The really stupid part is that US military spending is so disproportionate you could do both.
A 25% cut in the US military would leave around 165bn for infrastructure and they'd still be spending more than the next 4 countries.
A 25% cut in the US military would leave around 165bn for infrastructure and they'd still be spending more than the next 4 countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
You can hire 100 people to make 100,000 needles a day by hand tools or instead build a $200,000 plant that make 10 million needles a day with three guys operating the machines. In both cases the profit goes to the plant owner, while in the second the cost of labor will be less than 3% of the receipts.
the wages in economy are well documented. as well as returns on capital. Actual data matters. Don't take my word for it. read up an actual economist.
http://voxeu.org/article/reducing-inequality-deconcentrating...
The rich aren't rich because they put in more labor and got more salaries.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/us-army-audit-account...
That article is rehashing the same bogus premise that has been thrown around for decades. Here's how it works:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-8-5-trillion-missing-from-...
https://davidlandy.net/no-the-pentagon-didnt-lose-8-5-trilli...
Basically: within $N trillion in spending, there is a combination of non-audits and accounting irregularities, so therefore CNN throws up a click-bait article claiming the entire amount of spending is unaccounted for.
Pretty idiotic when you consider the sums being claimed vs the known expenditures in question. The premise is: every dollar that wasn't audited was stolen; logically, even if one were to assume theft (etc) happened, it's likely to be a dramatically smaller sum of the whole.
The total education spend is 3%.
So you could double spending on education and nasa and still pocket savings...
By cutting the US military by 25%.
Just an example.
I happen to agree with slashing the US military, however your premise is incorrect. It's also worth noting that China aggressively lies about their military spending - under counting - and has been doing that for decades. The US is also now spending less than Russia per dollar of GDP.
Further, the $165 billion wouldn't accomplish anything in terms of infrastructure, or healthcare, or anything else. For example, take a look at the estimate that California Democrats recently ended up with for their single-payer system (it's so expensive to do in the US, it'd instantly bankrupt California; not even a small, somewhat well run state like Vermont can pull it off). You can't even fix California's infrastructure problems for $165 billion per year. Right now, with the US budget what it is, you'd need more like a $400 billion cut to the military to even scratch the surface (we have nukes, it'd realistically be feasible, but we'd have to dramatically disengage from dealing with Russia in Europe and China in Asia, requiring those regions to significantly lift their military spending).
Second US gets almost nothing per dollar from it's military spending due to inefficiencies. Slashing the budget for a few years is a critical step to separate the useful from the useless spenind. And realistically a 70% cut followed by a slow ramp up would eliminate vast amounts of redundant waste, and reduce many long term obligations. But, that waste is making people rich and 'bringing home the bacon' making such cuts untenable.
> Second US gets almost nothing per dollar from it's military spending due to inefficiencies
Most US military spending is on human soldiers, not on weapons programs. The waste you're referring to is a few tens of billions of dollars per year. It's not hundreds of billions. Your premise of somehow saving a lot of money by reducing waste, doesn't pan out under any scrutiny accordingly. Unless your plan is to slash hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their associated costs (even if we close half our foreign bases, which would save tens of billions of dollars, we would then need to significantly increase the spending on our domestic base capabilities to handle those soldiers; or we have to dramatically slash our soldier numbers).
As I said in another comment we could slash Medicare spending by 40+% without reduicing care. But, as you did not bother to read my comment I can't help but think your being disingenuous.
PS: I don't run the country so any change I or you suggest has the same problem of never going to be implemented. Stopping rational discussion at that point kills all political discussions period.
Concluding disingenuous is more than a stretch. I'm reading & responding to more than a dozen posts in this same thread.
Claiming we could reduce Medicare spending by 40% is a very, very dramatic claim. We could reduce general healthcare spending by a similar amount: the consequences of doing so are profound, involving vast job loss, pay cuts, and tax base loss. What's your near-term fix for that immense dislocation that would take decades to play out? Just tell the millions of people that will be negatively affected by it to suck it up and deal with it? Or do you plan to significantly boost welfare programs, unemployment benefits, retraining spending, etc. - and how do you plan to pay for that (cutting Medicare spending by 40% wouldn't even balance the budget deficit, which is set to balloon massively due to entitlement costs)?
