Ron Paul: Overspending on U.S. National Security Threatens National Security

The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.

I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled "Attack of the Pork Hawks". He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.

The facts are that the President's budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this "draconian" decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea - nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama's "cuts", adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world's dominant military power, by far.

In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.

Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,

"stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it's about time Washington focused on defending American and its people."

I couldn't agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask - is that the sort of security we envision for our nation's future?

Dr. Ron Paul

Project Freedom

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Dr. Ron Paul Archive

© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.





Comments

KittenJuggler

21 Feb 12, 16:46 Military spending gone wild

Military outlays are completely unnecessary. I live in Keene, NH. The biggest issue here is called a BearCat. It's a military vehicle that is often used for crowd control and SWAT type activities. The Federal government is offering the funding to buy one so the town is on-board, however, it costs 280K of tax-payer money and why does a town of 20,000 people need one of these? School buses or SUV police cars would meet local (actual) needs far more but the Federal government will only provide money if it militarizes the local police force. Something is wrong with Federal spending priorities and this is just one anecdotal example.

Sal

21 Feb 12, 17:08 Everybody (not brainwashed) knows about it

Eisenhower nailed it. Countless analysts and commentators have pointed it out. "Conservative" (or Liberal, depending on how you define these misleading, misused terms) thought leaders like Henry Hazlitt have laid the economic drawbacks of the military industry complex, military spending bare. Military spending has a far reaching negative impact on the economy, and national security is all about the economy going forward. In a world of seven billion, recouping costs from military occupation and colonial activities is no longer possible and highly dangerous. Waging a war, making a mountain out of molehill, with impoverished illiterate Afghans is a massive waste of money. The US and its Western allies like the UK need to smarten up, desperately so, and think outside the military box.

