RANGER AGAINST WAR: The Other Deficit <

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The Other Deficit


{NOTE: This piece was submitted by loyal reader Bob, who drives a taxi in Tallahassee. Bob is originally from Ohio and has an avid interest in economic issues}

But it's gonna take money
A whole lotta spending money

It's gonna take plenty of money

To do it right child

--Got My Mind Set on You
,
Traveling Wilbury's

________________________

Who poses a military threat to the United States?

During the Cold War the US worried that the Soviet Union might take over the oil resources of the Middle East to deprive the West of them in a war, but what prospective Arab regime of any ideological stripe desires Middle Eastern oil for any reason other than to sell it?

During the Cold War our military presence in the Middle East was small. Even after the fall of the Shah in Iran, we had no significant presence on the ground until the Gulf War.

Since the removal of the Soviet threat, our Middle East presence has only grown, and it is hard to see how our policy has done anything except de-stabilize a region in which our primary interest should be political stability.

The only thing that threatens Western access to Middle Eastern oil is chaos, yet that is exactly what our policies have promoted. Our invasion of Iraq didn’t simply destroy the Iraqi government, replacing it with an uncertain regime, or foster a new generation of jihadists, it has also spawned a potential Kurdish nationalist movement that could de-stabilize both Turkey and Iran, with other negative implications for the West.

These effects are contrary to our national interests. Why has the U.S. thrown Realpolitik out the window? Why do we conduct our national affairs like an episode of the Bounty Hunter, acting like moral police going after "Bad Men" and Mad Men. It seems like something at the frontier of what Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers might contrive, yet that is what America has become.

And what about the money financing these adventures? Few discuss the “other deficit.” We hear a great deal about the budget deficit and our serious financial problems, but the other deficit -- the foreign exchange deficit -- is rarely discussed except on the business page and never in the context of our overseas military spending. Every year, this country spends about $800 billion more overseas than it takes in. Currently, the world is awash in dollars – $12 Trillion of them outside the United States. This is almost as much as our GDP and far more than is needed by foreign governments for domestic reserves.

If this trend continues (and it has been going on for at least a decade), the rest of the world may soon say, “We don’t want any more dollars; we have enough," leading to the possibility of a dollar collapse. If foreigners don’t want dollars, how will we pay to maintain American troops overseas? We won’t. We will have to bring them home.

So how do we deal with this “other deficit?” The issue is complex, but a major contributor to this deficit is the cost of maintaining American troops in over 800 bases in 130 countries around the globe. Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank have co-sponsored a proposal to withdraw most of our troops from most of these countries. Some air and naval bases would remain, but the ground troops basically would all be brought home. They estimate that their proposal would save about $100 billion a year.

That is the money saved. That would reduce the budget deficit, but the reduction in the foreign exchange deficit would be far greater. All the money our soldiers spend in Berlin, Tokyo, and Seoul would be spent in the US instead. So would most of the money we spend to support them. So the Paul/Frank proposal could reduce the foreign exchange deficit by $200-300 Billion. Such a move wouldn’t completely solve the problem, but it would go a long way toward averting a dollar collapse. It wouldn’t preserve our “empire,” but it would preserve a forward defense for our republic.

The United States cannot micro-manage the political affairs of the entire world, but we can go broke trying. It’s time to bring the troops home.

--by Bob Haley

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Blogger jo6pac said...

Here’s a short part of how the USA traps other countries in the game of the dollar.
http://www.webofdebt.com/excerpts/chapter-22.php
What everyone is seeing now is Russia and China trade goods in their own currencies and then with some small countries in the region they us a system based on commodities at the time of the deal. Sorry there is a name for this but I haven't a clue, it’s an old idea but with computers it works. Other countries such as Iran and all the big countries in South America and the Paper Tigers have moved to this system. It’s just a matter of time in the not to near future what you’re saying happens and at that time we are doomed on Main Street. How sad, in that it didn’t have to happen this way but the beltway is the best govt. money can buy.
Yes, bring everyone home.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 8:36:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Brooklyn Red Leg said...

Just one quibble. Dr Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign (which has become The Campaign for Liberty) is the foundation of modern Tea Party movement. Sarah Palin and her ilk are, in point of fact, interlopers (we call them Tea-o-Cons). They latched onto our grassroots movement and have attempted to hijack it (with the help of the MSM).

At least among the Tea Partiers I know, the 800lb Gorilla of the Budget Busters is the misnamed Department of Defense. Many of us want ALL our troops brought home and every overseas base closed. We want an end to ALL wars and for us to follow The Founders advice: friendship and free trade (real free trade) with all nations, men and religions; entangling alliances with none. Most Tea Partiers I know want us to return to First Principles.

Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 8:26:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Rob said...

jo6pac makes a good point that I didn't go into. Other countries are already making bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements for the day when the dollar becomes worthless. They keep telling us to be more responsible, but our government brushes off such criticisms. Apparently we think they have no other choice. They know otherwise.

Friday, June 3, 2011 at 10:50:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we had a gold standard, & these central bank fiat "dollars" weren't as cheap as words, this wouldn't be a problem. But, that is crazy talk.

Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 7:39:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home