Gary Johnson: Cut defense spending by 43%

[woolfe9999]

You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that in terms of government spending and in terms of GDP output defense spending is lower today than it was at any time in our history except the 90s.

In the 60s defense spending was 10% of GDP. That would be the equivalent of spending $1.5 trillion a year in today's terms. And we are spending HALF that amount.

You're just cherry-picking statistics. We're spending more money, in inflation adjusted dollars, on defense today than we ever have.

Another point bears mentioning, but you'll of course ignore it.

We can't really justify higher defense spending based on population increase. A larger population doesn't really necessitate a more powerful military. Hence, all things being equal, defense spending per capita should decrease over time as the population increases, yet it has actually increased.

By contrast, total dollars spent on things like SS, Medicare and Medicaid are obviously going to scale with population. Some degree of increase is absolutely necessary to keep up with an expanding population. The fact that most non-defense spending has to scale with the population to stay the same over time whereas this is not true with defense spending has to be taken into account in comparing the two. To repeat in the simplest terms: all things being equal and government programs being in a steady state over time, most non-defense spending should increase faster than defense spending, assuming the population is increasing.

If we're going to have an honest discussion about government spending, we're going to acknowledge that a) we spend way more on defense than we need to, and b) skyrocketing healthcare costs are making Medicare and Medicaid unsustainable, meaning we must either get rid of one or both of those programs, radically scale back the benefits they pay, or find some way to address the skyrocketing costs.

- wolf

 

[kranky]

What is the plan to replace any and all jobs lost from reductions in government spending? Presumably, the private sector has to pick up the slack and find jobs for these people. The small government crowd is going to get their wish since the deficit is forcing this on us. The untested theory is that the private sector expands as government shrinks. Let's see how that works out for us.

Allow small businesses to get off the ground and gain traction and I believe the private sector would flourish and there would be more jobs. Too much regulation and I mean that in the broadest sense. It's now impossible for the average person with a skill to start and run a business unless he/she can afford a lawyer, a CPA, 6 months of no income while pursuing various and obscure government approvals and permits and possibly licenses (why do barbers need a government license?). The guy that ran the corner store in my neighborhood growing up had no lawyer or accountant, and would pay people a little cash to deliver the occasional order to an elderly customer. No way could you do that today.

I read an article once that it takes a year to open a restaurant in NYC because of the multiple agencies, inspections and permits required and the slowness of the process. I want restaurants to be safe but it should be possible to ensure a healthy environment in a lot less than a year.

 

[themusgrat]

You're just cherry-picking statistics. We're spending more money, in inflation adjusted dollars, on defense today than we ever have.

Another point bears mentioning, but you'll of course ignore it.

We can't really justify higher defense spending based on population increase. A larger population doesn't really necessitate a more powerful military. Hence, all things being equal, defense spending per capita should decrease over time as the population increases, yet it has actually increased.

By contrast, total dollars spent on things like SS, Medicare and Medicaid are obviously going to scale with population. Some degree of increase is absolutely necessary to keep up with an expanding population. The fact that most non-defense spending has to scale with the population to stay the same over time whereas this is not true with defense spending has to be taken into account in comparing the two. To repeat in the simplest terms: all things being equal and government programs being in a steady state over time, most non-defense spending should increase faster than defense spending, assuming the population is increasing.

If we're going to have an honest discussion about government spending, we're going to acknowledge that a) we spend way more on defense than we need to, and b) skyrocketing healthcare costs are making Medicare and Medicaid unsustainable, meaning we must either get rid of one or both of those programs, radically scale back the benefits they pay, or find some way to address the skyrocketing costs.

- wolf

Actually you're the one cherry picking. He is presenting another side, and you're discounting it because you don't want to hear it. It's amazing how much people would rather voice their opinion than listen to someone else.

What you should have done is remind him that the Cold War presented a very different picture than we have today. Today we spend our money invading third world countries. In the Cold War era, we were spending money ensuring that we wouldn't get nuked off the face of the earth by other world superpowers.

So we're definitely spending too much on our military. I think military spending should be confined to upkeep of present troops, R&D, and acquiring what we have already committed to buying until the deficit is single digit trillions.

 

[werepossum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
---
As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22]
- 85,600 Iraq,
- 103,700 Afghanistan
- 52,440 Germany
- 35,688 Japan (USFJ)
- 28,500 Republic of Korea (USFK),
- 9,660 Italy
- 9,015 United Kingdom
--

Most of them should be brought home and the overseas bases closed. Stop paying Haliburton $100 a gallon for gas and $50 per meal served, stop paying the leases for the bases we don't need, cut the size of our armed forces so we can be more selective about who is in them.

This. Instead of maintaining so damned many foreign bases, let's spend our money on innovative, fast, American-built heavy lift ships and a Conex-based force to deliver a heavy punch quickly anywhere in the world. If those bases are so important to world peace, let the host countries maintain them as NATO bases.

We very much need another four infantry divisions to reduce unit deployment and allow more time home and more time training. The easiest way to get them is to remove four divisions' worth of obligations, and let's be honest, only South Korea is really militarily important outside of the Middle East and Africa. Such bases are hugely expensive both in real terms and in terms of manpower consumed.

