BIG Shortfall in the National Park Service Budget...and Ultrarunning

Seems that our beloved NPS--and when I say "beloved" I am not being facetious, this is a vital agency for the things we love--and which has an approximately $11.5 billion backlog on deferred maintenance costs, according to this mainstream Marketplace article.

The article focused on the famous DC cherry blossoms, in full bloom as we speak, but it's part of the larger issue that affects all 50 states:

Craig Obey, the senior vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association, said that the federal neglect of the National Park Service’s funding is a bipartisan problem that has grown more severe in the past 30 years.

“I think the parks have been dealing with less for quite a while, they’ve been asked to do more with less and we are at the point where they’re able to do less with less,” Obey said.

And indeed, the “less” is lessening, Obey said, “because the Park Service gets about between $200 and $300 million less than they need each year just to keep it even, not even to begin reducing it.”

Too bad there is not sufficient money elsewhere in the national budget that we could prioritize for this purpose.  Wait!!!...maybe I just found some money:

The future bill from the Afghan war is likely to run into hundreds of billions of dollars more. The Pentagon has indicated it wants funding of $120 billion for 2016-19 for operations in Afghanistan, although the eventual cost will depend on the future mission that the White House decides on.

This on top of the $765 billion already spent, according to the CNBC article.

Do you think that maybe we could spend this money on parks instead of war?  Butter instead of guns?  Trails on which to run in the backcountry instead of airfields and bases?  And leave a better legacy for our children and grandchildren?

Our National Priorities

This week has been replete with many articles about Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the anniversary of his birth.

The one that really struck me was how Rev. King articulated decades ago what I see happening today.  Indeed, it seemingly has always been this way.  From a great blog post by Richard Eskow::

“Congress appropriates military funds with alacrity and generosity. It appropriates poverty funds with miserliness and grudging reluctance. The government is emotionally committed to the war.  It is emotionally hostile to the needs of the poor.” 

We "can't afford" stuff, not because it's intrinsically too expensive, but because we prioritize our spending towards other things, i.e., the military.  To the extent that our military spending alone equals that of the next 9 countries...combined (link here).

An Interesting Fiscal Proposal

Ran across this by the always-good David Swanson.  You should read the whole piece, but here's an excerpt:

What would our lives be like if college were as free and unquestionable as military spending is now, but military spending arrived as an optional bill?

Those who didn't want it could choose not to pay. Those who wanted a coast guard, a national guard, and some anti-aircraft weapons could chip in a few bucks. Those who wanted a bit more than that could pay a bit more.

And those who wanted troops in 175 nations, aircraft carriers in every sea, enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on several planets, and fleets of drones with which to traumatize and antagonize several nations at once -- well, they could pay their $3,822, plus of course another $3,822 for anybody opting out.

What a naive proposal! Left to individual choice, the commons would be destroyed, and our national defense would crumble!

Really? People in the United States give over $300 billion to charity each year. Nobody forces them to. If they believed weapons and wars were the most important cause to donate their dollars to, they'd do it. No nation on earth spends $300 billion or anywhere close to it on its military, other than the United States.

And with the government no longer funding the military in its socialistic manner, it might choose instead to fund many of the humanitarian causes to which private charity is now largely devoted. Private giving could take care of the Pentagon.

But if wisdom about the counter-productive results of militarism spread, if nonviolent alternatives were learned, if free college had a positive impact on our collective intellect, and if the fact that we could end global poverty or halt global warming for a fraction of current military spending leaked out, who knows? Maybe militarism would fail in the free market.

I just love the last statement.

A Perfect Endless Loop, It Seems....

Via Shakesville, who points us to the original article at CNN:  

The United States is spending millions of dollars to destroy U.S. equipment in Iraq and Syria — gear the U.S. gave the Iraqi military that was later captured by ISIS forces.

The U.S has hit 41 Humvees since attacks began in August, according to data from United States Central Command.

The U.S. is sending $30,000-bombs to eliminate these armored vehicles, which cost about a quarter of a million dollars each depending what it is equipped with, according to Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The U.S. Defense Department confirmed the targets to CNN. "In some cases, we have seen instances of ISIL capturing and employing U.S.-made equipment," said a spokesperson. "When we've seen these terrorists employing this equipment, we've sought to eliminate that threat."

Once the U.S. destroys the equipment, it might have to re-supply the Iraqi military.

"If we want them [the Iraqi military] to be able to secure their own borders in the long run, we're going to have to re-equip them," said Harrison. "So we'll be buying another Humvee and sending it back to the Iraqi military.''

I'm not good enough with my Apple software and Blogger to draw this, but what I'd like to depict below would be a circular loop, with 4 circles distributed at the noon, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions.  And all connected by clockwise-pointing arrows.

Imagine the circle just described:

NOON:  U.S. supplies "good" guys

3 PM:  "Bad" guys intervene, attack "good" guys, capture U.S. provided military equipment and supplies

6 PM:  Chaos ensues, lots of human misery, "good" and "bad" guys and the way ahead all quite ambiguous, but we must do something!

9 PM:  U.S. blows up "bad" guys and their captured military equipment and supplies

NOON:  U.S. resupplies "good" guys


How many times in our Middle East adventures have we seen this same sort of scenario play out?  In the meanwhile, whenever we shoot, we create more people who hate the U.S. than existed before we shot, exacerbating the problem downstream in the future.

I keep thinking that the only solution to break this endless loop is to tell the "bad" guys,

"You know, we were gonna send $xxx worth of drones, Tomahawk missiles, and bombs to try to wipe you off the face of the earth.  Instead, we are sending that same amount of humanitarian aid in the form of food, shelter, medical supplies, and well-digging equipment to aid the ordinary people whose lives are screwed by near-constant war."

This may not work, but let's just try it this once, OK?

The Cost keeps Climbing

This article comes from early in 2013, but is quite relevant.

When the Very Serious People in DC talk about how we cannot afford unemployment benefits or food stamps or Social Security, it would be well to consider this:

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

Washington increased military benefits in late 2001 as the nation went to war, seeking to quickly bolster its talent pool and expand its ranks. Those decisions and the protracted nation-building efforts launched in both countries will generate expenses for years to come, Linda J. Bilmes, a public policy professor, wrote in the report that was released Thursday.

“As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives,” the report says. “The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.”

Bilmes said the United States has spent almost $2 trillion already for the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those costs, she said, are only a fraction of the ultimate price tag. The biggest ongoing expense will be providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of the two conflicts.

“Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later,” the report says, noting that the peak disbursement of disability payments for America’s warriors in the last century came decades after the conflicts ended. “Payments to Vietnam and first Gulf War veterans are still climbing.”

Guns versus butter.  It's always guns versus butter.

The Poor...and Ultrarunning

From Avedon Carol on 26 Jan 2014:

 

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but empirically speaking, Jesus said a heck of a lot more about taking care of those in need (dozens of texts) than he ever did about gays (0...nada).  So the move by conservative legislators to reduce even further the benefits available to the poor infuriates me.

 

Here's a truly great read about the Bible and poverty:  

 

It is hard for us to come to grips with just how different the Bible's assumptions about poverty are from that of the average American Christian. We tend to assume, often subconsciously, that wealth is a sign of God's blessing. In contrast, the Bible is constantly warning about how dangerous it is. We also assume, again unconsciously, that the poor are to be pitied. In contrast, God has made it blatantly clear that he is on the side of the poor, so much so that he decided to give them spiritual resources those of us who cut ourselves off from the poor know nothing about. 

It is hard to wrap my mind around these things, blinded as I am by my privilege, wealth, and unearned power. It reminds me of this: 

The rich are wise in their own eyes;  one who is poor and discerning sees how deluded they are. (Proverbs 28:11) 

It is all well and good to be charitable. It is another thing altogether to go deeper into the meanings of the Gospel and join in the sufferings of the poor, not because they need you but because you need them.

See, we keep getting back to the old guns versus butter discussion.  Surely this nation could scale back its global militarism just a tad, and instead feed poor children here and around the globe.

The link to Ultrarunning, of course, is that our passion is largely is a first-world issue.  We take for granted food security and free time and the affordability of our gear, all for the sake of a leisure pursuit.  Not to say that Ultrarunning is is not important to us--because it is--its just that we must keep in perspective that it is an enhancement, not a strict necessity.

 

Iraq Vs. A 100% New Power Grid for the U.S....and Ultrarunning

In a piece called Iraq War Could Have Paid For 100% Renewable Power Grid, we learn of what we could have done instead of squandering our blood and treasure in a war that was ginned up and executed just to show that we could kick some Mideastern butt.  It's the old guns versus butter discussion, and as usual, the guns prevailed; that's why we can't afford nice things anymore.

The piece begins by discussing the estimates of Paul Gipe:

Wind energy expert Paul Gipe reported this week that – for the amount spent on the Iraq war [$3.9 trillion] – the U.S. could be generating 40%-60% of its electricity with renewable energy.
 

