Halfway down the Danube

Yes to all of the above.

In fact, when you do move to the States, come live in Frederick, Maryland, where the schools, roads, and libraries are excellent.

And the public transport is passable.

With the exception of interstate highways, all of the above are state or local responsibilities, so it actually doesn't really matter what the federal governments spends on other things, in theory nothing you mentioned should be effected. Now, there is a difference between theory and practice, but it certainly is a different thing.

"When Bush was made President in 2000, despite having fewer votes than Al Gore, the budget of the Pentagon amounted to 280.8 billion dollars. In 2001, the budget was raised by 8.8% to 305.4 billion, in 2002 by 12.4% to 343.2 billion and in 2003 by 15.4% to 396.1 billion US dollars."

I read a lot of blogs by US Democrats, left-wingers, and general Bush-hating folk. Of the many, many things they have criticised Bush for, raising the military budget, per se, has not been one of them. You'll note that neither Kerry nor Dean promised to lower it. Really, three years after enemy bombing raids on New York and the capital that killed 2500, what would you expect the military budget to be?

Gareth -- hi! I know they don't comment on that. That's why I comment on it. Via Die Sueddeutsche
Zeitung, btw.

As to the point about federal vs. state budgets: I think we all know that there's a lot of overlap. The state and federal governments share costs on everything from flood control to mental health initiatives.

Also, even in an economy as big as America's, you don't suck $120 billion in additional military spending out of the public pocket without some general overall effect.

What would I expect the military budget to be? Lower, of course. But then, I was and still am opposed to the US intervention in Iraq. Large hole for money right there.

Let me put my cards on the table and say that I'm a Green, German style. That doesn't mean I think the world is a nice place and that everything would be fine if we would just love each other. It does mean that I'm reflexively skeptical when it comes to military expenditures.

American conservatives should understand this. They're supposed to be skeptical about government spending, too. But it seems like they roll over on their backs and put their legs in the air when the spending is going to be done on the military. Or on something that is vaguely military-ish, like "homeland security".

Amber alerts? Those whatchmacallit guns stationed at overpasses in DC now and then? The INS changing to be the CIS? I don't think any of
this is actually getting any results, and it bugs me that nobody seems to be questioning it.

(As a non-American who's married to a U.S. citizen, I can tell you from personal, first-hand experience that the INS is not getting more efficient. Just bigger.)

Go back again and look at that figure. 53 billion dollars, just the increase. That's bigger than the entire budget of the government of Romania.

Do you really think all of those expenditures are necessary for the war against terror, as publicized? And if they are... do you really think that they're being spent honestly and efficiently, and that the US taxpayer (which I am, since Doug and I file jointly) is getting fair bang for the buck?

Maybe you do. But then I must wonder if that's based in evidence and reason, or on faith.

Because a lot of conservatives seem to have just that: faith. Blind faith that the US government, so sloppy and corruptible that it can't be trusted to run Social Security or any part of the medical system, suddenly becomes wonderfully clean, honest and efficient when spending money on guns, private security contractors, and cameras to watch us.

I'd feel a little better about this if I saw that someone in Washington was trying to keep track of all this money... if there was some sort of
watchdog committee, or something. But if there is, it's being awfully quiet. Certainly I haven't heard about it.

If we move to the States in a couple of years, will there be any schools left? Roads? Public transportation? Libraries?

Of course there would be military schools and libraries. US needs a high tech army to protect from the axis of evil. And all the public transport will be run by the military to ensure that no terrorist attacks will ever occur.

Now seriously, if the US military budget for one year would be used to develop all the terorist-source regions (which, coincidently, are the poorest of the world), there would be no need for further arming. However, that would hit the American military industry, which is providing the all free countries with armament against the axis of evil.

Claudia: "Because a lot of conservatives seem to have just that: faith. Blind faith that the US government..."

It seems that you're not the only one that noticed that. Here's a nice quote about it:

"And the Republican Party, in turn, has become enthralled by a kind of GOP cult of the leader - rooted in the theology of Christian fundamentalism, but with militaristic overtones that have become ever more apparent in our never-to-be-ended war against terrorism." -- de aici

Carrie suggests Wisconsin. While I wouldn't immediately concur, it's got services, education, roads, and politics that won't drive you *and* Doug to distraction. (I figure the two of you would soon Bonnie and Clyde it down K Street if you had to raise kids in the DC area. A bipartisan initiative.) Countryside that you'd find familiar, and that Doug's relative John liked. Migration paths, maple syrup.

Of course, you know me, so you know the drawbacks.

C.

Carlos, I snort at you.

[snort]

:-D

well, don't rule out arizona, now...just because we have more gun-toting, republican rednecks per square inch than maybe even texas (tongue squarely in cheek, andrew), and our school spending s*cks, and we apportion more funding for sports than academic programs...wait a minute - why the heck am *i* living here?

heh. *mostly* kidding. arizona needs us closet democrats!

you raise good points, claudia, on the budget, but i wouldn't worry about our roads, libraries, and schools being dismantled and sent to iraq, so to speak. there are just as many parents, bibliophiles, and commuters who vote, and the lawmakers know this. these things will still be here when you come...mmmm, *warm* winters, doesn't that sound nice?

lorraine

On living:

Well, Tacitus, guess what - we'd been looking into the Frederick, MD real estate market lately. But as our life goes at the moment, we are really only just looking. (Anything else in the greater DC area is just way out of bounds.)

Wisonsin, Arizona... all possibilities if we get jobs there.

On roads: I'm not really mostly concerned about the roads and the libraries. More about a general trend I've been watching and which makes me queasy.

