Tag: budget deficit

  • Government Finance 101. Fiscal Policy:  Welcome to Alice in Wonderland

    Government Finance 101. Fiscal Policy: Welcome to Alice in Wonderland

    Secretary of the Treasury

    PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET

     

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made their latest projection in January, 2025. The projected deficit in fiscal year 2025 will be around $1.8 trillion, the difference between about $5.2 trillion in revenue and $7.0 trillion in expenses. Interest on the national debt this year will be around $950 billion, over twice the interest expense in the fiscal year 2021 budget and equal to the defense budget. By 2035, the CBO expects the yearly budget deficit to increase to $2.7 trillion.

     

    Interest expense this year passed budgeted outlays for the military. It is about equal to Medicare, and also to total non-defense discretionary spending.

     

    Leaving aside Social Security and Medicare, interest expense is about 20% of total budget outlays. Interest expense is about half the budget deficit.

     

    The $1.8 trillion budget deficit is 6-7% of total GDP, or approximately 10% of consumer spending. Adding the $1 trillion trade deficit, which is 3-4% of GDP, then a total of $3 trillion, or 10% of GDP, is being financed by these two deficits.

     

    SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS AND A LITTLE DETAIL

     

    Some basic definitions for people in government suffering from political amnesia:

     

    Deficit.  The difference between the federal government’s spending and its revenue in one fiscal year.  The fiscal year starts on October 1. So fiscal year (FY) 2025 started on October 1, 2024. All years in this post are fiscal years. You know right away this is going to be confusing.

    Debt.  Short for national debt or federal debt.  The sum total of all past government yearly deficits minus yearly surpluses.

     

    PROJECTED NATIONAL DEBT

     

    As of June 9, 2025, the national debt was $36.2 trillion. The debt/GDP ratio was 124%. The CBO expects it to increase to $59 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2035. So between now and 2035,

    the national debt will increase by about $23 trillion!


    On August 4, the CBO estimated that the recently passed budget bill will add at least $4 trillion more to the national debt over the next 10 years, more likely $5 trillion.  Beside making the “temporary” 2017 tax cut permanent, the budget bill included large increases in defense spending and spending to deport residents. Next month, however, the CBO will attempt to estimate how much tax revenue the government will earn from increased tariffs. The possible range is about $2-$3 trillion over 10 years. So the net effect is a rather small increase compared to the projected $59 trillion national debt in fiscal year 2035. The big question, however, is whether the tariffs will lead to higher rates of inflation in the short run and a recession in the longer run.


    At some point, buyers of government debt will demand higher interest rates because of higher risk or higher rates of inflation. Higher rates are not factored into CBO debt projections.

     

    If these numbers don’t scare the hell out of you, you are probably Donald Trump or a member of Congress.  

     

    WHO OWNS THE NATIONAL DEBT?

     

    Commentators often say we shouldn’t worry about the national debt because we owe it to ourselves. Well, sort of. 

    The total current (December 2025) national debt $38.4 trillion compared to over $36 trillion in 2024. $28 trillion, or about 80%, is owned domestically. About 20% of the national debt ($7.4 trillion) is owned by…the U.S. government! Mostly Social Security and other trust funds and federal employees’ retirement funds. This percent will probably fall over the next ten years as the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare go to zero. About $4.7 trillion is held by the Fed; the Fed is reducing its holdings. Private American investors and institutions own less than half of the total, or $15.2 trillion.

     

    Foreign lenders own about $9 trillion, or about 25% of the Treasury securities. About half of this is held by foreign central banks and the other half by foreign financial institutions and individuals. Much of this is used to finance international trade. China owns less than $1 trillion of this. The number has been going down; don’t believe the scare rhetoric that the Chinese government could sell all its U.S. government debt and crash the American economy. More is held in “tax haven” (money laundering, money hiding and tax avoidance) countries and banks; the Cayman Islands, a notorious “tax haven,” is now the largest holder of U.S. government debt. It is comforting to know that South American and Mexican drug lords, corrupt government officials everywhere and Russian oligarchs have faith in the U.S government and its dollar.

     

    The Fed is currently selling off part of its large inventory of Treasuries it accumulated to help finance Covid stimulus programs. So it looks like the federal government will have to sell most of its future debt to private Americans and foreign investors.

     

    Americans are always complaining they pay too much in federal income taxes. This year, revenue from personal (household) income taxes will be around $2.4 trillion, or about 1/2 of federal expenditures minus Social Security and Medicare.

     

    FISCAL ACCOUNTING: PROJECTIONS TO 2035

    The projections in this post are from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan organization that gives Congress figures, analysis and expert advice. These are from January, 2025. They are updated every two years. 

     

    The CBO projections are probably too optimistic. They are trend projections of existing programs and tax revenue. They assume that events such as recessions, epidemics, wars, or any new spending programs, such as to fight the effects of global warming, will not happen over the next ten years. They assume there will be no further tax cuts. Good luck!

     

    Based on past experience, it is likely that at least one recession will occur in the next eight years.

     

    Social Security and Medicare are funded by their own taxes and are working down their trust funds (selling government bonds) that fund part of the benefits. Subtracting Social Security and Medicare taxes and expenditures from the Federal budget, other revenue covers about 80% of all other government spending; the other 20% is the deficit and financed by borrowing.

     

    I first wrote this post about eight years ago (2017). I update it about every two years. Every time it gets more depressing. When interest rates the government paid on the national debt were very low, no one in the government talked about the rising interest expense and what to do about it. But now with higher interest rates on a larger (and growing) national debt, interest expense has risen and has become a larger part of government budgets. Even if interest rates stay where they are now, in 2035 compared to 2025, the increase in interest expense will about equal the increase in personal income taxes, about $1.8 trillion each. In other words, families will be paying more taxes just to cover the increased interest expense.

     

    Interest rates on the national debt are likely to rise as the national debt continues to increase more than nominal (taxable) GDP. 

     

    But still, no serious discussion. I understand why. For 20 years until late 2022, the Fed kept interest rates at very low levels. Among other effects, this was a massive subsidy to the federal government. It kept the cost of the increasing national debt low, below the political radar screen. No elected representative or politician wants to talk about it. The choices to minimize the increase in future interest expenses are political dynamite. Better to blame deficits on welfare payments to illegal immigrants.

     

    For a detailed and lucid presentation of the current federal debt and the issues involved, see John Mauldin’s essay titled “Debtors and Creditors” at mauldineconomics.com.

    SOCIAL SECURITY

     

    Even the most conservative projections are scary as more Americans get older (the number of Americans over 65 years old is expected to double over the next 25 years) and the health care industry is doing a really good job of keeping us baby boomers alive longer (mostly paid for with government funds). In addition, part of Social Security expenses comes from past Social Security taxes that are in the Social Security Trust Fund. This fund is projected to go to zero around 2034/5. Social Security benefits will fall at least 20% or the deficit will come out of general tax revenue. This will add about $300 billion to general expenditures and the yearly deficit. With the rising number of senior citizens, who like to vote (about 30% of registered voters by 2035), guess which alternative is more likely. This could be fixed with some relatively minor changes to Social Security taxes or raising retirement ages spread out over 10 years. But so far Congress has totally ignored this large addition to future yearly deficits and the national debt.

    After 2035, when the trust funds run out, we will have fewer workers paying in to support many more recipients of Social Security and Medicare. More of the cost will come out of general tax revenue, leading to even higher deficits.

    YEARLY DEFICITS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT

     

    The government has benefitted from the very low interest rates engineered by the Fed over the last twenty years. But interest rates began to rise as the Fed quickly raised the Fed funds rate to bring down aggregate demand and the inflation rate in 2022. Of course this had no effect on government spending. Every one percent increase in the interest rate on the national debt will add at least $300 billion a year to expenditures and the deficit. Another way to look at it is that the interest expense in this fiscal year was more than half of the deficit. At current interest rates, total interest expense could be about 60% of the yearly deficit in a few years (as the past lower-cost debt is rolled over) and possibly a higher percent further out. The government is borrowing more money each year to pay interest on past borrowing.


    A combination of rising national debt of over $2 trillion a year combined with rising interest rates would push politicians and us voters even further into denial. So far, everyone wins. We get corporate and household tax cuts. We spend more money on defense and national security than the next nine countries combined. We have generous social welfare, health, and retirement benefits. After paying for Social Security and Medicare with dedicated taxes, we borrow over one-fifth of the total cost of the rest of the budget every year. Even the most optimistic projection indicates that by 2035 all of the income the Federal government takes in will only cover “mandatory” programs (mostly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) and defense. Maybe a part of national debt interest, depending on future interest rates. All of the rest of the budget, all the subsidies and tax loopholes and worthy programs, are funded through borrowing. Who says there’s no such thing as a free lunch program? Party on!

    What is the point of this discussion? Fiscal policy – the size and changes in the size of yearly deficits and government debt – has nothing to do with political philosophy or promoting economic growth and stability. It has to do with lowering tax rates and no one paying the full cost of received benefits and services.

    TRUMP TARIFFS AND TAX CUTS

    A few words about fiscal changes due to proposed programs from the Trump administration and the current budget. 

    The U.S. government received about $100 billion a year in revenue from tariffs before the Trump tariffs. Total tariff revenue could rise by about $250 billion – $300 billion a year, depending on where the final tariff rates end up. This would reduce the projected deficit. If this happens, the higher tariffs of about $3 trillion over the next ten years would offset more than the $2 trillion increase in the national debt increase from the tax cut from the budget bill.

    But not for the wider economy. The extension of the 2017 tax cut mostly benefits upper-income families because they pay most of the income taxes. The tariffs hit all American families. The tariffs are a disguised tax increase. Families will probably pay much of the additional tariffs in higher prices. And more unemployment.  So the combination of the two is an income transfer from all “hard-working” American families to upper-income families and the U.S. government.

    If other countries retaliate, if global supply chains are disrupted, if total investment falls, the chances of a national and global recession go up. Everyone loses.

    THE DECIFIT, TAX RATES, AND TAX POLICY

    Personal income taxes were $2.4 trillion in 2024. They are expected to increase to $4.2 trillion in 2035. Again, the increase in personal income taxes is equal to the increase in interest expense.

     

    The size of the deficit can also be affected by changes in the income tax rates but only to a limited extent. About 45% of all households pay no federal income tax. Of all the households that file an income tax, about 80% pay more in “payroll taxes” (Social Security and Medicare taxes) than income taxes. The Federal government collects only slightly less revenue from payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than from personal income taxes.

     

    A high percent of personal income taxes is paid by high income households; they receive most of any personal income tax cut.

     

    Studies by the IRS show that small businesses and high-income households substantially underreport their income. Large corporations pay substantially less than the statutory rates; some large companies, including GE in the past, paid nothing at all. Large social media companies have moved much of their intellectual property to Ireland, which has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Warren Buffett’s company pays a lower tax rate than almost everyone reading this post. Many industries have special tax reduction rules, including “depletion allowances” for oil and natural gas drillers. Property developers and commercial property owners are notorious for not paying income taxes.

     

    The Trump administration, through DOGE, has laid off many IRS auditors. Further cutbacks are in the current budget bill. Given his background, I guess President Trump just does not like the IRS collecting taxes from rich people and tax dodgers.

     

    FINANCING THE FISCAL DEFICITS:  THE BOND MARKET

     

    Even as the nominal GDP, and thus the tax base, increases, the yearly deficit exists year after year. The old bonds do not disappear by increased tax revenue paying them off. As the bonds come due (mature), they are retired (paid off or rolled over) with new bonds. Combined with new deficits and debt, the national debt gets larger. And larger. Any political rantings about reducing the national debt is just so much hot air contributing to global warming. (Sidebar – it seems to me that many people who talk about reducing the national debt don’t know the difference between the yearly deficit and the cumulative national debt.)

     

    Again, the government finances the national debt by selling bonds. Who buys the bonds, and why? American bonds are attractive mostly because they are viewed as the safest bonds in the world. That is, the U.S. government is never expected to declare bankruptcy. Over 30 governments since WWII have partially or totally defaulted on their debt. And not just poor countries. In the 20th century, Russia, Germany, China, Japan and Italy have defaulted on their debt. Lost wars and revolutions do that. 

     

    If bond buyers perceive that U.S. bonds are becoming riskier, the first reaction would probably be to demand higher interest rates to compensate for the increased risk. 

     

    There is a fear this year (2025) that the proposed Trump tariff increases might lead to American and foreign holders of the national debt to start selling off U.S. bonds. The increased awareness of the large and rising debt itself increases the risk of holding American bonds. Other reasons are geopolitical. But holding alternative currencies entail the same risks; most of the larger economies have debt/GDP ratios comparable to that of the United States.

     

    Another reason is that the U.S. dollar is falling compared to most other currencies. Holding dollars means that when dollars are exchanged for other currencies, they buy a smaller amount. That is, they are worth less to foreign holders and global corporations.

     

    The increases in tariffs, increases the chance of a national and global recession. This would probably increase the U.S. yearly deficit over the projected CBO projected amounts.

     

    But why does the yearly deficit occur year after year (after year)? Or, as an economist might say, why is it structural and not cyclical as Keynes hoped? After all, total tax revenue goes up most years. If spending stayed the same, each yearly deficit would go down. One day in the Star Trek future, there would be no yearly deficit and a constant national debt. Easy answer: spending goes up and tax revenue doesn’t go up as much as expected because of the political popularity of tax cuts.

     

    FISCAL POLICY AND ECONOMIC POLICY

     

    The federal budget and its deficits do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of the overall economy. Budget deficits are not inherently good or bad. When they occur over the growth cycle is important.  

    Government spending is all lumped together in macroeconomics. Yet what governments spend their money on is important. A lot of it is “income transfers,” taking tax money from one group and distributing it to others. Much of it goes to people who are old or sick or poor but also some goes to less deserving folks. Some of the spending should be considered consumption (gold and marble in decorating the White House). Another part is public investment. This part is vital to economic growth and the development of new technology. Government pays for basic research, public health, infrastructure, education and training, financing and subsidizing private investment, and paying for some of the social costs (such as cleaning up toxic waste dumps) of past private investment and production. This does not include the future costs of fighting the effects of global warming; preliminary estimates are very scary.

    Another way of looking at it:  what the spending financed by debt is used for. A major use in the past has been to finance tax cuts. An extreme example was stimulus programs to fight the recession caused by Covid. Almost all of the stimulus money went to all American families in the form of higher income. The idea was that a big rise in total income would lead to a big increase in total spending. Not as much as expected. There was a big increase in total household saving; many American families didn’t need the extra income. This contributed to later inflation and higher interest rates. This is one reason the prices of stocks and houses are now going up.

     

    What the stimulus money was not used for was investment to increase future economic growth. Some of the money in the bills passed by the Biden administration started to address increased infrastructure needs and the cost of combating the effects of global warming. President Trump, like earlier presidents, wanted Congress to cut back on some of the government’s basic research. It is almost impossible to think of any new technology developed after WWII that the federal government did not help finance and develop, including computers, microchips, jet aircraft, the internet, GPS, digital photography, biotechnology, and autonomous driving. Especially in the early stages of basic research and applied research and development. Developing new technology is the main source of economic growth and thus increases in tax revenue.

     

    The idea that there is some economically rational fiscal policy is a fiction. Presidents who propose yearly budgets and congress members who vote on them are rational. The want to get reelected and expand favorite programs. They ignore the present and future cost of the yearly deficits they create. Somebody else’s problem. Your children and grandchildren. And, of course, there will be fewer of them to foot the bill.

     

    Some commentators believe the “debt overhang” of high and rising national debt and its interest expense will be the cause of our next economic crisis.

     

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    See the companion post Government Finance 102:  Monetary Policy: The Red Queen’s Race for how the Fed has facilitated the creation of our large federal deficit. For many years, the Fed kept the fed funds rate close to zero; this meant the government could increase borrowing faster than interest expense. Almost free money.

    You might want to pair this essay with the latest population and demographic projections (fewer people, more old people). See

    Demographics, Immigration and Future Economic Growth of the United States


    If CBO trendlines were projected out to 2045, the national debt would be more than $70 trillion. U.S total population and the size of the labor force in 2045 is very likely to be less than now. Retired Americans will be a higher percent of the total population.

    You might be interested in

    Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Start of the Great Depression


    The CBO assumption that nothing will ever go wrong in the U.S. economy isn’t likely. To be fair, this restriction was put on the CBO by Congress.

     

    Elsewhere in this blog, I argue that the main form of our economic competition, and geopolitical rivalry, with China will depend on our success in developing new technologies. See

     

    American Tariffs and the U.S. Economic War with China


    If the United States maintains the current proposed tariffs averaging around 15-20% and because of current economic policies cannot compete with China in global markets, CBO and other economic projections are unrealistically optimistic.

     

    For a list of all the posts on this blog, see 

    List of Posts by Topic

    with links to all other essays. There are posts on the demographics of other countries and the world as a whole, the Beginning of the Industrial Revolution, American Economic History, and American History. Even posts on finance, business, and economics.

  • American Foreign Policy Since 1991

    American Foreign Policy Since 1991



    Introduction



    The United States
    has been the world’s only superpower since the collapse of the Soviet
    Union in 1991.  In some ways
    it is more difficult to manage foreign policy without concentrating on one big
    rival.



    The United States
    is vastly stronger in military strength than any possible coalition of enemy
    forces.  But since 9/11 we are feeling
    less secure despite huge military and domestic security expenditures.  Our military and national security
    expenditures of around $1.1 trillion are greater than the military expenditures
    of next ten countries combined (and most are allies).  This is a consequence of a professional
    military, a result of eliminating conscription after the Vietnam War, and the
    highly technical (capital intensive) nature of American military forces and strategy. 



    There is almost no national debate on U.S.
    military interventions in other countries. 
    One reason is that most Americans have no direct involvement; they see
    the professional military differently than if we still had the draft and a conscript army.



    There has been little public debate on national security
    strategy since 1991.  Congress has all
    but abdicated its role in foreign policy to the president. We should be asking:



    Is it the wrong strategy for a rapidly changing world?


    Do we rely on military force at the expense of using other
    means? 


    Did America
    change its political and military strategy enough after disintegration of Soviet
    Union? 


    We focused on terrorism after 9/11.  But are we fighting global terrorism with the
    same strategy we used during the Cold War? 



    There have been a number of successes from the U.S.
    point of view.  But they are not directly
    due to America’s
    military might or even an active American foreign policy.



    Eastern European countries join
    NATO and the European Union after the collapse of the Soviet empire.  This is a historical moment – a chance to
    peacefully unite Western and Central Europe.



    The spread of democracy to
    countries without a democratic tradition or experience, especially in Latin
    America and East Asia.  In some cases, democratic groups were able to
    overthrow authoritarian or military regimes that enjoyed American support.



    The shift in control of most economic
    resources from public to private control. 
    Except for some raw materials, almost all of global economic resources are
    now in private hands, especially those of large multinational corporations.  Private companies develop new technology.  A globally integrated economy, I would argue,
    is in America’s
    national interests.




