Wednesday, March 07, 2007

What I dislike about Bush

James K. Galbraith can always be counted on for a fresh view of the economy, as he presents in this article. His contention states that the Bush Presidency fueled Public sector expansion, rather than promoting the Private Sector as in the Clinton years. This may seem like a No-Brainer considering some trillions of Dollars Bush has spent on Defense. James gives Us a very telling argument based upon data without numbers–We have definitely traveled from the Tech industry to the military-industrial complex. The Bush administration hid this vast displacement, though, by his across-the-board Cut in Business taxes. The practice will glare when Democrats think to return Business taxes to a realistic Norm. Readers may ask why this is important. The excessive Public Spending, especially its transfer of funds Overseas to the advantage of the military-industrial complex, cost American Workers about 3 million Jobs (about equal to the Cost of simple Offshoring); the two major impediments of Job growth in the recent Recovery.

Here is an article which highlights the corruption inherent in the Bush pattern of Spending. Bush proposed a reduction of Firefighter and Homeland security grants in his new Budget, never expecting such Cuts would be implemented by Congress. First, such Spending should be concentrated at the State and Local level where actual Need can be identified; based upon the hard choice of allocating local taxation to procurement of such materials. Funding efforts above their natural level of provision always leads to excess: understand that in the Provision game, 100% percent equipage is often quite excessive, and economical provision can be as low as 20% without detriment from maximum efficiency.

The second element which should be considered in Spending at all three levels of Government is the Speed of Provision. Speed can become a very expensive commodity in the context of Provision. A good Case in Point is Defense Spending on new Weapons systems. Almost 60% of Cost of current Defense Spending on Weapons Research and Development comes from full finance of all elements of Weapons Development. Intelligence Estimates suggest no other nation has sufficient Weapons Development to even rival the United States until 2030. Defense Weapons Contracts use in the main a Target Date before 2015 for introduction of Production of Mainforce Weaponry. Avenues of Research are adopted which should not be accepted because of poor chance of success, Traditional approaches are adopted simply because their efficiency is known and Target dates can be met–though their effectiveness is challenged in currently-employed systems, and poor development is not abandoned because of prerequisite need to redeploy Research resources–Design, Research Equipment, and Labor. The Bottom line states We are probably paying almost twice what We should be paying for Weapons development, while current Mainforce elements deployed in the Field are not being adequately supplied.

Here is where We find the greatest injury in the Bush administration Expenditure pattern. Congress is equally at fault, along with the Military-Industrial Complex; who maintains one of the most intricate Lobbying systems ever devised; it mainly being financed by excess Charges placed on Weapons systems Development projects. Engagement in such Expenditure patterns always fund resistence to cutting the flow of such Funds–An Ounce of Prevention is actually worth ten Pounds of Cure. This is the real legacy of the Bush administrations, and it will cost the American Taxpayers a probable $2 trillion of overSpending before it is brought down. lgl

No comments: