Rough Proposal For Stimulating the Economy

The United States of America – and indeed the world – are currently experiencing one of the greatest financial recessions the capitalist age has witnessed. Estimates ranging from systemic failure to bump in the road have described this crisis. Countries and markets around the world are attempting to prevent or alleviate this crisis through such measures as tax cuts, public works, corporate welfare, and political restructuring. The results of these efforts will not be immediately clear and for the most part rely heavily on loans and credit to try and stimulate markets and consumers, capital and labor. Within the United States, two major financial endeavors have been produced to try and end the recession; first the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)1, a $700 billion financial bailout for the nations banks and lenders and second the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a $787 billion combination of tax cuts, tax credits, public works, and budget bailouts intended to reinforce local, state, and national markets. Both of these bills rely solely on borrowed money to fund their initiatives. Should they fail there is no clear idea of how these massive additions to the national debt will be handled or the economy will be stabilized in their aftermath. With such dire figures and consequences the public should be asking why is this burden being placed upon them? Are there no other ways of stimulating the economy? Indeed there are. The United States has an existing resource that will not only stimulate the domestic economy but also improve the United States standing within the world – both directly and indirectly – and propel this country to a position of leadership and dominance not experienced since the end of World War II. That resource is the United States Military.
As of March 31st, 2008 U.S. Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries2. That is 83,428 in Europe, 60,380 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,109 in North Africa, 2,727 in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 2,034 in the Western Hemisphere. In total there are 267,553 soldiers garrisoned outside of United States territory. This does not include the total who are afloat – stationed on vessels and in ports around the world – at 22,625. These figures do not include the totals deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom which reach a worldwide total of over an additional 200,000 soldiers. Excluding soldiers deployed in support of these two operations there remains 290,178 servicemen. In addition to this are the uncounted Department of Defense(DOD) civilians and private contractors, families members and dependents, and local nationals employed by the DOD. These numbers reach over half a million and the majority of those people are potential contributors to the U.S. economy.
At present the lowest paid soldier earns $1399.50 per month and the lowest officer $2655.30. This does not include housing and food allowances, COLAs (Cost Of Living Allowance), or any other bonuses. Nor does it consider the added benefits of free health care and dental, subsidized gasoline, free rent with basic utilities or any number of benefits alloted to military personnel and their dependents. Given the number of soldiers we know are overseas and multiplying that figure by the lowest pay rates for soldiers and officers, we can see that a large percentage of tax payer money is being funneled towards the economies of other countries. Such U.S. based corporation as AAFES return a portion of their profits to the domestic economy but do not seriously offset the total amount of dollars injected into host country economies. The fiscal year 2009 budget for the military3 is $515.4 billion dollars of which $24.4 billion is allocated to family housing and construction while $305 billion goes towards personnel, operations, and maintenance. Though it is difficult to ascertain exactly what percentage of those budget items are committed to overseas obligations the figures are still astronomical. Considering that these budget figures are for a single year and rely primarily on existing tax revenue it is reasonable to suggest that those funds be redirected to only domestic installations.
Though no known estimates or contingencies have been prepared the United States should seriously consider redeploying all internationally garrisoned troops to existing or proposed domestic installations. Though a complete infrastructure to facilitate such a massive troop movement does not currently exist the upgrading and construction of facilities across the nation would stimulate local construction and real estate markets as well as shrink unemployment rolls. Reopening shuttered installations around the country as well as building new installations would inject massive amounts of money into the system. Once the facilities are complete their operations will not only generate local jobs thus stimulating employment and tax bases but it will also bring in soldiers and their families who are always followed by businesses. Expanded retail and entertainment opportunities will be necessary to support the increased populations. Retail, service, and industrial providers will also be stimulated by the effort to supply these new and reopened installations. Though this takes away from job sectors in other countries the United States must worry about its own citizenry first and foremost. There is no reason for the tax paying public to be forced to shoulder the burdens of debt that the TARP and ARRA generate while further bankrolling the employment rolls of modern, industrial nations such as Germany, South Korea, and Japan.
Though the financial benefits of such a plan are obvious there are many reasons to oppose such a bold plan. Primarily, how does this option affect our national defensive posture? This is a loaded question with many possible opinions and answers. There are three primary functions that are served by the United States' international defense network. Most importantly the military protects and ensures corporate access to international markets. This is evidenced by the war in Iraq. Secondly, the United States military serves as a stand in for various allies armed forces in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean conflict. During the Cold War Europe and Japan were completely dependent upon the United States military for defense. This benefited the U.S. by preventing the growth of any potential enemies while expanding the military industrial complex. However, after decades of peace and prosperity there is no reason that the United States should be defending Europe, Japan, or South Korea. All of the nations and entities have the financial, technological and political capability to defend themselves; their countries simply benefit by saving money letting the U.S. fill this role as well as making money charging rent and providing services for soldiers. Simply put, this is a system that does not benefit the American taxpayer and only benefits the corporations involved in this system.
