Federal Upheaval of National Priorities and

Spending
A Proposal for the Future of Science and Humanity
by Scott Ruzal
 H. L. Mencken, professional journalist of Scopes Trial fame, once

sensibly wrote, “The chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a

world in which it is overestimated.” Indeed, this sentiment has never been

truer than in its application to the sciences. Money cannot replace great

ideas nor can it replace merely good ones. It takes a brilliant mind to

effectively manipulate the sciences, and humanity does not presently

possess the scientific ability to create such brilliance through the sheer will of

money alone. However, even with this impediment, there are certain things

that money can do for the sciences that positively affect research and

development. Well-funded laboratories and scientific institutions not only

provide greater motivation for scientists, but also provide a cushion for

experimental programs to fail without resulting in financial ruination for the

company. But the question arises, with our national debt currently at a

staggering $9 trillion, how can the federal government afford to increase the

scientific budget? I have found that even the briefest of analyses will provide

all the evidence needed to prove that hundreds of billions of dollars in

federal expenses are currently being wasted to support a detrimental health

care system and an unnecessary war in Iraq.

To begin tackling this problem, I believe it goes without saying that the

United States health care system is not the best in the world. In fact, the

latest World Health Organization (WHO) report ranks U.S. health care 37th out

of 190 globally recognized health care programs (World Health Organization).

This evaluation is made considerably more embarrassing when compared to

the total, both federal and individual out-of-pocket, per person spending on

health care, which is $6,103—the highest amount spent by any country in

the world (World Health Organization). And, as if things could not appear any

worse, only forty percent of Americans are covered by public health care,

while 47 million Americans remain completely uninsured by any health

coverage at all–these figures are also the worst out of any industrialized

nation (National Coalition on Health Care). These circumstances lead to the

determination that the federal government is currently supporting a failed

health care system, wasting finances that would be much better spent

elsewhere. And I also believe it goes without saying that the key to

extracting these wasted dollars lies in the complete upheaval of the current

health care system.

A great question that must be entertained: what do France,

Switzerland, and Canada all have in common? Besides being industrialized

nations with health care quality ranked higher than the U.S., all of their

health care systems are financed by lower percentages of their gross

domestic product’s (GDP). Currently, annual health care appropriations for

the U.S. are approximately $2.3 trillion, which is 16.6% of a $13.84 trillion

GDP. This percentage of the GDP, which has risen by three points since the

year 2000, is expected to reach 20% by the year 2016 (National Coalition on

Health Care). Canada, whose health care ranks only seven places higher

than the U.S. on the WHO report, will spend $160.1 billion on health care in

2008, or 13.6% of its $1.18 trillion GDP (The Canadian Press). France,
currently the world leader in health care quality and satisfaction, will spend

approximately $227 billion, or 11% of its $2.06 trillion GDP (Tanner; The

World Factbook). Switzerland, whose health care ranks 20th, is somewhere in

between Canada and France. If one analyzes the relationship between these

numbers and the different health care systems of the U.S. and these three

foreign nations, the most striking detail resides in each country’s level of

financial efficiency determined by the percentage of their GDP spent on

health care. Then, there is the very obvious juxtaposition between the

universal health care approach and a lower percentage of the GDP spent

towards health care. It becomes quite clear in this sense that privatized

health care is neither medically nor financially efficient for the continued

support of the U.S..

By reforming the privatized U.S. health care system into one that it

universally distributed—with the reservation that some may wish to continue

using their private health care providers—a significant amount of federal

funding becomes available for reallocation. The exact amount this

reformation will save is under question, but according to the health care

plans of the two contenders for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it appears

to be considerably generous. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan expects to

lower national spending by $120 billion (Hillary Clinton for President),

whereas Barack Obama’s health care plan assumes upwards of $200 billion

once his long-term preventative programs are fully actualized (Obama for

America). For purposes of practicality and non-exclusion, I will take a

minimalist approach in assuming the approximate liberated funds from

health care reform to be $100 billion.

Now, approaching the subject of war funding is always deleterious

business. The Iraq war is a highly controversial and expensive matter

regarding federal funding. As of March 31, 2008, the Brookings Institution’s

Saban Center for Middle East Policy estimates the monthly cost of our

occupation to be $12 billion, approximately $144 billion annually (The

Brookings Institution). Initially, costs of the war were estimated to be

anywhere between $50 and $60 billion all the way up to $200 billion by Mitch

Daniels, the Office of Management an d Budget director, defense secretary,

Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three

Trillion Dollar War). Boy, were they dead wrong. The costs of the Operation

Iraqi Freedom currently total well over $845 billion after five years of fighting

and occupation—more than twice the cost and a year and a half longer than

U.S. involvement in WWII and double (Dorell, Iraq War About to Equal Time

U.S. Spent Fighting WWII). Additional costs of the Iraq war are spent in the

form of family condolence remunerations, $500,000 for each soldier dead

(White, Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008). All of this money

seems to now be wasted on a war that cannot be entirely won, and this will

forever be a reminder of the Bush Administration’s financial and ethical

blunders.

