The Redistribution of Wealth in the US: Military Spending - Research Paper Example

?The Redistribution of Wealth in US: Military Spending Human resource is the most important asset for any country, as it is these humans that shape the future of that particular country. Although the welfare of a country is dependent on a wide range of factors, human resource that comprise the country play a significant role in contributing to the same. Therefore, in order to develop the human resource to its full potential, government and other agencies need to provide all the necessary facilities to its citizens. These facilities range from providing basic amenities such as food, clothing and shelter, to infrastructural facilities such as road, transportation, communication etc, and most importantly providing them with a livelihood through various job opportunities. In addition to investing in sectors such as education, health, food etc, the government also spends a fortune on funding military services, which are highly important because the overall safety of the country and its citizens rests within the hands of the military personnel. However, the present scenario puts forth a dilemma to the US government, that is, whether to decrease military spending and undertake consecutive risks involved or increase military spending and contribute further to the decline of the economy as well as the deteriorating standard of living of its citizens. Since sectors such as education and health are more productive in promoting personal development among citizens, thus in turn boosting the economy and resulting in further development of the country through lesser inequality in wealth distribution, it becomes clear that the US government should cut back its military spending and invest the wealth of the country in these productive sectors. It is a fact that the military of any nation is responsible for protecting the citizens as well as the country from both internal and external threats. Thus, it is acknowledged that the country deploys a large number of personnel for military requirements in terms of air force, navy force as well as ground force. Moreover, in the same context, the government of the country makes huge investments in order to support various military operations, provide exceptional training to the troops, fund different endeavours that come under its programs etc. However, despite the fact that it is an absolute necessity to provide for the country’s security and the citizen’s safety, there is indeed a thing such as overspending for military, especially in the case of developed countries like the United States. Contrary to the government’s view of still supporting military expenditure in the present milieu, the American citizens have expressed in a recent nationwide survey conducted by the ‘Center for Public Integrity’ that in order for the country to revive from the current deficit, the government needs to “cut the defense budget deeply” (Smith, 2012, p. 1). It is due to conspicuous wastage of the nation’s wealth through military, that the government is unable to fully contribute towards economic growth, as well as fulfil the very purpose for which it was established- safeguarding the interests of the citizens and ensuring the welfare of human beings. Furthermore, if the government funded more money for sectors dealing with aspects like education, healthcare, employment, food etc, the country could actually make a difference in its wealth distribution and gradually bridge the gap between the rich and poor sections of society. Thus, it becomes clear that the American government should focus on productive sectors rather than military and simultaneously it should decrease its military expenditure in order to redistribute wealth in the US in a more ideal way. The primary responsibility of the government should be to provide the citizens of the country with basic amenities such as food and shelter. However, the US government is intent on according the highest priority to military warfare as was revealed by its expenditure of “$737 billion on military defense” in 2012 (Gucciardi, 2013, p. 1). Furthermore, Gucciardi states that “one week of United States military spending” is enough to suffice the hunger of poor people all over the world (p. 1). It is true that the American government need not bother itself with eradicating world hunger, but on the other hand, the government is responsible for its citizens that sleep on an empty stomach in the pavement of some street. The issue is that the government does not have enough money to deal with the same, as all the money has already been spent on military programs, as is evidenced by the country’s spending of “35 percent more of its GDP” for military than the United Kingdom that ranks “second” in terms of “military burden” (DeGrasse, p. 39). Therefore, in order to provide for the millions of homeless and hungry citizens in the country, the government needs to cut back its wastage of resources, primarily wealth, in terms of the various military endeavors. Thus, by decreasing the expenditure it incurs as a result of military operations, the government can use these funds for providing stability to its poorest of citizens by granting them basic food as well as basic shelter. It would be highly expensive as well as a huge burden on the economy when giving away free food and places to stay for millions of Americans, thus the government need not do it for free, but in return for some work on the part of the civilians. In this manner, the economy can be boosted and on the more important side, several homeless and starved Americans can be saved and thus earn a livelihood to fend for themselves through such a government intervention. This will significantly lead to some positive change in the redistribution of wealth among the different classes of the American society, and overtime, this positive change can manifest itself into multiple benefits for the country as well as the human beings alike. Among the list of duties and responsibilities on the shoulder of the government, providing education to its citizens also ranks very high. As mentioned earlier, human resource is the most significant asset to an economy or the country as a whole, however, for the human resource to be prepared or honed in order to be an asset, it first needs to be given education. In case of some homeless American citizens, they are already