geithner on the budget

[bushwacked]

I can find no rational reason to have a "defense" budget that is larger than every other country combined. One of your graphs has SS and Medicare grouped together at 36% and Defense at 14%. So of the big three, I don't know what it looks like when you untwine SS and medicare but if those three are the biggest areas and Defense is about a third of that, I definitely think that is an area that has to be downsized along with making all the other programs fiscally sound. Personally, I'd rather have my money paying for MRI scans instead of bombs if we only have enough money to pay for one. It seems that our "defense" budget has more to do with defending commercial interests that donate money to politicians while Medicaire and SS at least go back to Americans who have paid into those programs.

 

Yup.

[Perchoutofwater]

Exactly. Measuring defense as a % of GDP is misleading at best.

 

And defense IS discretionary spending, not mandatory.

 

We really need to redefine those two terms. Constitutionally the federal government is required to provide defense. On the other hand there are "mandatory" spending items that have little or mo constitutional basis.

[bpwallace49]

We really need to redefine those two terms. Constitutionally the federal government is required to provide defense. On the other hand there are "mandatory" spending items that have little or mo constitutional basis.

 

Perch dont go off into la-la land here.

 

The constiutional questions are not the question here, but how each section of the budget needs to be reined in.

 

I can define providing defense to be 100,000 guys with guns for the country. "technically" that could be providing defense, although you would disagree. the spending level of that defense is the question.

[Azazello1313]

Measuring defense as a % of GDP is misleading at best.

 

I don't see why it's misleading. it's the same kind of thinking that justifies 1% of the population shouldering 40% of the tax burden....that 1% has the most to lose, the most to protect, etc. right? well the country with the biggest economy has the most to protect, the most to lose, the most responsibility when it comes to cooperative military engagements between nations. spending as a % of GDP also provides a well-adjusted measure for viewing spending over time. the only real weakness I see is it perhaps makes boom times look more frugal than they really were, and depressed times less so.

 

if measuring defense spending as a % of GDP is misleading, what would you say makes more sense? comparing absolute dollars spent?

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't see why it's misleading. it's the same kind of thinking that justifies 1% of the population shouldering 40% of the tax burden....that 1% has the most to lose, the most to protect, etc. right? well the country with the biggest economy has the most to protect, the most to lose, the most responsibility when it comes to cooperative military engagements between nations. spending as a % of GDP also provides a well-adjusted measure for viewing spending over time. the only real weakness I see is it perhaps makes boom times look more frugal than they really were, and depressed times less so.

 

if measuring defense spending as a % of GDP is misleading, what would you say makes more sense? comparing absolute dollars spent?

It is this that I meant. 4.3% of GDP compared to everyone else's expenditure as a percentage of GDP. There are some outliers in the table e.g. Israel, Saudi, etc, but just look at the players that are truly relevant. China, supposedly arming itself like mad, is at less than half of our GDP % and has a much smaller GDP to boot.

 

4.3% of a colossal number is still a colossal number. In fact, it's 663 billion dollars, seven times more than China and more than the whole of the rest of the world combined.

 

I don't care how you measure it, what we spend on defense is simply, well, indefensible. And before anyone chimes in with "you don't support the troops" and all that other BS, I don't see why the same efficiencies that are currently being touted for public services shouldn't be applied to the military-industrial complex (thank you, President Eisenhower). Tales of grotesque waste and corruption are almost endless in the defense arena but no-one wants to say so because the other lot will just hoot about lack of patriotism and betraying the troops blah blah blah, as if a $100 bag of laundry, paying KBR insane amounts to electrocute soldiers or an umpteen billion dollar spare jet engine was a good deal.

[Perchoutofwater]

It is this that I meant. 4.3% of GDP compared to everyone else's expenditure as a percentage of GDP. There are some outliers in the table e.g. Israel, Saudi, etc, but just look at the players that are truly relevant. China, supposedly arming itself like mad, is at less than half of our GDP % and has a much smaller GDP to boot.

 

4.3% of a colossal number is still a colossal number. In fact, it's 663 billion dollars, seven times more than China and more than the whole of the rest of the world combined.

 

I don't care how you measure it, what we spend on defense is simply, well, indefensible. And before anyone chimes in with "you don't support the troops" and all that other BS, I don't see why the same efficiencies that are currently being touted for public services shouldn't be applied to the military-industrial complex (thank you, President Eisenhower). Tales of grotesque waste and corruption are almost endless in the defense arena but no-one wants to say so because the other lot will just hoot about lack of patriotism and betraying the troops blah blah blah, as if a $100 bag of laundry, paying KBR insane amounts to electrocute soldiers or an umpteen billion dollar spare jet engine was a good deal.

