WASHINGTON, D.C.- An interesting comparison to consider is the one existing between US military spending and poverty-focused foreign aid. A recent Gallup poll highlighted American views on defense spending, with 35 percent claiming that it’s too high while 36% agreed with current levels. The poll also notes shifts throughout several decades in American sentiment on defense spending and the political divides therein, and it assumes that Americans, before sequestration and the current government shutdown, would not support defense spending cuts. Devex, reporting on a recent Pew opinion survey, states that nearly 50 percent of Americans support foreign aid reductions. The timing of the survey was prior to sequestration. Devex also noted that
“About 67 in 100 Americans across the political spectrum support keeping or increasing the portion of the U.S. federal budget on global health aid. About 80 percent of Americans believed it’s in “America’s best interest to continue to actively support the United Nations.”
An information gap may be to blame for the misconceptions; Americans believe that foreign assistance equates to $25 out of every $100 federal dollars, despite the reality that its real value is only $1 out of every $100.
Researching trends in US military spending is fascinating, and the Council on Foreign Relations drew on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for guidance. Right after the 9/11 tragedy, spending spiked for the decade but decreased by $43 billion in 2012, with expectations that it would continue to plummet in 2013. The fall was so great that it reduced world military spending by 2 percent. Change in income and allocation(s) of those changes chiefly affect military spending.
In 2014, the number is expected to decrease to $79 billion and continue falling pending a cessation of operations in Afghanistan, which is in line with Department of Defense (DOD) estimates of troop removal. Spending was historically low until the world wars spiked the levels, topping out at nearly 45 percent of US GDP in WWII. Since it fell, save for a brief spike during the Vietnam War, spending has been relatively consistent if not less over the decades. Graphically, the events of 9/11 don’t compare with the aforementioned spikes in spending.
What will it ultimately take to end poverty? Jeffery Sachs posits that $175 billion per year over a 20 year period would wipe out global poverty, a total figure that,
“…represents less than one percent of the combined income of the richest countries in the world… In fact, this cost is 0.7 percent of the total income of the 30 countries who comprised the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development… However, fiscal commitments have lagged far behind the agreement. For example, the US only gives 0.18 percent of GNP as ODA, a much lower value that the Scandinavian countries.”
So the main deterrent to the international consistency needed to quash poverty within 2 decades are individual nations not keeping promises.
If the global community wishes to actualize an end to extreme poverty and unlock the potential for peace and prosperity that accompanies that goal, they’ll need to be accountable for such. The situation with the United States is a fluid one, as the nation is in the midst of a government shutdown and facing an additional crisis over the debt ceiling. However, perhaps the recent decrease in military spending coupled with the public becoming more aware of how little foreign aid is given in comparison, may turn the tide. Organizations like The Borgen Project that advocate for increases in foreign aid are leading the charge. To see a visual representation of US military spending and foreign aid, please visit GOOD.
– David Smith
Sources: Gallup, Devex, Vision of Earth
Photo: Mises Institute