The Washington Post has a link describing how the proposed Federal Budget will apportion money to the different federal departments:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/02/federal_budget_2012_agency_ana_1.html
What I found interesting related to our class was the $671 Billion jackpot scored by the Department of Defense- one of our country's forefront departments in charge of maintaining National Security. In an age where 59% of Americans are very or somewhat worried about terrorist attacks happening on American soil (see recent PEW survey http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/680.pdf) , its seems that we are willing to pay a high price in the coming fiscal year for safety.
Tocqueville says that we are a nation "racked by two inimical passions....the need to be led and the wish to be free" (AdT, 664). To what extent can Tocqueville's comment on the tradeoff between political freedoms and security be applied to individual economic freedom? Especially in a time when equality of opportunity can be an expensive purchase (think of how unaffordable college has become, yet one of the better ways to ensure opportunity in America's job market is to have a college degree), could it be argued that our representatives siphon off portions of our monetary freedom for national security? Do we run the risk of submitting ourselves to "the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened..." (AdT, 662), or is this just a normal and acceptable way to maintain our way of life?
This is really interesting, but $651,000,000,000 is just a number unless we compare it to other countries around the world. According to http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending the US military spending makes up for nearly 50% of all global military spending, even though we have less then 5% of the global population. From gathering this information, I am curious if the amount we spend on military funding is justified. Is there a significant correlation between the amount we spend and the safety we are ensured?
Regarding Tocqueville's claim that the US is "racked by two inimical passions....the need to be led and the wish to be free" (AdT, 664), I think it is clear that we are willing to sacrifice our freedoms for safety- order to "be led." An example of this was the passage of the Patriot Act, where individual liberties were compromised for "national security."
While some of the social market economies (SMEs) spend significantly less on their military budget they have high expenses on other social programs, and yes, cheaper or even free education. It seems that as Americans we are content with these differences between us and the SMEs. However, I do not expect that we will continue to compromise our freedoms for military superiority.
I think your question about monetary freedom related to national security is an interesting one and a well-timed one as well. The nation as a whole, if we consider our representatives in Washington to be well, representative, seems ambivalent about the issue. I’m sure many of you saw that just last Friday the House decided to delay debate on the PATRIOT Act meaning by 90 days because they were uncertain about two provisions pertaining to the PATRIOT Act, and one provision dealing with much the same balancing act between privacy and security. The first provision was about wiretaps capable of monitoring multiple communication devices, second, being able to ask a special federal court for warrant access to any perceptible thing that may prove pertinent to a terrorist threat. The third provision, not directly a part of the act was one that gave the FBI court-approved rights for secret surveillance of non-US citizens not actually known to be tied to a specific terrorist group.
The PATRIOT Act, has seldom been few people’s favorite one to come out of our government, but what I think is really interesting is that these three provisions, unlike other parts of the Act that were put into place, were never permanent because of severe (bipartisan) concerns that it gave the government too much power. I think it actually speaks to our love for freedom, and our cognizance that national security is important to have the foresight to make the most powerful provisions ones that can come up for review. This of course, wouldn’t mean anything if they resigned this Act every year after it was put into place, but the fact that the House is unsure about how to proceed, proves that, luckily, it doesn’t appear that that will be the case.
I think your question about monetary freedom related to national security is an interesting one and a well-timed one as well. The nation as a whole, if we consider our representatives in Washington to be well, representative, seems ambivalent about the issue. I’m sure many of you saw that just last Friday the House decided to delay debate on the PATRIOT Act meaning by 90 days because they were uncertain about two provisions pertaining to the PATRIOT Act, and one provision dealing with much the same balancing act between privacy and security. The first provision was about wiretaps capable of monitoring multiple communication devices, second, being able to ask a special federal court for warrant access to any perceptible thing that may prove pertinent to a terrorist threat. The third provision, not directly a part of the act was one that gave the FBI court-approved rights for secret surveillance of non-US citizens not actually known to be tied to a specific terrorist group.
The PATRIOT Act, has seldom been few people’s favorite one to come out of our government, but what I think is really interesting is that these three provisions, unlike other parts of the Act that were put into place, were never permanent because of severe (bipartisan) concerns that it gave the government too much power. I think it actually speaks to our love for freedom, and our cognizance that national security is important to have the foresight to make the most powerful provisions ones that can come up for review. This of course, wouldn’t mean anything if they resigned this Act every year after it was put into place, but the fact that the House is unsure about how to proceed, proves that, luckily, it doesn’t appear that that will be the case.