Replies

. . . therefore roughly 5% of GDP should be an appropriate number for planning purposes.

As a long term objective I think your analysis is correct and where we should head.

Unfortunately, in the near term, due to the totally unconscionable spending of the past decade, we need to cut overall spending to something less than 20% of GDP. With current federal contractual obligations including service of the national debt, that may not leave enough for the correct long-term support for defense spending.

I work in the defense industry, and I can readily identify ways in which defense spending can be cut without reducing acquistion and support of weapons systems. I have relatives in uniform and with their second-hand information I can identify ways in which operational spending can be cut without reducing operational readiness, troop pay, or things like allowance for quarters.

I do not want cutting defense to be first on the list of ways to reduce federal spending. It's nearly the *last* item on my list of things to cut. But we must reduce spending and now - in a time of relative peace - there is justification for lower spending than when there were active wars or active competition with a major power.

And we need to get overal spending down now, including retiring as much as practical of the national debt, because in about 10 years we're going to be facing an aggressive, near-peer confrontation with both China and Russia. That means in a few years (~5) we'll need to embark on a defense buildup similar to the Reagan years.

So, my 'solution' would be to more or less hold the line on defense spending (~4.5% of GDP) for five years as part of a general spending reduction, then elevate it to ~7% when we've gotten overall spending in line.

And hope that there is enough time to do that before a major conflict arises - probably as a proxy fight with China or Russia (or both) pulling the strings on the adversary.

Phlyer: "I work in the defense industry, and I can readily identify ways in which defense spending can be cut without reducing acquistion and support of weapons systems."

I am highly dubious of all such claims, since they imply that current decision-makers are idiots, and that seems doubtful.
Indeed, no government institution has a stronger incentive to be cost-effective than the military, since lives and national survival are at stake.

Yes, I understand the role of Congress, and its need to keep projects in members' districts viable.
It is also historically true that no future war will be exactly the same as any past war, and therefore our current training & equipment may or may-not be effective when needed.

So the military must be prepared for any contingency, most of which will never happen, and that by definition is "wasteful".
Indeed, an astute enemy will study carefully exactly what we are and are-not prepared for, and will attack us in the latter.

So here's my point: budget cutting simply reduces the number of contingencies the military is prepared for, and increases the probability that we will be attacked in some area of weakness.

Phlyer: "So, my 'solution' would be to more or less hold the line on defense spending (~4.5% of GDP) for five years as part of a general spending reduction, then elevate it to ~7% when we've gotten overall spending in line."

Without knowing the true conditions of each service -- their training, equipment, morale, etc. -- it's impossible to say exactly what they need.
But if 5% under Bush II was adequate during war time, then surely it will be adequate in relatively peaceful years.
And that would avoid the need to ever increase to 7%, short of some unexpected national emergency.

As for where our Federal budget cuts should occur, I have a simple solution: get out a copy of the Constitution and read -- where does it specify each Federal function.
Those Federal functions not specified in the Constitution should be first for budget cuts.

Problem solved, right?

;-)