Yes, all the inefficiencies would have to go, and that would mean people would have to get jobs that are more efficient and produce more bang for buck. That's life.
I'm not aware of any cases when people are denied chaemotheropy on the NHS, yet I am aware of people in the Us struggling to pay $50k a year for something as basic as insulin.
The Texas triangle (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) has a combined metropolitan population of 17 million.
However, once the northeast networks expands eventually adding Texas would be reasonable, just not from day 1.
And keep in mind that the terrain between Dallas and Houston is basically all flat and sparsely populated, so building rail there would be a lot cheaper than the northeast.
Sure, if Texas wants to spemd their money go for it, but this would be a relative ware of federal funds.
The big problem is that whole categories of the military budget are waste. They are job programs in the shape of a weapon, but are overkill in our current asymmetric wars and likely useless against an equal adversary. The LCS & F-35 are trillions of dollars in waste.
Even when you are talking about a decent system, the internal level of waste is insane. I was an engineer for nuclear submarines. We were cited as an example for all other programs because we were on time and under budget. There was still a waste in every direction I could see.
I think things would get better with a switch to fixed priced contracts instead of cost plus. It requires the service to nail down their requirements up front, but at least you get the cost incentives right. Until then, the saying "first time half time, second time overtime" was pretty apt.
I don't know how many troops one needs to defend the country and fulfill our obligations abroad (though I wish it were zero), but a military job lost surely pays for a civilian job building infrastructure. Especially considering overhead for the two relatively, the civilian job could certainly even pay better.
I'm sure there is a balance in there, but I don't think jobs would be one -- rather readiness requirements alone. And god knows I'm not qualified to guess as to that one, but it does seem likely we're going a bit overboard at present.
The single-pay system can be made to work. Others make it work, and a lot cheaper, but you have to accept that you need change. US health care is imo absurdly expensive and not that good (I have experienced it). But that discussion seem to always fall into the realm of doctrine rather than what is good and possible when it comes under discussion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
You of course didn't support that claim at all. Most US military spending goes to soldier-related costs. How do you propose to slash that given how dramatically higher the US median wage is compared to Russia? Other than of course to perhaps cut the number of US soldiers in half.
> The single-pay system can be made to work. Others make it work, and a lot cheaper
Of course it can work. It can't work with US costs what they are. You need to go tell US nurses they have to take a 1/3 pay cut, to match up with what nurses in France and Germany are making. Then you need to go tell radiologists that they have to take a 70% pay cut to match up with French radiologists. Then you have to go tell pharma they're getting a 2/3 cut. Then you have to tell average hospital workers they're getting a 20% pay cut. Then you have to close 1/3 of all hospitals. Then you have to substantially expand wait times to match eg Canada, aka rationing the care. Then you have to tell hospital admin they're getting a 50% cut in their budget. Then you have to fire 500,000 people that are employed directly or indirectly in the health insurance industry. Then you have to slash the payouts for all sorts of highway robbery prices in medtech / devices / supplies related to the healthcare industry, which will can hundreds of thousands of more employees. You have to successfully adjust all of that, lower the costs, then figure out how to create new economic growth with the cost savings to re-employ all those lost jobs, wages, taxes (all that lost income tax, which will shoot a hole in the side of social security & medicare/medicaid).
IE you have to find a trillion dollars in savings across dozens of economic segments. Which is another way of saying: a lot of people are going to lose a lot of jobs and income. It's an extraordinarily complicated and expensive problem to resolve without rattling the entire economy to its core.
Oh yeah, then you have to dramatically raise taxes on the US middle class (which pays very little in taxes vs most developed nations) to match up with what countries with single payer systems do; and explain to the middle class that they're going to be better off with socialized healthcare, and that the increased taxes will be off-set by the government healthcare vs the old private insurance approach. Then you also have to significantly raise taxes on the top 25%, which pay most of the taxes in the US.
