A Look at Shutting Down Unneeded United States' Overseas Military Bases

When you think of a U.S. military presence, you might think of Afghanistan, Iraq, or the 38th parallel between North and South Korea. However, its presence is much more prevalent, especially when it comes to military bases. Estimates put the number of U.S. overseas military bases at over 800 bases in more than 70 countries (see database data here). The reason that proponents postulate that the United States needs that many bases is because of national security. Purported benefits include improved operational response, deterrence, assurance to allies, and improved understanding of cultural differences that would help in military operations. While the bases represent the United States' military prowess, they come with some drawbacks (see Glaser, 2017), which I will briefly cover now.

Source: Politico

One major drawback is the cost. According to a 2013 Rand Corporation report, the cost of a service member stationed abroad is an extra $10,000-40,000, compared to a troop stationed abroad. A conservative estimate of annual costs is $85 billion (2014), although I saw costs above $200 billion per annum. Another drawback is that technology has made overseas military bases less effective. Yes, there are scenarios in which in-person presence is helpful. However, since we have improved to the point where it is just as effective to deploy from domestic bases now that we have more advanced air and naval travel. There is also a question of whether human rights violations increase. One study examines the effects of U.S. military bases on human rights (Bell et al., 2016). The study suggests that because the host state leaders are less reliant on more local government, it leads to more human rights abuses.

Realistically, I do not see the United States government shutting down every last military installation abroad. Plus, being the most powerful country with the largest economy, there is plausibility to the idea that certain antagonistic forces, whether nation-states or stateless actors, wouldn't mind seeing the United States knocked down a peg. Nevertheless, there should be greater scrutiny in terms of which bases are vital to stopping a clear and present danger to the United States, as opposed to a theoretical or imaginary one. In 2016, the Pentagon found that 22 percent of military infrastructure is unneeded, which implies that such bases exist. The good news is that we have been shutting down unnecessary bases since 2003. The other good news is that we have seen a decline of war and violence since WWII, which renders the bases less necessary over time. The bad news is that they are still costing millions of taxpayer dollars every year. I know they didn't particularly scale back military spending, but maybe next year, Congress can focus on allocating funds to the military that are necessary instead of creating more government waste.

October 6, 2021 Addendum: The Quincy Institute released a study on overseas military bases. Even with the recent withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, there are still 750 U.S. military bases in 80 countries, which is three times the amount of embassies and consulates that the U.S. has abroad. Even better: these military bases costs the U.S. taxpayers $55 billion annually. That cost goes up to $80 billion when you include personnel to operate those bases.  

President Macron Is Correct: France's Welfare Spending Is Out of Control

As a break from U.S. politics, I would like to look at the other side of the Atlantic and see what is going on in France. A couple of weeks ago, French President Emmanuel Macron made a controversial statement by referring to France's welfare spending as "pognon dingue" (literally translated as "crazy money," but can be translated "an insane amount [of money]"). His statement that France's welfare spending is out of control has caused much rancor in French politics. Let's examine some statistics.

Looking at government expenditures more generally, statistics from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) show that France ranks the second highest in terms of percent of GDP. The only country that outranks France is Finland. Nevertheless, we have to remember that Macron's comments were specific to welfare spending.

Looking at social expenditure statistics from the OECD, France has 31.5 percent of its GDP going to welfare spending as of 2016. This is the highest percent of GDP out of all of the OECD countries. When looking back to 1980, which is when OECD started tracking these figures, France was only at 20.1 percent. This means between that France's welfare spending increased by more than 50 percent since 1980! The French government just released a report last Thursday on social spending in France. Included in the report was the tidbit that in 1959, social spending was less than 15 percent of GDP. Now it is at 31.5 percent, which is more than double what it was about a half-century ago.

Source: Direction de la recherche, des études, de l'évaluation, et des statistiques (DREES)

From a historical perspective, we see that France has had increasing problems with its social spending. What about looking forward? In May 2018, Moody's changed its outlook on France's credit rating from stable to positive because the Macron administration vowed to cut government expenditures. Moody's also stated in May 2018 that its high levels of government spending was weighing on its overall competitiveness. Moody's is not the only one to view France's spending habits disparagingly. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) identifies France's social spending as a major driver of its high budget deficits and its forced tax increases (IMF, Article IV, 2017, p. 6). The IMF goes as far to say that government spending is at the heart of France's fiscal problems (ibid., p. 9)!

Source: IMF, p. 13

I would hardly classify the IMF as capitalist or Right-leaning, and even the IMF concludes that "it will be critical to design and lock in deep spending reforms at all levels of government (ibid., p. 14)." This is the IMF, a well-respected institution within the policy world, making us aware of just how bad France's welfare spending is, and how it needs to be curtailed.  The narrative about Macron's comments did not incite a conversation from much of French media on how to decrease increasingly unsustainable debt; the coverage was largely about how offensive Macron's comments were. What should scare us about this response even more is that Macron did not propose what he would like to reform or cut. All he did was accurately state that the spending is out of control. Addressing a simple fact has the French world, particularly the French Left, in a frenzy. If much of the French world is oblivious to this basic of realities, I would hate to see what is in store for France's fiscal future.

Family Separation: Another Unfortunate Piece of Trump's Fear-Mongering Immigration Policy

In April 2018, President Trump added a new aspect to his immigration policy: family separation. The Trump administration's practice of family separation starts with apprehending anyone who is crossing the U.S.-Mexican border illegally, and that includes those seeking asylum. This "zero tolerance" policy reaches the point of separating children from the parents, guardians, or other adult figures who accompanied the child crossing the border, hence the family separation. Between April 19 and May 31, the Border Patrol apprehended 2,000 children.

The Trump Administration is claiming that family separation is a continuation of Obama-era policy. This is false. Neither Bush Jr. nor Obama had policy with the effect of widespread family separation like Trump. Yes, the Obama administration detained families of undocumented individuals, but at least the families were kept together. There is not a Federal law stipulating or mandating that children be separated at the border. Family separation is a new policy under the Trump administration. 

It doesn't surprise me that this is so heavily protested. Children are being kept in cages, and some parents are being deported without their children. It is interesting how the cliché "think of the children" has been used on the Right against same-sex adoption or transgender individuals entering the bathroom that best fits their gender expression, although neither claim has a basis in reality.

Study after study shows that separating children from their primary care-giver causes major adverse effects on their mental and physical well-being, including developmental delays, trouble sleeping and eating, and anxiety. This is all the more so the case when separating children from their parents at the border, much like we see now (MacKenzie et al., 2017). It's no wonder that American College of Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics are all against separating children from their parents at the border. This letter from the Physicians for Human Rights also cites literature on the effects. Former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) John Sandweg warns that this policy could create thousands of orphans. These findings and outcry from pertinent professionals on the effects this has on children only serves to support the moral outcry (see my Jewish religious argument on how to treat immigrants here).

The increase in these border crossings is caused by high murder rates and gang violence in Central America (see Clemens, 2017). These families crossing the border and risking harm, deportation, or death are doing so because they are fleeing from something horrible, something those of us in more developed countries could not begin to imagine.

What worries me is that Trump's stance on family separation is a continuation of his anti-immigrant policy (see tweet above). Trump lambasted the MS-13 for acting like animals. Yes, such gang activity is morally reprehensible. But it's also morally problematic to refer to human beings fleeing from inhumane conditions as "infesting our country," as if they are akin to a rodent or cockroach problem. Here are some fun facts about undocumented immigrants to better contextualize: they are less likely to commit crimes, they are not causing a fiscal drain, and they pay taxes. In this case, many of those crossing the border are asylum seekers. More to the point, the refugees and asylum seekers, such as the ones that Trump is attempting to deter with family separation, are such a non-threat that you are about 21,000 times more likely to get struck by lightning than get killed by a refugee! 

You could argue that the problem is with illegal immigration only. If you think that Trump's problems with immigration are limited to illegal immigration, you would be wrong. In his first term as President, Trump has already taken issue with multiple forms of legal immigration, whether it is chain migration, Temporary Protected Status, DACA, low-skilled immigrants, or H1-B visas. 

Even if you argue that they are breaking the law (91 percent were charged with misdemeanors, which further illustrates how disproportionate Trump's response is), it does not justify putting these people through such trauma. Family separation adds to the problems of an already-problematic immigration system in the United States. The red tape and wait for green cards and visas is so ridiculously long that telling asylum seekers to go through the system legally borders on farcical. Family separation adds to the problems of an already-problematic immigration system in the United States, a list of problems that Trump erroneously thinks could be solved with a border wall and more border patrol agents. Family separation is both a humanitarian calamity and another example of how Trump does not understand the cost that anti-immigration imposes. If any conservative truly cares about the children or family values, they will call on the Trump administration to stop with the family separation. 

