The budget battles

[blackshoe]

I suspect you are kidding, but just in case...

 

Indeed, a lot of money is spent by states, counties, and local governments to patch bridges, fix potholes, repave roads, dredge shipping lanes, and so on. But returning to a 1940s style transportation system in the US will definitely hurt business and will speed the decline of the US compared with other countries.

 

‘Gargantuan large’ investment in infrastructure needed:

 

 

The longer we delay, the more costly the replacements will be. The US needs to invest $262 billion per year to do the work.

 

 

The US has work that needs doing and lots of people who need work. It's foolish not to raise taxes to get it done.

 

You're missing the point. Which is not that we should "return to a 1940s style transportation system", but that according to what mike777 posted we are already spending more than what the ASCE recommended we spend. Or is it that the ASCE recommends we spend that much over and above what we're already spending?

 

Even if that's true, Winston's suggestions (all of them) are patently ridiculous hyperbole. On purpose, no doubt, to ridicule the suggestion that we fund anything via any method other than taxes. I suspect Winston is a fan of the "What did you make last year? Send it in" income tax form.

 

If we do have spend an additional quarter trillion a year or so on infrastructure, we can probably pay for it by withdrawing from all these "overseas adventures" we're currently pursuing, and downsizing the military. Of course, the military-industrial complex won't like that. Tough, I say.

 

I would add that "downsizing the military" need not be done across the board — it may be wise to downsize the Army and Air Force, and actually increase somewhat the Navy and Marine Corps. Again, that would be one Hell of a political battle, but if it turns out to be the right thing to do, it's a battle worth fighting. I would say, also, that the Navy needs to take a good long look at what kinds of ships it needs - I don't believe the Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) is the right tool for most of our current problems (e.g., piracy).

[PassedOut]

You're missing the point. Which is not that we should "return to a 1940s style transportation system", but that according to what mike777 posted we are already spending more than what the ASCE recommended we spend. Or is it that the ASCE recommends we spend that much over and above what we're already spending?

Apples and oranges. Mike's figures lump together all public spending on transportation. The problem is the cost of rebuilding a national transportation system that is coming to the end of its useful life. Letting that happen would amount to returning to a 1940s transportation system, albeit with more people and more roads. It's sad to note that some local governments have had to stop repaving roads because of the financial squeeze, returning to gravel.

 

Current spending levels fall short by over $200 billion a year of the replacement amounts needed, despite the public funds already allocated for maintenance and repairs.

 

I do agree that military spending should be reduced substantially and the savings applied to nation-building here.

[phil_20686]

I have always wondered what is the "right" % of GDO for a mature state to spend on defense in relative peace time. I suspect it is more than most people think, with the provision that it should be strongly tilted towards research rather than over large personnel.

 

It should also be noted that many people who join the army are not what one would class as highly desirable workers. For whatever reason, the military employs a large number of people from difficult backgrounds who would struggle to fit into "normal" life. Its value as a social net should not be underestimated.

[mike777]

In the USA I believe non officer recruits read at one grade level higher than their age group. Of course they are also screened for medical/drug issues.

 

Over 93% of officers have a college degree or higher.

 

 

My guess is that almost all of these recruits would be highly desired workers compared to their age group.

 

 

I know both my brother and sister had college degrees before they joined as enlisted soldiers.

 

My grandfather had a law degree before he joined the Marines and my Uncles completed college while in the Marines.

 

My father in law had a law degree before he joined the airforce.

 

---

 

 

What the correct amount to be spent on my the USA is of course open to debate. We are fighting 2 wars, we have Korea, and we still have soldiers in Japan, Germany, Italy.

 

Of course if we pull them all home that will reduce the budget alot. If we can get rid of all of our transports, forward bases, etc as much of Europe has we can reduce it even more.

 

Of course that will create a vacuum that others will rush to fill as we pull out.

