Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Our Badly Run Budget

By Ben Cohen and R. Warren Langley, AlterNet. Posted January 7, 2006.


As our CEO-in-chief, President Bush needs to make an honest assessment of our national checkbook.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ben Cohen R. Warren Langley

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

President George W. Bush was elected twice, promising to run the federal government like a business. Despite the fiscal crisis in Washington, there's no better time for the president to keep his promise than now.

As businesspeople, we know that CEOs are constantly balancing the twin needs of making money in the short term and investing in the future, so that profits don't disappear a few years down the line. Similarly, President Bush has to find money to pay for the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina in the short term -- while also investing in programs, like education, that are essential to our nation's long-term security.

Of course, the president could retract some of his tax cuts or withdraw troops from Iraq -- moves that could generate hundreds of billions of dollars. But assuming he won't, what to do?

Well, when the going gets rough in the free market, businesspeople call up their accountants and scrutinize the company budget. As our CEO-in-chief, President Bush needs to make an honest assessment of our national checkbook.

Such an analysis would reveal that the Pentagon budget, more than the ledger of any other single federal department, could yield big-time savings if subjected to the cost-cutting methodology of a business executive intent on ferreting out waste.

That view is held by former President Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence J. Korb, who argues that America could save $60 billion by cutting weapons still being built or maintained, believe it or not, to fight the defunct Soviet Union.

These cuts, Korb points out, would not affect our nation's ability to fight terrorists or the Iraq war. (The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are funded by "supplemental" appropriations by Congress, not by the Pentagon's annual budget.)

It's true that even a whopping number like $60 billion will not cure America's fiscal woes, but it certainly is a big chunk of money.

A business-minded President, along with Congress, would decide how to spend the $60 billion with a cost-benefit analysis. Which of America's fiscal needs require immediate investments and which can be deferred?

From a business perspective, we can no longer defer spending required to prepare us for the defining wars of the new century, and these wars will be fought on economic battlefields.

So the top priority for our leaders now is to ensure that America has the arsenal it needs to win future economic battles. For $60 billion in wasted Pentagon funding, America could:

Retrain hundreds of thousands of workers. America's workers, the foot soldiers in economic battles, need training as the economy shifts.

Renovate our public schools and provide health insurance for our children. America's future recruits, our children, must be equipped with the skills they need to trump their adversaries in the global economy. We should begin upgrading America's crumbling public schools and provide health insurance to every kid who lacks it in our country, the world's richest.

Take steps toward energy independence. The nation with the most energy-efficient economy will possess the most devastating weapon in future global economic wars.

Help poor nations. To promote democracy and basic decency, we should double the federal budget for humanitarian foreign aid, saving the lives of millions kids who would die of hunger in impoverished nations.

In this era of budget scarcity, President Bush and Congress must undertake a hard-nosed and bipartisan analysis of the widely acknowledged waste in the Pentagon budget. This is the only way we can 1) strengthen our strategic security by reducing our dependence on oil and rebuilding our stature overseas; and 2) ensure our economic competitiveness and security by investing in the jobs of tomorrow and the kids of today who will hold them.

It's time for our CEO to be a strategic leader and to be accountable for our future.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s, and R. Warren Langley, former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange, are board members of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
CEO thats a laugh
Posted by: bigfoot on Jan 7, 2006 1:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every business Bush was involved in Failed, and lets not forget the s&l scandel.Why is no one asking what happened to the over 10 trillon dollars that President Clinton left in the Social Security trust fund when he left office.Thats what paying for this trumped up war and the rich tax cuts and the corporate give aways.,we see inplace. Also lets not forget the sweetheart deal Haliburton recieved.I could go on but this should get some of you thinking.
Bush is a boob as a businessman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CEO thats a laugh Posted by: tcx2
» RE: CEO thats a laugh Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: CEO thats a laugh Posted by: aonghus36
Ante Up America
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 7, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the above poster mentioned, Bush is a failure at business and has left many people hurt by his business dealings.

Is it any surprise then that when he promised to run the government like a business, that he ran it into the ground and killed thousands doing it?

