http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-16
This NYT fact check needs a fact check, or at least a copy edit by someone who understands how arithmetic works. "The drop in military budgets as a share of G.D.P. is due less to any reductions for the Pentagon and more to the fact that a growing piece of the federal budget pie is being consumed by spending for entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as more baby-boomers reach retirement age." As a matter of arithmetic, this makes no sense. "A is falling as a share of B, but this is less due to a decrease in the absolute level of A, but due to the increase of C, even though increasing C does not increase B." I mean I guess you could certainly make a case that increasing spending on entitlements as a share of the federal budget grows the economy - it certainly does compared to Pentagon spending - but I have a very hard time believing that this is what the authors of the post had in mind. If that is the framework then we should all be very jazzed at the prospect of spending more money on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Let her rip, entitlement spending! Let the economy grow! > - > 10:59 > pm<http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-16#sha=3d1bba0ee> > > Thom Shanker and Jackie Calmes > Fact-Check: U.S. Military Spending at 4% of G.D.P. > > In a rapid-fire exchange on dueling tax rate plans, Mr. Obama said Mr. > Romney wanted to give tax breaks to the wealthy – which he said would > decreases government revenue, but then add large sums to the military > budget, as well. Like all statistics, these on military spending can be > viewed from different angles to offer different perspectives. > > “Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on additional > military programs, even though the military’s not asking for them,” Mr. > Obama said. > > In the previous debate, of the vice presidential candidates, Mr. > Romney’s running mate, Paul D. Ryan, denied that the Republicans proposed > to increase military spending more than $2 trillion over a decade. But the > Pentagon would need $2.3 trillion more than is projected through fiscal > year 2022 at current spending levels, adjusted for inflation. > > That is because military spending as a share of the economy’s total > output is expected to dip below 4 percent of the gross domestic product > later in the decade. To keep it at that level would require the additional > spending. The drop in military budgets as a share of G.D.P. is due less to > any reductions for the Pentagon and more to the fact that a growing piece > of the federal budget pie is being consumed by spending for entitlement > programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as more baby-boomers > reach retirement age. > > To be sure, Mr. Romney has vowed to spend at least 4 percent of the > nation’s gross domestic product on national defense. In setting that goal, > he has lots of company: Mr. Obama’s first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of > Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, also urged early in his tenure that military > spending never drop below 4 percent of the gross domestic product. > > Yet both Admiral Mullen and the defense secretary with whom he worked > the most, Robert M. Gates, also came to realize that the nationwide > economic downturn meant that the fire hose of money flowing to the Pentagon > after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was no longer sustainable. Both > Admiral Mullen and Mr. Gates then pushed ahead with a sweeping series of > defense spending adjustments, including canceling or slowing some weapons > programs, shrinking the size of the military’s personnel rosters and > slimming the civilian bureaucracy. Those cuts have been taken ever deeper > under Mr. Obama’s current defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta. > > Regardless of who is the next president, he will have to shape his > military budgets based on two realities: the nation’s economic condition – > and a Congress that carries out its own agenda on defense. > > And, like all statistics, these on military spending can be viewed > from different angles to offer a different perspective. > > The wars of today are fought differently, with different weapons that > do offer more bang for the buck than earlier generations. And today’s > national security environment requires a different size force. > > Since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the military’s > roster has shrunk dramatically. Remember those (expensive) heavy armored > divisions standing watch across the Fulda Gap in Germany to deter the > Soviet Army? Gone. The arsenal of bombers, attack jets, warships and > nuclear warheads has shrunk in size, as well, as the White House and > Pentagon tried to fit defense dollars to the changing national security > environment. > > And the public’s representatives in Congress, where the budgets must > be approved, have made clear that there is no appetite for paying the tab > for a large standing military sized to the needs of 1970. After all, > personnel costs are the largest part of the Pentagon budget. > > Defense Department spending doubled in the decade since the terrorist > attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but deficit-reduction measures urged by both > Democrats and Republicans have forced the Defense Department to reduce > budget proposals for the next decade. > > To hit those deficit-reduction targets, the Obama administration has > offered more than $450 billion in cuts that would reduce the military > budget by roughly 7 or 8 percent over the next 10 years, even beyond the > spending reductions that are expected to come naturally from the > withdrawals first from Iraq and from Afghanistan. > > The Obama White House and the Pentagon are joined at the hip in urging > Congress to reach a budget deal that would avert even deeper cuts in > military spending in a process of across-the-board reductions call > sequestration. > > > > <http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A//nyti.ms/QSGEqB&text=Fact-Check%3A%20U.S.%20Military%20Spending%20at%204%25%20of%20G.D.P.%20%23debates> > - > > > -- > > -- -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected]
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