    I would like to discuss four aspects of American foreign
    policy:



    Reliance on massive firepower and technological solutions.


    Lack of knowledgeable leadership in the United
    States.


    Lack of support for democratic, liberal groups in
    authoritarian states.


    Lack of awareness that domestic and foreign policies are
    intertwined.



    Reliance on massive
    firepower and technological solutions.



    It is difficult for American leaders not to think first of a
    military solution to a foreign political problem when we have such a
    magnificent tool as the U.S.
    military. But military interventions have not been politically successful in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq.  American presidents have
    learned that it is easy to invade and conquer but hard to occupy.  Also, as in Iraq
    and Afghanistan,
    lengthy occupations tend to create and strengthen the very political groups we
    seek to destroy. The Taliban is the strongest political group in Afghanistan; the inept occupation of Iraq led to Iran now dominating Iraqi politics and officers of the disbanded Iraqi army joining ISIS.   



    The use of military force without thinking through the
    long-run consequences and how it fits into 


    America’s
    strategic objectives can be futile and expensive.


    Lack of awareness that
    domestic and foreign policies are intertwined.



    For a superpower there is no distinction between domestic
    and foreign policy. Since 9/11, the United States has become a domestic security state; new surveillance powers and technology threaten civil liberties and individual rights to privacy. 

    Domestic economic and social policies have
    consequences for foreign policy and American power.  A few examples:


    Fiscal Policy. 
    After eliminating the self-funding parts of Social Security and
    Medicare, about 40% of the federal budget is currently financed through
    borrowing.  The current deficit is about
    $1 trillion a year.  This is
    approximately equal to total national security costs.  So the high costs of being a superpower is
    being financed through debt. Higher tax revenue because of economic growth will reduce but not eliminate the yearly
    deficit and increase the national debt. The recent combination of a tax cut and increased military spending makes the fiscal situation worse. At some point, American leaders may have to look at the cost of
    national defense and seriously consider major cutbacks.  This will impact America’s
    ability to project force and influence anywhere in the world.



    If large fiscal deficits continue they will eventually
    jeopardize the dollar as the international currency.  Much of international trade is denominated in
    dollars.  This is a source of America’s
    global influence.


    Energy policy. 
    Importing crude oil and natural gas finances, directly and indirectly, America’s
    actual and potential enemies.  In the
    past, oil exports supported corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Libya
    and Iraq.  Oil exports benefit Russia,
    Iran and Venezuela.  Oil revenues help finance Muslim terrorist
    groups. Because of the dramatic increase in domestic production of oil, the U.S. now imports virtual no oil from the Middle East. It is ironic that the United States became militarily engaged in the Middle East just as we no longer needed oil from that region.


    Trade Deficit. 
    The U.S.
    continues to run a large trade and current account deficit.  The reasons are complicated although net
    energy imports are a part of it. 
    We can run this trade deficit as long as foreign holders of dollars are
    willing to invest in and lend to the United
    States. In the long run, this could have
    serious economic consequences.  Changes
    in domestic energy and economic policies could reduce the trade deficit and
    finance more of it from domestic savings. 
      


    Drug policy.  Current
    domestic drug policy creates huge profits for drug gangs around the world.  Profits from the drug trade help to finance
    terrorist groups and the states that support them.  Drug gangs destabilize Latin American and
    Asian governments and divert resources needed for economic development.



    An important part of American influence in the world is foreign
    perception of America
    as an example to be emulated.  America
    represents both a set of political and social ideals, and a related model to
    achieve economic growth and opportunity.  American influence is jeopardized if the rest
    of the world sees a society with increasing concentration of wealth and income,
    less social mobility, low economic growth, and a political system that appears
    to be intolerant, lacks compassion for the poor, and seems incapable of solving
    domestic problems.



    Lack of support for
    democratic, liberal groups in authoritarian states.



