A concerned veteran

Column

OK, I really need someone to explain it to me. I'm just a 30-year Navy veteran with a total of 42 years of service to my country.

The four remaining GOP candidates seeking their party's nomination for the White House, and the response by Republican Sen. Mitch Daniels to the State of the Union speech claim America is a terrible place to live and that Americans are suffering terribly, Daniels stating that the situation is "grave." I have served my country around the world, to include in Eastern Europe when it was communist and under the influence of the former Soviet Union. America is the best, by far of any country I have visited or studied as a military professional.

Since the GOP is saying we need change, implying return to supply-side economics ("trickle down" Reaganomics), additional tax breaks for the very wealthy (George Bush's 'haves and have mores') suggesting that if the rich are very well off then everyone else should be okay, ending social security and Medicare as we know it for seniors, and adverse to job creation for Americans.

They also articulate the need for less federal government implying less support for America domestically and less international influence. What I really don't understand is how they can advocate for an unborn fetus while at the same time demanding that, once born, he or she should not have access to basic health care. To me, health care is a national security issue.

The obvious question is "do GOP economics and policies benefit America and Americans?"

Let's take a look.

In the 60 years since 1950 the size of the federal government decreased from 9.54 employees per 1,000 citizens to 6.89 today. The largest increases were during presidencies of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. Bush accounted for a federal employee growth of 220,000 people. Double that when including "non-government" civilian contractors working directly for federal agencies. Of course, these numbers do not include the 30,000 people employed by Congress. Clinton actually decreased the federal government by 470,000 employees.

Public debt, especially as a percentage of GDP, is a concern as is annual federal budget deficits. Quick look at recent history reveals that the last "balanced," actually a surplus, federal budget was fiscal year 2001, Clinton's last budget. Bush's first budget gave us a deficit of $430 billion and his last, fiscal year 2009, a deficit of $1.885 billion. Of course, we were then well into the great recession that started in 2007 following the 2006 housing crisis, bank and Wall Street deregulation. In direct budget numbers, the national debt increased $6.1 trillion during Bush's presidency. Indirectly, we are still paying interest on the increased debt, suffering lost revenue from the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and funding two unnecessary wars, all continuing to contribute to the national debt. We are also paying increased unemployment compensation to those who suffered and are still suffering from the 2007-through-today recession.

Since the GOP candidates have made an issue of "food stamps," a quick look at actual federal assistance shows that unemployment compensation rose from $188.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 (last Bush budget) to $244.3 billion in fiscal year 2011 (Obama), an increase of $55 billion due to the continuing recession. During that same period aid to families increased from $101.8 billion to $126.9 billion, an increase of $25 billion, again recession related. The unemployment rate is declining and stands today at 8.5 percent compared to the recent peak of 10.1 percent in October 2009, 8 months into Obama's presidency. The unemployment rate increased from an average just under 5 percent in 2007 to over 8 percent went Bush left office in January 2009. The momentum of the 2007 recession forced the rate to continue climbing to its 2009 high, but has slowly declined since. Looking at the 20-year history, the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when Clinton took office in January 1992, steadily declining to a low of 3.8 percent in April 2000.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that about 8 percent of the U.S. population receives some form of assistance, with 1.9 percent receiving more than 50 percent of their subsistence from welfare programs. Interestingly, of the 29.9 million people receiving some form of aid, 39 percent are "white," 38 percent are "black," and 17 percent are Hispanic.

Comparing all federal spending per person for fiscal year 2011 (Obama) with fiscal 2009 (last Bush budget) to fiscal year 2001 (last Clinton budget) provides further insight to federal operations under the three presidents. The federal government spent $11,563 per person in 2009 and $11,563 in 2011. The growth between 2001 ($6,534) and 2009 was $4,959 per person, a 76 percent increase during the Bush era. This compares to the $70 per person increase between 2009 and 2011, a 0.6 percent increase.

What do these numbers indicate?

The Bush tax/revenue reductions of 2001-03, the cost of 2 ill-conceived wars, and the effects of the 2006 housing crisis and 2007 recession contribute significantly more to the growing national debt than does unemployment and family assistance. We have to pay off the monies borrowed for the wars and lost from the tax reductions, the job killers and initiators of the recession, to get the economy back on an even keel. The economy is slowly moving forward. However, it would be much faster with additional revenue coming onto the treasury. As business leaders know, one has to spend money to make money. Providing assistance today to those out of work, helping them to get jobs, provides more federal income later.

Medicare and social security are good stable programs and worth a separate column for discussion.

Medicare, which I am required to have as a military retiree, could benefit from increased oversight to reduce fraud, like the $1.7 billion fraud estimated to have been perpetrated by Rick Scott while CEO of HCA.

Social security is self-funding but needs adjustment to include all income vice the current cap of the first $110,000. If based on all income, to include dividends and Mitt Romney's "carried interest," the rate decreases from 10.4 percent to less than 5 percent, "freeing up" almost 6 percent of most American's income for their families and further stimulating the economy. We have Reagan to thank for the $2.7 trillion social security "trust fund" which holds $2.7 trillion in general revenue debt to social security, in essence to all Americans and on which we pay interest.

From a macro U.S. deficit, budget and economic perspective, having a Democrat in the White House is significantly more beneficial to the U.S. economy than a Republican. Fascinating to me since I was considered a "conservative hawk" as a young military officer.

My wife's and my marginal tax rate last year on our military and federal retirement was 20.6 percent. Mitt Romney's was 14 percent on over $20 million in income. Not right! During Reagan's first term the maximum rate was 50 percent. When that was reduced to 28 percent during his second term America suffered an explosive growth in the national debt and rates had to be raised to 39 percent to stop the bleeding and pull us out of a recession. During the "boom years" of the 1950's the rate maxed out at over 90 percent. Reducing federal income today is a sure way to again collapse the U.S. economy.

Lastly, we need for Americans to step up and serve their country. Many of us have done so, serving in the military or in other federal capacities. However, since the end of the draft in 1973 many Americans have eschewed service. Many of those wealthy MBA, attorneys, athletes, etc., have not and have no intention of doing service. Which is fine, however, all should contribute to their country, if not through service, then monetarily.