I'd say that's one promise kept, one "Mission Accomplished". The only thing now in his M.O. is for him to get that super big payoff for doing so. Ante Up America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too many assumptions in this article that are fantasy!
Posted by: Pepper on Jan 7, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest one that is false is that BUSH GIVES A SHIT about all of that. He doesn't and most CEO's have been trained in money accumulation and denationalized in their commitment to the "people" so that is a bad example.

Its like they are talking about some fantasy scenario that hasn't existed for 4.5 years. (Or is it 5 years even?) Its like we are being devoured at a most rapid pace and while we are being eaten alive, these guys want to talk about what clothes to wear to the dinner party. LOL Oh, my, they don't even get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Business? What Business?
Posted by: dancerkc on Jan 7, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My dad was a business man. He worked his own small business, a glass shop, for 35 years. He grew up on a family farm. Both were in the mom and pop category and that is what I call true business rather than the corporations whose main purpose is to gut the enterprise for all the loot the investors can carry away.

When mom and pops make less than the highest profits they don't go out of business. That business is their job, their home, their way of life. Unlike corporate investors who invest only their money, the mom and pop operations invest their lives.

I no longer call corporate enterprises businesses. No more than I call the GDP the economy. In GWB's case he can't even run a typical looting operation and keep it going. Essentially GWB acts as a failed parasite - killing the host.

But then that is because GWB is handed the frontman job with a relatively small operation to gut and plunder directly while the powers that put him there remain in the background, gutting and plundering the major operations. That way they can keep our attention focused on George. He isn't all that smart by himself.

In any case, government is the wrong thing to run as a "so-called" business. The only constituents should be the people, not investors. As with a mom and pop or family farm, it should be run for those people who put their lives into it, not for investors who only put in money. What is good for the people is good for real business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Business? What Business? Posted by: Basenjis
America could save $60 billion by cutting weapons
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 7, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will never happen because "defense" is our number one industry. It works on a foolproof system. That is, spend half the money on developing new weapons, then spend the other half to make them obsolete. Build 'em and junk 'em; build 'em and junk 'em. This business doesn't need customers it only needs the support of congressmen and voters from the defense industry states. And of course the corporate structure that owns bothpolitical parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Political Hit Man
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 7, 2006 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A president has a responsibility to provide proactive and honest leadership of the executive responsibilities. Respecting and defending civil liberties, basic border control, responsible use of tax receipts, restraint in the use of military power, avoidance of open-ended involvement in foreign conflicts and demanding the utmost in character from members of the executive would be a good start.

Accomplishments-
-Turning our county into a quasi-police state while exploding our deficit and national debt, conducting an unwise overseas war while ignoring basic border control at home.
-Turning our tax/healthcare/energy/environmental policies into a candy store for the rich/well-connected/powerful at the expense of everybody else.
-Setting some kind of record for partisan division of government through unilateral action.
-Managing to infuriate conservatives (not Neo-Cons), moderates and liberals-- all at the same time.
-Managing to strain/sour relations with our traditional allies/trading partners for an ill-advised misadventure in SW Asia.

By the time we are finished with GWB we will have spent more money on the SW Asian War and it's aftermath than all of the 'too-expensive' healthcare, environmental and education initiatives that people like GWB love to deride and will be no more secure than we were before.

We will have seriously damaged the morale and readiness of our armed forces.

The wear and tear of continuous deployment will significantly shorten the service life of countless weapons systems that will have to be replaced years ahead of schedule. The strain on families and servicemembers has caused untold numbers of quality people to abandon their career and leave the military. Then, of course, are the thousands of dead and wounded troops and the families that will have to deal with the consequences.

The worst is that all of this will have not made our country any safer and will become the most expensive war in the history of our nation- in people terms and monetarily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Jan 7, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Five will get you ten Bush never learned to balance his own checkbook.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: clinker Posted by: DavidGT
Some MBA – for Bush it must mean, "Misplaced Business Acumen"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 7, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the heck were they teaching at Harvard Business School when Georgie was sittin' in class an'-a-spittin' tobacky into a paper cup then? Oh, excuse me...he wasn't listening, just like now. And who wrote his papers and took his tests for him? Inquiring minds need to know.

