Preble: Budget Hawks Should Look at the Military
Cato’s Chris Preble seems confused here:
In two successive debates, moderators Jim Lehrer and Tom Brokaw have tried to pin the candidates down on what they would do to control spending, and both times the candidates have evaded the question. CBS’s Bob Schieffer gets his shot next week in the third and final debate. Rather than an open ended “What would you cut?” question, he might ask them how much their different plans for increasing the size of the military will cost the taxpayers.
Look, the first rule of Washington budgeting is that money spent on the Department of Defense doesn’t actually count as money. I think that’s in the Blue Dog Charter, a poster on the wall in Fred Hiatt’s office, and somewhere in the Declaration of Independence.
Preble uses some fuzzy math to show that John McCain’s proposed increases in Army personnel strength (to say nothing of other defense-related spending he seems to favor) would actually cost more money than could be saved by eliminating all earmarks, and therefore concludes that McCain maybe isn’t really a budget cutter. But when you consider that money spent on the Department of Defense doesn’t actually count as money you realize that McCain’s one of the fiercest foes of bloated spending there is. Life is just much simpler if you keep that simple maxim in mind.
31 Responses to “Preble: Budget Hawks Should Look at the Military”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 9th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I had a buddy many, many years ago that enlisted in the Navy. He ended up working the scale on a launch crew on an aircraft carrier. During one of his leaves back home he’d regale us with stories of life at sea, jets getting dumped in the ocean, crew members tossed overboard and other tidbits never making the papers. One story stuck. Seems there’s some sort of pin, he called it a “T-bar”, that gets used up or damaged on a jet launch. They had boxes of them in the hold. They were a machined part and cost several hundred dollars. While docked in Italy or other locales they’d bring up a couple boxes and throw them at terns and other port birds for sport. Small potatoes in the grand scheme of military wastage but illustrative of the mindset that pisses away a few billion$$$ every year.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Like these two candidates, so closely tied in with almighty military-industrial, would ever think of snipping a penny off of defense spending. Besides, it’s “unpatriotic.”
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
October 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
By funding our massive national debt, so that present taxes aren’t unduly burdensome and force across-the-board cuts, China is really helping us to fund our outrageous military spending and military dominance. At this point, China has other things to do and isn’t interested in assuming the role of global police officer. But for how much longer is the present situation going to be in China’s interest?
October 9th, 2008 at 9:22 am
One thing people on both sides of the political divide tend not to realize is that a good chunk of the US budget balance improvement in the 1990s (3% of GDP structurally, 5% non-structurally adjusted) is cutting defense from 4.8% of GDP in 1992 to 3% of GDP in 1999. Now back to more than 4% (not sure on the details given military supplemental budgets). So more than half the structural improvement in the budget balance was defense budget cuts, about 1/3 of the improvement in the overall budget balance.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Ooops, that should teach me to not cite budget balance figures from memory. The military spending figures above are correct, but the improvement in the US budget balance is better than I remembered…closer to 6.5% non-cyclically adjusted, 4% cyclically adjusted. Still, 1.8% from DoD is nothing to sniff at.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Yeah, Stefan, but what you’re not remembering is that the DoD budget started decreasing under Bush I, with the support of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because the Cold War ended. When Democrats want to do the same thing, they are “gutting the military” or leaving us with “spitballs” to defend ourselves.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Mark F:
I’m not taking a view on the optimal level of DoD spending here, just pointing out that changes in DoD spending are significant fraction of movements in the US federal budget balance. Moreover, probably one of the forms of spending that are more discretionary and politically easier to move around, both up and down, than other forms of spending that are a sizable fraction of the federal budget.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Matt, this is crap and you know it. McCain has been a consistent advocate for defense oversight his entire senate career.
You can’t say the same thing about Barrack Obama.
So please, lets be honest with ourselves: who has truly took the hard stance on military spending? John McCain or Barrack Obama?
~T. Greer
October 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Yes, McCain likes to talk about defense oversight. Somehow his tendency to rely on lobbyist for advice doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in his follow through ability. But either way, even if you improve the efficiency of military spending, dropping bombs in Iraq is not investing in the American economy. And McCain isn’t going to save enough on procurement to fund the various wars he would surely start.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
We’re putting pressure on Bob Schieffer to ask the candidates about military spending and the economy in the final debate.
Our Question:
“The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at a cost of $5,000 per second, fuel our growing debt and feed the economic crisis. Even subtracting war funding, Pentagon spending is breaking records. Will rebuilding the economy require a tough look at military spending? What would you change?”
Please lend your voice and support.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
If at this stage, you still think it’s spelled “Barrack,” you’re a moron.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
China can’t stop buying U.S. Treasury bonds because if it did, the U.S. would run out of money and probably would default on some debts. The massive Chinese holding of U.S. treasuries would drop in value quite precipitously.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’ve been learning a lot about both candidates’ records, and McCain’s record in some defense things seems cool – cutting some of the projects he cut is a good idea. I’m not sure what to make of the arguments that his cuts weren’t altruistic or had other agendas – those arguments seem mud-slingy and I’m suspicious – but I don’t care because I’m not voting for him.
However, both myself and every other serving person I know can point easily to budget and technological excess, and structural proclivities in the military that demand them. Closest thing I hope to hear from either candidate (probably not till one of them gets elected, though), is a conclusive policy on what he wants the military to look like and be used for during his term and in the future. I’m not seeing much publicly-stated leadership on that, and don’t really expect to hear anything until after the election.
As far as a consistent advocate of defense oversight goes, I’d note that some of the more flagrant outrages of military procurement are perpetuated by congress, over the military. Force structure decisions are the procurement that comes with it is more important than line item review of individual purchases.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
McCain has cut some worthless projects, but the savings doesn’t really compare to the costs of perpetual war and national belligerence to the point of reconstituting the Cold War, which has got to be the most outrageous waste of money and human energy of all time.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:26 am
From the point of view of a non-American, I just hope Obama’s foreign policy is a little more Doveish and a little less Hawkish.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:21 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 6:27 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:14 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:11 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
This is quite a up-to-date info. I think I’ll share it on Facebook.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra