You pay for our safety, so we don't have to.

September 21, 2009 4:19 PM

Do the U.S. military bases in foreign countries, esp. Western Europe and Japan, help those countries keep their military budgets low so that they can afford things like, I dunno, universal health care?

I found this discussion among others regarding the general reasons why we have foreign bases, but nothing seems to address the financial benefits to foreign nations having us provide some of their security.

posted by nax to law & government (52 comments total)

Generally, yes, but not to the extent that you might think. A lot of the nations where we have military bases pay us to do so. They don't pay us as much as it costs us, and there are indirect economic paybacks to the host countries (for instance, in terms of local employment) but overall it saves them money and costs us money.

In certain circles this has been a sore spot here in the US.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:23 PM on September 21

I should mention that not all host countries pay us. The Philippines didn't, for example. On the contrary, we paid them rent for the land used for Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base before they was closed (because of the Pinatubo eruption).

Oddly enough, the US government tries to pay Cuba every year for Guantanamo. But the Cuban government always refuses to cash the check.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:28 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

That depends on whether or not those countries would massively increase their defence spending (and sacrifice other programmes to do so) were the US to pull out all their troops and close their bases -- and that seems like a very hard question to predict the answer to, and would likely vary with each individual state.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing your question (in order to arrive at similar answers but reducing the variables) would be:

"Does the enormous amount of money the US spends on its military prevent the US from adequately funding other public programmes, such as health care?"

If your answer is "yes", then your next question must surely be "is it worth it?" Your answer to that will determine a whole series of public policy choices that will go to the heart of how to govern a country and what it's role in the world should be.

In short, it's going to be a very complicated answer.
posted by modernnomad at 4:31 PM on September 21 [4 favorites]

From a cynical perspective, nax: The US government can buy whatever they want because they aren't accountable for budget deficits or the national debt. So it isn't so much that military spending prevents purchase of universal health care (assuming both are sufficiently favored by the electorate), it's that public tolerance for additional debt is low even though we're already so far in the hole it doesn't matter.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 4:37 PM on September 21

Oops. Should have said "tolerance", because in fact I doubt people pay sufficient attention to do any sort of gradation.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 4:37 PM on September 21

I like it modernnomad. Consider the question altered.
posted by nax at 4:42 PM on September 21

But the Cuban government always refuses to cash the check.

When you know a check's going to bounce, what's the point in cashing it?
posted by The World Famous at 4:43 PM on September 21

Oddly enough, the US government tries to pay Cuba every year for Guantanamo. But the Cuban government always refuses to cash the check.

"Oddly?"

Cuba considers it an illegal occupation. It's not a rental when the landlord wants to evict the tenant, but the tenant is too heavily-armed.
posted by rokusan at 4:43 PM on September 21 [9 favorites]

Two candidates:

Germany: They spend less % GDP than France on defense, and are one of the very few countries that has U.S. Army bases on the ground. The Army is much more of a local defense than the Navy or Air Force who are just using foreign countries as stepping stones.

South Korea: They have a good reason to spend a lot on defense, and the U.S. bases surely reduce that number.

But it is very difficult to compare countries in any way. You somehow have to normalize their spending, then figure out who is spending less than expected, then figure out why that is.
posted by smackfu at 4:45 PM on September 21

This question is flawed horribly, because the US already spends more on health care than any G20 country. Those nations with UHC are spending less.

The US doesn't need more money, it needs to stop wasting it on bureaucracy that's built to make seventeen layers of money for insurance firms.
posted by rokusan at 4:46 PM on September 21 [18 favorites]

The extent to which it's true is not large and mixed with other concerns.

The only countries I can think of where there's a really big US military presence and that spend really markedly less on defense than the US (in %gdp terms) are Japan and Germany. Compared to France or the UK, the US spends about 1.5% gdp more on defense than they do, which isn't nearly enough to fund health care.

But Japan and Germany were also forcibly demilitarized after WW2, and if they suddenly started spending 4%gdp on defense like the US does, Russia and China at least might feel... uncharitable... about that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:48 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

Neatly put, modernnomad. The title of this question presupposes that other countries want the USA overseeing their "safety", but I would question whether sometimes they merely tolerate the presence of the US military.
posted by fish tick at 4:48 PM on September 21

The important thing to remember is that the US does not provide military security out of the goodness of its national heart. If the US has a base somewhere, it is because it is in the US' security interest to do so.