literate, but suffer from poverty due to unemployment. In their cases, granting them meagre work or tasks in return for food and shelter will prove to be highly fruitful. However, in the case of illiterate citizens, the government needs to spend more so as to bestow them with the gift of learning and education. Adult literacy programs can significantly help the adult poor sections of the society, and this will in turn provide their children with the opportunity of learning. It is the children that later on become future leaders as well as shape the future of the country, therefore it is greatly relevant that they be given the chance to prepare themselves for the same. By providing basic education to children, the government enters into an invisible contract where both parties are benefitted, as the children are equipped with required basics to earn them a livelihood, which in turn will give back to the economy. On the other hand, the government should invest in the education sector more by decreasing its military spending, so that higher quality education that surpasses the present standards can be provided to children, thus providing them with the opportunity to develop further. Kramer and Pemberton reveal that the trillion dollars that the government utilizes for military, when invested in the education sector can “send 127 million college students to school” in a year (2013, p. 1). The whole sum of money need not necessarily be invested in the education sector, however the capital required to provide high quality education to children should be invested, as these children who are exposed to this type of education when grown up will possess superior skillets that will open up wide ranging job opportunities for them. When engaged in jobs that involve higher pay, their personal incomes will grow and thus this will lead to middle class citizens reaching the status of upper class gradually. Consequently, each class will enter the next class, which in turn will further decrease wealth inequality in the country, thus solving a major problem this developed nation presently faces. Health is considered as the greatest wealth, however, a lot of Americans are denied the same mostly due to their inability to afford it and at other instances due to inaccessibility of various healthcare services. In terms of the poorer sections of the society, when provided with basic amenities as well as education and a source of livelihood, they will be able to afford healthcare services. When the demand for healthcare services increases, this will call for a proportionate increase in the personnel offering these services as well as related equipments and other infrastructure. In order to meet the demand and make these services available the government has to thus invest more in the healthcare sector. This additional capital required for investment can only be attained by cutting back from other programs where the government is investing. The most apt sector for this same cutback is the military sector and this view is shared by “more than eighty percent of Americans” as they have know realized that “there is a lot of waste in the national defense budget” (Smith, 2012, p. 1). On the other hand, people who can well afford the healthcare services that they require still do not seem to get their demands met due to lack of access to the same. As revealed by the Gallup Poll of 2012, majority of the US respondents have identified “access to health care” as their primary concern consecutively for the “10th year” (Speights, 2013, p. 1). Thus, in such a scenario, it becomes absolutely necessary that the government fund more for the same, so that the working class can continue earning livelihoods rather than succumbing to some kind of disease and being unproductive, which is a demerit for the individual and in turn the economy. For example, fatal diseases such as cancer, which has reportedly claimed the lives of “570,000” citizens in “2011” can only be countered with early intervention as well as relevant tests to detect the same at early stages. For such tests to be more readily accessible to the general public, the government needs to invest more in the healthcare sector, and for this, it needs to acquire the required capital from that kept aside to spend for military purposes. Therefore, it becomes clear that the government should strive towards protecting the health interests of the citizens, as it is these people who will carry out various jobs and thus contribute towards the development of the economy. It cannot be stressed enough that for any economy to increase its productivity the focus needs to be on the human resource that runs the various economic activities. The economic performance of any country is largely dependent on the effectiveness and efficiency of it citizens in their individual performance of carrying out various tasks that sum up the productivity of the economy. However, it is evidenced that when compared with the economic performance of “17 major non-communist, industrial countries,” military spending by the government has significantly “contributed to America’s declining competitiveness” (DeGrasse, p. 39). Economic performance, is greatly influenced by factors such as “expanding a factory, purchasing new production equipment, replacing expensive materials with cheaper substitutes” etc, which are major methods of attaining productivity growth (p. 41). However, these methods can only be backed with a solid investment of capital that is solely dedicated to the same. But with most of its capital labelled off to be used only for military warfare, America is not left with sufficient funds to invest in these methods that boost the overall productivity of the economy. Therefore, it brings one back to the point that the government has to not just think about but also put into effect decreasing its military spending to a large extent. The money that it cuts back from spending on military activities should further be invested in sectors such as education, health, food etc as well as in economically charged activities such as expansion of factories, purchase of latest technologies, optimisation of resources etc. Doing so will ensure that the country regains its competency as well as stays among the top with respect to other developed and developing countries alike. Moreover, to further safeguard the interests of the citizens, the government should