Breaking out of the current frustratingly slow growth in the developed world requires a blend of short-term stimulus and longer-term restraint. Unfortunately, in Europe and the United States, we have been following these policies in reverse -- constraining public-sector spending in the near term while doing nothing effective to prevent deficits in the future.

In the United States, cuts in public-sector spending have caused the loss of 550,000 public-sector jobs -- think teachers, police, and firefighters -- since January 2009, adding to the raw unemployment numbers and removing the multiplier effect that takes place when employees spend their paychecks. The result: Despite gaining private-sector jobs every month for the past 21 months as of November, we have been badly hurt by reduced public-sector spending, which has cut jobs and economic growth.

Yet my Republican colleagues have insisted on retaining all of George W. Bush's tax cuts, thus all but guaranteeing that future revenues will continue to fall far short of what is necessary to reduce U.S. debt and create the conditions for a strong recovery.

One major change that can reverse this: a substantial reduction in America's military spending. In the current fiscal year, the United States is spending upwards of $650 billion on its military, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is far more than it spends on Medicare and, more importantly, considerably in excess of what is required for America's legitimate national security needs.

The United States should and will be the strongest country in the world. But it can achieve that status for significantly less than it is now spending. An early withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan over the next six months would save hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, we could reach savings of more than $100 billion annually by adopting strategic concepts appropriate to the current world situation, rather than continuing to rack up bills fighting threats that no longer exist. We could also save tens of billions of dollars a year by curtailing our commitment to the defense of Western Europe -- which was perfectly sensible when President Harry Truman made it but is wholly inexplicable now that Europeans are wealthy, strong, and threatened by no one -- as well as by reducing our military presence in Japan and forgoing the new proposal for stationing U.S. Marines in Australia. We do not need to maintain the fighting capacity we had during the height of the Cold War to engage the Soviet Union in an all-out conflict. Terrorists are terrible people who should be confronted, but they are not a thermonuclear-armed Soviet empire. Fighting them, though in many ways more complicated, should be less expensive.

Reducing excessive military spending -- my proposal cuts approximately $900 billion in the next 10 years -- would allow us to provide the short-term economic stimulus needed to continue the progress we are making in breaking out of the recession. Ironically, many of my conservative colleagues have opposed the idea of reducing our military budget on grounds that I refer to as "weaponized Keynesianism." They claim that government spending doesn't create jobs -- unless it is for the military. Many opponents of cuts in military spending now argue against them not in terms of national defense, but on the grounds that they would cause job losses. In fact, economists tell us, reductions in military spending will have far less negative impact on jobs than comparable reductions in medical care or infrastructure.

If America's extensive worldwide military engagements were proving effective at bringing stability to troubled countries, I would feel conflicted in noting that these impose a terrible drain on our economy and interfere with what we need to do to resume economic growth. But in fact, such interventions rarely work. Heavily armed young Americans are an excellent fighting force, but a U.S. military presence is rarely the best way to resolve long-standing ethnic, religious, or other social tensions.

Jason Smith/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: MILITARY, ECONOMICS
 

Barney Frank, who represents the 4th congressional district of Massachusetts, is the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.

MESSYBUZZCUT

10:09 PM ET

January 3, 2012

actually...

Cuts can obviously be made without hurting US power, and in fact a great amount of cuts do need to be made. But Mr. Frank is proposing some of the wrong cuts.
Take, for example, the proposal to withdraw from Afghanistan early. Contrary to popular belief, The US presence in Afghanistan is actually doing some good. Studies are showing that security in the formerly violent Helmand province is improving rapidly. An additional two more years of US presence in the country will provide ample time to train the Afghani security forces and police up to the level where they will be able to keep out unwanted foreign influence from Iran and Pakistan, and be able to defeat terrorists. Extra time in Afghanistan will further stabilize the country and increase our leverage over the uncooperative Karzai because we can threaten to plunge the country into chaos. US troops can also continue to spread women's rights and democracy throughout the country while bolstering the central government, all of which are good things. If we pull out before the job is finished, we risk wasting all 11 years of action there.
About overseas bases: 500,000 troops in Germany is absurd, as is most US involvement in Europe. However, we need more and bigger bases in Asia. The Chinese military and political leadership still regards the West, particularly the US, as an enemy, and continues to build up its forces to prepare for a future major war. Economic cooperation is historically shown to not work; the UK and Germany were each others biggest trading partners before both world wars, same for the Union and the Confederacy before the Civil War and the 13 colonies and England, and so on. And then there's the issue of Iran (hellbent on destroying our allies and spreading radical Islam), failed states that breed terror and economic chaos, and various genocidal and oppressive regimes that continue to oppose us (see: Russia, Gaza, Syria, DRC, etc). With our economy in shambles, and our soft power discredited (we can't even convince our "allies" like Pakistan to do what we want, and sanctions against Iran have just hurt the people and consolidated power in the Revolutionary Guards, who control oil exports to China), our only option is to rely on our military to maintain our standing in the world. And no, our forces are not strong enough as is, analyses by RAND corporation and others show that we would lose in a war over the Taiwan strait with China. And we can't ignore the studies by independent groups like GAO that show that the level of cuts Mr. Frank advocates ($900 billion) would make it impossible for the US to fight around the world.

 

MROCK

11:23 AM ET

January 10, 2012

Totally agree

I totally agree with pretty much everything written in this comment. Articles like these by Mr. Frank are akin to Russian propaganda after the fall of the Soviet Union stating that the Russian military was still world-class and capable. Our nation's military is already losing its capability to fight modern conventional wars against real nations. Our major conventional weapons systems are aging, and at some point no amount of refurbishment will save them. Admiral Mullen had previously called for a 300-ship navy to be able to meet his assessment of US security needs. We now will come nowhere near that. We need strategic force placement around the world more than ever, as strong nations (India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia) are demonstrating that hard power diplomacy has more credibility now more than ever. Taiwan became a lot friendlier to China after China significantly boosted their force projection capabilities. Russia invaded Georgia just a few short years ago.

It is naive to think that the US does not need our forces deployed in forward positions as assurance for our allies. Europe may deserve a bit of a drawdown of our forces after the last decade that they've summarily told us to pound sand as far as their treaty obligations, and we may be able to realize some savings in that arena (we shouldn't be subsidizing European defense budgets by paying to defend them with no "favors" in return). The rest of the world, however, needs to know that the US can and will protect them in return for favorable treatment by their nations.

Speak softly and carry a big stick worked almost a hundred years ago, and it still works to this day. It's time our government realizes that the more the world changes, the more it stays the same. The trend in world politics is not a move towards openness and utopianism, it's a move towards the ways of old and the need to make seriously difficult choices.

 

FRED MERTZ72

12:19 PM ET

January 11, 2012

Not All Correct..

You say, "US troops can also continue to spread women's rights and democracy throughout the country"

The Army is to hurt people and break things, not nation build or teach woman studies.

China is not a threat. Thy have too much invested in this country, and if we did go to war with them, Wal-Mart would have to close do to lack of cheap imported goods.

 

FRED MERTZ72

12:23 PM ET

January 11, 2012

We are not the world cop

You say, "US can and will protect them in return for favorable treatment by their nations."

Bush asked and got support from the people, the world and Democrats to fight terror. He squandered this trust. You and your Republican sleaze try to turn every word around.

Well, here is a fact you can’t argue; they beat us. We are a nation divided, a nation with diminished influence because Bush failed us as a leader.

Republicans will try to win on emotion by keeping the argument away from the real issue, the real issue of Bush's Incompetence.

Secondly, We were attacked on 911 because of our support of Israel. A fifth column is a group of people, like the Jewish Lobby(see: American Enterprise Institute) and Neocons Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz, which clandestinely undermines a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as America.

Thirdly, We are America, we are suppose to be the good guys. For 60 years Israel has played us for a fool. Israel thanks the stupid Americans who die in the Middle-East for Israel's land grab while they live better than most Americans.

All the time while Israel rakes in Billions of American foreign aid, or as I call it welfare, for their social medicine and subsidized housing on Palestinian land.

They sit on the beach at Tel Aviv and laugh at how stupid Americans are to fight their war for them.

 

MESSYBUZZCUT

2:51 AM ET

January 12, 2012

Mr.Fred,

Compare life in Taliban Afghanistan to life in modern Afghanistan: women now get suffrage, being LGBTQ is no longer punishable by death, and oppressive laws are being enforced less, especially in regions with US troops present (http://www.usip.org/publications/briefing-human-rights-in-afghanistan).
In Iraq, we saw Saddam, who massacred the Kurds, replaced by a government that at least attempted to prosecute human rights abuses, and has granted civil liberties to the Iraqi people (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119116.htm).
Interconnected economies has never deterred war, and won't in the future. The Union and the South were each others biggest trading partners on the eve of the US Civil War, as were the 13 Colonies and England in 1775, and the UK and Germany before both World Wars (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/papa.htm). The Chinese government, particularly the military establishment, considers us an enemy, and has plans to attack our ally Taiwan and/or blockade the South China Sea (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-06/opinion/opinion_etzioni-china-enemy_1_zhu-chenghu-global-times-hong-lei?_s=PM:OPINION). China would just find another export market, so shift production to war production.
The 9/11 attack (or most other previous terrorist attacks) had nothing to do with US support for Israel. In his 1998 fatwa calling for an attack on the US, Bin Laden cited the US bases in Saudi Arabia as his main reason for attacking us, not our support for Israel. Most grunt-level terrorists are pissed off because the oppressive secular dictators that they've lived under have failed to lift them out of poverty (see: the Shah, Saddam, Mubarak, etc), so they turn to the only organized group that will help them, radical Islam. We don't come into the equation anywhere.
Support for Israel just guarantees us a democratic, comparatively free ally in the Middle East that has always supported us. Most Middle Eastern nations are starting to side with Israel because they realize that they have two choices: Israel or Iran, and Israel looks like a much better choice. Sure, the crazy radicals hate us because of Israel, but they will hate us anyway. Israeli human rights abuses are overblown. In 1948, when Israel was invaded by just about every other country in the Arab world, Jordan occupied Palestine and set up an oppressive dictatorship. Israeli rule is much better than Jordanian rule. Israelis in settlements mind their own business and don't kick Palestinians off their private land, by and large. The IDF's campaigns in Palestinian territory root out terrorists and do little else.

 

THEBULLSS

3:12 AM ET

January 5, 2012

Taxes,regulations, legislations are in favor of the Supper Rich

Please stop supporting non-sense polices that would only benefits the Rich.
You cannot fix the problem by STOP SPENDING. It is a BS of starving the beast cowards...sorry crowds and you know it.
As long as we have the supper rich corporation, have the rich Representatives and Senators write one-sided legislations to enslave the masses we will not break out of this recession. We need something really big and out of box quickly. I suggest:
1) Reverse the Bush Tax Cut and then some, for the TOP Rich 5%.
2) Eliminate FICA payroll tax for Corp. and employees (at lease for a few years) for the people who are making under $30K of income.
3) Eliminate ceiling cap for FICA taxable amount (now at $ 109K) and make ALL incomes from all sources taxable for FICA taxable, so everybody pay the same percentage. That should include those bankers’ bonuses and Wall Street high rollers; I mean every conceivable income from every conceivable source must be FICA taxed.
4) Audit (real audit) every Gov. Agency, especially Pentagon and Federal Reserve (a Privet Bankster, and make it a real Federal Reserve Agency) for waste and corruption and so called mismanagements (playing favoritism).
5) Tax ALL Wall Street Transactions (stock, commodity, and even Derivative Instruments) say 1% on both side (Buyers & Sellers).
6) Close all loopholes on the tax codes for the rich and Corporations (is there any other loopholes? we have already stopped giving single Moms welfare.)
7) Create the biggest Depression-era Works Progress Administration for all kind of public infrastructure (hi-tech and low-tech.)
These simple steps would bring JOBS, stability to the Market, and slowly eliminates DEFICIT and will fix funding for Social Security Fund.

 

GBAIL

8:12 PM ET

January 9, 2012

Defense Commitments To Asia

I agree with Mr. Frank's article, but there are some glaring gaps in his points that, in my opinion, could lead to the U.S Military stop having hegemony in Asia. While I agree that we no longer have the threat in Asia by the thermonuclear armed Soviet Union, we now face the giant of Asia, China. With new reports coming out about China's rapidly increasing nuclear arsenal, it would be foolhardy to completely disengage from Asia with our military. This would be the equivalent of committing national suicide by giving China free rein throughout Asia. I believe we should move our troops from Europe and strategically place them throughout Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Indonesia). Obviously it would be politically and economically unfeasible to place every single troop from Europe into Asia, but shoring up the defenses and providing some deterrence for our allies in Asia seems to be the best solution, especially with President Obama's new pivot to Asia in his foreign policy.

 

LABIBLIOTECA

2:54 AM ET

January 10, 2012

Really?

Defense spending is the source of all our economic woes? Ballooning entitlement expenditures have nothing to do with it?

 

RABBIT

4:50 AM ET

January 10, 2012

True enough

Defense spending will need to be cut just like everything else. I like the picture of the F-22, a highly unsubtle way of making one's point, and one that is irrelevant since the last one has already rolled off the production line and the line itself has been closed, never to be re-opened again.

I have to ask, where would you propose that the cuts come from? The politically unfeasible veterans benefits or the crucial modernisation programs necessary for fighting pretty much any other armed conflict other than World War II in Europe?

For example, I don't deny that we haven't faced a credible air threat in a long time, but as I understand it, American power projection is based on the assumption that we will have undisputed air superiority to back up any action we choose to take, which may simply not be the case as nations hostile to the United States choose to invest in technologies precisely tuned to deny this advantage.

I disagree with the school of thought that says what we have now will be sufficient to defeat even "developing" countries in the foreseeable future. Neglecting such issues because they have a low probability of happening does not strike me as good risk management.

I don't think anything needs to be said on why cutting veteran benefits would be committing political suicide. I do feel that it is a better option than denying funds to the people still putting their lives on the line.

 

FRED MERTZ72

12:26 PM ET

January 11, 2012

Time to Cut

Why is it that the private sector always has to cut personnel or lay off workers to meet their budgets, but the federal government keeps growing?

Here are a few numbers cited by Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
There are over 700 admirals and generals, more than in WW II.

There are more musicians in the U.S. military marching bands than members of the Foreign Service.

Our Navy battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies of the world - and 11 of those countries are our allies.

The Defense Department has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. This is a fine place to start cutting.

A small unmanned drone with air-to-air missiles can shoot a $150 Million F-35 jet out of the air. It is like the obsolete battleships of WWII.

 

W2

10:27 AM ET

January 10, 2012

I agreed with Mr. Frank...

But then we cut half a trillion out of defense, with another half trillion on the chopping block.

So we've been there done that.

And according to the Obama Administration, we'll lose 1.5 million jobs due to those cuts, which I think somewhat nullifies Frank's Kenyesian point.

I think defense spending has grown bloated, but I'm not sure how cutting it even further "saves" the global economy when Europe, and their out of control spending, is really driving impending collapse.

Our entitlement spending has skyrocketed in the past few decades. We need to take care of our citizens, but we also must recognize that throwing more money at Social Security, Medicare, etc does little to enhance wealth or job creation.

Defense will account for, what? 17% of the Federal budget after these cuts take effect? Something doesn't add up here.

It's a bit disingenous that Frank didn't at least acknowledge how much defense spending has been cut. Now if he thinks it should be cut more, that's a fair point,.

And then there's Frank's responsibility for the global housing crisis, which got us in the mess in the first place....

Whatever staffer wrote this piece needs a little more practice, I think.

 

THENEMO1

8:38 PM ET

January 30, 2012

Spending,taxes jobs wars 4 the Military Industrial Complex

This is fairly simple we must maintain the same level of retaliation we have against any isolated form of and or massive form of hostilities, aggression.
The M.I.C. has taken care of that!
Dwight D. Eisenhauer warned us years ago.
Enough already!
Richard Nixon called it M.A.D. mutually assured destruction (that was between the U.S.A. and Russia).

Today many other nations have little to loose except radiated with a neutron bomb and then being turned to dust by a regular nuke.
Things are so different today we already have a ultra-advanced tri-ad system and more that can take out any continent and assorted a quite number of destinations 100% at once.
Keep in mind we already have a arsenal of assorted type weapons with-out troops on the ground; to do N.Korea Iran and any other varation yoiu can think of.
But fight for a bunch of demanding cowards that want us to do their dirty work.
If someone else has the might (the military ability) they should do their own fight!
You have the might you do the fight.
Iran's getting up your azz get your brass together and use your own pair of brass ba**s.

 

THEMADCAP

12:29 PM ET

January 10, 2012

What mythological enemy

The one thing people who say the US is already losing its ability to fight some supposed large scale war in the future can answer is.....who? Who is this mythological enemy we need to be prepared to fight? The US already spends 45% of global defense spending, the US and its major allies account for 3/4. You know, those major allies, who themselves has some of the largest military budgets in the world, and who we had to give munitions to during the Libya campaign because apparently Britain and France can't handle small scale operations in Afghanistan combined with a No fly zone. And these nations have the 3rd and 4th largest military budgets in the world.

So really, who the heck is our military supposed to be geared to fight. China? Their military is still so far behind ours in terms of equipment and training parity it's hilarious and a non concern.

 

W2

1:43 PM ET

January 10, 2012

Great question. The answer

Great question. The answer is, no one in particular.

Because we're terrible at predicting conflicts, and we've traditionally gone into them unprepared. That's cost us dearly in blood and treasure over the years.

Why people feel the need to identify nebulous threats over a well-balanced force that can adequately preserve peace and stability, and is prepared for any eventuality, is beyond me.

How many times do we have to be surprised by world events before we realize that's a terrible policy?

 

THEMADCAP

6:52 PM ET

January 11, 2012

That's an avoidance, you're

That's an avoidance, you're buying into the mythological boogeyman. Our military can with ease take on the several of the next most funded national militaries put together. Problem is minus China, most of those nations our already our major allies. Even with China, China is still decades away from even being on par. If the issue of not being prepared is in regards to our own military adventures in the past decade, I'm pretty sure it's an issue of tactics, not funding if the most terrifying military the world has ever seen is having issues fighting a bunch of rebels hiding in the hills of a third world nation with antiquated AKs and RPGs. There's just absolutly no way to justify our military spending being as high as it is

 

BDL2010

4:58 PM ET

January 10, 2012

With all due respects,

"Yet my Republican colleagues"

This comment just smacks of partisan politics. The same sort of politics that got us in this mess

"Terrorists are terrible people who should be confronted, but they are not a thermonuclear-armed Soviet empire. Fighting them, though in many ways more complicated, should be less expensive."

That is highly debateable. The fear is that they could become nuclear armed and as a result more dangerous than a defined State acting on the international stage. As for cost it is strung out over decades and only appears less expensive.

"Reducing excessive military spending -- my proposal cuts approximately $900 billion in the next 10 years -- would allow us to provide the short-term economic stimulus needed to continue the progress we are making in breaking out of the recession."

So the plan isn't to save the $900 billion and pay off some of the debt, instead the plan is to spend the money elsewhere? Maybe I read it wrong but that sure sounds like what the Gentleman meant. And that is what upsets most Americans. This sounds more like a gesture to the taxpayers that something is being done but in reality turns out to be a shell game.

"They claim that government spending doesn't create jobs -- unless it is for the military."

Government spending can create jobs and second and third order employment. But the money has to be spent in the right place. Human beings will strive to greatness and achieve more when it comes to grand feats such as the space race or defending ones nation. We heaped money on GM to build a green car and so far that investment has backfired. Why? Because it is hard to get a group of people excited about investing their mental capital into small tasks.

"If America's extensive worldwide military engagements were proving effective at bringing stability to troubled countries, I would feel conflicted in noting that these impose a terrible drain on our economy and interfere with what we need to do to resume economic growth. But in fact, such interventions rarely work. Heavily armed young Americans are an excellent fighting force, but a U.S. military presence is rarely the best way to resolve long-standing ethnic, religious, or other social tensions."

Then stop voting to send us downrange. On the other side of the coin is it in our best interest to let these groups fight it out to the death? Rwanda is a clear case in point. We did not help but we still got the blame. Fact is we act when we have strategic interests and it is the Congress that approves and funds these engagments. Personally I refer to them as wars and so do everyone else that has to fight in them.