The third function of the United States military is to secure access to global energy sources. Again this is evidenced by the U.S. presence in such countries as Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan. These countries are all rich in hydrocarbon resources. Hydrocarbon resources, or petroleum, are the primary energy source utilized on the Earth4 at present as well as one of the primary contributing sources of greenhouse gases5. Despite their abundant natural resources these countries are relatively politically unstable. Decades of interference in their internal affairs has produced a geopolitical environment that is not reliable or supportive of current U.S. desires and demands. Thus U.S. military presence has been perpetuated to ensure access to these resources regardless of political hurdles. Though this plan does not call for the removal of combat troops and resources many pundits will claim that threats such as China and Russia deny any hope of global military withdrawal. It is true that the United States relies on its global military posture to control access to markets and energy but it is not necessary.
Stationing the vast majority of U.S. military assets within the territory of the United States would change the face of the modern military. Some will claim that this is a call to shrink the military though this proposal would call for a further expansion of the military; just not in a way currently being done by the Obama administration. While the current Commander In Chief is expanding the Army and Marines to conduct expanded combat duties this plan would call for an expansion of our space presence and the navy. Both of these expansions would be done with civil government agencies such as NASA and NOAA to facilitate an expanded space presence for scientific and commercial enterprises and the enhanced exploration of the ocean, again for the same reasons.
Furthermore this is not a call for isolationism. The United States would conduct far more military training exercises with other countries. This would foster international diplomacy while supporting U.S. military standing around the world through peaceful cooperation. By the United States removing itself from the role of an international police force there would be an enhanced reliance upon such institutions as the United Nations and NATO. The United States could easily dedicate troop numbers to these organizations for the purpose of international peacekeeping while allowing our government to focus on domestic issues.
In order to support all of this the United States must enact two revolutionary programs that will not only secure our energy needs but also reinforce our international reputation for human rights. The express purpose of both of these programs would be to reinvigorate the domestic economy and improve political stability through diplomacy rather than coercion. First, the United States must institute a massive program to support the transition from a hydrocarbon energy system to a solar energy system. Heavy investment could have the country weened of foreign oil within a timeframe of 5 to 10 years. This would be done primarily through a system of Space Based Solar, ground based solar and photovoltaics, wind, conservation, and nuclear. Space Based Solar has already been explored by NASA and the DOD6. As all necessary technologies exist to make space based solar safe, reliable, and cheap this should be looked at as the primary supplier of national energy. Supplementing SBSP with ground based solar installations and a national wind installations should be able to account for all national energy needs, if the appropriate investment were made. Finally, supporting this conversion through the continued use of existing nuclear facilities during the transition should be able to hasten the abandonment of coal, diesel and oil energy production while allowing an the nuclear industry to make a transition from grid based power generation to orbital power generation (i.e. spacecraft engines). Though this transition will abolish entire segments of the global economy (petroleum industry) those industries rely upon a finite natural resource. The major oil corporations all have the capital resources to transition from oil exploitation to solar and wind exploitation while still collecting oil for plastics and fertilizer generation. Ceasing our reliance upon petroleum will set our position as a global leader in the end of the petroleum age. This program stimulates our economy, our technology, our education system, and our political position.
Along with restructuring our energy grid the United States will boost its economy by abandoning the simple free trade agreements it has participated in. Though these treaties benefit American corporations they have rarely benefited the citizens. Two options are evident in this program: the adoption of free and fair trade or simply the abolition of the free trade agreements. Labeling these measures protectionism wouldn't be too far off from their intent. Ten years after the passing of NAFTA nearly one million jobs had been exported from the United States7, and that is NAFTA alone. The U.S. is involved in over twenty regional and bilateral free trade agreements. All of these agreements have benefited corporations while sieving jobs out of the U.S. With this in mind one decision must be made: does the United States terminate the majority of these agreements or does it modify them to demand fair trade as well as free trade? Either decision will boost the economy by forcing production to resume within the country while reducing the amount of goods that are imported. Either we protect our economy by ending free trade or we demand the protection of workers rights throughout the world by standing for fair trade.
In closing all one needs to do is look at the existing models of the benefits provided from the presence of the United States military. In just twenty years Japan and Europe went from war torn nations to the shining examples of the western world – simply because of the financial impact the presence of the United States military had. If it could work for them why can't it work for us?