Another thing to bear in mind is that to some extent hosting an American base makes you a target. It would be a very complicated, case-by-case exercise to figure out whether military spending would go up or down and by how much if a base closed.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 4:51 PM on September 21

I agree with others that it is a complicated question and even more complicated because the overseas bases the US maintains is a part of its overall philosophy on foreign policy which comes from the world war + cold war days and is very strongly etched in the minds of the voters as a part of their nation's persona. The primary purpose, therefore, of the existance of these bases is not related to helping the 'host' nation to save costs.

There are US bases in Britain and in some of the other countries in whose politics I take interest and I can tell you without much doubt that if the US decided to lift its bases from these countries not one of them will reduce its healthcare coverage and redeploy those resources for military purposes. Equally, the lack of universal helathcare in the US has never been an issue of resources as much as idelolgy.

So the original assertion behind your question at best provides a (tiny and theoretical) fig leaf when it comes to lack of universal healthcare.
posted by london302 at 4:53 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

"A lot of the nations where we have military bases pay us to do so."

Really? Where?
posted by Jahaza at 4:53 PM on September 21

I've heard the argument that Denmark to a large extent has been allowed to contribute much less to NATO than it's size would dictate (not much, in absolute terms, I guess) due it allowing the US bases in Greenland. So for sure some $$ saved on defense.
posted by AwkwardPause at 4:59 PM on September 21

AwkwardPause, I'm not sure that logic follows exactly. The Kingdom of Denmark gives up sovereign territory to the US with little to no direct monetary recompense. Instead, compensation is given indirectly, by a lower NATO contribution expectation.
posted by Brother Dysk at 5:16 PM on September 21

In the case of the UK, I'm under the impression that the USA military presence here is mostly limited to transient docking / training facilities and the listening post(s) where they have receiver arrays pointing into Russia, various bits of Europe and, presumably, various bits of the UK.

I've never had the opportunity to verify this, but I've heard from a few generally reliable sources that the USA were given a long-term lease of the sites as part of our reparations for their help in WW2, and that now they're basically refusing to pay rent or leave. It's a fairly small parcel of land and not worth causing a diplomatic incident over, so it's chalked up as part of the special relationship.

That pattern seems pretty common. Both the UK and USA have a lot of troops stationed in Cyprus, ostensibly to stop the Turks from forcibly expanding their territory there. A few Cypriot friends of mine say that the troops were welcome and did a great job but, now things are stabilised and their need for help has diminished, our countries are politely refusing to leave. Neither the UK nor the USA want to lose such a strategically placed military base. See also Gibraltar, a southern peninsula of spain at the gateway to the mediterranian. The British liberated it during WW2 and decided it was too strategically valuable to give back to the Spanish. Now it has a huge British military presence (which I'm sure the Spanish resent rather than pay us for) and a rather ugly town with an interesting mix of Spanish, British and Morroccan cultures.
posted by metaBugs at 5:22 PM on September 21 [2 favorites]

The British liberated it during WW2 and decided it was too strategically valuable to give back to the Spanish

I don't think this is really the case. Gibraltans themselves voted to remain British, by extraordinary margins, in two referendums (referenda?).
posted by pompomtom at 5:35 PM on September 21

Just a precision: Gibraltar has officialy been a British possesion since 1713; they were able to prevent a German invasion during WWII.

The foreign bases are also part of the huge US military, with the supercarriers, the submarines, etc. If the US military wasn't so powerful, the world would be a very different place, and military spending patterns would be completely different.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 5:36 PM on September 21

In the case of the UK, I'm under the impression that the USA military presence here is mostly limited to transient docking / training facilities

RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath are substantial installations. AFAIK, they're nominally RAF bases but are in every essential detail USAF bases.

The British liberated it during WW2 and decided it was too strategically valuable to give back to the Spanish.

Gibraltar has been British territory since *search* 1713.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:39 PM on September 21

MoJo's painfully detailed overview of US military bases worldwide, including interactive map.

I can't find any info on any nation paying for mini-occupation, most of the info is about nations who want the US to get out, but don't have the muscle to force it.
posted by rokusan at 5:47 PM on September 21

If the US has a base somewhere, it is because it is in the US' security interest to do so.