And while we're at it, let's limit all foreign aid (including to Iraq and Afghanistan) to America-made contributions in kind. If we don't make it, sorry, you're outa luck.

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually you're the one cherry picking. He is presenting another side, and you're discounting it because you don't want to hear it. It's amazing how much people would rather voice their opinion than listen to someone else.

What you should have done is remind him that the Cold War presented a very different picture than we have today. Today we spend our money invading third world countries. In the Cold War era, we were spending money ensuring that we wouldn't get nuked off the face of the earth by other world superpowers.

So we're definitely spending too much on our military. I think military spending should be confined to upkeep of present troops, R&D, and acquiring what we have already committed to buying until the deficit is single digit trillions.

He's not presenting "another side." He posted first, and stated something that was provably wrong. And no, I did not ignore his point. I corrected his misleading conclusion that we are spending less on defense than we ever have, and I addressed directly why we are spending even more on non-defense, which is the meaning of his point that "defense went down as a percentage of total spending."

BTW, I made a number of points in the post you quoted that you ignored.

I can't say I disagree with any of your analysis btw, vis a vis what we are doing with our defense dollars these days versus what we were doing during the cold war.

- wolf

 

[rchiu]

Cutting defense makes perfect sense considering US military spending is so out of wack with the rest of the world. The only thing I would change is to not cut 43% at once but over let's say a period of 5~10 years. This is to reduce the shock to the economy, after all, military spending is a big part of the US economy. This will also give DOD more flexibility, for example, cut with efficiency gains, reduce head counts through attrition....etc.

Still, Military together with the industry behind it is such a monster, I am afraid any politician with the guts to go with this will get assassinated before getting this done.

 

[ohnoes]

National Defense spending is $768 billion or 21% of the budget or 5% of GDP. In the 60s it was 40% of the budget and 8-10% of GDP. Current defense spending is lower than it was at any time in our history, except the 90s.

I think military spending as % of GDP doesn't tell you much about optimal spend. Military spending is direct competition with other countries and its benefit is relative to other country's spend. Looking at it as % of GDP doesn't get you to that comparison. You can spend 50% of GDP on military spending and it could be too low if other countries spend more. Similarly, you can spend 1% of GDP on military and it could be too much if other countries spend $0.

 

[Engineer]

National Defense spending is $768 billion or 21% of the budget or 5% of GDP. In the 60s it was 40% of the budget and 8-10% of GDP. Current defense spending is lower than it was at any time in our history, except the 90s.

I don't give a shit about % of GDP, I look at it as a % of budget and our soaring deficits. It needs to be flat out cut, period and the amount in the OP is as good amount as any.

 

[maluckey]

Just for giggles...

I don't see too many in this thread that have first-hand knowledge of military anything, so I'll chime in.

We all know that I'm not a supporter of ultra- Republicans, I can't stand the Tea Party and wish Liberal Democrats would die...painfully. But I also wish that the military machine would stop existing to serve it's own needs. We had no business in Iraq once we remove Saddam, no business in Afghanistan after we helped them to have two elections. We have NO business at all in Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Algeria or Chad. We've been meddling too much with covert and overt acts. CUT the budget.

Kick their ass and go home is how wars ought to be fought. Make yourself feared, unknown and distant. That's the best way to ensure that the defeated nation wont want a return visit.

Spend a couple hundred million in their economy, show intimate details of your operations and air your dirty laundry to weaken you in the eye of the public is the way to make sure that the nation whose ass that you just kicked is no longer afraid of being beaten down. They know you and you know them. The rest is time.....something that Americans just don't get.

Cut the fucking budget! Start with the nation building actions, then go for the brass. Next make sure that we have shorter (but far more intense) wars. Wars should fuching kill people....and LOTS of them. That way they are so repulsive that NOBODY wants them anymore. That will end the ten year wars in a hurry!

 

[HendrixFan]

National Defense spending is $768 billion or 21% of the budget or 5% of GDP. In the 60s it was 40% of the budget and 8-10% of GDP. Current defense spending is lower than it was at any time in our history, except the 90s.

Any time in our history "except"?

 

[rudder]

We could drastically cut defense spending and still keep the defense industry humming along... of course China would be in favor of this.

Things like leaving South Korea, reducing the number of carrier fleets, slowing acquisition of new weapon systems, etc.. will allow China to spread their influence even more.

Gonna hurt but it has to be done... but at least first stop building c17 cargo planes! The Air Force said they have too many but they keep buying them so a few congressmen can keep up employment numbers in their states.

 

[HendrixFan]

Gonna hurt but it has to be done... but at least first stop building c17 cargo planes! The Air Force said they have too many but they keep buying them so a few congressmen can keep up employment numbers in their states.

That is the whole point of our massive military spending. Kickbacks for constituencies and kickbacks for contracts.

 

[Genx87]

Not bad but would you cut the taxes associated with entitlements also or would they, in your opinion, need to stay the same to keep the programs solvent even with a 35% reduction?

