How About A New Deal, Europe? We Continue Protecting Your Ass; You Start Paying
How do Europeans get all this low-cost health-care? Well, health care can be loads cheaper when you don't have to pay much or as much for your country's defense because you're freeloading off the U.S. military.
Doug Bandow, at Cato, suggests a change -- that Washington stops using the Pentagon as a global welfare agency, and countries we defend start kicking in for the cost:
How much should Washington charge? Consider some rough numbers. For instance, Washington might charge one percent of GDP for providing a standard defense....European states would owe a base one percent, or $185 billion. For devoting so little to the military the EU, minus the four countries spending more than two percent of GDP on the military, would have to kick in another $147 billion.
The Baltic States and Poland would owe an extra $13 billion for being involved in a potential conflicts and receiving a nuclear guarantee. France, United Kingdom, and Germany would need to kick in an extra $96 billion for extras (global interests or nuclear umbrella).
Canada would owe $18 billion. Saudi Arabia should pay three percent, or $22.4 billion: basic fee plus add-ons for potential conflict and a combination of (reduced) charges for commercial global involvement and possible nuclear guarantee. The other Gulf States should pay $8.9 billion.
Japan would owe four percent--for standard defense, nuclear umbrella, minimal military outlays, and a combination of economic international involvement and limited potential conflict--or $184 billion. South Korea would owe the standard fee plus surcharges for potential conflict and nuclear guarantee, or $42 billion. Australia should pay one percent, or $15 billion. The Philippines would owe two percent, given the potential for conflict, yielding $5.7 billion.
The grand total comes to $737 billion, which would cover the roughly $570 billion likely to be spent on the military next year. The extra would go for defense-related expenses, such as veterans' benefits and the interest on money borrowed to pay to defend other states.
Of course, some countries might refuse to pay. But Washington should indicate that if they don't, they will be on their own. The easiest way for states to avoid paying America for its efforts would be to defend themselves.
This is a good idea, on paper. I'm generally in agreement with the concept, but mindful that the devil is in the details.
How do we handle it when the next failed painter with a funny mustache starts loading up undesirables into cattle cars? We certainly shouldn't and wouldn't check the country GDP % payment ledger for current payment history to decide to get involved.
OTOH, I've always thought that we should have presented a bill, or received a decade of cheaper oil, for defending the Saudi kingdom during the first Gulf war.
It's hard to draw a bright line here, but the nation does need to have this conversation.
Bolillo_SCZ at October 2, 2015 11:16 PM
The US could have very easily "gone home" at the end of the Cold War. Many people, on both sides of the pond, expected it. Why didn't it happen? Maybe because closing foreign bases would have reduced DoD budgets, and eliminated lots of lucrative contracts?
In the absence of the threat from the USSR, the US apparently decided that it needed to drum up business, create a need for that massive military. So the political elite decided to kick over some more hornet nests: The US destroyed the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The US funded and equipped terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East; organizations that have now coalesched into ISIS, and are threatening the stability of the entire region.
It pretty sad when Putin's Russia sounds like the more reasonable country, but that's the point we have reached.
Maybe the US should pay Europe for the cost of dealing with all the refugees created by American foreign policy. That's going to be one hell of a bill.
bradley13 at October 3, 2015 12:59 AM
Please, bad mouth American hegemony all you want bradley13, the fact remains that due to US intervention the world has remained relatively war free in comparison to its history before American ascendance to world leadership
lujlp at October 3, 2015 1:20 AM
Switzerland doesn't have free health care, and we're in Europe. And our insurance costs way less than in the US (at least for us it did). We're home to a lot of pharmaceuticals though so maybe they cut us good deals.
Romney basically based his healthcare plan on the Swiss model. It works well, but we are a very small countries and lots of stuff that works well on a smalls scale doesn't work on a large one.
Also, our military is pretty much the same as it was before WWII... all our men (more or less) are in the army, and we rely on our mountains to be a fortress, and we will blow up our own infrastructure if invaded.
Bradley, where ya been? Haven't seen you in awhile... what's your commune saying about the refugees. Everyone I talk to is all for opening the borders. I think they're insane. (The border openers, not the refugees)
NicoleK at October 3, 2015 1:31 AM
"That's a very nice country you got there... it would be a shame if something were to you know... happen to it..."