If you mean economic security, yes.
posted by rokusan at 5:48 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

But it is very difficult to compare countries in any way.

The US is spending $2300 per capita on war and war capability. Japan: $300.

So yeah.
posted by Palamedes at 5:50 PM on September 21

And my first response is "that's not a fair comparison because of these factors..." which was my original point. There are far too many variables to prove that U.S. bases in a country reduce their defense spending, unless you can get a government official to actually say that.
posted by smackfu at 5:54 PM on September 21

Palamedes, that's not a useful comparison in the context of the question raised by the OP, as a significant proportion of US "defence" spending is being pissed away in Afghanistan and Iraq.
posted by Brother Dysk at 5:55 PM on September 21

If the US has a base somewhere, it is because it is in the US' security interest to do so.

Aside from piracy on the high seas there's not much security threat to the US out there.

A fun exercise is reducing the US military such to meet the present security threat. I'd keep most of the US Space Command, a wing of F-16s distributed in various continental locations, all the subs and destroyers, all the Marine Corps (for those events where diplomacy alone simply won't work), and if I were feeling generous the B-2s since they're so bat-crazy.

The US military establishment is one of unrestricted empire building, mostly within the establishment itself. This expresses itself with overseas presence, but the real problem is here at home.
posted by Palamedes at 5:57 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

Palamedes: Aside from piracy on the high seas there's not much security threat to the US out there.

There's loads of security threats out there, they just don't take the form of war or terrorism. Rokusan mentioned economic security, which is but one example of something that can be threatened by many means that don't involve objective violence.
posted by Brother Dysk at 6:01 PM on September 21

True, the question is whether the US is taking on a disproportionate level of security commitments, or is just pissing away copious amounts of capital. I fall on the latter, so there probably doesn't exist $2000 per capita of military capability that Japan is now skipping out on.

For the case of Japan, I think its establishment is presently sufficient to secure its corner of the world so the extra US umbrella is of minlmal actual benefit. They're relatively isolated, but with Russia and China to deal with, it'd be kinda futile for them to strike up hostilities, this century at least. NK is a difficult threat. Mostly one that can be handled by coastal patrols, but the ballistic missile angle probably does demand more investment in defenses.
posted by Palamedes at 6:05 PM on September 21

No.

For example, Japan pays for the cost of the US bases, including Japanese civilians employed by the US.

nothing seems to address the financial benefits to foreign nations having us provide some of their security.

The sheer combined ignorance and arrogance of this statement is frightening.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:16 PM on September 21 [5 favorites]

Let me begin by stating how opposed to our imperialism I am (all in the name of national defense).
The US has only recently been getting some money from a number of nations where we have bases, and in no instance is it anywhere near the amount we spend. One comment said we have bases on in Germany in Europe. Not so. There are some 5 in italy alone.In Spain you will not see American military...they are not allowed off base (air force field north of Madrid) in uniform.

How many bases have we worldwide? guess. There are over one thousand, and those are the ones that we are told exist. There are some that remain unknown.

Now I assume that if America is going to provide protection for country A, B, C, then those countries will see fit not to spend as much on their own military--it would be dumb economics.

But what does not get noted here: With the thousands of troops in so many countries, we create jobs in those countries and we spend lots of money in buying things in those countries, and that is very good money going into their economy.
posted by Postroad at 6:18 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

One comment said we have bases on in Germany in Europe.

If you meant to write "only" instead of "on", there is no such comment in this thread on which to base your derail.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:57 PM on September 21

The USA keeps bases in other countries, but those countries also do the same. For example, the USA has bases in the UK, but the UK has similiar setups in Canada. So is the USA subsidizing Canadian Health Care by being in the UK?
posted by furtive at 6:59 PM on September 21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Like others have said this is a very complicated question.

For a while after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Japan was number 2 in spending, right behind the US. Japan generally spends around 1% or so of GDP since WWII. A small number-- until you realize the massive size of the Japanese economy. Wikipedia ranks them at 5 in spending today. I guarantee there are better sources for this information if you dig for them.

Japan's defense spending mainly focuses on R&D. Richard Samuel's Rich Nation Strong Army discusses Japan's military-industrial complex in detail.

By the way, military-industrial complex is a term with a fascinating history. See text of Eisenhower's farewell speech (1961) or watch it.

