Notes
Outline
RICK HUBBARD FOR U.S. SENATE
www.rickhubbard.org
Offices at 57 Depot Street
P.O. Box 1444
Stowe, VT 05672
Phone: 802-253-8544
Fax: 802-253-2942
E-mail: rick@rickhubbard.org
TOPIC


Our

National

Security

Components
of our national security
Reducing the worldwide threat of conflict
Maintaining our economic strength in the world
Maintaining sufficient military strength in the world
Reducing the world-wide threat of conflict
Work proactively with other nations and international institutions to solve real world causes of tension
Environmental catastrophe – support preplanned and pre-funded international disaster relief responses
Resource rivalries – support  international negotiation assistance
Religious and nationalist passions – work for acceptance of a core of worldwide values which allow trade, travel and communications among nations
Reducing the world-wide threat of conflict
Encourage countries to work together, not on their own, to deter and resist aggression.
Collaborate with other countries in responding to international aggression (for example – as against Iraq)
Mass displacement-support pre-planned intervention by international peacekeeping forces
Maintaining our Economic Strength in the world --
In addition to it’s other benefits,
Its caliber will determine how well we collaborate, negotiate and compete with the educated workforces, military forces and political leaders of other countries
Maintaining our Economic Strength in the world --
Innovation, and continued leadership in science and technology are critical to our continued economic success.
So how are we doing?
Maintaining our Economic Strength in the world --
Let’s review our achievement in math and science
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
Largest, most comprehensive, and most rigorous international study of schools and students ever conducted
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
Assessed ½ million students in 41 nations, including our country’s major trading partners.
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
Assessed more than 33,000 U.S. students in more than 500 U.S. public and private schools
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
Assessed at three different grade levels (fourth, eighth, and in the final year of secondary school) to compare mathematics and science achievement
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
TIMMS researchers also looked at schools, curricula, instruction, lessons, textbooks, policy issues and the lives of teachers and students to understand the educational context in which mathematics and science learning take place.
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
Included a videotape study of eighth grade mathematics teaching, which observed 231 classrooms in Japan, Germany and the United States, and an analysis of over 1,100 textbooks and curriculum frameworks from about 50 countries.
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
At the fourth grade, U.S. students were
above the international average in both science and mathematics.
About ¼ of nations were ahead
compared to 26 nations
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
In the eighth grade, U.S. students scored in the mid- range of 41 nations
Slightly above the international average in science and
Slightly below the international average in mathematics.
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
At the end of secondary schooling (12th grade in the U.S.), U.S. performance was among the lowest in both science and mathematics, including our most advanced students
The U.S. outperformed only South Africa and Cyprus on both assessments
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
Math general knowledge content assessed in the U.S. represented a 9th grade curriculum level versus 7th grade for most TIMMS nations
Science general knowledge content assessed in the U.S. represented a 11th grade curriculum level versus 9th grade for most TIMMS nations
Education Achievement
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) - 1995
In achievement  of our best and brightest among 16 nations
in advanced mathematics
(pre-calculus, calculus, or AP calculus)
and science
(physics or AP physics)
The United States outperformed no other country on either assessment
Education Achievement
Only 7% of our students are taking advanced math and science courses
Versus an international average of 19% for all others of the 16 nations.
Although we lag in educational achievement in mathematics and science
and we lag in paying our United Nations dues
We remain superior in military spending
While global military spending has decreased dramatically since the end of the cold war
Our United States military spending has increased from 30% to 36% of worldwide military spending
Global Military Spending
Our military force levels should be structured to meet current and emerging threats
Who are our potential adversaries?
Russia
China
Rogues: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba
Our military force levels should be structured to meet current and emerging threats
How likely is it that we will go to war with one or more of them in the near future?
Isn’t China an emerging threat?
Even if China continues to grow by more than 8% annually until 2015
Its economic output would reach only $2.2 to 2.9 trillion to support a population of 1,240 million.
Compared to our U.S.
Whose economic output is likely to reach about $13.3 trillion to support a population of 280 million.
U.S. vs. Potential Adversaries
U.S. + Allies vs. Potential Adversaries
Business leaders across our country make hard choices everyday to get the most out of their organization with a limited budget
Business leaders from 500 corporations across America have assembled a Military Advisory Panel of knowledgeable military experts to recommend how to allocate our federal resources to maximize our overall national security
Here’s the composition of this
 Military Advisory Panel