No problem eh.
* even more locally organised. County sized administrations have about the same independence as US states.
* instead of spending our (similar) tax rates on the military, it is spent on superb health care (imagine a souped up version of Obamacare with regulated prices), schools and a social net. Look at the numbers though - I think it works, that is, innovation and the economy in general are strong thanks to a more stable middle class (that doesn't experience negative social mobility due to health care problems and overpaid schools plus gets an influx from people at the poor end that make it by means of a helping hand at child age).
* and no, I would argue Switzerland is not significantly less diverse with about 30% immigrant population. We have about the same proportion of backwards rightwing pseudo conservatives as a counterreaction, but they are bound to a political system that makes getting absolute majorities in the parliament near impossible (and also relatively useless alone thanks to referendums that serve as a moderation tool). See also again the difference in how middle class is kept going, which makes a Populist power grab much less likely.
I agree, there are better systems than France. My only reference to France, is about competitive salaries in the healthcare industry. Wages in that industry have to come down by a lot to match comparables in eg France, Germany, UK.
When people talk about single payer re the US, they focus on drug prices and insurance industry costs. They ignore that essentially every cost in the US system is inflated, including routine labor and dozens of side connected feeder industries (everything from saline supply to the cost of hospital beds to labor costs in elderly care). Most of the cost bloat in the system is made up of salaries for workers such as nurses, doctors, hospital workers, admin and health insurance employees. You could slash pharma costs nearly in half in the US and only save ~$150 billion of the $1 trillion we have to cut out of our costs to get cost competitive again. Every one of these cuts will have substantial economic consequences; cut pharma in half, lose a million high paying jobs directly & indirectly that support the tax base that pays for the single payer system (ie you have to figure out how to replace that; which would occur, but it'd take lots of time).
That said, the way the US is actually going to go, is we're going to do a slow mediocre drift into single payer, through gradual expansion as the existing convoluted system fails one tier after another (essentially failing up the economic chain; the middle class will gradually all be pulled into government healthcare by necessity as the system collapses). Maybe out of desperation they'll use medicare as the platform, since the politicians in Washington DC can never agree on anything it's most likely our result will be to use something that already exists and just enlarge it.
The VA hospital system is a US example demonstrating vastly lower costs with similar outcomes. Scale that to say all of Medicare + all government workers and costs drop enough to cover vastly more people. Now add in other programs like the Ryan White AIDS program which covers ~300,000 people with very high cost care and the supliments to Rural heathcare systems etc and heathcare would look very different and cheaper.
I've made that point numerous times in this thread. I think you're missing my point: the US has to slash a trillion dollars in expenses out of its system. That trillion dollars consists of jobs & people's income & tax base loss. It is not a zero cost transition, it's a massive cost transition. You're talking about it as though it would occur in a vacuum, it would not.
The VA system is not an example of lower costs. You're wrong, it's more expensive than both the private sector and medicare:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/report-va-health-care-has-...
Further the UA is often covering the most expensive care such as hip replacements, the fact that it's a lower percentage of costs is a result of efficiency of the VA and waste in the rest of the system.
As to lowering costs, economically spending money on heathcare billing vs Rail is only different because Rail provides long term value. As long as total spending is unchanged there is no reason to suspect economic harm.
> As long as total spending is unchanged there is no reason to suspect economic harm.
You mean other than the vast dislocation that health industry labor - and two dozen other industries reliant on that spending - would suffer? People taking pay cuts in healthcare, workers losing jobs in pharma & health insurance by the hundreds of thousands (high paying jobs at that). Your premise would only actually work that way in a simulation (and it'd be a really bad simulation, not accounting for anything in the real world), not in reality. In reality, there is dramatic economic friction that occurs when you fire someone and they have to retrain / find a new job, or when you cut their pay to bring costs in line. There are immense short-term and long-term costs to that upheaval, in reality. Such costs include: unemployment costs, job training, long-term unemployment costs, welfare benefit costs, tax base loss until jobs & incomes are recovered. The US economy is growing very slow, where's the evidence it can absorb such losses and then create a million new high paying jobs (simultaneously while automation is about to bear down on just about every category of employment)?