Then the blog goes on to explain why that $3.9 T figure is actually low, and why, using the upwardly adjusted data, we could have paid 100% for a new renewable power grid.  One hundred percent.  Let that sink a moment.

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated in 2008 that the Iraq war could cost America up to $5 trillion dollars.

And the Brown University study actually concluded that the Iraq war could end up costing $6 trillion dollars over the next 40 years.

Since $6 trillion is one and a half times as much as the $3.9 trillion estimate used by Gipe and Freehling, that means that the Iraq war money could essentially convert 100% of U.S. power to renewable energy.

It is ironic, indeed, that the Iraq war was largely about oil. When we choose subsidies for conventional energy sources – war or otherwise – we sell our future down the river.
 

The connection to Ultrarunning, of course, is that despite our focus on a very rewarding pastime and sport, none of us are immune from stupid decisions from the top.  If you don't think that the nation's power infrastructure affects you directly, you are quite mistaken.

More Guns vs. Butter

Via CNBC on 7 Feb, then Secretary of Defense Leon Paneta warns we may become a second-rate power:

Looming across-the-board budget cuts present the U.S. military with the most significant readiness crisis in more than a decade and quick action is needed to avoid the spending reductions, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned during testimony Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

If the billions of dollars in cuts are allowed to stand, Panetta said, he would have to throw the country's national defense strategy "out the window,"and the United States would no longer be a first-rate power. "This will badly damage our national defense and compromise our ability to respond to crises in a dangerous world," Panetta said.

Panetta said that the department understood that it needed to do its part to help deal with the federal deficit and has been working to adjust its plans to deal with the lower spending levels. But adding sequestration on top of that creates an untenable situation, he said.

As "time went on and the erosion that would take place in our capabilities, instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we'd turn into a second-rate power," Panetta told the committee. "That would be the result of sequester."

Let's examine this claim, shall we?  Mr. Panetta did not define "second rate," so I will propose an operational definition of being second place on the planet in military spending, rather than the first place we hold currently.

First this chart, courtesy of Wikipedia, sourced to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI):

So if I read this right, for the United States of America to become a "second rate" power, we could whack our $711 billion annual budget for Defense all the way down to say, $118 billion, thereby just sneaking in under China's $119 billion annual expenditure.

For purposes of perspective, our $711 billion annual defense expenditure outranks the spending of the next 14 countries on the list--China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and Turkey--combined.  COMBINED!

What is the magnitude of the sequester's defense cuts that had Panetta's hair on fire?  From the same CNBC story:

The Pentagon faces a $42.7 billion budget cut in the seven months starting in March and ending in September. The reductions through sequestration would be in addition to a $487 billion cut in defense spending over the next ten years mandated by the Budget Control Act passed in 2011.
 

So Defense could absorb more than 13 sequester-level cuts without us becoming "second rate." 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the urgency here.  I say we go ahead and whack Defense down to a reasonable level--say to about half of what it is now, I'm not greedy--and use that approximately $350 billion saved to fully fund Medicare and Social Security. 

How's that for some sensible priorities, Mr. Panetta...and Mr. Obama?

 

First World Problems...and Ultrarunning

Via Southern Beale on 8 Feb 2013, "First world problems read by Third World people. Kinda made me feel like an asshole after I watched it."

Me too.  This short video is worth the 61 seconds it takes to play.



If the embed does not work, try this link.

I don't know anything about the sponsor of the video, Water is Life, other than their mission seems to be the provision of clean, safe, drinking water for the Third World.

I've previously blogged about this in the global sense, observing that if we had invested all of our war-making dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan into providing safe water sources for those countries, we would have not only made the planet much safer, but also done incalculable good...including cleaning up our trashed reputation across the planet.

Here's some of what I wrote.  Actually, as I re-read it, it's a pretty good post, and you oughta check it out:

And we'd be helping the least of these, my brethren. Rather than soldiers and tanks and Humvees and Strykers and Predator drones invading a country and slaying its people, it'd be a convoy of drilling rigs or trucks of solar panels and windmills and pipes rolling across the landscape. The result would be clean water supplies and millions of averted deaths. And at least an attempt to erase our global black eye.

The link to Ultrarunning is that safe drinking water in the backcountry is one of our priorities.  Indeed, probably more than any other group in this country, Ultrarunners think about water more than just turning on the tap.  We know about our personal water requirements, gear up to carry it, scope out potential water sources, plan for treating those sources if necessary, etc. 

In short, we don't take water for granted.

The spring at Tumbling Run Shelter along the Appalachian Trail in southern PA--possibly the best water in the world. 

[Photo by Gary]