Gay Pride Month 2018: A Look at LGBT Rights in the United States

When the Founding Fathers founded this country, they envisioned that everyone have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Although it is a wonderful ideal, this country has had its share of imperfections putting it into practice. This country has been through a Civil War, Jim Crow laws, and a Civil Rights movement, and still, we are working on judging a person not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Women did not have the right to vote until 1920, and even afterwards, there was a fight for political and economic equality of the sexes. There is another group of people in this country that have been treated unfairly: the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The Stonewall riots of 1969 started the modern-day gay rights movement, but it took a lot to get where we are today. It is in that spirit that I want to take a brief look at where the LGBT community has made strides and where there can still be improvement.

As a libertarian, it should be no secret that I am all for LGBT rights and further LGBT inclusion in society. An expansion of civil liberties and economic freedom, especially for a class of people that has been marginalized, is a wonderful thing. That is why the first metric I would like to look at is same-sex marriage. In 2015, Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right covered under the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this case, 36 states and DC already allowed for same-sex marriage. It was a slow fight from when Massachusetts allowed for same-sex marriage in 2004, but we live in a society where same-sex couples are legally the same way as opposite-sex couples. According to Gallup, two out of three Americans support same-sex marriage. Just two decades ago, more than two out of three Americans opposed same-sex marriage.

This increased support of LGBT rights is solidified not by government fiat, but by people coming out of the closet. Homosexuality transcends race, religion, gender, political affiliation, and socio-economic status. As LGBT people came out and told their story, there was a realization for more and more heterosexuals: that they know someone who is gay, whether it is their child, their sibling, their friend, their co-worker...you get the idea. Short of some crazy, ultra-right, theocratic force taking over the government, I only see support for LGBT rights becoming stronger, not weaker.

This victory is not just in straight allies supporting the LGBT community or the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Obergefell v. Hodges also provided the momentum for same-sex adoption. By June 2017, same-sex adoption became legal in all 50 states, which is a good thing, least of all because same-sex couples can parent just as well as opposite-sex couples. The FDA changed its blood donation policy for gay men from a lifetime ban to a one-year deferral, which is an improvement. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed in 2011, which means gay and lesbian individuals can serve openly in the military.  82 percent of Fortune 500 companies have LGBT-inclusive policies, which is a significant improvement from the 3 percent in 2002.

These have been major policy victories that show society's increased acceptance of LGBT individuals, to be sure. However, as much as I can rejoice in the progress made for the LGBT community, there is still work to be done. Anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of the homeless youth population is LGBT, primarily due to family rejection. Only 13 states protect children from the awful practice known as conversion "therapy." A 2017 report from RTI International shows with 20 years worth of data that LGBT individuals are still more likely to be victims of violence, bullying, sexual assault, and hate crimes than their heterosexual counterparts. The RTI report goes as far as saying that bullying of LGBT has not improved since the 1990s, which is sad. In 2016, the Center for American Progress (CAP) found that 1 in 4 LGBT individuals experienced discrimination. CAP's findings also include LGBT individuals needing alter their lives, whether they have to mention their romantic relationship in vague terms, avoid certain social situations, make decisions about whether to work or live, change the way they dress and talk, move to a different area, and cut out important people from their lives. Furthermore, President Trump has not exactly been pro-LGBT like he promised on the campaign trail, which rightfully has the LGBT community worried, especially after all the progress that has been made.

Gay pride month has been as much about protest and activism as it has been about celebrating victories and celebrating one's true self. In spite of who sits in the White House, I still have optimism that LGBT rights and the direction of LGBT equality will grow over time.

Parsha Shelach: Challah--The Greatest Mitzvah Since Sliced Bread

For many cultures over time, bread has been a simple, cheap, and versatile food: pita, baguettes, naan, tortillas, sourdough, ciabatta. Bread also plays a role in Jewish culture and religion, most notably in the form of challah (חלה). Challah is a braided egg bread that is eaten on Shabbat and Jewish holidays. Challah plays such an important role that it is actually a mitzvah in this week's Torah portion:

ראשית ערסתכם חלה, תרימו כתרומת גרן כן תרימו אתה.