I'd argue the origins of the term military industrial complex is not a derail. It helps us understand the historical context of answers to questions like this one.
posted by vincele at 7:05 PM on September 21

It's not a case of "we have an American base here, so we don't need a (Danish|Korean|German) base here". Germany and Japan would have great difficulty spending more than they do on defence, for cultural/political/diplomatic reasons. Canada has no (significant) American military presence, and still underspends militarily as a portion of GDP compared to the rest of NATO.

It's more a case of being allied to the U.S. means that expansionist concerns that might affect you, affect you less because no one's going to invade you with the U.S. on your side. In some places, like South Korea, U.S. forces are (comparatively) token, and are there to act as a 'tripwire'. If North Korea invaded, U.S. soldiers would be killed, which would make it easy for the U.S. to jump in and respond. South Korea has 3.7 million people in uniform; U.S. forces in the country number a little under 30,000. Their presence does not significantly alter Korea's military expenditures.

So, to the extent that the "Pax Americana" shields certain countries, there's some argument to be made that they can reasonably spend less on their militaries because of it.

However, this means nothing in the argument for Universal Health Care in the U.S. or elsewhere. The U.S. spends more as a portion of GDP on medical expenditures (public and private) than other countries with UHC do, so the U.S. is obviously able to have UHC without military spending being altered. Likewise, it's not obvious that other countries would spend more on their militaries at the expense of health care. Canada is automatically protected by the U.S. military because of its geographical position--had the Soviet Union invaded, the U.S. would have moved to defend Canada simply to avoid sharing a border with the USSR.
posted by fatbird at 7:39 PM on September 21

First, let me say that I'm in the camp that military spending is such a small portion of GDP today that the problem is overstated. But, at the margin, there would likely be increased spending from the other countries should the US significantly cut its own.

From Wikipedia [1, 2]:

Country    Military      Military       Taxes
           % of Tax      % of GDP       % of GDP
Iran           34.2          2.5           7.3
Pakistan       28.3          3.0          10.6
Israel         19.8          7.3          36.8
Sri Lanka      17.0          2.6          15.3
USA            14.4          4.1          28.2
India          14.1          2.5          17.7
Russia         10.6          3.9          36.9
S Korea        10.1          2.7          26.8
Australia       7.9          2.4          30.5
UK              6.2          2.4          39.0
France          5.6          2.6          46.1
Germany         3.7          1.5          40.6
Japan           2.9          0.8          27.4
NZ              2.7          1.0          36.5


For the developed countries above, their Military as % of Tax rankings are pretty clearly related to their proportional involvement in US and NATO military actions.

And I'd speculate that the world would look very different if the US drastically reduced their foreign bases and military spending after the cold war. The watchword during the 90s was 'stability,' which required the maintenance of a deployable force. I would also guess that the Balkans interventions would have been much different, if they happened at all. The US still does by far most of the capital intensive work in military actions. Without massive US air attacks, the Balkans would have required a NATO ground force invasion, or an increase in military spending along the border countries as the issue was ignored and contained. Germany would more likely be spending more nowadays because of their location to that; France was reluctant to take any action, so I'm less confident in them increasing any.



The US doesn't need more money, it needs to stop wasting it on bureaucracy that's built to make seventeen layers of money for insurance firms.

I hate this argument. The US only spends 7% of total health care expenditures on any administration, versus 4% if they were in line with other OECD countries [McKinsey]. That 4% savings is a stupid thing to get worked up about. Minimum medical benefit/cost ratios are already mandated by law, though they're probably still too low by most people's estimation (~85%). Write to your state legislators to increase it.
posted by FuManchu at 8:08 PM on September 21

31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.

"Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada", Woolhandler, et al., Harvard Medical School / Canadian Institute for Health Information, NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003. PDF here.
posted by rokusan at 8:28 PM on September 21

It's also worth pointing out that it wasn't exactly a secret that the US bases in West Germany were there specifically as a counter to the Iron Curtain, and that if hostilities did break out, there was a pretty good chance that Germany would bear the full brunt of it. Kinda like "Yay, the cops are putting a patrol car in front of your house 24/7, you don't need an alarm. Oh, the drug dealers have taken to blowing up cop cars with rocket launchers and their aim sucks? This could get messy.... maybe you'd be better off with that alarm..."

