A Stealth Bomber with a side of Cure For Cancer
(Warning: my accountant girlfriend has just told me that this blog subject is, like many of my blog subjects, "boring")
So I was reading the Globe & Mail online today, since it's one of the only ways to get Canadian news here in Massachusetts, and I came across an article describing the government's plan to spend $15 billion on new military equipment. Actually it wasn't that hard to find the article since it was plastered on the front page (front memory block?) of the site, since this issue will no doubt be a contentious one in Canada. I personally think that this is a good idea, since our military is driving/flying/rowing around in antiquated vehicles that are clearly not up to the tasks that we're asking them to perform. And yes, we could save the money by not participating in any NATO missions and only tasking them with snow removal in Toronto when the city goes into "fuckup mode" (thanks Heather!), but what happens when their donkey-drawn battle trolleys get bogged down while trying to tow the snow into Lake Ontario?
Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that $15 billion is a LOT of money. The point is also that $15 billion is a TINY amount of money compared to the US defence budget. All of which got me to thinking...if the United States needed a smaller military, what else could be accomplished? I'm not going to do some crazy calculation and say "what if the United States had NO military", just smaller, like maybe 20% smaller. OK...the total US defence budget is $426 billion dollars (NOT including funding for the war in Iraq). A 20% decrease in precision-guided shock-and-aweing would free up approximately $85 billion, leaving the US with $341 billion to buy huge rocks to drop on Middle Eastern theocracies from space or whatever. With that money, here is what could be accomplished:
1. Buy six times the amount of military equipment that Canada is planning to purchase and give it to Greenland, Canada's sworn enemy in the north, just to get back at us for exporting Celine Dion to Las Vegas.
2. Hahaha...okay that first one was a joke. But now I'll be serious. Give every man, woman, and child in the country $300, which is enough to equip every person with a brand new Xbox 360!
3. Okay okay...for real. Quadruple the budget of the National Insitutes of Health. The NIH funds the vast majority of biomedical research groups in the US, and if someone ever finds a cure for cancer or diabetes or influenza or Republicanism, it will be because of an NIH grant.
4. Increase funding for Pell grants (federal scholarships that the US gives out to students who are too poor to afford university on their own, which is pretty much everyone) by a factor of 7. Can you imagine the impact on society if 7 times more people obtained postsecondary education here??? This is a bit simplified since there aren't enough spaces in the colleges for this many people, but you could probably split the money between grants to students and grants to schools to increase the number of graduates by a factor of 2-3.
5. Provide fully subsidized health care to about 42 million people. 42...MILLION...people. That's based on what my health insurance costs are (unsubsidized) in Massachusetts, which is one of the most expensive states to be insured in. It would probably be something like 50 million people if you averaged the cost over all 50 states.
6. Create 21 gigawatts of solar power generation, which could provide as much power as approximately 20 nuclear reactors. Sure you'd have to pave New Mexico with solar panels, but there's nothing there anyway.
There are tons more things that you could do with $85 billion besides liberating countries to death...anybody out there have any more ideas?
So I was reading the Globe & Mail online today, since it's one of the only ways to get Canadian news here in Massachusetts, and I came across an article describing the government's plan to spend $15 billion on new military equipment. Actually it wasn't that hard to find the article since it was plastered on the front page (front memory block?) of the site, since this issue will no doubt be a contentious one in Canada. I personally think that this is a good idea, since our military is driving/flying/rowing around in antiquated vehicles that are clearly not up to the tasks that we're asking them to perform. And yes, we could save the money by not participating in any NATO missions and only tasking them with snow removal in Toronto when the city goes into "fuckup mode" (thanks Heather!), but what happens when their donkey-drawn battle trolleys get bogged down while trying to tow the snow into Lake Ontario?
Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that $15 billion is a LOT of money. The point is also that $15 billion is a TINY amount of money compared to the US defence budget. All of which got me to thinking...if the United States needed a smaller military, what else could be accomplished? I'm not going to do some crazy calculation and say "what if the United States had NO military", just smaller, like maybe 20% smaller. OK...the total US defence budget is $426 billion dollars (NOT including funding for the war in Iraq). A 20% decrease in precision-guided shock-and-aweing would free up approximately $85 billion, leaving the US with $341 billion to buy huge rocks to drop on Middle Eastern theocracies from space or whatever. With that money, here is what could be accomplished:
1. Buy six times the amount of military equipment that Canada is planning to purchase and give it to Greenland, Canada's sworn enemy in the north, just to get back at us for exporting Celine Dion to Las Vegas.
2. Hahaha...okay that first one was a joke. But now I'll be serious. Give every man, woman, and child in the country $300, which is enough to equip every person with a brand new Xbox 360!
