Discussion in 'Politics' started by L-Kabong, Oct 15, 2012.
romney is determined to raise defense spending 2 trillion dollars more.
One of the easiest to fact check claims at the vice presidential debate Thursday night was Paul Ryanâs claim that he and Mitt Romney do not propose to increase military spending by $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
He was wrong.
âSo weâre saying donât cut the military by a trillion dollars,â Ryan said. âNot increase it by a trillion, donât cut it by a trillion dollars.â
First on the trillion dollar cut heâs warning about, thatâs a reference to the sequester cuts set to kick in in early 2013. Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.
But Ryan is also suggesting that they represent Obamaâs proposal for military spending. Thatâs a false implication. President Obamaâs budget assumes the sequester will be repealed and that, in inflation adjusted terms, defense spending will be held fairly steady. In nominal terms Obama calls for it increase from $525 billion in 2014 to $634 billion in 2022.
But back to the second claim. As Travis Sharp, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, points out, Romney does in effect call for spending $2 trillion more on defense, and did not object when President Obama pointed it out at the first presidential debate.
The basis for the math is Romneyâs stated goal of pegging defense spending at 4 percent of GDP.
Hereâs how the Romney campaign describes the plan on its website: âMitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending â meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development â at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.â
Because GDP tends to grow faster than inflation, indexing defense spending â or any spending â to it, is in effect a call to increase its budget and its buying power every year.
Based on CBO projections of GDP over the next 10 years, that suggests Romney proposes to spend between $2.063 and $2.316 trillion more on defense than Obamaâs current budget calls for â depending on how quickly the spending is ramped up.
âRomney hasnât explained how exactly he would pay for $2 trillion in additional defense spending,â writes Sharp. âHis plan doesnât look realistic under the current status quo, and Obama is justified in calling him out on it. But the debate shouldnât only be about the arithmetic of the status quo. It should be about choosing Americaâs role in the world and deciding which candidate has the leadership ability to bring that choice to fruition.â
The two biggest industries on earth are drugs and weapons. I'm not sure which of the two is bigger but the drug trade is said to be six times as large as Microsoft. The "war on drugs" ensures that illegal drug trafficking won't generate any tax revenues. At least the weapons trade generates tax revenues.
"Igitur qui desiderat, praeparet bellum"
Romney Calls for More Defense Spending
MT. PLEASANT, S.C. â Standing among retired airplanes on the U.S.S. Yorktown, a decommissioned World War II aircraft carrier, Mitt Romney told a small group of veterans on Thursday that given the global threats to Americaâs interests, the nationâs defense spending should be increased instead of cut.
Acknowledging that waste and excess spending exist within the Defense Department, Mr. Romney still called for increasing the Pentagonâs budget.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/23/we-failed-steve-jobs.html good article
Total defense spending over 700,billion.Only 5 billion for cancer research
Separate names with a comma.