Political Science

Dwight David Eisenhower was the 34th American president. Having served in the military prior to his presidency, Eisenhower is reputed for governing the country from behind the scenes. His legacy applauds his work towards enhancing social security and the improvements of workers wages. His presidency was peaceful and he sought to implement policies which would benefit the countrys economy and not those which would jeopardize it. It was in 1961 during his farewell ceremony when he delivered the speech which referred to the military industry complex.

The military industry complex is a phrase which refers to the relationship which exists among parties which are charged with duty of managing wars. In essence, this relationship is amongst the military, the congress, presidential administration and those companies and organizations relied on for the supply of weapons and war equipments. Eisenhower asserts that we must guard against the acquisition of warranted influence (p.3) in order to caution Americans of the negative effects which may arise from the military industrial complex. An overfriendly relationship between government forces and defense contractors may lead to the fostering of war. In such a scenario all parties would be working towards achieving certain benefits from this relationship. That is it could facilitate for a war for profit. Eisenhower noted that despite the countrys military development it may lead to their influence on the war and not the promotion of peace or the maintenance of democracy in the world.

The war on Iraq was implemented on false and unwarranted influences. Utley (2009) explains that most leaders in America are influenced by the perception of using the countrys military power for their own benefits. Apart from anticipating personal benefits, both democrats and republicans are motivated to support the war on Iraq because they foresee great monetary profits from the war. Quite evidently, Americas military capacities are being used to fuel war to the benefit and special interests of those leaders involved with the defense policies implementation. As the government continues to fund the military, there has been a generation of many opportunities for legislators. Following this, overspending continues even with the previously experienced financial crisis.

Amongst the ten points detailed by Utley (2009), one argument which provides a sound solution for the military industrial complex is the insistence on the inability of democracy, freedom and compatibility to coexist with unending war and empire. By cooperating and establishing a common ground on what is best for the prosperity of all Americans, both the left and right will provide a firm foundation for the elimination of the military industrial complex. These leaders are highly influential and if they were to root for an effective management policy of military operations, the rest of the country is bound to offer their support. However, not unless Americans understand how the continuing war is impeding their democracy and peace endeavors they will not overcome this problem.

The suggestion to recognize that Americans are entertained by war is a disagreeable claim which does not help in the fight against military industrial complex. Americans might find the military technologies appealing but they are also aware of the devastating effects of the war. This goes to show that they must acknowledge that this problem is gravely embedded in the countrys politics and agendas. Therefore, a solution should be one which aims at uprooting the cause of the military industrial complex. All citizens must be included in the reform process and solutions be focused on regaining the prosperity of the nation. Furthermore, there are Americans who are disheartened by the devastating aftermaths of wars and they are ready to make a difference in this fight.

According to Bilmes and Stiglitz (2008), the Iraq war has been the most costly. It is not only more than the total costs of the Vietnam War but it also exceeds more than double the Korean Wars costs. Even though most of the economic costs are hidden, they are also ultimately high. Americans may not directly feel this impact but it will be felt in the future.  In every month the war on Iraq accrued more than 4.4 billion in the year 2003. On the other hand, both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars accrued a total of 16 billion in costs per month. Under regular circumstances and without the expenditure on the wars, the department of defense spends 500 billion per year.

The military industrial complex falls under the principle which dictates that realism takes on the assumption that interest described as power is an objective category. Even though this is so, its meaning is not fixed at a particular time. Power indeed becomes the control of man over others. The concept of interest is at the focal point of the military industrial complex and despite the factors of time and place, it remains unaffected. These interests have continued to strengthen the bond which exists amongst the parties involved in the military industrial complex. Legislators, administration and the war equipment industry continue to fuel the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This principle further implies that the actions which have been instigated by the military industrial complex are dependent on the political context within which this agenda has been constructed. This also applies to the concept of power. It is the power which emanates from the military industrial complex which has resulted to unending wars, just as long as America is capable of bringing other countries to their knees. It is then that power becomes untamed and the nations laws are used as justification for the actions taken. However, it is only through the balance and control of power and interests that stability can be achieved. The military industrial complex will only be resolved when the countrys foreign policies are founded on the overall interests of the well being of America. As long as it continues to be used to satisfy particular interests, the military industrial complex will persist.

