expenditures

....This book is solid shop talk for those interested in defense policy, broaching many issues while consistently focusing on ways to limit (but not necessarily reduce) defense spending. O'Hanlon argues that aggregate defense spending must increase modestly to preserve US interests at home and abroad, but that sensible cuts can be made elsewhere to offset the increase. Some expenditures should be considered essential, such as replacing aging equipment which was acquired during the Reagan administration. However, these costs can be tempered by limiting, though not eliminating, acquisitions of cutting edge technology while replenishing fleets with existing, effective, and less costly technology. O'Hanlon makes a compelling argument (financial and otherwise) in favor of moving away from a two-war defense framework to one which enables the US to simultaneously tackle three engagements of varying intensities, something on the level of Desert Storm plus Desert Shield plus Bosnia / IFOR. Many of O'Hanlon's arguments on homeland defense, while valid, have been discussed in more detail elsewhere (e.g. "America's Achille's Heel"). His arguments for a limited missile defense (focusing primarily on boost-phase missile intercepts and the need for additional research) are solidly stated, and probably more so in his book "Defending America". A very thorough discussion of the China-Taiwan issue is provided, exploring potential military threats from both sides in detail. O'Hanlon argues that China's current military threat to Taiwan is almost negligible and that only a Chinese blockade of the island would be likely to require outside military intervention. The military and tactical strengths and weaknesses of both countries are discussed in turn, while exploring the delicate line the US must walk between antagonism and pacification in the region.

Every citizen needs to read and think about the future of national defense. This book is one of the core readings.

Among the recommendations in this book that make it essential reading for anyone concerned with streamlining and revitalizing national security, I consider the following to be sensible:

1) cost savings should not be achieved through the wholesale abandonment of overseas commitments (13);

2) achieve additional cost savings as well as increased operational utility by sharply limiting spending on the most advanced weapons and mobility systems, applying the savings to maintaining readiness and buying larger numbers of "good enough" weaponry (83);

3) citing Stephen Rosen-he could also have cited Colin Gray-he urges a slowdown in the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) while emphasizing that true RMA's are less about technology and more about the very best mix of people, time, and information to produce innovation (88);

4) in this vein, he noted the continued excessive focus on mobility platforms rather than C4I or joint service experimentation (90);

5) homeland defense needs several billion more dollars per year (129), a recapitalization of the U.S. Coast Guard by with at least a $750 million a year increase (135), and a sharply increased focus on setting C4I security standards for unclassified communications and computing networks across the nation, with roughly $100 million a year additional;

6) politely put, National Missile Defense is best conceptualized as theater missile defense (TMD, 143); and

7) Taiwan would be a nightmare for all sides.

Among the assertions in this book that give me pause are

1) defense down-sizing in the past ten years has been successful, trimming a third of the budget and manpower while retaining quality and cohesion (p. 1);

2) that 3% of the Gross Domestic Product is adequate for defense spending and we do not need to go to the less-than-traditional 4% (3-4);

3) that the Marine Corps should be employed to relieve Army troops in the Balkans (57) or Korea (80);

4) that North Korean armored forces would have great difficulty breaking through Allied lines to Seoul (71);

5) that rogue nations like North Korea would attempt to provide their infantry with chemical protective gear when using chemical weapons (73);

6) that US airpower is both a rapid-response solution for distant threats as well as an overwhelming response for sustained threats (76, passim);

7) that arsenal ships are survivable in off-shore loiter mode (111); and

8) that an overseas deployment rate of 8% of the total force is too high (227).

Having said that, and with all my reservations about a book, no matter how talented the author, that does not preface its discussion of force structure with a review of the recommended strategy, and a discussion of the recommended strategy with a review of the real-world right-now threat, I have to rate this book a solid four in terms of seriousness of purpose and utility of content.

It would be twice as valuable if it included a thorough discussion of what kind of Global Coverage intelligence investment is needed in order to make defense forces relevant and capable in the future; and if it included a discussion of how defense forces are but the most expensive instrument of national power, and must be designed and funded in consonance with the other instruments, and especially the severely underfunded diplomatic, economic, and cultural instruments.