 

I really tend to agree with you here. It definitely needs to be looked at, and picked over with a fine toothed comb. I do want to have the largest military in the world, because as Az has pointed out we have more to lose than anyone else, plus based on geography we are much harder to defend than most. Still the point to which our military has been taken does seem ridiculous. I'd love to see us close the vast majority of our overseas bases. I'd love to see programs like the jet engine recently cut, to be looked at very closely, to see if they can be cut, and if there is a real need from them.

 

Having said all that I think it is asinine the way the majority of the left yell "but defense spending", when it is still basically in the same place it has been historically for the last 40 years, but then want to hind their head in the sand when talking about Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and entitlements. Ursa I have to give you credit here, you have been consistent in cutting all of the above instead of just focusing solely on the military.

[Azazello1313]

It is this that I meant. 4.3% of GDP compared to everyone else's expenditure as a percentage of GDP. There are some outliers in the table e.g. Israel, Saudi, etc, but just look at the players that are truly relevant. China, supposedly arming itself like mad, is at less than half of our GDP % and has a much smaller GDP to boot.

 

sounds like now you're defending the use of % GDP as an appropriate measure.

 

in any case, I pretty much agree with you. 4.3% is more than we need to be spending, particularly with the kind of debt crunch we are facing. 3.5% might be more appropriate. maybe 3%. just beware of cutting too much. we cut a lot after the cold war, and I think it hurt us, as 9/11 caught us with our pants down and not prepared to respond appropriately.

 

I don't see why the same efficiencies that are currently being touted for public services shouldn't be applied to the military-industrial complex (thank you, President Eisenhower).

 

not fair to blame Ike. his name is associated because he is the one who coined the term and warned against it, in his farewell address.

 

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[wiegie]

RE: the defense budget--the CBO's long-term projections have it at 3.6% of GDP from 2021 onward

 

As for the notion that the defense cuts left us unprepared for 9/11, exactly what cuts hurt us? My guess would be that the vast majority of cuts had nothing to do with anything that would have helped us stop or respond to 9/11.

[Perchoutofwater]

RE: the defense budget--the CBO's long-term projections have it at 3.6% of GDP from 2021 onward

 

As for the notion that the defense cuts left us unprepared for 9/11, exactly what cuts hurt us? My guess would be that the vast majority of cuts had nothing to do with anything that would have helped us stop or respond to 9/11.

 

Both the NSA and the DIA are funded out of the defense budget. DARPA is also funded out of the defense budget and has produced a lot of the technology used by both military and civilian (CIA) intelligence agencies. I can see where cutting the budget could affect the activities of these agencies, and could affect what we know about our enemies. So, it is plausible that defense cuts, if they affected the budgets of these three agencies that fall under defense, could have contributed to use being caught with our pants down.

 

BTW, in the STOTU Obama talked about a Sputnik moment. DARPA was established as a DoD agency in 1958 as America’s response to the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik.

[Azazello1313]

As for the notion that the defense cuts left us unprepared for 9/11, exactly what cuts hurt us?

 

you could argue that the intelligence community in late 90s and early 00s left us with the two biggest intelligence failures in our nation's history. that's prima facie evidence right there. but also, just one quote (of many) from the 9-11 commission report:

 

Subsequent chapters will raise the issue of whether, despite tremendous talent, energy, and dedication, the intelligence community failed to do enough in coping with the challenge from Bin Ladin and al Qaeda. Confronted with such questions, managers in the intelligence community often responded that they had meager resources with which to work.

 

Cuts in national security expenditures at the end of the Cold War led to budget cuts in the national foreign intelligence program from fiscal years 1990 to 1996 and essentially flat budgets from fiscal years 1996 to 2000 (except for the so-called Gingrich supplemental to the FY1999 budget and two later, smaller supplementals).These cuts compounded the difficulties of the intelligence agencies. Policymakers were asking them to move into the digitized future to fight against computer-to-computer communications and modern communication systems, while maintaining capability against older systems, such as high-frequency radios and ultra-high- and very-high-frequency (line of sight) systems that work like old-style television antennas. Also, demand for imagery increased dramatically following the success of the 1991 Gulf War. Both these developments, in turn, placed a premium on planning the next generation of satellite systems, the cost of which put great pressure on the rest of the intelligence budget. As a result, intelligence agencies experienced staff reductions, affecting both operators and analysts.

