The basis of US military and diplomatic power is its economic power, and the USA's single most important security objective is now economic self-repair. "Unless the United States reinvigorates in this decade the economic roots of its international power, it risks an erosion of self-confidence and of its international leadership at the turn of the century. With a weak economy and a society in conflict over how to allocate slowly growing resources, this nation would find it increasingly difficult to achieve its essential global objectives".
Robert D. Hormats is Vice Chairman of Goldman, Sachs International and former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs.
In the aftermath of the war to liberate Kuwait, it is worthwhile reflecting on the conditions at home that made it possible for the United States to mobilize more than 500,000 troops, deploy an enormous armada of ships, planes and equipment halfway around the world, and wage a war of stunning technological intensity. America's capacity to execute such a vast campaign was no accident. Nor was it simply the result of the buildup of a great arsenal in the 1980s, although that helped to equip U.S. forces with the firepower to get the job done.
Such success was made possible by an underlying economy able to turn out great volumes of extremely advanced military equipment and software as well as men and women skilled in operating them. The U.S. economy would not have been capable of doing this but for a history of high American savings and enormous investment in education, industry, science, technology and the infrastructure to link these elements together. Savings and investments of earlier years were not intended primarily to bolster America's capacity to send well-equipped forces overseas, but they had the derivative effect of making that possible and, more generally, of strengthening the foundations of American global power-political and economic, as well as military.
It is an ominous sign for the future, then, that today U.S. domestic savings are close to a historical low and that investment in education, industry, infrastructure and vanguard technologies is inadequate. While the United States is likely to maintain military preeminence for years to come, savings and investment shortfalls raise concerns about America's future capacity to produce the resources, technologies and trained people necessary to maintain its current overwhelming military edge. Consequently, there is reason for alarm about this country's ability a decade or two from now to fight a gulf-type war-or any other war-so successfully and with so few casualties. Without this confidence the United States could become reluctant to act decisively, and other nations might become more willing to challenge American interests.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
With the U.S. economy soaring, few care that immigration to the United States is at its highest absolute levels. But what happens when the economy falls back to earth? High-tech immigrant workers are already competing with Americans for jobs, while unskilled immigrant laborers are becoming a permanent underclass. High immigration is creating imbalances in education, income distribution, employment, and welfare demands -- as well as tensions between immigrants and citizens and among the federal, state, and local governments. An economic slump will mean crisis. Congress and the White House need to cut back now.
By 2030, Social Security payroll tax rates will rise to 19 percent - more than 45 percent including Medicare and Medicaid. In Europe, which faces similar challenges, the burden of entitlement expenses is already so great as to slow economic growth. The solution is to phase out Social Security and other pay-as-you-go programs and replace them with a mandate for all to put away savings in a mix of stocks and bonds. Under a privatized system, the same benefits would require contributions equal to just two percent of U.S. payroll. Not only would the elderly be safe from poverty, but for the first time people of low and moderate means would accumulate significant personal savings.
Although privatization zealots backed by Wall Street have called for replacing Social Security with mandatory investment in stocks and bonds, their promised high rates of return do not accord with experience. Any form of private investment is much riskier than a government program, and in the end can be more expensive if the government must bail it out. For at least a generation, retirement taxes would rise, funneling money to private investors. With small adjustments, the current pay-as-you-go system can continue its historic success.
