow the industry doesn’t seem glamorous enough to capture a fair share of new college grads. (so much for the all powerful "Complex")

    I don’t have the figures in front of me, but US defense spending, as a percent of GDP is modest at best. (I happen to know the percentage of DOD related semiconductor sales is in the 1 percent range of the total for example). On a pie chart, compared to the rest of the total burgeoning US economy, the Defense biz is a dot at best.

    Like many things that Ike said, his statements were certainly applicable at the time he said them, however the world and economic environment has changed drastically in 5 decades and I would respectfully ask the readers to consider that before applying Ike's template to today.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:18 PM
    Yes, defense is expensive. Have you tried considering the cost of NOT spending on defense?

    As a platoon leader in Iraq (2003-2004) I had more than $2 million worth of equipment for my 32 soldiers. Yes, that was expensive. However, that expensive equipment is what let me bring all 32 soldiers home. In one specific instance, I can credit thermal optics ($.5 million each) with saving the lives of myself and ten others.

    My question to you: If one of your sons were in the military, would your beliefs on defense spending change?
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:20 PM
    Great article but how does this make it into an investment portal exactly?

    Inadvertently ommitted facts are that we engaged in WW2 for example because of the INTERCONTINENTAL missiles that Germany was testing, not just developing.

    Vietnam? well, that was unnecessary. Interesting however that a Democrat was killed and then another Democrat escalated the war and left that mess for others to work out.

    After several dozen bombing attacks (under a Democrat ) culminating in one final attack 9-11, (that would be waiting until the enemy got to our shores) we finally had some adults in office who didn't care whether a counterattack "polled well."

    Bottom line: I agree, we are WAY overextended and should pull back significantly (bye bye Middle East and Japan), however consider the alternative scenarios, regional conflict with lots of smaller armies (see Africa) that is constantly destabilizing? Witness Russia/Georgia and now Ukraine? I think one big way for us to be able to reliably disengage is mining and drilling in our own backyards and not have to go to Saudi Arabia's aid when they snap their fingers.

    As much as you dislike it, this is still about freedom vs. communism. And it will take volunteers and guns to defend freedom.

    The more we engage these countries via trade/exchange, the better off we will all be. Great article.

    Equally up for consideration for future articles - the education/industrial complex and the "healthcare" industrial complex: As an example health and human services is 3 times the DOD budget. Food for thought.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:22 PM
    isolationism and nonintervention are not the same. we can still be involved with the rest of the world through trade, friendship and cultural exchange. we have become arrogant and think we need to police the world and act as if the rest of the world exists solely to please us. we did not have to be involved in the world wars. i know many will disagree with that but we knowingly allowed pearl harbor to happen to bring us into ww2 and knowingly put munitions on the lusitania when the germans clearly warned that it would be torpedoed. they even put newspaper ads in american papers (only one of which ran) telling potential passengers this. the rest of the world should be allowed to make their own bad decisions and protect themselves and each other if its important enough to them. If i were a member of the armed services i would have a major problem with being a policeman to the world. that isnt in the job description as measure by the oath they take when they sign up.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:23 PM
    I hope the author feels better now that he got this off his chest. I could feel the emotion coming through the words. There is much truth in the piece and some misapplication of quotes, but there is some sombering truth. I am sure there is a great deal of waste in our military industrial complex, just as there is in virtually all government spending. I was a draft age during Vietnam. How did multiple administrations get so blinded that over 58,000 American soldiers had to die? It is a total distortion to twist Ike's words into an anti-Iraq conclusion, in my opinion. I am also very afraid that human suffering just might increase, not be lessened, without our military.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:25 PM
    The defense as a percentage of GDP argument as been debunked at length many times....use Google.

    The author understates the true cost of the military. There are many hidden military expenditures in other government departments. For example NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Admin., most foreign aid is not for schools and hospitals but tanks and guns, etc.

    There is also the intellectual opportunity cost of all our scientific talent going to develop weapons. Useful science and technological advancement has been retarded by decades. It has been conjectured that we will not be until the year 2025 where we would already be today if not for the siphoning away of our minds and money by the war industry.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:28 PM
    ian4: I think we're in a lot more agreement than posts back and forth would ever be able to cover, if for no other reason than sore fingers. :-)

    To the author: Another balancing thought though, have you also considered the incredible number of technologies that have been spun out of the DoD? to name a few:
    The internet (funded by DARPA, not al Gore)
    medical technologies
    Advanced materials (kevlar among them)
    GPS
    fuel cell technologies
    nanotechnologies
    solid state storage
    imaging technologies

    While it certainly can't be listed entirely here, an incredible number of the things we use today, started as a DoD sponsored research project at some point, either in development or in basic research - half of MIT, and other leading universities have been BUILT with defense money.

