Stem Cells & Nukes, both killing the US in their Own Way

The World Economic Forum has released their annual Global Competitiveness rankings, and sadly enough, the United States has dropped to sixth place. In the report were several key data points, some indicating why the US is lagging, and others which show what the five higher ranked countries are doing different. Principally, it boils down to the following points:

1. The US has insanely high defense spending
2. The US has a bizarre committment to reducing taxes while simultaneously increasing
spending
3. The US spends too little money on technology and education
4. The US has massive pension obligations it must meet
5. Americans don't save money

Granted, the US will never be like Switzerland or Finland, tiny xenophobic republics which are able to operate an alleged "third route" between communism and capitalism, primarily because of their small populations and ethnically homogenous cultural makeup. However, the US has some clear and obvious problems. Namely, hack politicians who are willing to support wildly illogical policies in order to satisfy certain voting groups.

Say what you will about the prima facie ethics of stem cell research, but it should be obvious to anyone that the Bush Administration's position that government funding of stem cell research is bad, but funding and allowing fertility clinics that create and then throw away frozen embryos is good. If anything that position is unethical from a Utilitarian perspective. Since Bush has taken office, the military budget has increased roughly 55%. That is simply insane! For those who may retort to this assertion by claiming we need to stay strong in the face of our enemies; keep this in mind. Before Bush came into office the United States was already spending more money on defense than the next 8 highest spending countries combined. We were not attacked in the 5 years prior to 9/11, and we haven't been attacked in the 5 years since. To claim this is tautologically the result of the 55% defense spending increase is wildly fallacious. While I hate to be a reductionist, I must yet again go back to the quote of President Dwight Eisenhower shortly before leaving office.

“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. …” Dwight Eisenhower, 1961

The following article is from the latest Foreign Affairs Journal. It asks the simple question, why has the United States not been attacked by terrorists since 9-11? Is it because the current Administration has increased defense spending by 55% over the last six years? Think again...



Why al Qaeda Hasn't Hit the U.S. Again
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html