3. Okay okay...for real. Quadruple the budget of the National Insitutes of Health. The NIH funds the vast majority of biomedical research groups in the US, and if someone ever finds a cure for cancer or diabetes or influenza or Republicanism, it will be because of an NIH grant.
4. Increase funding for Pell grants (federal scholarships that the US gives out to students who are too poor to afford university on their own, which is pretty much everyone) by a factor of 7. Can you imagine the impact on society if 7 times more people obtained postsecondary education here??? This is a bit simplified since there aren't enough spaces in the colleges for this many people, but you could probably split the money between grants to students and grants to schools to increase the number of graduates by a factor of 2-3.
5. Provide fully subsidized health care to about 42 million people. 42...MILLION...people. That's based on what my health insurance costs are (unsubsidized) in Massachusetts, which is one of the most expensive states to be insured in. It would probably be something like 50 million people if you averaged the cost over all 50 states.
6. Create 21 gigawatts of solar power generation, which could provide as much power as approximately 20 nuclear reactors. Sure you'd have to pave New Mexico with solar panels, but there's nothing there anyway.
There are tons more things that you could do with $85 billion besides liberating countries to death...anybody out there have any more ideas?
posted by Dexter at
5:48 p.m.
6 Comments:
That's funny, I was just ranting about this at work today.
My idea was that the US, if they are so concerned about global warming, would simply buyout the ENTIRE AMAZON RAINFOREST. Yes, THE ENTIRE FOREST.
Until you had posted, I did not know the US Military budget was so huge. My premise was just to use the oft-quoted $1Billion per month that the US spends in Iraq.
Back to the Amazon Rainforest, it apparently is rapidly diminishing because the destitute farmers, in a desperate attempt to get some arable land, are cutting down the rainforest so that they can plan their beans or whatever so that they can sell them for some paltry sum.
I'm thinking we take that $1B per month and start buying up parts of the entire rainforest. I'm sure that $1B could net you a few gazillion hectares. And each hectare thus saved would be that much oxygen-producing foliage that would be there to fight against global warming. ...so that a few more of us can enjoy convertible sports and SUVs.
By
Anonymous, at 2:15 a.m.
If you're worried about global warming, the $85 billion could also be used to increase the funding of renewable energy research in the US by a factor of 82. I'm willing to bet that when you increase the funding of scientifically-not-retarded concepts like fuel cells, solar generation, or controlled fusion by a factor of -82- you can expect some decent results. This is in contrast to scientifically-retarded concepts like space-based anti-missile lasers or anal-leakage-inducing fat substitutes, where a factor of 82 increase in funding just means that it makes the inevitable failure more spectacular.
By
Dexter, at 6:27 a.m.
I, on the other hand, *like* further development of laser weaponry. Without this, there will not be a day when I could have my very own Phaser.
On a more practical plane, just imagine when, over time, the technology developed in laser-based anti-ballistic missile defense systems makes its way down to consumer goods. For example, think of the AWESOME BUG-ZAPPER that will result! Radar-guided and computer-controller, the miniature laser mounted on a fast-swivelling turrent would zero in a pesky mosquito and, in a burst of CO2-laser energy, vaporize that little pest into oblivion! Slightly larger twin-barreled versions could be mounted in higher-end well-groomed lawns to instantly take care of intruding and forever-digging racoons, cats, rats and other vermin.
Furthermore, we need to have laser weapons developed in order to fend off the inevitable arrival of hostile aliens--or have you not been keeping up with series Battlestar Galactica?
Slight more seriously, I *am* in favor of investment in controlled nuclear fusion. I can't wait for the day--promised from back in the 50's--of "power too cheap to meter".
By
Anonymous, at 11:10 p.m.
Another sad statistic is that the Province of Alberta (One little province in the whole country of Canada) Just posted a 8.46 Billion Dollar surplus. Our last surplus went to a 300$ per person rebate for each person in the province. I mean I like money but when schools are falling apart and tution is on the rise I agree that 8 Billion dollars can educate a whole lot of people I mean kids are the future right?
By
Will, at 4:43 p.m.
I think they only used 20% of the last surplus for those rebate cheques...but I agree, giving people a bucket full of $20's isn't the best way to spend a windfall. The best thing for Alberta is to invest in infrastructure (educational, medical, or technology) since that has a reasonably low long-term funding commitment (for when oil prices go down again) but provides a long-term benefit.
Actually my personal view is that Alberta should be investing a lot of the current surpluses in renewable energy research...we already have the energy companies in the province, they want to look good in the eyes of the public, so they'd be eager to cooperate. And that would create some highly-skilled jobs and spinoffs that would provide a cusion against volatile commodity prices.
Oh yeah, and free steak for everyone!!!
By
Dexter, at 5:38 a.m.
I like steak...
By
Will, at 10:44 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home