Deficit Reduction Committee: They Do Think You’re Stupid
The latest buzz is deficit reduction, and the new black in politics is the Conrad-Gregg Commission. I’m not going to spend any space arguing about public vs. private spending during down-cycles in the economy, or asserting the ineffectiveness of supply-side economics. Instead, I would rather talk about the mechanics of this commission (known formally as The Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009) and whether or not elected Senators think that the rest of us are uninformed fools. Because that’s what it looks like from where I stand.
Before I write any more, let me point out the irony of convening such as commission, which will spend money without actually accomplishing anything. How can I make such a claim? Because, according to the rules of the task force, 14 of the 18 members of the group must vote the recommendations out of the committee, and then the House and Senate must pass those recommendations with super-majorities before December 23, 2010. Despite the fact that they’ve packed the roster with Blue-Dogs, the idea of getting something through both chambers with a 3/5ths majority is folly.
But who actually thinks that such a commission is needed at all? There are only a couple of choices when it comes to reducing the Federal deficit: cut entitlements or military spending. The right has been chomping at the bit to gut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security for decades, despite the pledges of Republicans to protect Medicare during the latest healthcare debate. Considering the temerity of Democrats to challenge Republicans on anything security-related, and the number of fiscal Democrats on the commission, there is only one outcome worth betting on.
The shame of it all is that our military spending is like a vein of gold, ready to be mined. Deficit reduction objectives as well as critical domestic spending could all be financed comfortably from the largest portion of our Federal budget. Consider the following: 
That’s right, last year we spent over six times the amount of money as our nearest adversary, China. And those numbers don’t reflect the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since the Bush administration paid for them through off-line supplemental bills.
Now, I ask you: does the United States really need 800 military bases spread across the planet? Are we safer than if we had 400? Would it be smarter to emulate China’s strategy of working trade and resource exchanges in unsavory parts of the world, instead of setting up military theaters? While George W. Bush was organizing AFRICOM (and having great trouble finding a headquarters on the continent), China was arranging contracts for palladium and molybdenum, raw materials which will insure their manufacturing dominance in the future.
The truth of the matter is that the United States could maintain dramatic military superiority by spending half of what it does on its military. That leaves over $350 billion per year to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, and reduce the budget deficit. Sounds like an easy target.
So the next time someone mentions the Conrad-Gregg commission on deficit reduction, and it sounds like a reasonable idea, ask yourself and those around you: do you want to eliminate Medicare and Social Security in exchange for a global, imperial military? Because that is the true choice.
