The news today has been all health care, all the time. And understandably so. But amid the laser-like focus on the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Obama’s new health care system, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. Health care is merely the latest in a long line of social welfare expenditures, going all the way back to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which have swallowed up an ever-growing share of the federal budget—and the national economy.
As this useful Heritage Foundation chart shows, entitlement spending first exceeded defense spending in 1976. Ever since, the trend has been getting more lopsided with entitlements taking up ever more of the economy and defense ever less. That gap has become especially pronounced since President Obama took office in 2009. The percentage of GDP going to the federal government grew from 20.7 percent in 2008 to 25.1 percent in 2011 before dipping slightly to 23.2 percent this year. Meanwhile, the state governments are taking another 15 percent, which means that as a total share of the economy the government is now consuming roughly 40 percent, and of that, less than five percent is going to the military.
We are, in short, becoming more like Europe—and not just because it’s now possible to get tasty croissants and frothy cappuccinos on this side of the Atlantic. In Europe, governments now consume more than 50 percent of GDP. Hence, it is no surprise that few European states are spending even as much as two percent of GDP on defense—the baseline established by NATO for its member states. The Europeans simply can’t afford to spend more on defense without cutting back social welfare programs, which the political class cannot do because it sparks riots in the streets.
This is where we are currently heading—and if ObamaCare survives political as well as legal challenges, with its estimated cost of more than a trillion dollars, we will arrive at this destination all the more quickly. We will simply not be able to pay for our defense as we have been doing. And that will be a calamity. The Europeans could afford to stint on their defense because we protect them. But who will protect us?
.PNG&filetimestamp=20111006132910){kind=link}
To answer Max's question, No one will protect us. Time to learn Chinese
To answer Max's question, No one! Time to learn Chinese, so we can understand our new masters in thier native tongue
wasn't all that long ago that people were saying that the Japanese were going to own us, rash. n nChina is in for some difficult changes and lots of interesting times.
If Obamacare survives the next election and Congress, it provides a solution to entitlement problems. The left needs an entitlement to tie the middle class to the Dems. Since the 30's, social security has been the tie: all elections have had elements of evil Republican hands tearing up grandma's social security check. With Obamacare, they have the new third rail so social security can be means tested and the tax cap lifted. It becomes just another welfare program. nAnd while ss was a great blunt instrument at election time, it was a simple program. Gov taxes, then sends a check; not much to be messed up. Health care is different and complex. It lends itself to new bidding wars each election as to who will finally "fix" the national health care system. Obama and the statist left win.
Max makes a good point and he can actually do even better. Max had an earlier post about the projected (not yet realized) supplies of natural gas in North America as noted in a Wall Street Journal article. With such a bonanza soon to be released there will be additional downward pressure on the defense budget with the goal of making America isolated from the world. (Max's earlier post noted that the Middle East would still be important and he's right about that. The pressure will be to leave the Middle East to itself and thereby make defense less important for that part of the world.) n nIf you couple the growing welfare state with the notion of more isolation and, consequently, less defense, we have the makings of a nation that simply leaves the world on its own. This is an attractive option for those who think the world will, in turn, leave us alone. There are many on the far right who voice such a position (Libertarians often take it as a rule) and the left approves as well. n nThe world, though, demands involvement of the United States simply because there is a need for rules and laws to govern nations. No other country has the wherewithal to do what the U.S. can and should do. If we neglect our responsibilities to the world, if we leave to world to itself, we will witness the return of evil (Ronald Reagan had the right word here) and be responsible for what could have otherwise been avoided. n nIt bears mentioning, as well, that one cure to our ailment of budget deficits and a shrinking economic pie is robust economic growth. Given the current conditions that burden our economy with extraneous regulations, a reticent Senate unwilling to cut costs (much less pass a budget) and let the private sector grow, it's hard to see the growth that we need. n nStill, America has been an amazing country, and has done what no other country ever did: its own form of government as a model to others, its participation in World War II, its level of private riches, to name just a few examples. Maybe, just maybe, we can pull out of this and avoid the same fate as Europe.
somehow i doubt that the money actually spent on defense in the last decade, rather than the amount budgeted, is what's shown by the ever-almost-honest Heritage Foundation. n ntoss in about a trillion bucks in supplemental appropriations and maybe there's a slight adjustment.