    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:30 PM
    'There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.'
    Only by spending though. You see what the troops are capable of in Iraq: 4 years after the declared victory they are still there trying to finish things up.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:30 PM
    What is this article doing on Seeking Alpha?
    Political articles do not belong on this website.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:39 PM
    And the point of the author I would speculate is not as much on whether there should be military spending or not as much as it revolves around no-bid contracts, $110 vehicle park plugs, $100 per gallon refills for Humvees(4 mpg) etc.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:47 PM
    Quinn's naïveté is reminiscent of a fellow named Neville Chamberlain. Ian4, et al, resemble the chorus that greeted him as he returned to London trumpeting "peace for our time".
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 12:53 PM
    Quinn's appalling naïveté is reminiscent of a fellow named Neville Chamberlain. Ian4, et al, resemble the chorus that greeted him as he returned to London trumpeting "peace for our time".
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:08 PM
    What does this have to do with seekingalpha?

    1. Inflation is highly correlated with war. War's are funded by printing money. This results in greater upward pressure on interest rates to maintain the dollar, or if no adjustments, continued devaluation of the dollar.

    2. This is an optional war, making it a real option. If McCain is elected, it is reasonable to expect the status quo or further escalation into Iran. This would cause greater restrictions on oil supply which would further straining the US's resources and increase the likelihood of a collapse of the US economy.

    3. If Obama is elected, we can expect a near term pull out.
    A pullout will result in a huge reduction of oil demand as the army is no longer burning oil. Speculation would be reduced as their would be less likelihood of further military action in Iran, which would further constrain oil supply.

    4. Gold - Gold's prices are related to a collapse of Iraq's financial infrastructure driving Iraq citizen's to buy gold and the devaluation of the US dollar.

    5. Equity - Oil and Defence sectors are way up. Is this scenerio likely to be true without the war?
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:09 PM
    In response to the above poster, US GDP is in the ballpark of 14 billion, so defense spending is 5%. Not a marginal number, but not overly impressive either. On the other hand, we spend more on social security than we do on defense. The US government has balloning costs in all areas. I do not know that we can pin it entirely on defense, when the big three entitlements: social security, medicare, and medicaid combined are large enough to be the 13th biggest nation by GDP at over 1.2 billion dollars
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:16 PM
    "Not exactly the Greatest Generation, quite yet."

    You get the leaders you deserve!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:27 PM
    It was almost easier when there were two superpowers. As the only superpower now, we are the target of countries who immaturely envy the biggest kid on the block.

    In the book "Epicenter" by Joel Rosenberg, a man named George Sada is mentioned in chapter 12 who was a senior adviser to Saddam Hussein. He admitted that Saddam made plans on December 17, 1990 to drop chemical weapons on several major cities in Israel, and that he (Sada) was able to talk Saddam out of it. So there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it would be a mistake to think we shouldn't have gone over there.

    Americans have a wonderful sense of tolerance and acceptance of others. We also are a generous and forgiving people, and most foreigners who come in contact with the average American on vacation acknowledge this. Unfortunately, this also makes some of us pretty naive as we can't fathom cultures like Iran that still live with a medieval mentality or the need to protect ourselves from these fanatics.

    D
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:28 PM
    James - thanks for another provocative post.

    The only thing I could add is to expand on Woodhead's comment: You get the leaders you deserve! Yes, we do.

    But the greatest oxy moron of the last 20 years: Political Leadership!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:34 PM
    I presume your analysis of government spending on farm subsidies, welfare, and health care is being drafted now and will be posted shortly. I missed the part about spending as a percent of GDP and what your plan for job replacement is. Right, increasing subsidies for alternative energies will lead to energy independence, eliminating our societal need to care about strengthening democracy around the world.

    Continuous investment leading to weaponry and technilogical advancement will continue to reduce the need for manpower (i.e. manless drones as one example), leading to reduced costs (i.e. payroll, pension, benefits, etc). It's simple economics really.

    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:40 PM
    "The United States, the only superpower remaining on earth, currently spends more on military than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. The U.S. accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending."

    Why don't you stop comparing apples to oranges and look at how much US spends on its military as percentage of GDP. If you did this, you would see that there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about how much is spent on the military. In fact, it probably has to be increased when you compare it to historic norms.

    Ohh, and the Cold War peace dividend was just an excuse for politicians to take money away from the ultimate insurance policy and invest it in income redistribution schemes.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:42 PM
    To the above poster, why are you comparing total GDP to annual defence spending? Military spending is 20% of the annual budget according to bloomberg.

    www.bloomberg.com/apps...
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:43 PM
    Duh! You vote for bullshit you get bullshit. What did you expect America??? "We the [stupidest] people, in order to create one national disaster after another, shall continue to settle for less, leave our future in the hands of the incompetent, self-preserved wealthy, at the direct expense of liberty and constitution. Let's crank up the boomer-entitlement programs, smoke our grandkids and the future of the greatest nation on earth. -- Pass the beernuts." I'm 30 and hold my parent's GENERATION accountable for the shamble of garbage left to come. Thanks for nothing (regardless of political isle).
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:48 PM
    Another good point is that when you look at how much we spend on entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security and Welfare, it makes Iraq and the whole DoD budget look like peanuts.

    But don't even mention the phrase "Social Security reform" or the liberals will go crazy.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 13 01:54 PM
    These are the words of David Walker, former Comptroller of the U.S. The fiscal crisis is here. We can keep spending billions on foreign ventures or fix the problems here.

    “One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walke