spend more on various entitlement programs also such as “Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal and military retirement” etc (Koitz, 2012, p. 10). The present Obama Presidency is keen to follow the footsteps of “Republican presidents as Eisenhower, Reagan, and George H W Bush,” who played a great role in reducing the “military spending” in order to “deal with federal deficits” (Korb & Conley, 2010, p. 2). However, as much as the American government needs to desperately make cuts in military spending, it should be careful not to “jeopardise the general stability” of the present “international system” in an “overly assertive effort to reduce” this federal deficit which is over trillion dollars (O’Hanlon, 2013, Chapter 1: 3). For instance, the budget sequestration, which was put forth by the Budget Control Act of 2011 as well as “Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction proposal” of 2010 would put the whole country in an internal turmoil, and leave it exposed and vulnerable as both these plans would “cut the military too deeply” (1: 2). Thus, a lot of people who are afraid that the military will be cut too deeply and that their safety would be put to risk, will go against decreasing military expenditure. This is expressed through the same survey conducted by Center for Public Integrity, which uncovered that “50 percent” of the respondents favored “to cut non-defense spending” so as to overcome the deficit faced by the economy of the country (Smith, 2012, p.1). Several people simply cannot imagine cutting back expenditure in the military sector, as they believe that doing so will pose a direct threat to their very being or life, for instance, through unexpected “bomber gap” or “missile gap” (Mercille, 2008, p. 55). Yet others who understand that a cutback in military spending would entail no such threats or danger to them will argue about the thousands of military generated technology going to waste as well as the highly demanding training given to the troops also to going to waste. They may further refute that several of the troops will lose their source of livelihood and will remain unemployed until they can find another job. Therefore a lot of American citizens will not support the cutting back on military spending. However, in order to set right their mindset, they need to be shown facts and figures so that they can better understand the current position of the country. Although the military spending is being decreased, they must know that when any situation arises that will pose any kind of threat or even potential threat, the government will immediately deploy its well trained fleet to the rescue. Thus when the situation demands, every training that the troops went through as well as every technique that they mastered will come handy, thus they cannot say that the training will go to waste. As far as the technology designed specifically for military is concerned, it should be noted that “it is possible to harvest” these technologies and “repurpose” it for other tasks. Furthermore, decreased military spending does not necessarily mean loss of jobs for the people involved, as the troops can be deployed for social services or any such service that ultimately safeguards the interests of the public. Therefore, it can be concluded that government needs to cut back its spending in military programs and use this same fund for the development of the economy as well as providing further services to the citizens. Instead of investing huge amounts of capital in the military sector, the government should instead focus on productive sectors like education, healthcare, basic amenities including food, clothing, shelter etc. Furthermore, the government should spend money for entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid, federal and military retirement etc, that promote the welfare of its citizens. By doing the above mentioned the government is bound to bridge the gap between the rich and poor section of the society through redistribution of wealth, which is made possible by decreasing its military spending. Through the process of this kind of redistribution of wealth, the government can in turn boost the economic progress of the country. On the other hand, the government should also give importance to activities that increase economic productivity such as expansion of factories, acquisition of latest technologies, optimization of resources etc. Therefore, through this the economy of US can be greatly benefited and acquire higher status than it already has. The progress of the economy will in turn lead to increased personal income of the individuals, thus again reducing the wealth inequality in the country. Other countries will follow the example of America and make similar adjustments in their spending, thus human beings across the world will be benefited as a result. References DeGrasse, R. (1983). Military Expansion, Economic Decline: The Impact of Military Spending on US Economic Performance. The Council on Economic Priorities. Gucciardi, A. (2013, June 24). About One Week of US Military Spending Would Wipe Out World Hunger. Story leak Online. Retrieved from http://www.storyleak.com/one-week-us-military-spending-wipe-out-world-hunger/#ixzz2jDgbWx6R Koitz, D.(2012). Entitlement Spending. Hoover Institution Press publication. Korb, L., Conley, L. (2010). Strong and Sustainable: How to Reduce Military Spending while Keeping our Nation Safe. Center for American Progress. Kramer, M., and Pemberton, M. (2013, September 19).Why Washington's Trillions of Military Dollars Would Be Better Spent Elsewhere.Mother jones Online. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/why-cut-military- spending Mercille, J. 2008. The Radical Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of US Military Spending. ProQuest LLC. O’Hanlon, M. (2013). Healing the Wounded Giant: Maintaining Military Preeminence while Cutting the Defense Budget. The Brookings Institution. Smith, J. (2012, May 10). Public overwhelmingly supports large defense spending cuts. The Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/05/10/8856/public-overwhelmingly-supports-large-defense- spending-cuts Speights, k. (2013, May 13). The 8 Biggest Health Problems Americans Face. Daily Finance Online. Retrieved from http:// www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/13/the-8-biggest-health-problems-americans-face Read More