-Of the first fo your dough, you shall separate a part as a gift, as that which is set apart from the threshing-floor, so you shall set it apart. -Leviticus 15:20

Yes, challah in today's vernacular refers to a loaf of bread. However, when you look at the entire passage about the challah (Leviticus 15:18-21) in the Torah, it refers to that set-aside portion of bread that is tithed at the Temple. We no longer have a Temple, so what significance does this challah have for us today?

One argument is that during the biblical era, the priests (Kohanim) did not receive a salary, and the rest of the Jewish people provided the Kohanim with food. We could certainly apply this sense of communal responsibility to the twenty-first century. However, I think there is more going on here.

Something I noticed about the text is that the mitzvah of challah is next to the admonishment for committing idolatry. Juxtaposition is, after all, a standard hermeneutical tool in Jewish interpretation. Rashi used it to explain the mitzvah of the nazarite. The Mishnaic rabbis used it to derive the 39 acts of work one does not perform on Shabbat. What is the connection between challah and idolatry?

The etymology of the word חלה is debated. One theory is that the word חלה is related to the word חל, which means "ordinary" or "mundane" (as opposed to "holy"). In his book "Meaning in Mitzvot," R. Asher Meir explains that when we first encounter the mitzvah of challah in the Torah, there is no mention of it being given away to the Kohanim. That comes later [in Leviticus 18:12]. R. Meir points out that "the first, primary part of our daily bread should be separated and elevated to G-d." R. Meir continues to say that the mitzvah is intended for us because we need to remind ourselves that "everything has a connection to holiness, some aspect which can transcend our mundane needs and be devoted to G-d." What does this have to do with idolatry?

Idolatry is more than mere prostration in front of a statue. As I have explained before, idolatry is when we take G-d out of the equation and worship something else, whether it is money, work, our desires, or our ego. By worshipping something else, it takes us away from our spiritual purpose: to elevate the mundane into something holy.

This can give use elucidation as to why is bread the highest blessing (bracha) on the Jewish food blessing hierarchy. Here are alternative explanations as to why G-d decided to make bread a mitzvah:

• We see a very similar lesson with the tithing of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26) as we do with challah: the motif of gratitude. Jews are literally a people of blessing. One of the Hebrew words for "Jew" (יהודי) has the same root as the Hebrew verb "to thank" (להודות). Multiple steps within the supply chain symbolize the multiple opportunities we thank those who made the bread production possible. 
• Bread is also not an expensive product, which symbolizes the fact that G-d and spirituality are accessible to everyone, regardless of socio-economic status.
• Most importantly, it puts time into perspective. Looking in the past, Midrash (Breishit Rabbah 1) says that G-d created the world in merit of three things, and one of things was challah. As already established, challah can bring us to the present. Challah can also be linked to the future because some rabbis argue that the bracha over bread refers to the fact that G-d will bring forth those grains in the future. Plus, Jewish tradition connects Shabbat with the Messianic era. 

Based on these interpretations, we see that G-d gives us the power to be more than mere animals: He gave us the ability to elevate the mundane to the holy. G-d also gave us a way to experience a food that could connect us to the past, present, and future at same time. Let us use that power to experience challah the way the good Lord intended!

What Causes High U.S. College Dropout Rates?: Implications for Higher Education Reform

Education is the single largest important factor for an individual's economic well-being. Certainly in the context of the United States, it is important enough where it has become a societal expectation to acquire a four-year college degree. It is ingrained that a four-year college is the key to success because more education generally means more productivity and higher wages. As I discussed in November 2014, those who earn a college degree generally fare better than those who do not attend college. This key to economic success assumes completion of college. What is seldom mentioned is the sheer number of those who do not complete college and are subsequently straddled with debt while having nothing to show for it. Also, that time they spent in college could have been used developing workforce experience, but not that time is foregone.

