Having just completed an inteview of President George Washington, I was introduced by President Washington to President Eisenhower. I begin with the final exchange in that interview with President Washington.
President Washington: Well, let me escort you to the "Hall of Past Presidents" were we often meet to discuss the things we saw during our time as President. Here, just come this way.
Author: Wow! This is a maginficent hall. Is that President Eisenhower? I would love to speak to him.
Pres. Washington: Yes it is. President Eisenhower. This is a friend, Mr. Jan Burr, from the future, 2010, to be precise, and he and I have just finished an interview and he has some more questions and maybe you can help him out.
“God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn’t know the military as well as I do.”
Pres. Eisenhower: It is a pleasure to meet you, Mr. Burr. How can I help you?
Author. Well, President Washington was concerned about our use of the military and entanglements with foreign nations. I wondered, since, like President Washington, you were a military man before becoming President, if you had anything you wanted to say about the use of the military.
Pres. Eisenhower: Thank you for asking that question. Yes, I did have great concerns as WW II seemed to turn everything on its head about needing a full time military force.
Author: Please, continue, Mr. President. What must we do to have peace.
President Eisenhower:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime.
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.
Author: Ok, I can see that these times are certainly different than in the time of President Washington. Do you have any concerns about this need for a permanent military readiness?
President Eisenhower:
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.
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 must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.Military-Industrial Complex Speech
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Author: Well, from my position here in the future, I can see that your concerns were well justified. Now, let me ask you about the debt that World War II caused and how we paid that debt down and what you thought was the best way to do that.
President Eisenhower. Well, as you know and stated, I was a military man and relied on my economic advisers to tell me what was best in that area. Let me introduce you to President John F. Kennedy that, I believe, had a better understanding of things like that, than I did.
President Kennedy! Do you have a moment you could spare for a question for my friend here, Mr. Jan Burr, from the future.
Author's note:
The words of the Presidents in quotes are their actual words from the site listed below their comments. I have placed some of their comments in bold as I believe they focus on some key points they are making. I have written this as I did, to show how little has really changed. Human nature is such that the people of nations, seem to keep making the same mistakes they have made before or that other nations have made before. Some of our greatest leaders saw these reoccurring mistakes and attempted to remedy them only to see future generations "overrule" their wisdom and make the mistakes anyway.
What I learned from the Interview
What stood out was his concern for spending. When he said, "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," I thought, Mr. President, you would never believe how much we would spend in 2010-11 or how many nations we would be involved in.
Look at the President's 2011 proposed Budget to Congress and what he is asking for in defense and related spending.
Department of Defense Page 48
Total outlays 8.8 billion
Homeland Defense Page 84
Total outlays .6 Billion
Veterans affairs
Total outlays 3.7 Billion Page 119
Total for defense (includes Homeland Sec.) and Veterans 6.1 Billion
President Obama's Proposed 2011 Budget
For that year, 2011, he expects .56 trillion in tax revenues if we keep growing and improving the economy (which many doubt will happen because his projection is with no downturns and we are already experiencing a concern we are in a slowdown). That means that projected spending for just one sector of our government is 35% of tax revenues. Total Spending for Health and Human Services is 0.8 billion or another 35% of our tax revenues. Social Security, total spending in his budget proposal is 1.6 billion or 30% of expected tax revenues.
As you can see, 100% of tax revenues are consumed by just three areas in our government spending and we end up having to borrow to pay the interest which while 8 billion (8.6% of expected tax revenues) for this year, is projected to be 1/2 a trillion by 2014 or about 15% of 2014 projected tax revenues and some economists say it will be as high as 28%.
Many say, we have to keep Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid so, just cut Defense. Sounds good until you look at how dependent the nation is on that defense spending. This is a rather old article but, it sums up the dilemma the nations faces and it is in just one state.
Direct and indirect spending supported 714,500 jobs, with an average annual wage of ,310.
The defense industry generated 8-million in state and local tax revenue. Defense spending in Florida: By PAUL DE LA GARZA, St. Petersburg Times Dec. 12, 2003
Defense spending in Florida: By PAUL DE LA GARZA, St. Petersburg Times Dec. 12, 2003
Now, think about the hundreds of thousand of troops added to unemployment rolls. Think of all the businesses that sell copiers, paper clips, paper, desks, chairs, office fixtures, vehicles, etc. to defense industry businesses and you can see how the number of jobs in a state like Florida can create 700,000 jobs that would be cut in proportion to cuts in defense spending. There are other high defense industry states as well, that are in similar situations as Florida is. It isn't just direct spending but all the indirect jobs that are tied as well, to that spending that creates the problems we will have if we cut defense spending.
We shouldn't be involved in some of the things we are. That much I can agree on. We can argue over whether this place or that place should be getting military attention but, bottom line, we all agree we are spending too much on our military activities overseas and thus, the support they need from industry here. Yet, cut it and we could literally cause a depression just with cuts in defense spending and our government knows it. This article by Melvin A. Goodman puts more of a macro-picture on the cost of our defense spending...
Over the past three decades, the military tool also has become the leading instrument of American statecraft. The defense budget is 13 times larger than all U.S. civilian foreign policy budgets combined, and the Defense Department's share of U.S. security assistance has grown from 6 percent in 2002 to more than 50 percent in 2009, when Obama was inaugurated.
There are more members of the military in marching bands than there are Foreign Service Officers, and the Defense Department spends more on fuel ( billion) than the State Department spends on operating costs ( billion). More than half of U.S. discretionary spending is in the defense budget, and war spending only accounts for half of the increase in defense spending since 1998.
I believe many in Congress would love to cut defense spending but, most, if they do, would see unemployment rise in their state at a time they are trying to create jobs, not lose them. This has them boxed in. If they cut the spending, they rapidly increase unemployment. If they don't cut, then we continue on what the GAO says is an unsustainable course that, at some point, costs us our standard of living and domestic tranquility.
Jan Paul Burr
Article may be copied and reproduced as long as credit is given to Financial Sense with a link to the article and credit to the author.