I also misattributed... I got those numbers from Die Zeit, not the Süddeutsche.

Federal spending on education has always been a miniscule fragment of the whole. Some leftie friends of mine from coal country consider this to be an injustice, because locally-funded schools result in schools which vary wildly according to local wealth.

Likewise, the current military budget isn't nearly as significant, adjusted for inflation, as the late Cold War budgets, let around the truly crippling budgets of the early Cold War. We're spending a lot less on our post-9/11 armed forces than our grandparents did on the strategic air defenses and the mass conscription army of Eisenhower's America.

Might I suggest that the fact that the US spends so much more on defense than the rest of the world isn't an indictment of the US's military posture, but rather the decrepitude of the militaries of the first and second worlds? I mean, what the heck is up with Bulgaria's apparent need to empty its prisons into the ranks of its peacekeeping forces? Now *that* is an example of force overstretch.

Claudia,

Yes, there will still be schools. Hopefully fewer NEA members, but I digress... The military budget, swollen as it is, still amounts to a fairly miniscule amount of GDP. SoSec and Medicare are significantly larger proportions of Federal spending. And in any case, schools, roads and the like are (for the most part) financed via local taxes. Which, for me, just got jacked up a load. S'okay, though, my oldest will be in kindergarten soon enough so I'll start collecting then...

You should think about NY, or possibly one of the more overlooked bits of good old Jersey.

Bogdan,

"Now seriously, if the US military budget for one year would be used to develop all the terorist-source regions (which, coincidently, are the poorest of the world), there would be no need for further arming."

Because the 9/11 hijackers were poverty-stricken lads with no hope for the future? Or because Iraq just needed some free cash flow to create a true paradise on Earth? Feel free to explain. :^) (Also feel free to do so via e-mail, I can't imagine Claudia and Doug want a flamewar in the midst of their otherwise pacific bit of the Net.)

Dearest Claudia:

We Lawyers have to go where the money is, or where the action is. At some level, I think that Doug is more "actively," involved in doing something really important in Romania than anything he might do State side, regardless of what income he might make. (It is to be noted that I don't have a clue what Doug is doing apart from what little I have been able to gleen from this delightful blog, but I still think what I say is true).

It is simply impossible to avoid the truth that work almost always dictates living location. Oh, you can make lifestyle trade-offs, giving up something here for something else there, but in the essential calculus, if Doug is an American attorney, he will eventually come back to work in the United States, if in Government that is one thing, private practice is entirely another.

As for the choices, my much younger brother, (who I essentially raised myself), is also an Attorney and has opted out for a small practice in rural Arkansas. He longs at times for the cosmopolitian life of mine in the big city, while I long to sit on his back porch listening to crickets and bullfrogs.

I'm not sure either is better, but they are distinctly different. I am afraid that you will have to season to your own taste :>}

Your real question, I fear, is, "Can Claudia live in a Fascist leaning United States?" That is really far too large a question to answer here or tonight or if it is even true. But in general, your schools will be fine, transportation will work out, you will find a nice home...but gads, when was the last time you or anyone you know went to a Library?....lol I used to love libraries, but it's been decades since I set foot in one (except for a Law Library, of course, and even virtually all of that comes on-line now).

(PS as I think about it, I'm not quite sure where I got the idea that Doug was a lawyer, if I'm wrong on that, I apoligize in advance).

Be Good & Best Wishes,

Well, there is always our spare bedrooms, eh? One for you and Doug, and one for the two cyclones (aka the boys). Bethesda public schools are good, and we wouldn't charge you much rent. Speaking as an American, I don't much like the feeling here in America right now.

I have to admit its a little odd to read about Frederick, MD (where I am currently living) on this site. I usually come here (and lurk) to read up on a few people's perspective on life in places more distant. While, I've never said so before, I'd like to thank the writers here for their words. Yes, the lurkers do support you.

Anyhow, I'll throw out one person's perspective on the area (even though I know you are looking more theoretically than actual at the moment).

I understand the angst of anyone looking at DC real estate nowadays. I was lucky enough to get a job in Frederick, so locating this far out made some sense, but for people working in D.C. proper, tough choices abound.

The commute on the roads into DC is getting worse, and unlikely to be improved in a 10-year timeframe. The commuter coach buses to the Metro station run in the same lanes and traffic as all the cars. The newly opened rail line in Frederick city takes about 90 minutes to reach Union Station, and offers only 3 trains a day each way. These are slow diesels, using an 1830's era right of way. If you can work on the train, the ride wouldn't be as bad, I suppose. Six other trains a day cross southern Frederick county on the way into Union Station.

The county schools are improving (Fairfax county, VA just poached Frederick's superintendent), but still have some distance to cover.

Culturally and politically, the area is an odd mix of old-line inhabitants mixed with lots of lots of outmigrating suburbanites. The suburban migration is starting to shift past the first wave of those seeking "open spaces" and a "less urban feel" to the second-wave that have simply been priced out elsewhere. The second-wave is introducing more ethnic diversity into what had been a mostly black-white mix (mostly white at that).

I would state that the advantages of the area is that it has a "sense of place" that is distinctly lacking in most modern American suburbs. The city of Frederick still has its "historic" downtown. While a baby by European standards, it has a core of late 1800's to early 1900's buildings remaining. The oldest existing building in town (and now a museum) was a farm house built by German settlers in 1745.

Anyhow ... none of this directly relates to general fears towards living in today's America. I doubt military spending will drop anytime soon, too many people can play jingoistic games with that to maintain their spot at the trough. The spending itself, while mostly wasteful in economic terms, isn't as much a concern as it is the willingness to use it. I don't believe one has to necessarily lead to the other.