Remember back a little while ago when Bush was president? For much of his administration Democrats were constantly complaining, with some justification, that the military was overstretched. Some went so far as to say that the military was broken by extended deployments and its worldwide commitments. While running for president, Obama called for expanding the Army, one of his few good ideas. So now that he's president we should see a big expansion in the military, right? No, wrong.
From a report yesterday:
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billionThis report may not be correct, I haven't seen any confirmation yet. But let's assume that it is, other Democrats have called for defense cuts. The whole idea behind the stimulus is that government spending will boost the economy. We can spend billions on pretty much anything, and supposedly that's going to help. So why would we want to cut the military, even just considering economic reasons? The military employs millions, and generates huge numbers of jobs in the private sector.
Isn't it amazing that we can waste money on every ridiculous pork project imaginable, supposedly to benefit the economy, but we need to cut defense. Let's just ignore the fact that we are still involved in two wars. Why is it that the only spending Democrats ever want to reduce is military spending? It would be different if the administration was recommending across the board cuts in federal spending. In that case the military would be a reasonable target. But the situation is exactly the opposite; it's pushing massive federal spending in almost every other area. Aside from demonstrating yet again how weak Democrats are on defense, this proposal makes no sense given their own economic theories.
So why would we want to cut the military, even just considering economic reasons? The military employs millions, and generates huge numbers of jobs in the private sector.
ReplyDeleteMilitary spending has an extremely low multiplier. One conservative economist trying to discredit the Obama stimulus went back to wartime stimuli in WW1, WW2, and Korea, and computed a multiplier of 0.8. For tax cuts and domestic spending, most accepted figures range from just under 1 to about 2.
And as Paul Kennedy has noted, a country improves its chances to win a total war if it keeps peacetime military spending low. For example, the US spent 1% of its GDP on defense between the world wars; when WW2 broke out, it quickly raised it to 37%, far outmatching the Axis.
"And as Paul Kennedy has noted, a country improves its chances to win a total war if it keeps peacetime military spending low."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't peacetime.
"For example, the US spent 1% of its GDP on defense between the world wars; when WW2 broke out, it quickly raised it to 37%, far outmatching the Axis."
That sounds like a correlation doesn't equal causation situation.
I do agree that a cut in defense spending is not what's needed, but I wonder if it was just a tactic to make sure the military doesn't get complacent with its spending. I've no idea how efficient they spend their money, but as with any organization that large, there's going to be some wasteful use of money.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't peacetime.
ReplyDeleteBy the standards of total war, it is. Low-intensity conflict rarely requires many resources; the US managed wars in Latin America in the early 1900s with the same military spending as Bulgaria. Even today, Iraq and Afghanistan require about $130 billion per year. The budget cut plans are to the regular Pentagon budget, which is unrelated and is worth $520 billion, already higher as a percentage of GDP than at any point before 1939 outside WW1, the Civil War, etc.
FrodoSaves,
ReplyDeleteThe military wastes tons of money, no doubt. It's run by the government and therefore by definition is incredibly inefficient. I'm not opposed to cutting waste at the Pentagon -- just to the idea that we are going to cut the military budget while wasting ridiculous amounts of money on less important things. And that we are going to cut it while at the same time being told that we must spend insane amounts to stimulate the economy.
Alon,
The U.S. military of today is not comparable to that of 100 years ago, and the current situation isn't comparable, and that goes for the government as well. Our tiny military was part of a tiny government by today's standards. The pre-World War I period is a particularly bad example, and certainly not a situation we ever want to be in again. We were woefully unprepared for WWI and couldn't even equip our own forces without relying on France and Britain. As for low intensity conflicts not requiring many resources, that's obviously not true any more.
The current force is a high tech instrument that relies on extremely expensive equipment, which in turn minimizes human losses. In general though, I find any kind of economic determinist arguments extremely weak, especially when applied to military affairs.
The US wasn't underprepared for WW2. Nor was it underprepared for the war in Afghanistan, which it executed with remarkable success even after 10 years when defense spending was at a postwar low of 3% of GDP. Conversely, the most spectacular failure of the US military, Vietnam, occurred when peacetime defense spending was 9% of GDP.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, that's a strategic argument. The economic argument for spending more domestically is separate, and as far as I can tell has not been challenged by any major economist.
"The US wasn't underprepared for WW2."
ReplyDeleteThat's because we had learned some lessons from what happened with WWI. And we had already ramped up our military readiness & industrial production before Japan attacked.
"Nor was it underprepared for the war in Afghanistan"
It's still going on. We were prepared for quick strikes, not extended deployments.
"Conversely, the most spectacular failure of the US military, Vietnam, occurred when peacetime defense spending was 9% of GDP."
Again, there's no correlation there. There were all sorts of reasons for failure in Vietnam.
" The economic argument for spending more domestically is separate, and as far as I can tell has not been challenged by any major economist."
It's been challenged by a whole bunch of them. You might want to take another look at HOT5 1/31/2009 item 1, which has links. She noted three economics nobel winners right in the main article. You think they don't count or something?
The US wasn't underprepared for WW2.
ReplyDeleteI would actually contest that. I can't think of a single aircraft it had in service when it entered the war that outclassed anything in the Luftwaffe. Considering the US entered the war in 1941 and didn't start its bombing campaign in Europe until early '43, I wouldn't exactly call that being on the ball. Having said that, it was clearly in better shape than it was at the beginning of WWI.
The problem in Afghanistan, whatever it was caused by, had nothing to do with insufficient military spending. US spending in Afghanistan is about 0.2% of GDP. Many people on both the left and the right have called for more, but it won't be much more as a percentage of current military spending. It's certainly consistent with cutting programs like new submarines and fighter planes, which are tools of total war rather than war on terrorism.
ReplyDeleteAs for domestic stimulus, I know that there have been stimulus skeptics. What I'm saying is different: no economist that I know of has said that military stimulus is better than domestic spending. In fact, Robert Barro, the conservative economist I referred to in my first comment, derives his stimulus skepticism from the relative ineffectiveness of WW1, WW2, and Korea in boosting GDP. (It's actually Krugman who argues that WW2 was effective stimulus).