In conjunction with Third Way, the American Enterprise Institute released a report last week illustrating the prevalence of the dropout rate. How bad is it? In 2016, 49.1 percent of full-time, first-time students completed their degree program within six years. That is about the same probability as flipping a coin. For two-year institutions, the figure is an even lower 39.8 percent, and is still low even when factoring those who transfer from a two-year institution and graduate at a four-year institution. Given how expensive tuition has increased in recent years (see below), it is no wonder that this outcome creates economic hardship for millions of Americans. With that in mind, I would like to answer two questions today. One, why is it that the college completion rate is so low? Two, what could be done to increase those rates?

What Is Driving the Dropout Rate?
It should not surprise us that there are multiple factors into what contributes to the dropout rate. After all, the individual's college story is unique and variable. Nevertheless, we can narrow down to the few primary contributors.

Affordability and Work-School-Life Balance. Working while in college has become the new norm. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 43 percent of full-time undergraduate students and 78 percent of part-time undergraduate students are employed. A 2015 study from Georgetown University went as far as saying that over the past 30 years, about 70 to 80 percent of [undergraduate and graduate] students have taken at least some time from their college schedule to work. 25 percent of full-time students are also working full-time, not to mention that 19 percent of full-time students have children. The Georgetown study also points out that while it is better to work in college while going straight to work after high school, it is nigh impossible to "work your way through college" (i.e., income doesn't cover costs like it did in the past) or afford college without taking out considerable loans.

As mentioned above, the cost of college has increased at a faster rate than overall inflation. A 2017 survey from Financial Advisor cited finances as a major reason to drop out. It found that 51 percent of women and 41 percent of men drop out because of financial reasons. A 2015 Ohio State University study also found that 70 percent of college students are stressed about finances.

Cost is not just about tuition, but housing, books, materials, and transportation. Even if some of these costs could be avoided by taking out loans, many college students work. A 2018 LEND EDU study found that only 45 percent of students could finance their education on their own. If these students' income cannot cover these non-tuition costs, the financial pressure causes them to drop out.

Academic Preparation in High School. In his May 2018 report on the topic, Urban Institute education expert Matthew Chingos found such a high correlation between high school grades and college degree attainment that he called high school academic preparation one of the strongest indicators of college completion. Research from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) comes to similar conclusions regarding academic preparation in high school (Velez, 2014). This finding makes intuitive sense. If you developed the soft skills of showing up to class, turning in homework on time, and studying for exams, there is a good chance that those skills will stay through college. Having these skills are important because college is typically the first moment of independence from parents, which means that parents are probably not there nagging about completing homework or going to class. If those soft skills were not there in high school or they were there with considerable reinforcement from parents, it is no surprise that research shows that it is difficult for lackluster students to remain focus in college.

Inferior Quality of Education. Believing that the quality of higher institutions of learning was inferior in the United States was initially hard for me to believe because many U.S. colleges are ranked on lists of top colleges in the world (see here, here, here). However, Third Way has some interesting analysis on college quality (see here and here). If colleges were regulated the same way high schools are, 85 percent of four-year public colleges would be flagged as dropout factories and would be mandated to improve their completion rates. It is not simply the dropout rates that are perturbing in the Third Way analysis. It is the subpar wage outcomes, lack of correlation between price and quality, and difficulty paying loans back because the lack of job skill development at these colleges.

What to Do?
Between skyrocketing college costs, lack of academic preparation, and college quality issues, it is no wonder that the college dropout rate is as high as it is. There are multiple solutions, depending on which symptom that one would like to target. One common solution is to provide more subsidies towards college tuition. The problem is that federal college subsidies are the single largest contributor to why college tuition has increased in the past thirty years. Doing more of the same would only exacerbate the situation.

Along with the report mentioned at the beginning about the prevalence of the dropout rate, the American Enterprise Institute and Third Way released additional reports on solutions to the issue (see here and here; also see 2010 Third Way report here). The solutions range from federal accountability to expanding dual enrollment, a college tuition tax credit, and better financial, academic, and mental health support. I would like to add a push for changing the societal norm that everyone should go to a four-year college. These dropout rates show that four-year college is not for everyone. Unlike other developed countries, the United States does not have an established alternative to the four-year college, largely due to this societal expectation. As the AIR research suggests (Velez, 2014), students who started off at a two-year college had a better chance of succeeding overall.

Considering how adversely impactful dropping out is towards an increasingly large number of Americans, finding solutions to this problem becomes more paramount. However, the American people as a society has to recognize the problem before delving into solutions. I hope that this recognition takes place before the problem gets much worse.