So yeah, tradeoffs. You get full security against minor threats, but at the cost that if WWIII broke out, it'd be breaking out on your front lawn.
posted by barc0001 at 8:38 PM on September 21

I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't it have broken out in Western Germany even if the US didn't have bases there?
posted by smackfu at 9:13 PM on September 21

Yes, but it would have more looked like the takeover of Hungary. A bunch of tanks, a land rush, and You're All Soviets Now, Comrades. It would have sucked, but it's arguably preferable to having two superpowers start smashing the crap out of each other on your soil, especially if one of them decides to reach for the nukes... and considering that the US developed the Davy Crockett recoilless nuclear rifle specifically for stopping tank divisions from rushing into West Germany, it would seem that small scale nukes were already on the menu as an appetizer, to say nothing of the main course. And once the Americans used them, you know the Soviets would have responded in kind, except with larger weapons.
posted by barc0001 at 11:36 PM on September 21 [1 favorite]

KokuRyu, exactly, so please elaborate. What specifically makes that "ignorant and arrogant?" I tried writing a more nuanced expansive question but it turned too chatty. If I didn't feel like I was ignorant on the subject I wouldn't have asked. I get that this is extremely complex, I would appreciate everyone avoiding the "what kind of idiot asks this" responses as well as some of the rather personal slurs on my intelligence and knowledge. I'm really interested in becoming more savvy about this, but I'm lousy at finding sources and articles. That's what I need you guys for. Thanks.
posted by nax at 4:47 AM on September 22

Nax, the distasteful assumptions in your question that were not solved in your followup are (a) that these other nations want the US to have military bases on their homelands, (b) that the US is somehow helping these nations by occupying corners of them, and that (c) these nations derive some kind of net benefit from them.

The US is the party always seeking more bases, negotiating for them, extorting them as compensation for other things, and fighting like hell to hold onto them even when governments and populations want them out. These bases exist to benefit the US, not to benefit the "host" countries.

Imagine if, in return for establishing military bases in other countries, the US always accepted that country setting up a military base within the continental USA. It's hard to argue that wouldn't be fair, but how would that go over here at home, do you think? And why?

That's how much US bases are "appreciated" in other nations.
posted by rokusan at 8:06 AM on September 22

The other fallacious assumption in your original question was that military spending is preventing universal health care. The U.S. already spends two to three times as much per person on health care as every other developed nation in the world that already has universal health care and has the same medical outcomes. We could cut our cost of health care by half and still provide universal coverage by eliminating waste.
posted by JackFlash at 8:43 AM on September 22

What specifically makes that "ignorant and arrogant?"

Other countries don't necessarily want American bases on their territory; other nations may not consider American presence "protection"; countries like Germany would have been sacrificed in the event of a ground war with the Soviet Union, and that sacrifice would have meant nuclear annihilation (even tactical nuclear weapons would have destroyed West Germany); American military spending is so vast and so great that it forces many other countries to spend more on defense than they need to.

I'm not saying that American military presence is "bad". Other countries "sheltered" by the American defense umbrella share common values, including democracy, wealth creation and personal liberty, etc etc.

However, you don't get something for nothing. The United States does not have 700 bases around the world because it is altruistic and wants to protect people in other countries from terrorists and communists.

The US has 700 bases around the world because it wants to pursue certain aims. If the US could figure out a way for a host country to pay through the ass for this protection, it will find that way. It's a lot like the mafia.

And I must say that while living overseas I have been on the receiving end of more than one unpleasant encounter with Americans who have stated that "If it weren't for us, you guy would be glowing radioactive rubble", yadda yadda yadda.

Like I said, you don't get something for nothing. For example, the US is only in Japan because it is a crucial strategic outpost, a giant airstrip.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:14 AM on September 22

Hastings Ismay, NATO's first secretary general, quipped that NATO's purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

And I'd speculate that the world would look very different if the US drastically reduced their foreign bases and military spending after the cold war. The watchword during the 90s was 'stability,' which required the maintenance of a deployable force.

Another watchword was "peace dividend"; the idea that the US could reduce spending after the end of the Cold War. Dick Cheney, of all people, was one of the proponents.

The U.S. already spends two to three times as much per person on health care as every other developed nation in the world that already has universal health care and has the same medical outcomes.