    The United States
    continued to support authoritarian regimes even after the fall of the Soviet
    Union.  There was no
    long-run policy to support democratic groups in authoritarian states after 1991
    or even after 2001.  Potential democratic
    opposition in these states continued to be outlawed, weakened or
    destroyed.  In many countries, the only
    organized opposition was religious fundamentalist groups. Egypt
    is the latest example.



    The United States
    should concentrate on supporting organizations and individuals who organize and
    expand the civil society of countries. 
    The point is that a democratic state can only survive and prosper if it
    has a social, economic and ideological foundation.



    The U.S.
    should support democratic groups in the same way we supported Solidarity in Poland.
    The American people have a role to play by contributing to NGOs that can affect
    change through supporting and advising civic organizations in other countries.



    One area of opportunity where the U.S.
    and Americans should support democratic groups and civil organizations is sub-Saharan
    Africa. This is important since after 2050 all of the world’s population growth will occur in sub-Saharan Africa.



    Part of any strategy is to play for the long run.  It was naïve to expect that Russia
    would overnight transform from a Communist to an American-style democratic
    society, or that long term Russian strategic interests would somehow disappear.  It is possible that Islamic
    fundamentalist political parties will dominate politics in many Islamic states
    in the foreseeable future.  But, as in Iran,
    they will create an internal opposition. 
    They can not keep out information, ideas and images from other
    societies.  For the U.S.,
    giving the opposition moral and material support should be a vital part of a
    long-run strategy.



    Lack of knowledgeable
    leadership in the
    United States.



    The quality of leadership counts.  For a superpower, the ignorance and lack of
    foreign policy experience of every president and presidential candidate after George
    Bush is appalling.  It is ironic that
    almost all of the domestic and foreign policies of George Bush were reversed or
    ignored by his son when he became president.  



    The American people should think about electing national
    leaders who know something about the rest of the world.  The recent presidential debates were
    embarrassing.  Congressional leaders are
    even worse. 


    Questions



    What are America’s
    strategic objectives?


    How are they being met by using overwhelming military force?


    What are
    the limits to our military superiority in a world of “asymmetric warfare,” non-state terrorist groups, and Internet-based propaganda?

                What are
    the tactical alternatives?



    Can we continue to spend $1 trillion a year on national
    security while running large budget and trade deficits?



    Cautionary Tales



    Historical
    analogies must be used with extreme care but they can be suggestive cautionary examples.  I wish that America’s
    political leaders had read Thucydides, especially his detailed analysis of Athens’
    large expedition to subdue Syracuse,
    before committing substantial American military forces to Vietnam. Or how come the most powerful military country of its day could not defeat American rebels. 



    The examples of the imperial democracy of Athens
    and the Roman republic might be relevant to the U.S.
    after the collapse of the Soviet empire. After defeating serious threats from rival powers (Persia
    and Carthage, respectively), both
    city-states rapidly expanded power and influence.  Both became the dominant powers in their main theaters of operation (Greece for Athens and the Mediterranean for Rome). Athenian and Roman political institutions could not adjust to remaining democratic and managing an empire.  Thucydides gives Pericles,
    the architect of imperial Athens, a
    speech justifying Athens’ foreign
    policies that sounds eerily like the “American exceptionalism” speeches of the
    last 20 years. In both cases, foreign power and imperial policies put severe strains on
    domestic politics and society. Athenian democracy was destroyed by a war of attrition with Sparta and then both were conquered first by the Macedonians and then the Romans. The Roman republic expanded rapidly in the last 100 years of the republic but collapsed from internal pressure to become the Roman empire.



    Conclusion



    All of this suggests that there are less expensive
    alternatives than relying primarily on military superiority – U.S.
    image, different domestic policies, changing security and economic alliances, support for foreign civil society
    organizations, becoming more economically
    competitive in the global economy, strategic vision and better leadership.  Since it is possible that military and national
    security spending will decrease sometime in the future because of fiscal constraints, it is time to
    concentrate on alternatives.