 

another opinion piece, obviously pro-military, but I don't think the facts he cites are in dispute:

 

In 1991, at the end of the Cold War, there were 710,821 active-duty soldiers in the U.S. Army. By 2001, that figure was down to 478,918. That 32 percent decline in active-duty strength severely limited our options for a military response to 9/11, practically dictating that the forces sent to Afghanistan and Iraq would be too small to pacify two countries with a combined population of nearly 60 million. The result was years of protracted conflict that put a severe strain on an undersized force.

 

Eventually even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was compelled to admit that the force was too small. Today the Army is up to 566,045 active-duty soldiers, an 18 percent increase since 2001. That is still too small—a force that size has too little “dwell time” at home and places too much stress on soldiers. It also imposes constraints, helping to curtail the size of the force we send to Afghanistan even though more troops could get the job done with less risk.

[Ursa Majoris]

sounds like now you're defending the use of % GDP as an appropriate measure.

 

in any case, I pretty much agree with you. 4.3% is more than we need to be spending, particularly with the kind of debt crunch we are facing. 3.5% might be more appropriate. maybe 3%. just beware of cutting too much. we cut a lot after the cold war, and I think it hurt us, as 9/11 caught us with our pants down and not prepared to respond appropriately.

 

 

 

not fair to blame Ike. his name is associated because he is the one who coined the term and warned against it, in his farewell address.

I'm not defending GDP as a measure but casting the debate in those terms because that's where we are. I think defense is extremely important, of course, but it's not a holy shibboleth that is untouchable.

 

In the case of 9/11, I don't believe the post-cold war "peace dividend" had any effect at all. Rather there was a failure to observe that the enemy had changed and the new irregular enemy wasn't going to be bringing tanks and jet fighters to the party. Osama Bin Laden doesn't care about battleships and tanks.

 

I wasn't blaming Ike at all. I was in fact genuflecting in his direction as one who, though a career soldier (and a truly great one, leading the biggest seaborne invasion in history) saw clearly the corrupt cozy world developing between the military and industry, fueled by politicians. Hats off to Ike, I say.

[Ursa Majoris]

based on geography we are much harder to defend than most.

Based on geography, we are the hardest country in the world to attack, not defend (perhaps Australia might dispute that). We are bordered by two countries only, Mexico (could be conducting an invasion right now but not quite the traditional type ) and Canada, neither of which are any kind of threat. Other than that we have two oceans to the east and west, each of which offers 3,000 miles minimum clearance so it's unlikely we will fail to spot a fleet of Arab dhows or Chinese junks heading toward us.

 

And let's face it, we have the nuclear threat covered as far as MAD goes.

 

None of this means we should reduce our military to dangerous levels. I tend to agree with your assessment of where cuts could be made. For damn sure, I would want military projects run with a thousand times more efficiency than they are right now. People build entire careers around military projects that, if the ever do conclude, too often provide unnecessary, out of date and crappy weapons systems at their end.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Ursa Majoris

[Square]

plus based on geography we are much harder to defend than most.

Seriously?

 

Anyway, I think the characters you think of from listening to Rush don't really match up with people around here so I don't know where the idea that only Ursa has ever said anything against the other programs. I've seen plenty of people rail against all three of these programs because quite honestly that is where we as a country really need to get our diaper dirt together. I'm not a real big fan of people automatically lumping SS with medicare in all regards though. SS is a safety net that we pay specifically towards our entire working career. The fact that criminals (politicians) have stolen that money time and time again to pay for congressional spending sprees is a shame. If they reduce or change SS for future generations, I'd honestly be fine with it as long as it stipulates that the government can't get their hands on that money in any case. As SS stands now it is a terrible long term investment. But even if it was a poor investment if there were actual dollars behind those IOUs I could probably be talked into leaving SS as is. The idea that the current generation pays for the retiring generation is as evil-dumb as politics get.

[bushwacked]

Conservatives are all about reducing deficit spending, until they aren't anymore. Perch can see Russia from his house.

[Perchoutofwater]

Based on geography, we are the hardest country in the world to attack, not defend (perhaps Australia might dispute that). We are bordered by two countries only, Mexico (could be conducting an invasion right now but not quite the traditional type ) and Canada, neither of which are any kind of threat. Other than that we have two oceans to the east and west, each of which offers 3,000 miles minimum clearance so it's unlikely we will fail to spot a fleet of Arab dhows or Chinese junks heading toward us.

 

And let's face it, we have the nuclear threat covered as far as MAD goes.

 

None of this means we should reduce our military to dangerous levels. I tend to agree with your assessment of where cuts could be made. For damn sure, I would want military projects run with a thousand times more efficiency than they are right now. People build entire careers around military projects that, if the ever do conclude, too often provide unnecessary, out of date and crappy weapons systems at their end.

