[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: Neocons Talk Deficit but Won’t Budge on Defense Cuts Establishment conservatives love to talk about the need to cut government spending, but they always seem to find an excuse whenever there is a serious effort to actually do it. Last year, for example, they opposed cutting Medicare as part of health care reform. Now they are banding together to stop cuts in defense spending, which is a fifth of the federal budget, even as they also insist that the deficit is our most critical problem. This hypocrisy was on full display on Oct. 4, as American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol penned a joint op-ed for the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page on why the defense budget should be totally off limits to budget cutters. First, they claim the military is not the true source of our fiscal woes. No one is saying the defense budget is the sole source of the deficit, but the fact is that it has risen from 3 percent of the gross domestic product in fiscal year 2001 to 4.7 percent this year. That additional 1.7 percent of GDP amounts to $250 billion in spending almost 20 percent of this years budget deficit. And according to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone accounted for 23 percent of the combined budget deficits between fiscal years 2003 and 2010. Brooks, Feulner and Kristol then claim that terrorism and piracy in sea lanes around the world, potential future threats from a nuclear Iran or a China that can deny access to U.S. ships or aircraft in the Asian-Pacific region justify a defense budget only slightly smaller as a share of GDP than at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles targeted directly at the United States. Tufts University foreign policy expert Daniel Drezner was underwhelmed by the argument. Terrorism and piracy are certainly security concerns but they dont compare to the Cold War, he said. A nuclear Iran is a major regional headache, but its not the Cold War. A generation from now, maybe China poses as serious threat as the Cold War Soviet Union. Maybe. Thats a generation away, however. American University defense expert Gordon Adams was equally unimpressed by the trios rationalization: It is little more than a façade to justify growing defense budgets as far as the eye can see, affordable or not. First, we are leaving Iraq as we speak and will be drawing down in Afghanistan starting next year
[which] frees up a considerable amount of military personnel. Second, anyone who thinks terrorists and pirates justify a $700 billion defense budget and a 2-million-person force (actives and reserves) has clearly drunk way too much Kool-Aid. These missions are important, but they do not drive anywhere near that number of forces. Third,
The U.S. has ample sea and air power to cope for decades with a rising China, whose economic pursuits pose a much more significant problem for the U.S. than their military pursuits. The fact of the matter is that China spends half the share of its GDP on defense as the U.S. less than $100 billion last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the primary source for internationally comparable data on military expenditures. Thats less than 15 percent of what we spent. According to SIPRI, the military budgets of every nation on earth other than the U.S added together would only come to 46 percent of the total. In other words, the U.S. defense budget is 54 percent of world military spending. The idea that we need a defense budget almost 60 percent larger as a share of GDP than a decade ago is ludicrous. While it is true that the wars initiated by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress will impose a financial burden on American taxpayers for many years to come, that isnt enough to justify spending more than half of the worlds military expenditures. Almost all our NATO allies get by spending well less than half what we spend as a share of GDP. To their credit, many of the tea party candidates likely to be elected to Congress next month have made clear that Pentagon spending will be on the chopping block. Politicos John Bresnahan recently quoted Tea Party Patriots leader Mark Meckler saying, Everything is on the table. I have yet to hear anyone say, We cant touch defense spending, or any other issue ... Any tea partier who says something else lacks integrity.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
Even if it was necessary, which with two wars it very well may be, we should fucking pay for it. There needs to be a War on Terrorism income tax to pay for it.
Why not reduce the size of government? Who says we can't pay for the ongoing efforts and cut out the fat in the budget? I would love to see that f'ing Americorps killed. But nobody talks about ending such BS programs, do they?
There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
A flat 25% cut across the board is needed.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|