Recover America Working Statement

PART I: Redeploy all internationally garrisoned personnel and dependents to domestic installations

Intent: Redeploy all non combat personnel and dependents to existing and proposed military facilities within the United States while liquidating the majority of foreign based installations. The investment to produce and refurbish domestic facilities will stimulate multiple industries within the country. Basing all non combat personnel within the United States will ensure that the majority of the budget of the Department of Defense is invested and spent within the domestic economy.

Pros:
Domestic construction projects to build new installations and to refurbish or expand existing installations.
Increase domestic tax base by over half a million people.
No more lease payments to host governments.
Soldier wages spent solely in U.S. economy.
Boost real estate markets around installations with increased demand for properties.
Stimulate numerous industries through construction and supply.
Support burgeoning industries through implementation of green building standards on all new construction.
Stimulate renewable energy industries through utilization of solar and wind technologies.
Development of conservation facilities through mandatory recycling programs on all military installations.
Domestic industries can also benefit from foreign markets needs to fill the void left by U.S. military.
Expanded commercial developments thriving around installations.
Stimulation of international diplomacy.
Improved relations with numerous governments and agencies.
Removal of rally point for global extremists.
Cons:
Loss of presence in unstable theaters.
Loss of direct influence in allies politics.
Lack of security or access to foreign energy supplies.
Weakened global military posture.
Perceived rejection of super power status.
Possible international sense of defeat in war on terror.
High cost of redeployment.
Adverse affect on petroleum industry.
Increase in energy (petroleum) costs.
Possible expansion of political instability in volatile regions.
Regime collapse in volatile regions.
Increased demands on international bodies.

PART II: Nationwide deployment of a renewable energy infrastructure in conjunction with the redeployment of military personnel to the United States.

Intent: Federally mandating that all new domestic government construction meet USGBC LEED Certification requirements while deploying such technologies as photo-voltaics and solar water heaters. Furthermore mandate the upgrade and enhancement of specific federally and state owned facilities with photo-voltaics and solar water heaters. Federally mandated recycling programs on all military installations. Federally mandate transition of all military installations from grid dependent to energy independent through the deployment of wind, solar, tidal, biomass, space based solar, and other existing renewable energy sources as well as the continued use of existing nuclear facilities.

PART II.a: Nationwide regulations for increased fuel efficiency and percentile deployment of non petroleum fueled vehicles.

Intent: Reduce and eliminate the United State's dependence of foreign petroleum through the expansion of public transit infrastructure and development of electric, air or hydrogen fueled vehicles. Dramatically reduce the national and global production of greenhouse gases.

Pros:
Modernization of national energy grid.
Government used of Green Building Standards will influence private construction and reduce costs.
Wide scale deployment of photo voltaics will dramatically reduce production costs and stimulate further research and development.
Produce a self sufficient military.
Reduce costs to taxpayers through improved infrastructure.
Secure energy independence.
Weaken extremists groups and governments through energy independence.
Increase recycling and conservation.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Generate energy security on the battlefield through space based solar.
Commercialize space.
Stimulate new space based industries.
Stimulate the education system through demand for qualified personnel.
Upgrade and expand public transit options (possible road building moratorium)
Expansion of train and rail industry.
Generation of countless construction and maintenance jobs.

Cons:
Shrinkage of petroleum industry.
Shrinkage of coal industry.
Shrinkage of auto industry.
Collapse of certain diplomatic relationships.
High initial cost to taxpayer.
Reduction in consumption.
Massive realignment of the economy.
Unpredictable effects on local economies.
Massive population shifts in response to industrial changes.
Political perceptions (socialism, fascism, capitalism).

PART III: Diplomatic/Economic transition from Free Trade to Free & Fair Trade -OR- abandonment of Free Trade agreements.

Intent: To ensure the development of all these new industries within the United States a major policy realignment will be necessary to protect American jobs. Demanding Free and Fair trade will reduce the cost benefit to corporations considering moving jobs from the United States by requiring them to provide the living wages and benefits to workers in other countries. This can be accomplished by abandoning Free Trade as well though the greater human rights impact is accomplished by embracing fair trade.

Pros:
Improvement of working conditions outside the United States.
Security of U.S. job base by removing incentives to export jobs.
Improved diplomatic stance.
Reduction of corporate influence.

Cons:
Increase in production costs.
Increase in prices.
Possible inflation.
Reduction in corporate profits.
Reduction of corporate influence.
Possible stunted development of burgeoning industries.
Global outcry against “protectionism.”
Increased illegal migration.

Well, that's the items I've produced so far. I'm still waiting for comments from various parties and would appreciate all of your input as well. Thanks.