The New York Times > Washington > Bush Unveils Budget That Favors Security Over Social Spending
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 - President Bush sent Congress a 2006 budget of just under $2.6 trillion today, laying out a politically ambitious blueprint for slashing many domestic programs while raising spending on the military and homeland security.
It looks like Dubya has gotten it ass-backwards again. The vision is to pump public money into military and security programs while privitizing social spending. Why not vice versa?
We could cut the deficit by privatizing the military and homeland security, freeing up more public money for social programs and so run a welfare state without wimping out on world domination. By cutting taxes that now go to finance the military, citizens would have the resources to raise private armies to promote their agendas. If conservatives are right, private enterprise armies would be cheaper and more efficient than any traditional government run military--and since, on my proposal, state funded social programs would be expanded, they would not need to offer generous education benefits to recruits: higher education would be guaranteed to all qualified applicants so working class students would not need to join the military to get money for college.
In addition, private armies could focus on their freely chosen goals without fudging to sell their agendas to the wider American public. Faith-based groups could send crusaders to convert infidels by the sword; entrepreneurs interested in plunder could raise armies of mercenaries to rape and pillage. Under this scheme we would probably have even more warfare than we currently have and get a bigger bang for the buck.
As for homeland security, we have already gone quite a ways toward privatization already, with gated communities and private security guards. With tax money that would have gone to Homeland Security available to citizens to use as they saw fit, individuals could form vigilante committees, buy high-tech weapons and build fortresses for themselves and their retainers.
It could work. Feudalism, after all, had quite a run. On the current scheme however the majority of the population would not be impoverished serfs but prosperous, productive citizens enjoying the benefits of a welfare state while warlords and their private armies went on foreign adventures with embedded reporters providing TV entertainment for the citizenry at home.