"The reductions in the military budget begun after the collapse of the Soviet Union by President George H.W. Bush and continued by Clinton -- along with other spending constraints and tax increases on the wealthy -- resulted in balanced budgets in the late 1990s. No one I have spoken to has ever presented any convincing evidence that there was any damage to U.S. national security because of it."

Actually the world became a more dangerous place. When we had a Soviet Union to oppose us we sent US troops over seas less often. Since the end of the Cold War we have become the policemen of the world. During the Cold War we never had a single attack on US soil. I would argue that this draw down is what led to a poor cadre of leaders during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. They failed to recognize and prevent an insurgency from springing up in Iraq and they failed to put away the Taliban. We paid dearly for these oversights and were lucky to have leadership in the wings that could come in and reverse the damage that was done.

 

AUTO PEçAS

6:33 AM ET

January 12, 2012

i Agree

I agree IN with pretty much everything written in this comment. Articles like these by Mr.... Our major conventional weapons systems are aging, and at some point no amount of refurbishment will save them. Admiral Mullen had previously called for a 300-ship navy to be able to meet his assessment of US security needs. We now will come nowhere near that....Taiwan became a lot friendlier to China after China significantly boosted their force projection capabilities. aeronaves
saude do corpo

 

GISDUDEZ916

12:30 PM ET

January 12, 2012

short sighted

Barney,
You're a good pol, but some of your numbers are bad assumtions. $430 billion/yr for the Pentagon? That would bring funding levels to about right AFTER the Cold War ended, early 90's. Wehn we were neck deep in Iraq and Afgahanistan (think mid 2000's) BOTH on budget and off budget defense spending (even with CR's) we were at $ 750 billion/yr. Your budget is way too little for the commitments we have overseas.
We definitely need to draw down in NATO and Western Europe, but the ASIA region is getting problematic. China has purchased a used carrier from Russia, there are (albeit dicey) reports of more nuclear weapons than previously thought, and I'm still concerned about the ascendant neo-piracy in the Malaccan Straights.

A little too much, but we can bargain...

 

MASSAGEM

2:59 PM ET

January 12, 2012

I Agree

It's absolutely fair, the spending with the defence department is too high

 

ADVISOR716

6:41 PM ET

January 15, 2012

Cutting Is Not The Answer

Barney is just using his mouth piece to push the Democratic agenda. Yes, cutting spending is one of the problems but getting revenue streams in the tax rolls that already exist seems like a no-brainer.

Those of you who are yelling at the computer that we must stop spending are almost right, but not totally. We have to stop "wasting". Don't stop spending altogether. There are those in real need that must be given some of the fruit of our labor. That's just the way it has to be.

But lets remember the three "C's" to every problem, the complaint, the cause, and the correction. Our governments always get the first one and the last one but inevitably leave out the middle one; the cause.

Prosperity is a balancing act between revenue and spending. We need both to have a continuing prosperity for everyone. Look at China. They have lots of revenue but no spending (for their people). Hence, they have no prosperity. They have to keep loaning to the US and Europe because without them they will have no revenue.

The US has lots of spending but have chocked off their revenue with an over burden regulatory situation. But the political environment in the US is in such a strangled hold of "us vs. them" that they can't see the forest because of all those darn trees.

But we do need a quick fix but where do we find it. The US can start by looking at its two biggest non-taxed revenue streams that exist within its borders; gambling and drugs.

There has been some talk of legalizing online gambling once again. There are many articles starting to pop up suggesting just that. But that legalization won't come without problems as stated in a nice article at http://pcmenterprises.com/legalize-online-gambling.html

And some states are on the verge of legalizing the drug industry but there has been too much federal resistance for them to get on board and pull the trigger to get the laws enacted.

These are not the cure all fix all remedy that will have everything hunky dory in just a few months or years. Yet, they are a quick fix that will go a long way. Just like a jump start on a diet always helps one's attitude go in the right direction when they see an good weight loss in 20 or 30 days.

So too would a shot in the arm quick fix of revenue from sources that already exist help this country and the world (for that matter) get a good push in the right direction. And there would be side effects of legalizing online gambling and drugs. Yes, there would be terrible side effects like the criminals losing their foothold on the economy by taking all the loot and not paying any taxes.

Wow! It's hard to argue with finding new streams of revenue and ridding yourself of drug lords all at the same time. Go figure!