Judging by the way this president has run the country – nearly into the ground – he should have flunked out of business school all those drunken years ago, which would have stalled what was laughingly called his business career, which would have kept him out of politics and spared the rest of us the indignity of witnessing one third-rate idiot lay waste to an entire nation. Of course, he's had help from Congress, so we had better re-examine their busines credentials as well...

The neocons have Bin Laden to thank for Bush's good fortune: if it hadn't been for 9/11, this president would have been seen for the fiscal loser he is (as was starting to come out in 2000), not some reincarnation of John Wayne and G.I Joe starring in his own wag-the-dog war drama. It was bad enough that Bin Laden killed 3,000+ people and destroyed our faith in ourselves; he also gave us Bush the [never been to] "war hero."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent premise. Short on substance.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 7, 2006 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anyone ever genuinely think that cutting taxes and growing government was sound economic policy? Of course the economy was "stimulated"--it's raining government-issued paper green things that used to represent a great deal of value....

...And our kids' kids' kids will be most likely end up footing the bill for our big green showers, much like today's twenty-and-thirty-somethings are poised to be victimized by the social security experiment.

Thanks heaps for the "stimulus", but I'd rather have eaten beans for a few years during a moderate recession than plague my great-grand kids with our deferred financial responsibilities.

The author's solutions are commendable. However, they either lacked substance or were unlikely solutions.

"Retrain hundreds of thousands of workers." To do what? For how much? At what age will they start to work in order to compete with 8-year-old master seamstresses from China? I think we're going to be ok with our current work force model, but I am sad enough to see Congress cutting back on student loans that I've written my Representative and both Senators to chastise (and threaten my vote) over bad funding priorities.

"Renovate our public schools and provide health insurance for our children." My state has a program (in addition to a state-funded charity hospital system) that enrolls children in healthcare plans. I am happy with this model--care of the indigent is a huge drain on the budget, but it is hard to put a number on the benefits of growing healthy kids into adulthood.

As for public schools, again, hate to see the fed cutting back on student loans.

"Take steps toward energy independence." Uhh, yeah. Duh. No substance at all. Thanks a heap for this insightful suggestion.

"Help poor nations." We do. At the levels of government, private, and charitable groups, we are a giving society. Sometimes, however, we attach strings to our contributions that I don't necessarily agree with.

Like I said, great premise for the article but the solutions--which was kind of like reading "Do gud stuffs"--seemed a little lacking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where your money goes
Posted by: gramps on Jan 7, 2006 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where your money goes

Nineteen billion dollars would end world hunger, but two hundred and thirty seven have gone for defense contracts this year.

We have thirteen aircraft carrier groups and no conceivable opposition.

The department of defense plans to buy the Air Force’s F22, the Navy’s F/A-18E/F, and the joint strike fighter for more than 300 billion dollars f your money.

We have nine Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers and are planning more.at a cost of 4.5 billion dollars a copy.

We are training over 100,000 foreign troops and have 725 military bases around the world with 225 golf courses at a total replacement cost of one hundred and eighteen billion of your dollars.

We have 437 thousand military and dependents in over 18 different countries, not counting Iraq.

The total defense budget for 2006 was 509 billion dollars

Add the 138 billion for interest payments on the national debt and you have enough money, if it was evenly distributed to the American population, would make all of us rich.