The author, easily one of the top three citizen-reviewers of the national security spending program, ultimately recommends less expensive weaponry, a different two-war capability ("1+A+i"), selective reductions in overseas deployments, more defense and less nuclear offense, selective increases in homeland defense including the U.S. Coast Guard and joint experimentation, and a modest increase (roughly $25 billion) of the defense budget that would combine with his recommended savings to yield the $60 billion or so transformation delta that others have recommended.

I like and recommend this book. Out of context, however, it is a dangerous book, for it will lead an inexperienced President and a Cold War team to the conclusion that only a transformation of the traditional military (Program 50) is necessary. O'Hanlon has done it again-he has provided the baseline from within which a reasonable public debate about defense transformation might ensue. The military issues he addresses comprise both the foundation and one of the four corners of our future national security-my concern about this book is that it is completely isolated and makes no mention of the other three corners without which we cannot maintain a proper roof over our heads: intelligence (threat understanding), strategy, and Program 150 soft power-power that today is both silent and emaciated.

This book addresses the problem of growing government entitlement programs for Americans in light of limited resources for providing them. Yes, everyone should be aware of the funding problems. Mr. Peterson should be thanked for bringing out a book on the subject. The color graphs are quite attractive. The writing is quick and easy to read, but even though he says he is not an alarmist, that's the impression he gives. There are many assumptions which readers usually swallow whole and that's what is wrong with the presentation. The book states that Americans do not "save" enough and that the Japanese save more. It infers that the Japanese are better off. In comparison to the amount Americans have in terms of goods and services, the Japanese have much less to consume. First, Americans as a whole save as much as any people in other industrialized countries. Our saving is not just at the bank, but involves mortgage payments, insurance premiums and employer pensions. Very few people in Japan own or are buying their homes. If we counted ALL savings of Amnericans, it would equal savings of people in other countries. If in fact, greater "saving" is responsible for a growing economy and a higher standard of living, why has Japan with its high saving rate been in a recession for the past seven years? (During the same time period the U.S. economy has been growing more prosperous.) The graph on page 24 shows how many American workers are needed to support each U.S. social security beneficiary for selected years between 1955 and 2040. In 1955 it took 8.6 workers, in 1995 it was 3.3 workers per retiree and by the year 2040 there will be only two workers per beneficiary. (In 1995 workers AND retirees all had more of material goods than in 1955.) This is the same kind of projection that was used years ago when at the turn of the century it took 50 percent of the working population to provide enough food for everyone else in the country. Everyone thought it was an ominous sign that so many young people were leaving the farms and that there was sure to be shortages of food unless the trend was stopped. Well, by the 1930's we had food surpluses which continued right through the 1980's even though only two percent of the working population is in farming. Even now, if we did not sell our surplus farm products overseas, we would have surpluses. In the U.S. today it takes one average farmer to produce enough food to feed 90 people. Only a few decades ago it would have seemed impossible. Its not obvious what method was used to get the numbers on the federal government's "red ink" chart on page 18, but just recently a review of the federal government's report for 1995 indicated that the accumulated federal debt of approximately $20,000 (liability) per U.S. population is compared to $205,000 of public assets per U.S. population. There are very few organizations of any kind that have such a favorable balance. Yes, there should be more reliance on private funds for medical care for the elderly and also some level of means test. But also keep in mind that spending on medical care causes people to live longer and people living longer results in more spending on health care. If old people had to pay for life-lengthening medications, they might not spend as much and health care companies would not have the profits to fund more advanced products to keep more people living longer. Think of the implications--investments, employment, life spans, etc Out of the complications we see that with or without government involvement, the industries that grow and prosper are the ones that get funded, either privately or by government. Each area of decision-making is made up of lots of individual choices which together move mountains. We agree that no one should have the idea that people should rely on social security benefits to fund their retirements. As far as the past is concerned, people with ONLY social security have NOT lived real high. Mr. Peterson is right when he says that young people do NOT expect to live on social security benefits when they retire. And, so, THAT finding may be the solution yet.

I have read this book and it scares me to death. People my age must realize that doing nothing is tantamount to giving our futures away. We must come to terms with the fact that there are 76 million Baby Boomers approaching retirement age, and there is no national plan to accomodate their pension and health needs. And to complicate matters, the problem is already occurring elsewhere around the world. Just read Peter Peterson's newest book, Gray Dawn.