It seems that the only way to partly make up for the financial expenses

wasted on this war would be a substantial withdrawal—to the greatest extent

that this could be accomplished—of troop presence in Iraq, perhaps even in

all of the Middle East countries we currently occupy. Estimates of how much

money would be immediately saved from federal spending on the Iraq war

are currently ambiguous, considering the amount of spending required to

execute the actions necessary to achieve this conclusion. However, taking

into account the one year timeframe assessed by the two Democratic

candidates proposing immediate withdrawal, the annual $144 billion expense

would be drastically reduced. Again, assuming a minimalist approach, the

amount of federal funds liberated from Iraq war spending would be at the

very least $100 billion within a one year timeframe. This is also assuming an

eventual federal budgetary reform that would subsequently reduce military

appropriations that currently total $1.45 trillion (War Resistors League).

The resulting figure we have accumulated in squandered federal funds

from these two national priorities has now reached a very, very minimalistic

total of $200 billion. Considering likelihood of a Democratic win in the 2008

Presidential Election, this is a very realistic outcome for the benefit of the

U.S. economy, the American people, and most importantly scientific research

and development. Why, you ask, is this latter party most important? The

answer to this question lies in the prospective future of human advancement

and prosperity. Scientific advancement, emphasized by the scientific

community, myself, and an evident societal integration with both science

and technology, incontrovertibly parallels that of human knowledge. To argue

otherwise is a contradiction of the principles upon which all scientific pursuit

is founded. Therefore, $200 billion spent towards scientific endeavor,

compared to the negligible $3.5 billion spent on general science and

remaining $113.5 billion spent towards overall physical resource research

and development, is an exponentially astonishing expense towards the

advancement of human knowledge and capability (National Priorities

Project).

As the evidence reveals, the United States has pitifully neglected

perhaps the most important of all human priorities, and it is due time to

make up for this grave mistake. Perhaps the repercussions of even debating

this issue will not affect our children, or even our children’s children, but one

day the descendents of our society may look back at their ancestors and

curse our inaction. And it will be a very sad day indeed when mankind must

face the consequences of his incompetence and time wasted in pursuance of

trivialities. Nothing can be argued more transparently, that only by devoting

a significant effort on behalf of the future of humanity can we resolve

present world problems and ensure the wellbeing and continued existence of

our species. There is no if to this to this vindication, only a must. Human

beings, conquerors of both Earth and sky, indomitably decide the fate of their

own complaisance and civility. God help us.

Works Cited
1. United Nations. World Health Organization.The World Health Report
2007 : a safer future : global public health security in the 21st century.
Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2007. (World Health Organization).
2. "Facts About Health Care." National Coalition on Health Care. (2008).
National Coalition on Health Care. 29 APR 2008
<http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml>. (National Coalition on Health
Care).
3. "Canada faces $160B health-care bill in 2007: report." Canadian
Broadcasting Centre. 13 Nov 2007. The Canadian Press. 1 May 2008
<http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/13/healthcare-
spending.html>. (The Canadian Press).
4. Tanner, Michael D. “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at
National Health Care Systems Around the World.” Cato Policy Analysis
no. 613. 18 March 2008. (Tanner).
5. “The World Factbook.” Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency,
2008; Bartleby.com, 2008. <www.bartleby.com/151>. 1 May 2008.
(The World Factbook).
6. "Hillary's Plan to Provide Health Care to All Americans." Hillary for
President. 2007. Hillary Clinton for President. 1 May 2008
<http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/>. (Hillary Clinton for
President).
7. "Plan for a Healthy America." Change We Can Believe In. 29 May 2007.
Obama for America. 1 May 2008
<http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/>. (Obama for
America).
8. Stiglitz, Joseph; Bilmes, Linda. "The Three Trillion Dollar War." Times
Online 23 FEB 2008 25 APR 2008
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contribu
tors/article3419840.ece>. (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar
War).
9. Dorell, Oren. "Iraq War About to Equal Time U.S. Spent Fighting WWII."
USA Today. 23 Nov 2006. Gannett Co., Inc.. 1 May 2008
<http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
>. (Dorell, Iraq War About to Equal Time U.S. Spent Fighting WWII).
10. White, Deborah. "Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008."
About.com. 22 Apr 2008. The New York Times Company. 2 May 2008
<http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
>. (White, Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008).
11. "The Federal Pie Chart." War Resisters League 2007 11 APR 2008
<http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm>. (War Resisters
League).
12. "Proposed Discretionary Budget, FY2008." Bringing the Federal Budget
Home. 2007. National Priorities Project. 24 APR 2008
<http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Proposed+Discretionary+Budget>.
(National Priorities Project).