Third Palmetto Republic

Recent developments point towards the major problem with the US Federal Government, namely the process by which it continually grows at the expense of the liberty, prosperity and safety of the people under its domination. Two stories in particular work well as examples. It’s not surprising that they both have to do with what US President Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, a term he coined 50 years ago this week.

The first story comes from Washington, DC:

‘Defense industry’ (i.e., Ike’s M-I C) woos GOP freshmen in hopes of fighting spending cuts

Defense-industry officials and advocates are wooing the GOP’s class of freshman lawmakers as they look for allies in their showdown over spending cuts. 

They are pressing new Republican lawmakers to get on board with their priorities by emphasizing that Pentagon contracts boost the economy, create jobs and spur innovation.

But the early-stage campaign to win over new lawmakers could be complicated by the campaign pledges of GOP freshmen — many backed by the Tea Party — to pare federal spending and curtail the deficit. 

“There is no question many freshmen were elected with reducing the deficit as job one,” said Marion Blakey, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association. “We are really engaging on this.”

Few of the new GOP members spent time during the campaign staking out clear stances on defense issues, leaving weapons manufacturers largely scratching their heads about how much support to expect from them.

“The defense industry doesn’t know what to make of the Tea Party,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “It is accustomed to dealing with politicians motivated mainly by the desire to get reelected. The notion of legislators driven solely by an ideological agenda is hard to assimilate, given how Washington typically operates.”

Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing’s commercial aircraft division, said industry officials are aiming to “educate” new lawmakers about what the defense sector “brings to the economy.” 

Albaugh noted that the defense-aerospace industry is the nation’s largest exporter and brings high-tech jobs to many areas of the country. New members of Congress “need to understand that,” said Albaugh, who once headed Boeing’s defense unit.

One industry official said reaching out to new members of Congress “happens every two years.”

The second story comes from Massachusetts (but definitely relates to SC tax-payers’ money):

Feds waste $1 billion & still no bioterror defense

The Pentagon is scaling back one of its largest efforts to develop treatments for troops and civilians infected in a germ warfare attack after a $1 billion, five-year program fell short of its primary goal.

Even the heavy infusion of research cash and a unified effort by university labs and biotech companies from Boston to California were insufficient to break through limitations of genetic science, according to government officials and specialists in biological terrorism.

Instead, the Pentagon’s next $1 billion for the Transformational Medical Technologies program will focus on better ways to identify mutant versions of Ebola, Marburg, and other deadly viruses. Those are among the genetically modified agents that officials fear could be used by terrorists or rogue states against urban or military targets.

The continued flow of money, even with the shift in strategy, should help Massachusetts and other states retain jobs and research labs focused on this arena.

“There is tremendous potential for further development of a biodefense subcluster in the state,’’ said James D. Rooney, vice president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council.

Among Bay State firms that have received contracts under the germ warfare effort is Worcester-based Microbiotix. Representatives from Microbiotix did not respond to requests for comment.

The new strategy represents a return to the drawing board for an ambitious program conceived after the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes and subsequent mailing of anthrax to members of Congress and media organizations — events that helped US military planners realize that the nation lacked adequate defenses against bioterrorism.

Scientists initially set out to develop new medicines capable of attacking viruses that might be altered by terrorists to make them more deadly. But after more than 50 research projects by more than 100 contractors — including biotech firms, pharmaceutical companies, and universities, including several in the Boston area — only two experimental medicines have shown promise. And even those are far from being ready for limited clinical tests, according to project officials.

To understand the scope of the problem one must understand that US military spending is over $1 trillion dollars per year and is greater than the entire economy of Australia, the thirteenth largest economy on the planet. In fact, the US accounts for very close to half of all military spending on planet Earth, spending more than the next 45 countries of the world combined, 5.8 times as much as China, 10.2 times as much as Russia and 98.6 times more than Iran. So there is no shortage of US military spending, to say the least.  One should also know that the US and its allies around the globe account for 72 percentage of world’s military spending. And yet, we can see from the above linked article that the military-industrial complex is against any cuts in “defense” spending. The US Federal Government’s debt was $1.7 trillion in 2010, bringing the deficit to a total of $14.03 trillion. Despite this massive debt the companies which grow fat eating from the public trough (the top five of which are all “defense” firms) spend massive amounts of money lobbying elected officials in order to direct public policy as they see fit and gain more government contracts. The centralisation of power in Washington, DC over nearly 310 million people and their money is the root cause of this problem. We can attempt all the reforms any blue-ribbon panel of experts can conjure up and still the root problem will remain: Washington, DC is too powerful with too much control over too many people and too much money. The system itself creates incentives that are so great – there is so much money to be won by government-connected companies - that there is no hope of ever reigning in the US Federal Government. The Tea Parties can demonstrate, parade, raise their signs and shout a lot of anti-spending rhetoric until they are blue in the face. It won’t make any difference because these disparate groups of concerned average, every day citizens can not hope to compete with the likes of Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc. – at least not in Washington, DC. Reigning in the Feds is a lost cause. Something more radical is called for. Something like secession.