Nineteen billion dollars would end world hunger, but two hundred and thirty seven billion have gone for defense contracts this year. We have thirteen aircraft carrier groups and no conceivable opposition. The Department of defense plans to buy the Air force's F22, the Navy's F/A-18E/F, and the joint strike fighter for nmore than 300 billion dollars of your money. We have nine Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers and are planning more at a cost of 4.5 billion dollars a copy. We are training over 100,000 foreign troops and have 725 military bases around the world with 225 golf courses at a total replacement cost of one hundred and eighteen billion of your dollars.
We have 437 thousand military and dependents in over 18 different countries, not counting Iraq. The total defense budget for 2005 was 509 billion dollars. Add the 139 billion for interest payments on the national debt and you have enough money, if it was evenly distributed to the American population to make all of us rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good job, Gramps! It needed to be said twice! Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
good outline...but
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jan 8, 2006 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sounds like a fine outline for a Party platform. i don't think you'll get ole George to go for it, though. you are talking about a massive shift in priorities for his Administration. such an overhaul would require the setting aside of ego in the national interest. George Senior was capable of such discipline but it's not in the cards for George Junior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bottom LIne
Posted by: ghoster on Jan 8, 2006 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are screwed, beliving bush can do anything without fucking it up is delusional and it is high time the citizens of this country woke up and figured out for themselves what needs to be done instead of relying on political hacks and feel good slogans, throw these bums out and get someone with a clue involved in this process. Keeping the same old disasters in power only produces more disaster. But what do I expect intelligence from a bunch of dumbed down morons called the american public? Ha!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple matter of economics
Posted by: bookwoman on Jan 8, 2006 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former teacher of Economics, I have learned that the average person understands a lot more about Economics than they think they do.

However, they prefer to watch the nation's economy and the stock market as if it is magic. Our citizens have to use their own experience and knowledge to see that Bush is doing sleight of hand with our nation's finances just as Ken Lay and his minions did with ENRON.

Why does the Social Security Trust Fund need fixing. It is because year after year, the governemnt has been allowed to dip into it to balance the budget. This shouldn't have been allowed to happen. A balanced budget means that you have no deficit, not that you shift the deficit to another entity. Any family which has run up bills with the belief that they could work themselves out of debt in the future knows what a mistake this can be. However, as mentioned earlier, someone has always bailed Bush out of his financial disasters. He reminds me a lot of Ronald Reagan who seemed to think the calvary from his old movies would come and save us from the collapse of the paper profits which took place at the end of the 80s. Bush claims that Reagan and not the much more down to earth George H.W. Bush is his idol. However, Reagan with his make believe calvary didn't help this country begin to recover from the financial mess of the late 80s and early 90s. It was left to Bush '41' to take the rap for the tax increases which did that. The next President, no matter which Party heshe represents and the future congress had better know that recovery from the Bush '43' mess will take a tax increase and not make any promises not to raise taxes during the campaign. Also, those very rich people who have danced while the Middle and Lower income classes paid the fiddler had better doing their spending now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yikes
Posted by: J. Walter Plinge on Jan 9, 2006 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . IS THE NATIONAL CHECKBOOK IN DANGER? HELL NO – it worked for Reagan it'll work for Bush
There's a story making the rounds recently that is similar to the above. It goes : Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz says the cost of the Iraq War at between $1-2 trillion. Not the original $100-200 billion. http://www.
tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/5/11510/30624
(I had to CUT the url in 2 because it excedes the character limit)

Ok. Everybody at once, OHMIGOD, $1-2 trillion!! - It's our Our Badly Run Budget.

What's wrong here? Well, if you go to the URL you will find that the original story appeared in Foreign Affairs, Jan 05. Foreign Affairs is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, - very neoconish

Secondly, this is not new info. It merely confirms the numbers from another neocon outfit, the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings which made the same predictions in September 2005. http://aei-brookings.org/publications/

So, does anyone seriously think that these $1 to 2 trillion dollar figures were published to shock the AEI/CFR members into seeing how badly Bush is ruining the economy? Hell No. They love what Bush has done: for a few measly billion, the spin-offs will roll in trillions. They are gloating. In their mind the system is working perfectly.

And that is what the people at AlterNet should be concerned with. Because the economy is now a case of the tail wagging the dog. The question for the AEI/CFR/Neocon types is not how to maintain a smooth running economy, but how much money can be created in the least possible time, without running the train off the tracks. So, given a choice of creating $5 trillion in 5 years by investing in education, or creating $5 trillion in one year by initiating a disaster, then they will choose the disaster every time. And they are getting really good at it.

MORE

http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.asp

http://www.
theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3193

http://www.
ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]