Keep the taxes where they are. The point in cutting the entitlements is to reduce the deficit.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I believe the troops from Iraq and afghanistan should come home, but not a direct massive cut from defense. The United States must not show complacency as long as a beligerent Red China is becoming more and more a threat to Asian and eventually world stability. Red China is arming herself to the teeth for mainly one reason and one reason only. it is because of this that America must counter her as much as possible by not starting to remain in nuetral. America should keep and add even more SSBNs as well as developing new defensive and escpecially offensive systems to counter Red Chinas.

 

[HendrixFan]

I believe the troops from Iraq and afghanistan should come home, but not a direct massive cut from defense. The United States must not show complacency as long as a beligerent Red China is becoming more and more a threat to Asian and eventually world stability. Red China is arming herself to the teeth for mainly one reason and one reason only. it is because of this that America must counter her as much as possible by not starting to remain in nuetral. America should keep and add even more SSBNs as well as developing new defensive and escpecially offensive systems to counter Red Chinas.

We spend more on defense than the next 24 countries COMBINED. China is included in that group of 24. What are we doing wrong that we can't reasonably defend ourselves for roughly the same cost as other nations, especially given that we have already pumped so much more money into defense for 50+ years?

China isn't a military threat to us, they are bound to us economically. If we go to war with them their economy will disappear overnight and they wouldn't be able to afford to continue fighting. A big part of economically linking countries via globalization is that it severely inhibits the chance of wars. Bill Clinton has discussed this in great detail before, it is worth catching up on if you are interested.

 

[Infohawk]

Most of the army should be disbanded. We need naval power and strategic air and nuclear weapons to defend ourselves.

The double edged sword of cutting defense is that it's part of a dwindling manufacturing base. Cut it and the savings go to unemployment benefits. A difficult problem with no good political solution.

This is definitely a concern. A portion of any drastic cuts would have to be re-allocated to cushion the "creative destruction."

 

[Generator]

The fantasy is believing that the corner can be turned concerning this country. The whole economy that drives this country, jobs, and the military is facade. We have lingered so long in the realm of magical indulgence that one illusion now supports the other.

There must be an utter collapse. This is the price we pay for loosing wars of choice.

 

[Craig234]

That is the whole point of our massive military spending. Kickbacks for constituencies and kickbacks for contracts.

Hence "congressional-military-industrial complex".

Imagine if our economy were based on an enormous crack cocaine/meth industry.

'Ya, they kill people but we need the industry for the economy'.

If they push our nation to violate its values and kill people, that's unfortunate.

But nothing that can't be fixed with a little wrapping the flag around it, a little ideology about 'freedom of choice to use drugs being an American core value'.

 

[Zebo]

lol Love how press under reports defense spending. They are always 400 billion short failing to include 100B VA. 400B in federal retirements/HC half of which is DoD related. DOD NASA and a bunch more. 350 B cut would be a 35% cut. Oh and it won't happen. These pols love seeking monsters to destroy, your grandma will eat cat food before they cut 50% or even 35%.

 

[Ausm]

lol Love how press under reports defense spending. They are always 400 billion short failing to include 100B VA. 400B in federal retirements/HC half of which is DoD related. DOD NASA and a bunch more. 350 B cut would be a 35% cut. Oh and it won't happen. These pols love seeking monsters to destroy, your grandma will eat cat food before they cut 50% or even 35%.

Profit before people it's the Republican Mantra.

 

[Craig234]

Profit before people it's the Republican Mantra.

What you mean is, rewards our productive people EARN before giving it to parasites.

At least, that's why my 'English to Republican' translator says.

To be fair, it's not a mantra they chant - just a principle they follow.

The Republicans haven't quite come up with spin for redefining the word 'corruption', though, which describes policies for 'profits for a few against the public interest'.

 

[werepossum]

We spend more on defense than the next 24 countries COMBINED. China is included in that group of 24. What are we doing wrong that we can't reasonably defend ourselves for roughly the same cost as other nations, especially given that we have already pumped so much more money into defense for 50+ years?

China isn't a military threat to us, they are bound to us economically. If we go to war with them their economy will disappear overnight and they wouldn't be able to afford to continue fighting. A big part of economically linking countries via globalization is that it severely inhibits the chance of wars. Bill Clinton has discussed this in great detail before, it is worth catching up on if you are interested.

Germany was one of our major trading partners in the '30s. Trade increases the cost of war, but hardly prevents it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Germany was one of our major trading partners in the '30s. Trade increases the cost of war, but hardly prevents it.

I imagine there is nothing like having an entire country made in China. The German example pales in comparison.

 

[HendrixFan]

Germany was one of our major trading partners in the '30s. Trade increases the cost of war, but hardly prevents it.

I don't think we should completely eliminate defense spending. However, comparing the isolationism of the US in the 30s to the global economy we trade in now is silly. The difference is astounding.

 

[Pens1566]

Defense contractors are already slashing jobs at pretty high rates even though funding hasn't technically been cut. Enough contracts being pushed out to the right for a long enough time frame and they layoff. I'd say 20% this year alone isn't an uncommon figure.