The other countries have better outcomes [PDF; data].
posted by kirkaracha at 9:54 AM on September 22

For example, the US is only in Japan because it is a crucial strategic outpost, a giant airstrip.

The U.S. has many more self-interested reasons to maintain its Japanese bases. Following WWII, it was explicitly planned to rebuild Japan as a western bulwark against communism, meaning aligned with the U.S., militarily/politically western, and economically western (i.e., capitalist and participating in first world trade). The idea (I think it was George Keenan who said it) was that Japan would be an outpost of Western civilization that would make the Pacific a U.S. ocean. The feeling was that, without significant alignment with the U.S., Japan would become to China/Russia as Finland is to Russia: dominated by virtue of proximity.

Now, there are lots of benefits that Japan can count as part of this recent history: Freedom from communist influence being an obvious one; participation in the first world trade sphere has also made Japan an economic powerhouse. But it would be silly to pretend that the U.S. did it for the sake of the Japanese. Mutual benefit is not charity.
posted by fatbird at 10:41 AM on September 22

Japan and Germany are special cases in that they were required to allow certain things (including Allied bases) and restricted from military spending by the peace treaties signed after WWII. In Japan's case, there's also the new Constitution brought about by US, erm... "efforts" and the Security Treaty of 1951 and 1960 to consider, all of which granted the US more access to Japan and reduced Japan's independence in military matters.

Even today, Japan is bound to spend only on certain aspects of its military (those deemed to be truly "defensive") and is forbidden from making weapons for export, etc.
posted by rokusan at 11:34 AM on September 22

nax: imagine a Roman asking, from innocent curiosity, whether Italy couldn't afford better public services if Rome wasn't paying to provide security for all those other countries with its garrisons.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:07 PM on September 22 [1 favorite]

So here's what I was thinking when I formulated this question, which I realize now I was a little flip about. My crime is more my flippancy and naivete here than arrogance, and of course the ignorance is what I am trying to overcome. Anyway, here's what went through my head-- first, How true is it that if we don't spend on one thing, we'll spend on another thing? (this is the way household finances work after all) Second, Why in the world do foreign countries even PUT UP with having US military personnel on permanent bases in their countries? Maybe it's saving them money? I could not imagine Americans putting up with a foreign base on our soil, so how the hell do we get away with this? Third, Clearly, my own government doesn't seem to be spending the money on me (as a stand in for Joe Citizen-- crap schools, roads, health care etc), I know that we spend more on military than the rest of the world together, I'll put 2 and 2 together and apparently I came up with 5.

Hope this helps both absolve me of my thoughtlessness, and also please continue to address some of this too. I wouldn't hate some cites. Thanks again for keeping it civil. It can be scary stepping into, let alone starting, these discussions.
posted by nax at 5:40 PM on September 22

How true is it that if we don't spend on one thing, we'll spend on another thing?

I'm in that camp; labor is labor. The two million people working for us without direct charge in the armed forces could be doing similar jobs in civil engineering or health care, also "for free". We might still have to give them guns to make up for the substandard pay of course.

Why in the world do foreign countries even PUT UP with having US military personnel on permanent bases in their countries?

It's called m-o-n-e-y. We give them that, they house our establishment. Win-win FTW. The Philippinese people were very brave to say "FTS!" and boot our tattooed asses out of Subic.

my own government doesn't seem to be spending the money on me (as a stand in for Joe Citizen-- crap schools, roads, health care etc)

There's a lot of money being spent on people, more than what's going into the defense budget. Also don't forget that unless there's massive graft somewhere most every dollar of the defense budget is somebody's paycheck.

Schools aren't a federal thing but a state-level thing, or were. Roads, similarly, though of course interstate commerce demands a decent distribution of funding.

It's sad that Federal taxation overshadows our own state spending, in an more ideal world it would be the reverse, perhaps.
posted by Palamedes at 6:25 PM on September 22

Palamedes, if it were as simple as refusing payment and asking the US to leave, there would be far fewer bases around the world. To assume that there is payment for all of them is entirely fallacious.
posted by Brother Dysk at 12:07 AM on September 23

If the US has a base somewhere, it is because it is in the US' security interest to do so.

If you mean economic security, yes.

To be fair, economic security is definitely a component of security in general. That's why my credit gets checked when I apply for a security clearance.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 11:02 AM on September 23