Chairman, Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan,  U.S. Navy (ret.)
Admiral Stansfield Turner, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Dr. Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Regan.
Ambassador Paul C. Warnke, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Chief U.S. Arms Negotiator
Military Advisory Panel
(continued)
Major General Jack B. Kidd, U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Brigadier General Dallas Brown Jr., U.S. Air Force (ret.)
Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, U.S. Navy (ret.)
Rear Admiral Robert James, U.S. Navy (ret.)
Captain Jim Bush, U.S. Navy (ret.)
Colonel David Hackworth, U.S. Army (ret.)
The Military Advisory Panel (and others) have addressed a number of fundamental questions
With all these resources devoted to our military
forces, why do we have:
Soldiers on food stamps?
Inadequately trained forces?
Poorly paid soldiers leaving military service?
Here are some of the reasons
Our military spending has also dropped somewhat, but not nearly as much as the rest of the world
We continue to spread our limited defense dollars over a military force structure that still is ready to fight the cold war.
Although the cold war is over, we still:
Maintain the capability to fight and win 2 major wars in different hemispheres without help from our allies
Our force levels are extensive
Presently, U.S. armed forces total 2,750,000
1,381,000 active duty
1,369,300 Reserves and Guard
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War required 665,476 troops
Current troop strength is 4 times larger
Since the Persian Gulf war
39 incidents of overseas deployments averaging 5,000 military personnel per incident  (largest was about 32,000 – 1/88th of our total forces today)
Although the cold war is over, we still:
Are in an arms race with ourselves to replace weapons that are still the best in the world with newer and more expensive replacements
For Example:
We currently have about 3,200 F-15 & F-16 fighter jets –  the best in the world
CBO says the oldest of these could be replaced with upgraded new ones for about $2.7 billion over the next 10 years.
Instead Congress caps the new F-22’s at $62.7 billion and the Joint Strike Fighter at $219 billion (together $281 billion – over 100 times more costly)
Although the cold war is over, we still:
Maintain a nuclear arsenal of about 8,500 warheads when 1000 would destroy ALL our likely adversaries four times over
Our current federal budget results
Despite the end of the cold war, the pentagon receives almost half of all federal discretionary funds
Our 12th grade students rank near the bottom of 21 industrialized countries in math and science
We do not fully pay our share of United Nations dues
Knowledgeable experts such as the Military Advisory Panel of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities recommend that we
Restructure our military forces in ways that will keep us secure
And potentially free up as much as $48 billion dollars annually.
Here are their recommended examples of possible changes:
Replace current pentagon 2-war fighting strategy with a one war plus Bosnia style peacekeeping capability (Save $21 billion annually)
Here are their recommended examples of possible changes:
Reduce our force of active strategic weapons to a level of 1000 warheads (Save $15 billion annually)
Here are their recommended examples of possible changes:
Cut production of expensive new weapons that are of marginal strategic and tactical value in relation to current and projected threats (Save $12.5 billion annually)
Here are their recommended examples of possible changes:
Close unnecessary military bases as recommended by the pentagon (Save $3 billion annually)
By restructuring, we  would be able to reallocate military funds to:
Increase salaries for our soldiers
Respond quickly enough with sufficiently trained, conventional forces to defeat any potential adversary, with a minimum of casualties
Replace worn-out equipment and maintain a technological edge over potential rivals.
And still generate savings of $40 - $50 billion Dollars
Composition of 1999 Federal Government Spending
(Total Outlays: $1.703 trillion)
Our federal discretionary budget
Projected discretionary spending for 2000 totals $618 billion
Our federal discretionary budget
Projected discretionary spending for 2000 totals $618 billion
(adjusted to show defense savings)
With part of these $40-$50 billion savings from defense we could reallocate funds to strengthen other components of our national security:
To reduce the worldwide threat of conflict
To improve our math and science achievement to maintain our economic strength in the world
Examples of possible expenditures to maintain our economic strength in the world
Set up a new program to fund college costs for 250,000 prospective math and science teachers (Cost 1.2 billion per year for 10 years)
Examples of possible expenditures to maintain our economic strength in the world
Head Start, if well staffed with properly trained pre-school teachers (not babysitters), has been shown to be effective.
Only 1 out of 3 children eligible for Head Start are able to receive it due to lack of resources.
Provide Head Start to all 1.7 million children who don’t have it now (Cost $8 billion/year)
Examples of possible expenditures to maintain our economic strength in the world
Set up pilot programs in a few selected geographic areas to study and thoroughly evaluate full integration of computers to facilitate fundamental, qualitative changes in the nature of teaching and learning. (Cost $1-2 billion/year)
Examples of possible expenditures to maintain our economic strength in the world
Help schools across America provide up-to-date science lab facilities and to rewire for modern computer and science technology. (Cost $5 billion/year)
RICK HUBBARD FOR U.S. SENATE
www.rickhubbard.org
Offices at 57 Depot Street
P.O. Box 1444
Stowe, VT 05672
Phone: 802-253-8544
Fax: 802-253-2942
E-mail: rick@rickhubbard.org