Vladimir Lenin who was an imperialist would not be surprised by the present and dominating military industrial complex. However, he was completely opposed to the belief that militarism was a normal component of government policies. In his perception, the military industrial complex expresses this component by the creation of a disproportionate significance to the issue of military preparedness. This is a factor which is currently being observed in the nation. Massive funds are being used to equip the military while in the process other funds find themselves in the pockets of individuals. Lenin was of the perception that militarism was closely linked to monopoly capitalism. It is when the basics conventions of capitalism are extremely aggravated that militarism assumes unmatched measures.

With the growth and emergence of America as a monopoly capitalist there is an ensuing struggle for power and domination of other nations. This has made the aspect of military industrial complex rejuvenated as the military becomes a basic tool for acquiring power over others. This intense vestment on militarism and its effect on the social lives of Americans have met the requirements for those monopolies which strive to amass power and new markets and share the vast capital investments. In addition the growth of such capitalist monopolies is largely advanced by arms corporations. They may have an interest in the results of wars and are at the same time interested with the material benefits and profits which are accrued from war preparations and heightening of international tension.

Even though President Bush inherited a massive budget surplus from the former administration the 2008 budget reported an outstanding and never seen before deficit. During his presidency the national debt increased tremendously and there are still far more estimated future costs. The deficit change is credited to various components which are inclusive of incompetence, special interests, ideologies, populist politics and bad economies (Stiglitz, 2008). Bushs administration tended to underestimate the restrictions of the financial markets. Following this, markets were left unregulated and the idea that regulation would be carried out after market restoration was made. The financial markets continued to create more dire risks for the economy through their incapacity to allocate savings and control risks. This lack of market regulation accounted for the financial crisis.

Financial market deregulation refers to the lack of regulation based on the ideologies that there is no need to monitor financial markets. As such, the government makes no efforts to supervise and adequately regulate the financial markets. This ideology entrusts the regulation responsibility to financial markets with the belief that they know best. Alternatively, this is known as self regulation. In addition, there is an illusionary perception that markets can be independent of any regulatory measures and still have the capacity for self regulation.

Both self regulation and deregulation can be credited for the financial crisis although there are other underlying factors. These two factors led to increased risks which were facilitated by financial markets. The desire for great risks could not be averted because there were no strict regulations governing the financial markets. There are several regulatory failures which contributed to the financial crisis. The financial deregulation associated with mortgages is an example of the effects of the looming financial crisis. While there was a change of the institutions which held mortgages, there were no guidelines of regulatory measures put to account for any misdemeanors. As a result, no one was aware or even interested in the irregularities involved in the allocation of loans. Eventually the crisis hit when the housing conflict became elevated. Another failure is the fact that there were no controls put on predatory lenders. The financial deregulation allowed lenders to dupe borrowers into taking up loans under conditions they could not fulfill. Inevitably, the foreclosures occurred at a rapid rate. This situation may have been salvaged if there had been effective regulation policies.

There also existed a failure for the regulation of the countrys trade deficits. With the nation already operating in large budget deficits most sectors were operating under cheap credit. This could have been attributed to high influx rates of capital from China. These inconsistencies could have been prevented if there were regulations. It is clearly evident that the financial crisis was not as a result of the collapse of the financial market systems but because of deregulation. Financial investors and other stakeholders engaged in speculations which influenced the financial markets negatively. This is because these speculations were extreme and not based on substantive reasoning which eventually amounted to unavoidable and detrimental risks.

It is indeed true that corporations and the wealthy are exposed to better tax rates than the rest of American citizens. This is facilitated by the free market illusion which predicted that allowing tax breaks for the wealthy would amount to larger savings. This has often proved to be wrong as the rates continue to decline, yet the wealthy keep getting wealthier. This claim by (Stiglitz, 2008) is supported by the institute for policy analysis report. According to Cavanaugh et al (2009), the wealthiest corporations in 2006 amassed an average of 263.3 million each yet paid only 17.2 in taxes. On the other hand, the top taxpayers who are the middle income earners managed to accrue 1.3 million and had to pay 22.79  in income taxes. The discrepancy between these two groups is quite distinct and an identifiable gap can be observed between the rich and other citizens. Furthermore, those households which gained over 2million only paid 23.21 in taxes as compared to the same in 1955.