 

We have the 7th largest perimeter of any country, and we pretty much are the armed forces for the country with the largest perimeter, which is Canada. You site Australia, though it's perimeter is roughly only 80% the size of ours. Additionally for years we've allowed ourselves to be the UN's hammer, which I'm sure hasn't made us too many friends, not to mention our own forays.

 

With regard to the coastline, I see that as more of a danger than the land borders at this point. Sure if we were back in the 1,800's that could be viewed as a protective barrier, but now the navies of most of the world have ships with ranges that could easily meet our coastlines, not to mention submarines. While our land borders are not monitored to the extent they should be, our coast lines are even more porous.

[Ursa Majoris]

We have the 7th largest perimeter of any country, and we pretty much are the armed forces for the country with the largest perimeter, which is Canada. You site Australia, though it's perimeter is roughly only 80% the size of ours. Additionally for years we've allowed ourselves to be the UN's hammer, which I'm sure hasn't made us too many friends, not to mention our own forays.

 

With regard to the coastline, I see that as more of a danger than the land borders at this point. Sure if we were back in the 1,800's that could be viewed as a protective barrier, but now the navies of most of the world have ships with ranges that could easily meet our coastlines, not to mention submarines. While our land borders are not monitored to the extent they should be, our coast lines are even more porous.

You really feel vulnerable?

[Perchoutofwater]

You really feel vulnerable?

 

I didn't say that, though we will always be vulnerable to some extent or another regardless of how many dollars or people we throw at it. It's not something I worry about too much. While I do feel our coastlines are more vulnerable for a surprise attack, though the likelihood of an actual navy attacking us is extremely low, and would be disastrous for any nation that was dumb enough to try with our a major coalition of other nations backing them. Right now our largest threat is from small groups of individuals, and more than likely they would just cross the southern border. Anyway we are all vulnerable to some extent our another, both nations and individuals. There is only so much risk you can mitigate, and at some point it ceases to be cost effective. I think you are of the opinion that we have exceeded that point, and for the most part I agree with you, excluding the border, where we are vastly undermanned and our leaders both past and present have lacked the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it.

[yo mama]

RE: the defense budget--the CBO's long-term projections have it at 3.6% of GDP from 2021 onward

 

As for the notion that the defense cuts left us unprepared for 9/11, exactly what cuts hurt us? My guess would be that the vast majority of cuts had nothing to do with anything that would have helped us stop or respond to 9/11.

People are willing to pay money to feel safer, even if they aren't actually made safer. And if someone gets to make a tidy profit on the side, so be it.

Edited February 23, 2011 by yo mama

[Ursa Majoris]

While I do feel our coastlines are more vulnerable for a surprise attack, though the likelihood of an actual navy attacking us is extremely low, and would be disastrous for any nation that was dumb enough to try with our a major coalition of other nations backing them.

Not just extremely low but downright impossible.

[Azazello1313]

yeah, the US would be really hard to launch a ground war against. on the other hand, yeah it has a huge amount of coastline to defend. but really, geography means almost nothing -- pro or con -- when talking about today's most meaningful security threats.

[Ursa Majoris]

yeah, the US would be really hard to launch a ground war against. on the other hand, yeah it has a huge amount of coastline to defend. but really, geography means almost nothing -- pro or con -- when talking about today's most meaningful security threats.

Right, so given that invasion in the traditional sense is an effective impossibility, that begs the question of what all the rest is for. I really don't have a problem with the projection of power per se. There are occasions when it is necessary - Bosnia leaps to mind and the need to support one's friends.

 

Where I have a hugh problem is in the other areas I mentioned earlier - endless projects yielding nothing except bloated budgets and missed deadlines - by years, even decades! -, crappy weapon systems (Osprey, anyone?), unnecessary weapons systems (Crusader), indiscriminate handing out of money for contracts that no sane (or honest) person would think of signing and on and on.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

What I get a kick out of is how all the conservative tea party types rail on about how the gubment is overstepping its authority with all these social programs and wants us to get back to the founders original governing intent. And yet they are absolutely fine with us being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building wherever we see a small opening. (Thanks curveball). Foreign entanglements? Washington must have been hitting the sauce that day.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

And back to the topic at hand. Absolutely everything should be on the table to get our debt under control. It will take spending cuts in every area and pretty significant tax increases to get our house back in order. It sucks but that's the way it is. The political backbone of everyone in Washington is an abomination on this issue. I'm very disappointed congress chose to ignore the deficit commission plan. They should have used that as a starting point for negotiations as well as Obama should have for his budget proposal. Can we get some serious long-term planners in Washington please?