« Furman and Social Security | Main | The Cheney Factor »

Budgeting With John McCain

11 Jun 2008 03:43 pm

Via Chris Bowers, McCain's top economic advisor says defense budget cuts could pay for endless tax cuts. Meanwhile, in Foreign Affairs McCain calls for increased defense spending to make his agenda of endless war feasible:

Along with more personnel, our military needs additional equipment in order to make up for its recent losses and modernize. We can partially offset some of this additional investment by cutting wasteful spending. But we can also afford to spend more on national defense, which currently consumes less than four cents of every dollar that our economy generates -- far less than what we spent during the Cold War. We must also accelerate the transformation of our military, which is still configured to fight enemies that no longer exist.

So on the one hand, defense cuts will pay for tax cuts. But on the other hand, we need to substantial increase defense spending as a share of GDP to something more like Cold War levels.

Straight talk!

Share This

Comments (16)

On the one hand, ensuring a continuance -- even an increase -- in tax benefits for the Elite really will benefit the "average American".

They didn't need all those ridiculous social service giveaways to support public education, infrastructure, health and public safety anyway. If they had any sense, they'd have been living in gated neighborhoods and sending their children to private schools in the first place.

Oh -- That's right. They can't afford it. Well, one forgets. Eh, John? Cindy?

Oh -- That's right. They can't afford it. Well, one forgets. Eh, John? Cindy?

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | June 11, 2008 3:59 PM

Why don't poor people just inherit some money like the rest of us?

Whew, you scared me! I thought defense budget cuts was too good of an idea to come from McCain. Glad to know it was just yet one more competing, and contradictory, thread of bullshit.

I suggest the U.S. government marry an heiress.

Sounds like McCain is promising four more years of fuzzy math.

So far I resist the temptation to make defense spending cuts a litmus test for my political support. I already have an anti-war litmus test that prevented me from supporting Kerry and had Obama not eked out a victory I would have been SooL again this year. But really, every Democratic candidate should have military spending cuts as part of their campaign platform. The military is bankrupting this country, and its size is not due to national security needs but is one large porkfest.

http://www.truthout.org/article/chalmers-johnson-going-bankrupt
"If you begin in 1789, at the moment the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defense expenditures in comparison with the rest of the world."

http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html
"In Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels (400,000 barrels per day)." This is 1/6 of what all of Africa uses.

McCain: "We must also accelerate the transformation of our military, which is still configured to fight enemies that no longer exist."

Now what? Is he saying that he changed his mind about Russia and China being a threat?

Last time I looked they were nasty enough to not get invited to his "League of Democracies."

Wait just a minute now. Holtz-Eakin merely said that defense spending cuts could pay for the McCain tax cuts, not that McCain actually would cut defense spending to pay for his tax cuts.

Wait just a minute now. Holtz-Eakin merely said that defense spending cuts could pay for the McCain tax cuts, not that McCain actually would cut defense spending to pay for them.

Wait just a minute now. Holtz-Eakin merely said that defense spending cuts could pay for the McCain tax cuts, not that McCain actually would cut defense spending to pay for them.

So he Holtz-Eakin wasn't way off message, he was just be disingenuous.

All Repubs, and the low information voters are all mathophobes. The fact the he gets the sign wrong (negative cuts don't pay for tax cuts), is really just an endearing feature, not a bug.

Maybe he is a secret Ron Paul supporter.

I'd be more prone to believe McCain if I saw a series of bills he attempted to get through Congress over the years that attempted to slash specific wasteful Pentagon spending. The last I heard, generally accepted accounting principals didn't allow you to offset expenses with rhetoric.

Good time to remind everyone that 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 guys with boxcutters.,

How many hundreds of billions do we need to add to our military budget, on an annual basis, to battle this enemy? We already spend more than the rest of the world combined on military spending.

Is there anybody, besides Ron Paul, who is willing to question publicly the idea of American imperilaism? When and how are we going to to stop this militarism inherent in American politics? Certainly McCain has drunk the kool-aid, is Obama willing to speak out on this incredible waste?

http://www.energybulletin.net/13199.html
"In Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels (400,000 barrels per day)." This is 1/6 of what all of Africa uses.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 11, 2008 4:45 PM

A friend of mine has a buddy who is a pilot in the AF. Claims that they have to use up their fuel ration every month so it doesn't get cut, so to do this they do things like fly up to Maine to bring back lobsters or fly over the Atlantic and just dump fuel into the ocean. Or drive hummers in circles for hours on the base.

Well that is straight talk in one sense. His campaign says something that goes one way(right). Then he or his campaign says something that goes the complete other way(left). The average of the two is straight! Thats how we stayed ahead in paddling in a white water rafting trip in high school. Always facing left or right, so on AVERAGE we were always straight and steady.


Comments closed June 25, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.