An increase in the tax rates of wealthy Americans would improve the economy. Like previously illustrated, these wealthy corporations manage to generate the greatest incomes yet they pay lower taxes. Cavanaugh et al (2009) estimates that if these wealthy Americans were to pay the same amounts of taxes or even more they would generate so much more in tax revenues. For instance, if the taxpayers earning over 2million incomes were to pay taxes at the higher rates of 1955 there would have been additional revenue amounting to over 200 billion. Therefore if those who have great capacities to pay for revenue are subjected to higher taxes, they would contribute to raising the revenue needed for the growth of the economy. The reversal of tax breaks for high income households would attribute to surmountable increase revenue rates. Furthermore, the creation of additional tax brackets for the wealthy which range over 50 tax rates on their incomes may eventually generate more revenue.

However, this responsibility should not be wholly subjected to the rich. Other solutions must be incorporated in order to achieve economic prosperity. Such factors to be considered include the establishment of firm policies and systems meant to create a strong overall economy. Also, tax laws should be transparent, fair and simple in implementation. Lastly, regulation policies must be put in place in order to reduce risks and aid in economy building. This would prevent speculative tendencies in the financial markets thus averting any ensuing economic crisis.

Stilglitz and the Institute of Policy studies do offer reliable information on the wealth distribution of Americans. This can be verified through the study of other financial public reports which can be accessed in public libraries and databases. Furthermore there are various research studies which reflect on the same outcomes of wealth distribution. It is also possible to gain access to tax reports from the finance department through requests and a study of past tax reports will reflect the details given by both Stilglitz and the Institute of Policy studies.

According to Wolf, workers productivity increased rapidly between 1820-1890. At that time America was a remarkable capitalist and production per worker grew every year followed by an increase in workers wages. This was such an exceptional time for the country as there was no working class in Americas history which had achieved such high production rates. This increased productivity is a trend which has persisted to the present as it has been facilitated by advanced training and technology.

However, it was in the 1970s that the wages stopped reflecting the same upward trend. Instead wages has been on the decline since 1970 to the present. This change was attributed to various factors including the fact that America was facing great competition from other countries on the production of goods. Initially it enjoyed a monopoly after the Second World War when other countries were rebuilding but this died out when they recovered. Also there was the computerization of most workers transactions which made them unnecessary.

Productivity continues to be plummeting highly while wages are on the decline. When the wages stagnate and at the same time there is high productivity the outcome is increased profits for both employers and shareholders. It becomes plausible that investments are bound to accrue profits than working.

It is true that capitalism exposes individuals to measurements on the basis of consumption. When the country could not afford to consume more due to the low wages Americans resulted to various strategies which contributed extensively to the financial crisis. These strategies included the upsurge of employers wages, increased working hours and borrowing. Financial institutions saw an opening for the amassing of more wealth and they resulted to providing loans for workers in order to accommodate their consumption. This explains why consumption continued even after the decline of workers wages. At the end these financial institutions expected great interests from these loans. It is then that these financial institutions especially banks became facilitators of the financial crisis. They started created collateral for mortgages and this later amounted to the housing crisis. Homes were being foreclosed and most banks experiencing great losses.

The countrys deficits were also attributed to the borrowing trends which followed the decline in consumption rates. China had lent the country a lot of money which was used in funding the mortgage and treasury securities. The influx of capital from China resulted to the cheap credit and eventual declines of interest rates. The boom which saw workers work more and increased borrowing reached its limits when the financial crisis hit. Workers could no longer continue with their frenzied work schedules and the country was already in great debt. Even though there are other contributing factors to the emergence of the financial crisis banks and most financial institutions are also to blame.

The economic crisis clearly indicates that the system of capitalism is greatly flawed. Poor policy decisions might have aggravated the crisis but they never would have interfered with the structure of capitalism. A capitalism system has at the top directors who are elected by various shareholders. Their role is to ensure the growth of profits and they are answerable to their shareholders. Regulations are put in place in order to control and supervise their activities. In essence when there are no strict regulation policies, the people left in charge end up evading the regulations by benefiting from the workers wages. This implies that despite the regulation measurements put by capitalism systems there will still be others who have incentives to circumvent the existing policies. Furthermore, capitalism is firmly grounded on the acquisition of immense power and domination over others. Special interests are bound to over crowd the mindsets of figures in authority to the detriment of those under their command.