On a slightly more serious note than the "protection money" analogy... the moment other countries begin to pay the US for military protection is the moment that they have the right to have a say in US military policy. We cannot be a sovereign nation if our military is for sale.
They would essentially become our customers with an expectation for prompt and reliable service meeting their standards... and if we were to fail to meet those standards then we could be cut off.
The US cannot and should not be beholden to other countries when it comes to our military policy.
"Washington might charge one percent of GDP for providing a standard defense."
I wonder what we should charge for the premium defense package...
In all seriousness, this is an extremely shortsighted idea intended to cover budget shortfalls without increasing taxes on US citizens.
We need to get our own house in order and the way to do that isn't to charge other nations a bill to fund our sovereign foreign policy.
Artemis at October 3, 2015 1:58 AM
@NicoleK, been busy, so just lurking. I agree, opening borders is nuts. Seems to me most of German-speaking Switzerland is leaning towards SVP - maybe different in the French-speaking areas?
Individually, I have a lot of sympathy for the refugees (or, better, the migrants). But there are just too many. Hungary says 35 million are on the way, including all those in Africa. 70% young men, despite what the media shows. They should stay home and fix their countries.
@lujlp: The US played an absolutely vital role during the Cold War, no question. The end of the Cold War was a huge opportunity to cut military spending, to close those bases in Europe and elsewhere that had kept the USSR at bay.
Why that didn't happen? Money and power. Gotta keep those contract flowing. Bush, then Obama, destabilized the entire Middle East plus most of Northern Africa. It isn't a pretty picture, but it isn't in your back yard. Especially pungent: ISIS was created, funded and equipped by US support for "good" terrorists.
tl;dr: The US did good stuff from 1941 to 1991. Since then, pretty much the opposite.
bradley13 at October 3, 2015 3:20 AM
Bradley13 You are under the delusion that the US kept the bases open for money and power. No, we kept the bases open and defended the rubble of Western Europe at the end of WW2 so that we wouldn't have to save their butts again. Get off your progressive/leftist talking points. They convince no one and ignore history.
ferdburful at October 3, 2015 5:16 AM
bradley13,
Curious about your views on why hoping that the 1989 Revolutions in East Europe would be duplicated in the ME is "destablizing".
Bush started something that like anything had success and failure. Obama chose to ignore the successes and basically be inactive.
Bush's effort could have been followed up and the ME could possibly have been "stablized" w/citizen friendly governments.
Obama did not do this and the area, to no one's surprise, is a mess. Not utilizing the tools/opportunities at hand as a building block is not a Bush problem.
Of course, if you simply beieve in non-interventionism ("a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, ... ,and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.") then simply say so and stop wasting everyone's time.
Non-interventionism is a valid approach and can stand on its own merits. The only problem is that few state that this is their policy/approach and that the expected outcomes are acceptable/desirable compared to other outcomes.
Bob in Texas at October 3, 2015 6:06 AM
That's all nice and all. It would require us to actually be willing to provide what we say we will.
And as we've seen with the Current Feckless Administration, they're too busy sticking knives in the backs of our allies, and too busy cozying up to our enemies to be bothered with such agreements.
Which explains their utter shock and dismay when Putin actually backs an ally.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 3, 2015 6:53 AM
@ferdburful: You need to read my comment before you write. I wrote: "The US did good stuff from 1941 to 1991." The U.S. was essential to protecting Europe after WWII and to winning the Cold War over the following 45 years. Absolutely no question about it.
Leftist? I'm about as far away from that as you can get. Pretty much straight up libertarian. See my comments about the refugees, who need to go home and fix their own countries.
My complaint against the U.S. (sparked by Amy's post) is simply this: Why didn't the U.S. ramp down its military after winning the Cold War? There was no longer any need for a military presence in Europe, or in most of the rest of the world. That's when the power politics and money came into play.
Since the end of the Cold War, the US has done great harm in the world. It is heretical to say this within the US itself, of course. That would admit that all the blood and treasure of the last 25 years were poured into the desert sand for nothing, indeed, for less than nothing. That is, however, the simple truth.
bradley13 at October 3, 2015 6:54 AM
What most people fail to realize is that during the cold war we paid European countries rent for our bases. I suspect we still do.
However, from the perspective of our allies, I am not sure I would be willing to pay the US for protection. When the Soviet Union collapsed the Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons. The US and Russia convinced the Ukraine to dispose of its nuclear weapons for guarantees their territory would be protected. We bugged out on the South Vietnamese and Iraqis. We reneged on a promise to the Poles to deploy anti ballistic missiles, without even the courtesy of a phone call, much less consultation. Argentina attacked a NATO country, the UK. We provided some non-combat assistance, but not one warship, warplane or soldier to get the Falklands back. Since then the UK has provided combat forces for Gulf I, Gulf II and Afghanistan. Would you pay for our "protection?"
Bill O Rights at October 3, 2015 7:05 AM
"My complaint against the U.S. (sparked by Amy's post) is simply this: Why didn't the U.S. ramp down its military after winning the Cold War? There was no longer any need for a military presence in Europe, or in most of the rest of the world. That's when the power politics and money came into play"
Where did you come up with this grade school socialist fantasy?
The Cold War hasn't been won. We are still fighting it.
There was a serious draw down of forces and military spending in the 90's
Bill Clintons so called *peace dividend*. His administration worked very hard to disengage from a grand defense plan, and instead decided to fight sporadic and ineffectual interventions which bought us 9-11.
Isab at October 3, 2015 8:38 AM
@Isab: According to the charts at the Washington Post, defense spending from 1991 (collapse of the USSR, end of the Cold War) to 1997 did drop by about $70 billion out of a total of $450 billion. Wow, 15%, that is hardly dramatic. The US has a military the size of the next 5 or 6 countries combined, which is just nuts.
You're not fighting the Cold War anymore, you haven't been for 24 years. Exactly what you are doing, well, that's what the rest of the world is wondering.
9/11 was used as an excuse to double military spending to around $750 billion. A few kooks and a ramshackle organization called Al Qaeda get lucky, so the US destroys its own civil liberties, dumps a trillion dollars and thousands of lives down the drain, and topples regimes all over the Middle East. Thus inspiring even more terrorist organizations, while creating a power vacuum for them to grow and prosper. The US funded and equipped some of those terrorist organizations. Even today, you are delivering equipment that is ultimately going to terrorist organizations including branches of Al Qaeda.
None of this makes any sense. None of this ever made any sense to anyone outside of the US echo chamber.
bradley13 at October 3, 2015 9:51 AM
I'm leaning SVP except I'm not into their pro-religion, anti-gay stuff. I can't find a party that is left where I am left and right where I am right. I lean towards controlled borders because I want to defend SECULARISM, not live in a Christian theocracy. I'm a bisexual vegetarian Wiccan for crying out loud, I'm not going to do well in a Muslim OR Christian theocracy.
Maybe I'll have to start the Partie Seculariste Vaudois or something.
SVP is nothing, I've been seein Partie Nationaliste posters everywhere and yes that is what it sounds like. But when I talk to individuals they all seem overjoyed at helping immigrants.
"Put a family in every village!" A family sure, our village could integrate a few families. But a bunch of unemployed young men?
NicoleK at October 3, 2015 12:08 PM
I take back my post about the joys of our militia, the defense minister announced we do not have the man power to stop mass migration. If our military can't protect us against unarmed migrants we are fucked. And way to tell them that on the news, "Come here, we're unguarded!!!"
NicoleK at October 3, 2015 12:10 PM
@Isab: According to the charts at the Washington Post, defense spending from 1991 (collapse of the USSR, end of the Cold War) to 1997 did drop by about $70 billion out of a total of $450 billion. Wow, 15%, that is hardly dramatic. The US has a military the size of the next 5 or 6 countries combined, which is just nuts.
You are making the mistake of believing contrived statistics. Most of what the Washington Post counts as military spending, includes a large portion of fixed social spending at VA hospitals, and on veterans educational benefits, and pensions.
Why is it *just nuts*, when we have been shouldering the lions share of defending both Europe and Asia from Russia, China and their proxies in both regions?
Those regimes didn't go away, with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Why don't you come out from under your bed, and and take a good hard look at what your libertarian wet dream non interventionist foreign policy has bought us for the last eight years?
Instead of reading crap put out by liberal journalists, in third rate newspapers, try reading some good history and foreign policy studies on the topic.
The defense budget in the US is a drop in the bucket compared to what the democrats have spent, and would like to spend on their social welfare programs.
Programs that are failing in Europe right now, because even without the kind of military spending they need to provide for their own defense, there just isn't enough of other people's money to sustain them.
Isab at October 3, 2015 12:13 PM
"I'm leaning SVP except I'm not into their pro-religion, anti-gay stuff. I can't find a party that is left where I am left and right where I am right. I lean towards controlled borders because I want to defend SECULARISM, not live in a Christian theocracy. I'm a bisexual vegetarian Wiccan for crying out loud, I'm not going to do well in a Muslim OR Christian theocracy."
Political parties are not designed to perfectly reflect some individuals quixotic views.
At best, they are going to be aligned with maybe 60 percent of your interests.
Might I suggest that you select your political affiliation with your most important interests in mind, such as staying alive, staying economically solvent, and having the ability to pop into your local gasthaus and actually afford the wares.
Your bisexual interests, whatever the hell those are, are a nice hobby, but I wouldn't make that part of my anatomy and what I do with it, much of a priority at the voting booth. .
A Christian fundamentalist party, restrained by a constitution still looks pretty damn good, if the alternative has the means and the motive to start loping off the heads of those in disagreement, and while they are at it, confiscating your bank account, as reparations for *wrong think*
Isab at October 3, 2015 12:46 PM
@NicoleK: Wiccan? Sometime we've gotta go drink a beer...there are some interesting stories to be heard...
bradley13 at October 3, 2015 2:09 PM
In my opinion, the US has spent tons of money defending Europe because it looks like it would be cheaper than going to "rescue" Europe from another World War. (yes, I know, the US didn't exactly come rushing in and do the fighting alone before; but, still)
Now, despite that it is really an issue of Obama dropping the ball, not an intentional "screw you"; Europe is now getting a taste of what it is like to NOT have the US watching your back.
For years, no, make that decades, many on Europe's left (and some mainstream folks too) have demanded that the US stop with being the World's cowboy. Stop "meddling" in other's affairs.
As the saying goes; be careful what you ask for . . .
The Russian Bear reclaiming the Crimea forcefully and going into the Middle East militarily, huge waves of "invaders" claiming to be refugees moving into Europe from the Middle East; Sweden paranoid about Russian subs in Swedish waters, the Baltic nations sweating a bit as Russian "war games" are played near their borders.
Yep, you asked for it, leftist Europe, now you got it. Too bad, it looks like you might just take the many millions of decent Europeans down with you.
I have some very good European friends, I'll sponsor if they ever want to "bug out" and come to the US.
charles at October 3, 2015 3:25 PM
"The US could have very easily "gone home" at the end of the Cold War."
Apparently, you missed the Base Closure Commission's work, and the drawdown of 270,000 military personnel under the Clinton Administration. You also missed the changes in plans for the USA's nuclear arsenal, resulting in the complete abandonment of fissile material manufacturing capability in the USA, as production reactors at Savannah River Site and Hanford were dismantled and scrapped.
You missed the change in American defense posture in Europe; I could introduce you to a former Army Major whose specialty was air defense artillery who could describe their drawdown also - although theater defenses are not totally dismantled.
This makes every other assertion of yours worthy of checking...
And you think 15% is trivial? Okay. Take that pay cut yourself.
Radwaste at October 3, 2015 5:10 PM
Something just occurred to me, should this plan take effect: do you really want to count on the USA to save you?
The President would say, "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the government you have, you can keep your government, too."
Because the operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is "self".
Radwaste at October 3, 2015 5:17 PM
In the absence of the threat from the USSR, there remained threats from Communist China, North Korea, an unknown and heavily-armed entity in the new government in Russia, an interventionist government in Cuba, a disintegrating Eastern Europe, Middle Eastern dictators no longer restrained by a superpower, as well as a few dozen more hot spots all over the globe.
Just because the Soviet Union fell, the world did not suddenly become safe. In fact, in the absence of bipolarity, the world became a more dangerous place than ever.
Çonan the Grammarian at October 3, 2015 8:35 PM
Good point Conan! I have asked this question before:
"So, you think having the USSR break up is a good thing? Want to tell me where their atom bombs all went?"
Radwaste at October 4, 2015 7:03 AM
Some of them went to Ukraine, which gave them up when Russia and the US jointly promised to respect and defend it territorial integrity.
Until Putin unilaterally decided that didn't include Crimea.
Conan the Grammarian at October 5, 2015 10:55 AM
Leave a comment