This is a really good book about people from Argentina and wild horses. I had to read this book for a class, but I truly enjoyed the book. Not only is this book multicultural it's also informative about the culture and how these people deal with horses, their line of work. Anyone interested in horses and how they catch and tame wild horses would enjoy this book. The story is mainly about one boy's journey and his wild horse, Cucharo. After the little boy finds Chucaro, he must endure hardship and make tough decisions, all for the love of his horse.

This book covers a huge set of techniques for citizen participation, then analyzes data from some citizen participation processes. Scholarly, but readable.

I read this book for a course on the US Congress. Louis Fisher paints a picture of a Congress that has lost it's will to fight the president for it's war and spending powers which are explicitly given to it in the Constitution. The book shows that up until President Truman, Congress had exclusive control over these powers. The president grabbed more power during war time, but then power went back to Congress in peace. Fisher Argues that since Truman congress has given up these power, or abdicated them, and no longer trusts itself to conduct the nations business.

This monograph is a very useful review of the economic literature on savings and the likely impact of demographic trends on savings and investment in industrial countries. Should be updated soon!!.

A very well-written book that traces Domenici's rise to Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Wonderful insights into campaign strategies as well.

Carolyn Haywood was my favorite author for a year or so when I was in third grade.She writes a series of funny escapades about Eddie Wilson,age 7,who shows that his parents' trash is his treasure-and vice versa.

An excellent book that varies between a chronologised history of budget reform in Australia, and an investigation of contemporary budgeting and budget theory. Interesting reading even if you are not familiar with Australia, but are interested in Government budgeting, or interested in a country with an excellent history of aggregate budget outcomes over the past twenty years.

Though it meanders a bit, it is a good read. The main author is a respected contributor to the field. The book also provides a good political history as major issues and actors of the time period covered are viewed through the prism of public expenditure management, including elections.

I guess this is what passes for a thoughtful review of the tax code for a liberal. I'm sure the author has no desire to give "tax breaks" to individuals any more than those greedy corporations. Besides attacking expense deductions as a "tax break," the class-warfare demagoguery always ignores the ultimate beneficiary of tax breaks to corporations, which are the company's workers and its stockholder. Oh yeah, the stockholders are just greedy rich people anyway, right?

Before the welfare reform bill of 1996, genuine welfare was about 130 billion dollars per year, including food stamps, AFDC, housing assistance, WIC, Head Start, Low-income energy assistance, JOBS, Legal Services corporation, Medicaid, SSI, Pell grants, and the EITC. Altruistic behavior, of course, enrages conservatives, along with legitimate concerns, such as the Department of Education losing 450 million dollars in a three year time frame.

Meanwhile, the rich are quietly gorging at the trough.

The authors discover that "wealthfare" -- the money we hand out to corporations and wealthy Montgomery Burns types -- is at LEAST 448 BILLION dollars a year. To ensure not being accused of "bias," they consistently use conservative figures, thus leaving the real number far greater.

Their presentation is effective. Well cited, they address the orgy of waste and fraud in the "neglected" Pentagon, Social Security inequities generated from Reagan's sneaky regressive mega-tax hike on working people, phony accelerated depreciations (e.g. the NEGATIVE tax rates many corporations get away with), the S&L bailout we're still paying for, subsidies to nuclear, mining, timber, gas, oil, aviation, handouts to the media giants, insurance loopholes, and much more! Quite a lot for such a little book. A job well done!

This IS the "pinko's" view of the tax code. After all, it's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor....

The next time some smug nabob starts muttering under his/her breath about the drain on our economy caused by the proverbial 'welfare mother' (you know, the one that's driving the Cadillac), you can put em' in their place armed with the wealth of info contained in this short but well written little book.

As 'Take the Rich Off Welfare' aptly points out, welfare really does suck a lot of money from our treasury, but it's not the poor and needy in this country that benefits from this bonanza. As a matter of fact the word 'wealthfare' is more applicable, because that's who's really benefiting- the wealthy.

Very brief, but meticulously researched and with sources to back up every fact, 'Take the Rich off Welfare' is a great introduction to the big wide world of graft in America. If you've ever been curious about who has their foot in the back door of the treasury- check out this fine book.