[blackshoe]

When I enlisted in the Army in 1967, I had two years of college. When I enlisted in the Navy in 1976 I had a BS in Physics and an MS in Nuclear Engineering. During my Army service, "Project 100,000" was in effect. What was that?

From Wikipedia: Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971. Considered part of Johnson's Great Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range. The number of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000, which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%). Although entrance requirements were loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4]

 

The men recruited or drafted under this program did not receive the same training as other recruits and draftees after Basic Training was completed. Mr. McNamara and his "Whiz Kids" insisted that these men had to be put into virtually all fields, and this was a disaster.

 

Also

Regarding the consequences of the program, a 1989 study sponsored by the DoD concluded that:[3]

 

Comparisons between Project 100,000 participants and their nonveteran peers showed that, in terms of employment status, educational achievement, and income, nonveterans appeared better off. Veterans were more likely to be unemployed and to have a significantly lower level of education. Income differences ranged from $5,000-$7,000, in favor of nonveterans. Veterans were more likely to have been divorced.

 

If you want the footnotes, read the original article.

 

Of course, that was then, this is now. Project 100,000 is, AFAIK, dead. And the military does (and did then) turn around some lives.

[Winstonm]

I wonder what the over/under in years is for feudal America?

 

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111019_88353331.jpg

[blackshoe]

That might be an interesting question, if there were such a place.

[kenberg]

Comparing education, earning power, etc for vets and non-vets is one of the many things that needs to be taken with a lot of salt and probably some tequila. My own history of choices should make the point:

 

In 1956 I graduated from high school. As the day approached I was contemplating joining the Navy or going to college. Mostly I wanted to study mathematics but finances were a problem. I got a scholarship. I went to college. That sort of thing, repeated many times, tilts the scales. I went on to graduate school. In 1960 it was easy to get a deferment. In 1966, as I was finishing up, I and most other young men got reclassified 1-A. I never got drafted (I was then 27 and in my area they were drawing the line at 26), but I suppose the military suddenly had a lot of Ph.D.s in the ranks.

 

Anyway, project 100,000, which I had not heard of, sounds like a really stupid idea pushed by people who should know better.

[luke warm]

with obama's announcement today of a total iraq withdrawal by year's end, i don't see things getting better here any time soon (unless they stay in the service for awhile)

[blackshoe]

Obama will bring all the troops back from Iraq by Christmas. The day after New Year's, he'll send them all somewhere else. So they won't beef up the unemployment stats. :o

[PassedOut]

Closing in on November 23, one hundred US representatives of differing persuasions are asking the super-committee to act boldly: House Republicans make cross-party pitch to embolden debt ‘supercommittee’

 

A group of 40 House Republicans for the first time Wednesday encouraged Congress’s deficit reduction committee to explore new revenue as part of a broad deal that would make a major dent in the nation’s debt, joining 60 Democrats in a rare bipartisan effort to urge the “supercommittee” to reach a big deal that could also include entitlement cuts.

 

The letter represents a rare cross-party effort for the rancorous House, and its organizers said they hoped it would help nudge the 12-member panel to reach a deal that would far exceed the committee’s $1.5 trillion mandate.

 

Among those who signed were several dozen Republicans who had previously signed a pledge promising they would not support a net tax increase. Among the Democratic signers were some of the House’s most liberal members who have opposed entitlement cuts.

 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the effort was to help Congress avoid being “cornered by the paralysis of small potatoes.” Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.), a member of the conservative Republican Study Group, said the intent was to compel the supercommittee to craft a strategy “so big, so comprehensive, so inclusive that any great statesman or stateswoman could hardly resist voting for it.”

We could use more of that. The next three weeks promise to be interesting.

[blackshoe]

Big words. It'll turn out they're just going to find more ways to skin the citizenry. :(

[PassedOut]

Pushing Congress

 

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

 

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

 

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The bus driver?

[kenberg]

You are trusting that folks will go to the source? The next line is

"The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan."

 

To push the time warp still further, as I was reading your excerpt I got agitated thinking "Good God, Obama has really lost it".