Quantcast

Budget Experts Stumped By Romney’s Plan To Grow Military Spending While Cutting Revenue

Sinpac 2012/06/19 23:46:25
Is this some of that fuzzy math I have been hearing about?

Mitt Romney’s pledge to massively increase military spending — close to a $2 trillion increase
over the next ten years and boosting the Pentagon’s base budget to 4
percent of GDP — combined with his promises to cuts taxes and reduce the
national debt is leaving many national security and defense experts
scratching their heads, particularly because the presumptive GOP
presidential nominee has not said how he’d pay for it.

A poll of defense budget experts conducted by Defense News finds that Romney’s pledge to grow the defense budget “appears politically impossible, if technically doable.”


Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said about Romney’s plan:


If you put all of the promises together, it doesn’t all add up. The administration may change, but the math remains the same. Harrison said.
If you want to increase spending on defense over the next decade and
reduce the deficit, then that necessarily means sharp reductions in
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid or sharp increases in taxes, or
some combination of the two
.


Indeed, previous increases in defense costs, specifically those
incurred by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, were largely paid for by
increasing the deficit instead of through reductions in domestic
spending or raising taxes. That decision, said Defense Leon Panetta last week,
was a “mistake.” “Frankly all of us bear the responsibility to bear
those costs if we’re willing to engage in war,” said Panetta. But that
commitment to balance defense spending against budget cuts and/or tax
hikes is nowhere to be seen in Romney’s proposals to grow military
spending.


“I think with any discussion of major increases to any aspect of
federal spending at this point, you have to say what the offset is,”
Michèle Flournoy, who until recently served as President Obama’s
undersecretary of defense for policy, told DefenseNews. “You have to say
what you are cutting instead. Are you increasing revenues to do that?”


Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution said last month that Romney’s military spending plan doesn’t “reflect fiscal reality.”
Indeed, Romney, who has committed to cutting taxes, has already
effectively ruled out the possibility of raising taxes to pay for
military spending. That leaves unpopular reductions in Medicare and
other domestic spending to balance the budget in a Romney presidency.
But “they don’t want to specify those, because they don’t want to lose
the senior citizen vote,” said Gordon Adams, who oversaw defense
budgeting at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget during
the Clinton administration.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • A Founding Father 2012/06/20 03:13:00 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +4
    Mitten is making no defense of the fact he represents the military-industrial complex of Wall Street, where the largest and most dependable profits come from. Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Tracor, Caterpillar, Northrop, DuPont, Olin, and a couple of dozen more. They can make more money in a year than a thousand others can make in a decade, all with contracts extending for years into the future. It is the ideal place for a hedge fund to be, as the pieces can be dismantled a little at a time and moved to China, India, Brazil, or Vietnam. Good money, regular income, non-taxable as it is earned "overseas". Perfect, Mitten, just perfect.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jgh57 2012/06/20 18:30:22
    jgh57
    +1
    Straight out of George Bush's play book, "How to Destroy a Nation."
  • Gloria 2012/06/20 11:29:50
    Gloria
    +2
    It's pretty simpe. Cut taxes, increase military spending, & close every public school. Isn't he smart?
  • A Founding Father 2012/06/20 03:13:00 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    +4
    Mitten is making no defense of the fact he represents the military-industrial complex of Wall Street, where the largest and most dependable profits come from. Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Tracor, Caterpillar, Northrop, DuPont, Olin, and a couple of dozen more. They can make more money in a year than a thousand others can make in a decade, all with contracts extending for years into the future. It is the ideal place for a hedge fund to be, as the pieces can be dismantled a little at a time and moved to China, India, Brazil, or Vietnam. Good money, regular income, non-taxable as it is earned "overseas". Perfect, Mitten, just perfect.
  • Rebel Yell 2012/06/20 00:59:04
    Rebel Yell
    +3
    Romney is providing absoutely no details about anything, and it's not because he has no plan. We know his plan. Take a machete to SS and Medicare to pay for his tax perks for the wealthy . Of course Romney won't provide any details, so he keeps trapsing around the country yapping about what a job creator he is and how he will have the economy up and rolling within a year. No details on that either. NOTHING !

    And people are actually buying into his load of crap ! Incredible.
  • Sinpac Rebel Yell 2012/06/20 01:02:56 (edited)
    Sinpac
    +2
    Just in new Mitt Romney Photo.
    mr monopoly
  • luvguins 2012/06/20 00:44:11
    luvguins
    +3
    Those are exactly what Romney plans, but he can't dare articulate it and lose seniors, and independents. Reagan did the same with the military, and left a trillion dollar debt, the most at the time. Got to love Republicans. They keep doing the same things yet expect a different result. They are only against deficits when out of power.
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/06/20 00:29:20
    jackolantyrn356
    These "Experts" are working off a Marxist Framework of Tax and Spend..... Ignore them,
  • Roger47 2012/06/20 00:23:22
    Roger47
    +3
    Americans should have realized the dangers of "Republican Math" long ago. Their numbers never add up. And they don't care.
  • HarleyCharley 2012/06/20 00:15:52
    HarleyCharley
    +1
    I agree...
  • Skeptikat 2012/06/20 00:14:08
  • ghostrider 2012/06/20 00:11:05
    ghostrider
    +2
    President Reagan tried that ... it didn't work then, either
  • A Found... ghostrider 2012/06/20 03:17:51
    A Founding Father
    But, it got him elected. That is the whole object of the rhetoric - to be elected and pump up the profits of the military-industrial complex.
  • ghostrider A Found... 2012/06/20 04:35:46
    ghostrider
    Yes, I know .... with each passing year since President Eisenhower cautioned the nation about the growing danger of the escalating power of the "military/industrial complex", their influence has mushroomed ... the Soviet Union bankrupted itself trying to compete with the U.S. ... now, we're committing the insane error, all in the name of "keeping America safe" ... the 'gadzillions' spent didn't deter '9/11'
  • A Found... ghostrider 2012/06/20 04:46:18 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    Recall that Colin Powell and Congress were calling for reductions in the bloated budgets of the Pentagon. Now, when that happens, bad things are bound to happen to the United States. 9/11 is a lot like the sinking of a battleship in Cuba, Pearl Harbor, and an "attack" on a destroyer near Vietnam, all "bad things" that excite the sleeping citizens. What will be the next one? Stay tuned, it probably is in the making.
  • ghostrider A Found... 2012/06/20 21:02:09
    ghostrider
    Well, China seems to be the "next big scare" ... we're already redeploying troops throughout the Far East
  • A Found... ghostrider 2012/06/21 02:32:00 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    America has always needed an enemy, a "boogie man", in order to justify it's bloated military establishment and further it's goals of world domination in behalf of it's "commercial interests". Other empires have done that for identical reasons - Spain, England, France, even Portugal and the Dutch sought similar controls of weaker countries. China will do as well as Russia or Iraq. But, they outnumber us by a factor of ten to one. We should have learned in Vietnam that such odds are not good, not good at all. Now, they own us, and are buying up our "financial institutions" so as to control the money supply and economic policies of the U.S. and it's Congress. We should commence talks with them about a "merger", a "Co-Union". We could supply the guns and capital, they supply the manpower and brains. Together we could achieve the world domination we have so longed for.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/21 04:04:04

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals