Our Lefty Military
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


As we search for paths out of America’s economic crisis, many suggest business as a paradigm for cutting costs. According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?

Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.

You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.

The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.

“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.

“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking.

The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.

Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.

While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.

“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.

One of the things I admire most about the military is the way it invests in educating and training its people. Its universities — the military academies — are excellent, and it has R.O.T.C. programs at other campuses around the country. Many soldiers get medical training, law degrees, or Ph.D.’s while in service, sometimes at the country’s finest universities.

Then there are the Army War College, the Naval War College and the Air War College, giving top officers a mid-career intellectual and leadership boost before resuming their careers. It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that.

Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector. And while the ethic of business is often “Gimme,” the military inculcates an ideal of public service that runs deep. In Afghanistan, for example, soldiers sometimes dig into their own pockets to help provide supplies for local schools.

Granted, it may seem odd to seek a model of compassion in an organization whose mission involves killing people. It’s also true that the military remains often unwelcoming to gays and lesbians and is conflicted about women as well. And, of course, the opportunities for working-class Americans are mingled with danger.

But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.

So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.

Hoo-ah!

---

Join the PACK!

The one difference that comes to mind is that the military does not generate any of it's income.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

The military is run by a de-facto dictatorial system and there is a diffuse "profit" motive. The former mirrors corporate America but the latter doesn't.

Veteran's hospitals are notoriously bad--probably getting better now. My father can't get the drugs he needs and goes to a private doctor--Military has social security (Medicare).

I often ask myself and my wife--now that we are going broke and we have made a mess of many of our most recent incursions, then why do we need dozens of bases in Spain, Germany, Korea, France, the far east and the Pacific.

you might also look at the payscale. Top officers do not make 100,000X more than the lowest employee in the Military. That financially is a good business model.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Thursday, Jun. 16, 2011
How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality
By Fareed Zakaria

"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S. (See "The Heart of Conservative Values: Not Where It Used to Be?")

Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending — then things will bounce back. Now, I would like to see lower rates in the context of tax simplification and reform, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U.S. economy? Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes.

Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades. From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth. (See a dozen Republicans who could be the next President.)

Of course, American history suggests that as well. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. It built infrastructure that was the envy of the rest of the world. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation.

But that history has been forgotten. When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world's richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don't bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. They resemble the old Marxists, who refused to look around at actual experience. "I know it works in practice," the old saw goes, "but does it work in theory?" (See "When GOP Presidential Candidates Skip, They Quickly Stumble.")

Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. Their effects were large-scale and important: think of the reform of the tax code in the 1980s, for example, which was spearheaded by conservatives. Today conservatives shy away from the sensible ideas of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficit reduction because those ideas are too deeply rooted in, well, reality. Does anyone think we are really going to get federal spending to the level it was at under Calvin Coolidge, as Paul Ryan's plan assumes? Does anyone think we will deport 11 million people?

We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don't reform but just cut and starve government — a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. It turns out that conservatives are the woolly-headed professors after all.

---

Join the PACK!

Well, now. This is pathetic. So much for the Republicans negotiating in good faith. Last time I checked, the word "compromise" involves both sides not getting everything they want.
_______________________
New York Times
June 23, 2011
Budget Talks Near Collapse as G.O.P. Leader Quits
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans on Thursday abandoned budget talks aimed at clearing the way for a federal debt limit increase, leaving the outcome in doubt as they vowed not to give in to a Democratic push for new tax revenues as part of any compromise.

The breakdown was set off by the surprise decision of Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader and one of two Republicans participating in sessions led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., to quit the negotiations.

This week’s talks were considered to be crucial as the Aug. 2 deadline for an increase in federal borrowing authority nears.

Mr. Cantor had previously expressed optimism that the sessions could produce a deal. But he announced he would not be attending Thursday’s scheduled meeting because Democrats continued to press for part of the more than $2 trillion savings target to come from moves like phasing out tax breaks.

“As it stands, the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases,” Mr. Cantor said in a statement. “There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don’t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue.”

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican and the party’s other representative in the talks, said later Thursday that he would also skip the next negotiating session as he and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, turned up the pressure on President Obama to play a larger role in the push for a debt limit deal.

“President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit,” Mr. McConnell and Mr. Kyl said in a joint statement. “He can’t have both. But we need to hear from him.”

The Republican maneuvering threw the talks into disarray in a week when those taking part had hoped an accelerated schedule of meetings could produce a breakthrough that would persuade members of both parties to support a debt ceiling increase in the coming weeks.

As events unfolded Thursday, a White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said the negotiations led by the vice president were now “in abeyance,” and he tried to play down the development by suggesting that the White House had expected that at some point the president would take charge of the talks. Exactly when that would happen was not clear, and Mr. Carney did not elaborate.

Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and Senate majority leader, also said he expected that the talks would resume at a higher level, though he provided no timetable.

“With what Kyl and Cantor’s done, I think it’s in the hands of the speaker and the president and, sadly, probably me,” he told reporters.

While it had been assumed that the Congressional leaders and Mr. Obama would ultimately have to strike the final deal, the Biden talks were expected to extend at least through the end of the month. The Republican withdrawal was an unexpected and sudden interruption.

Congressional Democrats expressed disappointment at Mr. Cantor’s decision and maintained that revenues must be part of any agreement.

“We cannot balance the budget solely on the backs of the middle class,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, a member of the House leadership taking part in the talks. “We simply must forge a bipartisan agreement. Failure is not an option, and I hope a bipartisan resolution will be achieved.”

Democrats have repeatedly said that they could not support a budget deal that relies solely on spending cuts and other program changes to produce the more than $2 trillion in savings. Officials said Wednesday’s negotiating session was unusually tense as Democrats sought to get Republicans to commit to some revenue increases in exchange for Democratic concessions on spending cuts.

Republicans knowledgeable about the events said Mr. Cantor decided to withdraw from the discussions because of the continuing emphasis by Democrats on potential new revenues. They said he, Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Kyl had previously discussed their discontent with the Democratic push for revenues and that some action was necessary to change the dynamic of the talks and show that Republicans were serious about not accepting what amounted to a tax increase.

“I know the frustration that he feels when Democrat members continue to want to bring tax hikes into this conversation, and insist that we’ve got to raise taxes on the American people,” Mr. Boehner told reporters.

According to officials, Mr. Cantor, who disclosed his decision to The Wall Street Journal on Thursday morning, also informed his leadership colleagues about the same time. Mr. Boehner, who had a private visit with the president at the White House on Wednesday night, evidently was unaware of Mr. Cantor’s plans at that time.

Democrats suggested that Mr. Cantor’s decision also reflected an internal Republican Party political determination to avoid being tagged as an author of an agreement that broached the idea of added revenues.

Republicans indicated that talks could resume if Democrats agreed to take any tax increases off the bargaining table. And negotiating setbacks like the decision by Mr. Cantor and Mr. Kyl to walk away are not unusual in serious Congressional bargaining sessions, where talks often then get back on track. But time is running short, and the House and the Senate have only a few weeks left in the summer when both will be in session before running up against the debt limit in early August.

Though Mr. Cantor and others have suggested that the Biden group has already identified $2 trillion or more in savings, others say that the firm amounts are much lower and that significant work must be done to reach even that level.

At the same time, Senator Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who is chairman of the Budget Committee, said this week that he did not believe the $2 trillion deal that has so far eluded budget negotiators is sufficient, given the nation’s deficit and debt trajectory.

“This is not just about numbers on a page,” Mr. Conrad said Thursday. “This is about the future economic prospects of our nation.”

---

Join the PACK!

I'm rooting for the GOP this time around. I hope they don't budge on tax breaks or tax hikes. I can't afford any more taxes as it is, nor do I think the entire US deserves a bit of Michele's inheritance (that she's still battling for in court) just for the "price" of living in the U.S.A.

can't afford or don't want to pay anymore. We already know that we are being taxed at a 60 year low so the only way to create revenue is to unfortunately tax more.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

can't afford or don't want to pay anymore.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

We already know that we are being taxed at a 60 year low so the only way to create revenue is to unfortunately tax more.

Or spend less to fit within the budget we have.

can't afford or don't want to pay anymore. We already know that we are being taxed at a 60 year low so the only way to create revenue is to unfortunately tax more.

So the GOP plan of reducing government services may come to fruition if they can prevent more taxes.

---

I thinks its more of a means of saying I wanna keep all my gadgets and goodies. Make no sacrafices and then complain because I can't get my car registered in a reasonable amount of time, my kids a decent public education, roads repaired, criminals arrested, my house fire not being put out or finding that The military is once again needing a bigger better plane, tank, ship, or rifle that we neeed desperately to build and procure because being the best armed, trained and equipped military in the world is not enough.
we have the largest navy in the world. bigger than the next 12 combined. We are allies with most of those navies. Who are we building up to fight?

certainly there are line items and pork that still exists in the budget. $billions given to the big 5 oil companies to do things that they would already do is dumb. yet billions are small potatoes to the $trillions in debt we face.

Its unfortunate that the Wealthy of this country got a free ride for the past 10 years and Obama felt the need to hand them another 2 years of free riding. Instead of handouts for the wealthy maybe we should be looking at cutting our losses with them and make them bleed like everyone else.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

No not about their gadgets and goodies. About personal responsibility. They want to end all entitlements, no exceptions. They see no place in the Constitution where is says give money directly to an individual because of birth right as a function of the government. They see that 45% of Americans do nothing (pay no federal income tax) to support the Federal government and find that abhorrent. They see all the waste and fraud in the social programs and assume that is the norm of those programs, and realize as long as these programs exist it gives a criminal a target to steal from.

Roads, fire, police, give me a break. Those are the very things they want more and will pay for. But they will not allow another dime to go to the government until the entitlements are stopped. To them the fraud must stop first so a correct level of funding can be determined. Their life experience is that fraud breeds fraud.

But it is Richard Nixon's war on drugs that is the biggest thief of taxpayer money. Sucks up far too much in police, courts and jails and far too many people doing nothing in a cell and being fed on the taxpayer dime.

---

It's funny how that 45% gets bandied about.

If we are talking the extra credit poor people get I can point to Ronald Reagan. He wanted it and he started it. It's helped just about every poor person in this country which at one time was me. What do those darn people do with that sudden surge of cash in their pocket? They buy things like washers and dryers and used cars. Sure some buy a pound of Marijuana to sell. The reality is the money is spent on good and needed services.

Look what happens to the economy when we extend the same thing to the wealthy. They collect more money but buy nothing. No economic growth is seen. In fact we get the last 10 years and the 12 years of the Reagan BUsh years. It doesnt work it never has.

I just read a bit of Harry Trumans memoirs. Seems the Republicans were trying unsuccessfully to do the same thing back in the 1940's and 50's. For shame to hold out hope on crippling the economy so you can have more wealth

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

It is funny how some people refuse to see what the reaction is when you "steal" from them. That is the perception when 45% of Americans pay nothing to run America.
http://biggovernment.com/waroot/2011/06/21/ayn-rand-was-right-wealthy-are-on-strike-against-obama/
Everything American is going to be outsourced and nothing American is going to be left, except the ghetto.

BTW it [EITC] looks like it was 1975, Gerald Ford when it was started. Right after the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon fleecing for Vietnam.

You are right the wealthy buy nothing you would recognize. Instead of buying a washing machine, they build a plant to make washing machines. That would never show on your radar as you have it set too low.

The issue is until you accumulate some wealth you can't think like a person with wealth so you don't understand how they react when you try and "steal" it away from them. When 45% of Americans get a free ride, well, America is already over.

---

The only people bitching about having to much taxes are the wealthy and people that watch to much fox news. Greed and selfishness are rampant in this country. I clearly hear nothing about self sacrifice or national pride when it comes to taxes. The only self sacrifice we make now is to Not buy gas on a certain day of the week. What happened to the needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few. Where is the rallying cry of this country trying to save itself. I hear nothing but complaints and yet we still own $14 trillion and people complain again about paying to much taxes. You can buy that new Apple iCrap but not pay the same amount in taxes. It's selfish and we should be ashamed to blame anyone but ourselves for this catastrophe. We know better.

Cutting taxes in times of war should never happen
Cutting taxes to the wealthy has never generated jobs or increased tax revenue.
Jobs are created when small people get the tax breaks.
Small people buy the goods and services that Big business sells.
Without sales Big business will not hire more employees
this is horse before the cart information
why are we so blind?

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I can't stand Fox, I'm not even close to wealthy, and I think we pay too much in taxes.

I'm rooting for the GOP this time around. I hope they don't budge on tax breaks or tax hikes. I can't afford any more taxes as it is, nor do I think the entire US deserves a bit of Michele's inheritance (that she's still battling for in court) just for the "price" of living in the U.S.A.

Suppose your Michele has a $300 million to $400 million inheritance owed her. Then we'll a get a wonderful one buck[. Darn her for being selfish.

I'm rooting for the GOP this time around. I hope they don't budge on tax breaks or tax hikes. I can't afford any more taxes as it is, nor do I think the entire US deserves a bit of Michele's inheritance (that she's still battling for in court) just for the "price" of living in the U.S.A.

Suppose your Michele has a $300 million to $400 million inheritance owed her. Then we'll a get a wonderful one buck[. Darn her for being selfish.

Can you provide a source for your data? I do believe the law varies by state as well.

What happened to the needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few.

Startrek movie quote.

Let's try, Do unto others as you want done to you. So let's have the man stick a gun to your head and take your stuff and give it away to someone else. It is what you preach. Let's put it on you.

I bet you have a 401(k). That makes you wealthy. Arbitrary line in the sand, same as anything you can come up with. As you know a large part of that huge debt is future pension costs. So just as a temporary measure we are going to implement a 401(k) tax. It will be just a couple of percent of the value of your 401(k). So the more you have the bigger the tax. It will go to funding the underfunded government pension plans. Remember this is just supposed to be temporary until we catch up on the underfunding of government pension plans.

Hey Sen. Snort, did you see how much we crammed into the pension plan this year?
Sen. Snot, Sure did, we won't have to put a dime of the general funds there.
Well Snort, I've got a earmark and I hear you do too. I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine.
Deal Snot!

Cutting taxes in times of war should never happen

What war? Did congress declare war?!

Yes, wars cost a lot. One reason we shouldn't engage in police actions like Libya. Obama needs to be impeached for that one, but that is a different thread.

Cutting taxes to the wealthy has never generated jobs or increased tax revenue.

Cite please. World wide and for recorded history. We know that cutting taxes from 100% to 50% will increase tax revenue so that part of your statement is false from the get go.

Jobs are created when small people get the tax breaks.

Jobs are created when business conditions are ripe. That means the people who supply the capital for the jobs reasonably can expect a rate of return better than any other place they can park their capital worldwide. Obviously you know that capital is involved as you talk only about big business and not small business where capital is micro. If you are going to put a couple billion dollars down it has to be a sure thing. A few thousand and it can be as iffy as a Vegas roulette wheel. You do understand that don't you?

Small people buy the goods and services that Big business sells.
Without sales Big business will not hire more employees

Who employs more people in the USA? Big Business or Small Business?

Why are you so hung up on working for the man? In your life you have never worked for a small business?

[edit]typo

---

Cutting taxes to the wealthy has never generated jobs or increased tax revenue.

Cite please. World wide and for recorded history. We know that cutting taxes from 100% to 50% will increase tax revenue so that part of your statement is false from the get go.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Cite, please. Preferabky, from multiple sources from widely varying points of view.

Why are you so hung up on working for the man? In your life you have never worked for a small business?

For the record, I have; 2 small organizations at the least.