If the VA spent 1/2 as much money and covered 1/6 of the costs while provoviding the same benefit that would be a good thing. This analysis ignores survives provided because the only way to make them look bad is to pretend spending more money is somehow a good thing.
To put it differently, if the Swiss, population 8M, can figure out how to transport 1.8x the amount of rail passengers compared to the entire US (no, not by capita, in absolute numbers [1]), it could also happen that a smaller budget military outmaneuvers US army, navy and marines. That being said, conventional armies made for symmetric warfare seem just about as useless now as at the height of the cold war. But not even the security of the nuclear arsenal seems a high priority in US politics today.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_us...
The US isn't spending $1.5 trillion on the F35. First, the costs will be spread over decades; second, the US will never order even half the planes in question; it never does when it comes to large systems orders. In 10-15 years they'll be slashing the buying down toward zero as with the F22 (as the military chomps at the bit to move on to new programs), the F35 program will cost half as much as claimed presently, as most of the cost projections are based on maintenance costs over 30 years for thousands of planes that will never be purchased (we're going to buy thousands of F35s over decades? yeah right).
That aircraft carrier will launch. Every country that has ever built one has had significant problems doing so, the US has a long successful history of building & deploying aircraft carriers, the latest one will be no different regardless of temporary problems.
The carriers are not hard to sink; they never really have been for a major opponent. China and Russia have been able to sink them for a long time. They're not for fighting adversaries that can sink them. They're force projection, intimidation, and for fighting countries that aren't Russia or China. Carriers will be useful in their present role for a few decades to come yet (their current role is not for potentially fighting Russia or China; anyone that thinks that is seriously confused). Military tier nations in the capability realm of Iran, might pose a real threat to carriers in 15-20 years. The trick with US carriers, is that anyone (again, not named Russia or China) that actually sinks one has a full scale war with the US on their hands. In that sense, carriers are a taunting device: you can try to sink one, but if you succeed, your country is going to be massively attacked (you're going to trade sinking a carrier for losing all your airports, your power grid is going to be taken down, your airforce is going to be neutralized, your economy is going to grind to a halt, etc).
Texas: 268,597 mi²
U.S.: 3,797,000 mi²
So.. how does size exactly stop the US from having the to-date most efficient mass transport? I'm not talking LA-NYC, noone is gonna do that until someone builds vacuum tubes. First you need good local and regional travel.
That's an absurd statement to make. Total spending on highway and street construction in the US is around $90 billion annually: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLHWYCONS . You are honestly arguing that adding an additional ~185% of what we spend on roads today wouldn't accomplish anything?
We have immense problems everywhere from dams to grid to schools to bridges to healthcare (we could use to spend tens of billions in additional money just on the VA healthcare system), that are not present in that $90 billion and would not be dented by $165 billion per year.
We spent hundreds of billions on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and it barely made any difference.
The cost to redo a bridge in the US and then properly maintain it, is far beyond the cost to presently barely maintain it properly as we're doing.
That $90 billion you're quoting, is a vast under-outlay versus what we should be spending. Which is another way of saying, we need to be spending dramatically more just to break even on our current maintenance requirements. The US is facing trillions in spending just to replace our failing/failed infrastructure, and then all that newly replaced infrastructure needs to be maintained properly - so take that $90 billion and increase it upwards of 3x; 2x is what we should be spending now and are not; 3x is what we'll need to spend after we spend trillions on replacement to maintain the new infrastructure properly. That's just for our existing roads / highway infrastructure (which is merely one subset of our infrastructure spending needs).
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/...
Even not looking at those numbers saying that amount 'wouldn't accomplish anything' is ridiculous. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year is a huge amount in any sector of the economy, even for the US. You can try and defend it as much as you want but that is a hyperbolic statement completely disconnected from reality.