Significant income inequality is nothing new in this country but what is new is the stagnation of lower and middle-income earners while the hyper-wealthy continue to make gains. As long as the broad spectrum of the middle class (most Americans) felt that they and their children had a future through education and hard work then tolerance for the more egregious incomes of the wealthy was accepted. But in our new economy, which suffers from a much below trend recovery, protracted balance sheet repair and widespread solvency problems forbearance for such disparity is fast, becoming not only an economic concern but also a cultural issue.

In this environment we see that the armed forces are finally becoming concerned with their sources of funding, it’s about time. Their customary attitude that ‘we are so special that we should get whatever we want irrespective of the condition of the economy and taxpayer’ seems fast coming to a conclusion. The eggs of decades of economic and financial mismanagement are hatching and they are turning out to be vipers not chickens.

Unfortunately, we can count on the ‘military narcissists’ and their civilian auxiliaries to continue resistance to a more rational defense budget in line with our economic circumstances and our real strategic needs. Attempts at demagoguery combined with blatant extortion like “you better give us what we want or there will be more 9/11’s and even worse” is what we likely have to look forward to for at least a spell.

But my hunch is that these false and spurious arguments along with the growing realization of the futility of our unpaid $100 billion plus a year operations overseas will bring home the clear realization of America’s financial limits. It is my hope that common sense will eventually prevail irrespective whether left wing or right wing ideologues inhabit the realms of power in Washington, but I wouldn’t
bet on it.

What is the "fair share" that the rich should pay? To figure it out, you have to know how much they paid in taxes (as a percentage of total taxes) compared with their income (as a percentage of total income). I don't see those numbers in the post. So the richest 1 percent earned 24 percent of national income -- what did they pay in taxes as a percent of taxes paid? And what part of that was actually small business income (small businesses are taxes as individuals)?

Mullen's got it exactly wrong (hey, he's a skimmer...). Following his lead into economics as a determinant of security, the major threat to national security is the size of the defense budget. There is no objective outside metric to justify this obscene level of spending on defense. Indeed, every benchmark available from the past says the current figure is outlandish.

One might say suck-it-up and live with it if it were actually buying enhanced security. But a fair review of the past decade says that the more we've spent, the more insecure we've become. The Army's broken. the Guard and Reserve are tapped out. The modernization and R&D budgets run below future needs. And we've lost our ability to function just about anywhere else in the world other than where we're pinned down now and have been for years and years.

Our biggest threat seems to be islamic extremism; our defense efforts for the past decade have exacerbated that threat and enlarged it. Tough to see what we're getting for all our spending other than more woes and a slammed economy that cannot sustain this level without real harm in the other economic sectors.

We've pissed away a trillion dollars in the Middle East and have 'won' exactly squat. Jesus would I like to have that for expenditure in our own country, for infrastructure, for public works, for debt relief, for emergency services, for welfare and the relief of human suffering in our own land.

Get a grip, Mike. The problem lies in your won budget. Fix your POM, not our economy.

It does not fly, not by a rational look or even via the CBO estimates. Does the DoD waste money? Heck yeah it does! But even if you cut the budget totally for the DoD, (not doable) you would only save 550 billion a year. Look to spending by both the GOP and the DEMs that is out of control for pork, for entitlements, etc...we borrow, borrow, borrow and not just for the wars guys. We have not lived within our means for decades and to try and dump the blame on the DoD as the culprit or lone gunmen at fault is misguided at best.

I'd like to see our government kick its costly habit of borrowing to fund its activities. Interest on the debt consumes nearly 10% of our national budget, and gives lenders an unhealthy influence on policy, which could instead be implemented by a combination of mandatory civil service and eminent domain.

Right now, the USA is the only nation on Earth that doesn' tax inherited wealth, since the Bush tax cuts have pushed it down from zero this year. Some expected the Dems to change that this year, but no, trillions go untaxed. Amazingly, this tax would affect less than 1% of the population, but that group funds Congress.

FYI, you can inherit two million dollars from each parent and pay no tax, and no one wants to change that, but those lucky few who inherit much more should pay income tax on that windfall, lest we become a feudal society. I think its great that Bill Gates worked to become a billionaire, but I don't think his children should automatically become billionaires without paying a tax on their windfall.

Most inherited wealth was never taxed anyway, since capital gains are not taxable until "realized" when the person died. So one can never work a day in the USA, inherit $10 billion, live like a king, and never pay a cent in federal income tax if he keeps it in tax free bonds. Only in America. Just hire some TV and newspaper spinmasters to scream "no death tax" to fool the proles.

Also, the rich only pay a 15% tax on their income. You see, if you don't have to labor for your income, like with real estate and stock gains, then that is called a "capital gain", so you don't have to pay the 35% rate of the working shmucks. Why, because if the billionaires had to pay more, they wouldn't invest, but keep it in cash under a mattress. At least that's want con men like Newt say.

This is why Warren Buffet said that he and all other billionaires pay a much lower tax rate than their office clerks. Now back to the tele to hear more about the need to cut taxes to solve the deficit problem.

... are a mix of the most scrupulous, the least scrupulous, and the just plain lucky.

if Adm Mullen can get the concern for economic health and fairness into the national security perspective of even those tea party and old age entitlement addicts, then good old USNA may have given a good return on the investment by the rest of the nation.

I would offer another economic alternative: have the wealthy buy or invest in the capital ships, weapon platforms, aircraft, ICBMs and war materiel of the DoD acquisition budget with the general public paying a lease back. This could cause a cold calculation of the worthiness of each item by the rich and the measure of the desire to annually fund by the other 99%. Military services would become direct custodians of the rich guy's assets and their application to promote rich men's virtues and everyone else would provide the working capital to do the job.

By the way, if CJCS Mullen had CNO Gary Roughhead place the Jack of the Union back on the warships, then each star could be sold as the award to the top fifty investors in the fleet.

I've been writing about income inequality with a similar level of detail for about a decade, and people who addressing it even before that. There was an excellent article back in 1995 called If the GDP is UP Why is America Down? that addresses the issue during the middle of the "Clinton Boom".

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

I did an analysis back in 2003 which goes over largely the same material that the Slate article goes over, and did a recent one about the effects of Reaganomics a few months ago.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/recession_cause.htm

I've argued for years that the American military is actually hundreds of thousands of Americans a year and making America less safe due to the financial burden of military spending and the resources diverted from domestic spending to improve American lives.

I have to agree with RD here in that there is no correlation between ‘defense’ spending and national security. In fact if there were a correlation the ‘military’ (a more accurate term) budget would be considerably smaller.

The Army is the most inefficient of the armed forces since its comparative value with current and potential opponents is only marginal and it labors under doctrine and equipment that is too heavy and deploys too slowly. The Army should be drastically reduced to a small professional cadre with part of the savings invested in a larger and better equipped and trained National Guard and Army Reserve.

The Navy and Air Force do have significant comparative value over any possible combination of opponents but still have many wrong equipment mixes as a result of interservice rivalries and special interest cliques within each service. Gates is probably right in that the Navy has too many short-range carrier strike groups. These carriers are vulnerable to any moderately armed power (highly vulnerable to the Chinese) and absorb way too much investment at the expense of other needed assets.

The USAF has too many short-legged fighter squadrons and not enough fifth generation long range strike capability. And both the Navy and USAF are under investing in space-based reconnaissance, communications and joint command networks where our real comparative value can be substantiality demonstrated versus any potential opponent. It is also imperative that we be able to defend those space-based systems and refine our UAV capability.

The USMC could be reduced as Conway its Commandant suggests but the Corps retains such unique capabilities that it needs to likely be held around 130,000 with at least 40 amphibious vessels to support their MEU’s. The Corps should divest itself of its own fighter aviation and return that to the Navy’s flight line and focus on its core amphibious mission.

Wow - you have crossed a line now Mr Ricks - jumped the shark as the once clever but now over used coinage goes. You take a simple statement from Mullen, that if it did have an ideological intent was certainly conservative in nature, and then, offended by that I guess, turn it into an accusation that declares that if the chairman really does take the future defense of this country seriously he'll embrace socialism and the phony ideal of the redistribution of wealth? I guess you're thinking of all those great military powers raised by socialist states where the rich were demonized and populism thrived - like Nazi Germany, for instance. And the Soviets had a good run for awhile. True, polities based on that kind of enlightened approach do tend to come to unpleasant and often precipitous ends - but hey, as long as Obama and his catamite courtiers can look like saviors for a while, that's all that really matters, right? I mean, did Sartre regret his communism? GB Shaw the praise he heaped on Stalinist Russia? Did Husserl and Heidegger ever really repudiate Nazism? No, not in their hearts - they were happy that, even if only for a brief time, their fondest dreams had seemed true.

Always dangerous when writers in the military affairs/foreign policy arena wear their ideology on their sleeve - they risk losing any plausible claim to objective credibility and that is exactly the damage done to you by this post.

25% of LM's Senior Executives have offered to retire...well, Admiral, for the good of the Navy, why not have 25% of the Admirals tender their retirement resignations? If those driven by profit see the benefit of it, I am sure those driven by higher virtues will be prompt to strike their flags.

Spaces in the private sector will be available, now, executing the acquisition contracts for platforms which many of them promoted. It is a win-win.

Sail Navy...anchors away...underway.

Why don't you condemn him for being so blatantly political rather than deconstructing his ridiculous pronouncements on domestic policy? He and Petraeus (not to mention that Marine Commandant the other week, who wasn't so subtle) have a way of insidiously inserting themselves into the political process while maintaining an air of aloof neutrality. They need to be slapped down, regardless of the quality of their opinions on any given issue. It's not their business. I hope he doesn't respond to your question publicly.

By the mid seventeenth Century the Spanish government was paying 86% of its income in debt interest. It had borrowed heavily to finance a series of wars against the British, Dutch and French and eventually defaulted on its debt.

Everyone thought the Spanish were rich because of the flow of silver coming from South America but every ounce of it had been mortgaged against loans to Italian banks.

Spain was also in danger of falling apart as areas like Catalonia rebelled against constant tax increases.

Replace Spain with the US, Italian banks with the Chinese and Catalonia with the Tea Party and you may have the text of a history book in twenty years time.

The rich pay their share. People should should spend less time concerned about what others make and more time making their lives better. IMO if the "rich" pay more then they should get more then one vote. Here's an idea -cut spending. I've got an idea - cut spending. This class warfare stuff is getting old.