ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Kagan Gets His Facts Wrong On Defense Spending

By Guest Blogger on Feb 4, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Our guest bloggers are Sean Duggan, Research Associate, and Laura Conley, Special Assistant for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

f22-raptor.jpgIn his recent column in the Washington Post (“No Time to Cut Defense“), Robert Kagan deplores a 10 percent cut in defense spending for Fiscal Year 2010 and lists several reasons to keep the budget for the Department of Defense high.

Unfortunately, Kagan’s argument is based on a crucial and mistaken assumption — that the 10 percent “cut” actually represents a decrease in spending. In fact, the budget that Kagan finds inadequate represents a 3 percent increase in spending over FY2009 levels (The proposed DOD budget will be $527 billion for FY 2010 compared to nearly $513 billion in FY 2009.) Moreover, the $527 billion request is the exact number proposed by the Bush administration last February for FY2010. And while this proposed budget does not fully meet the Pentagon’s request, the higher figure that Kagan refers to is a wish list proposed by the Joint Chiefs that was never meant to be fully funded.

Kagan also justifies his much larger preferred increase by arguing that current defense spending is in historic terms comparatively low as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), that “reduced defense spending” will erode the United States’ ability to pressure allies to help in Afghanistan, and that a “proposed decrease” would provide fodder for critics who believe the age of American hegemony is over. Kagan’s argument neglects three crucial facts.

First, while it is true that today’s ratio of defense spending to US GDP is relatively low compared to historic figures, this is irrelevant. Focusing solely on spending ignores the scope of American military commitments, the choice of strategy, and the degree of risk accepted. More importantly, it is common knowledge that DOD spending is actually more even in inflation-adjusted dollars today than at any other time since the end of the World War II. Comparing it to GDP obscures the more salient point that defense spending has increased dramatically in the last decade. Adding the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the fiscal year 2009 base defense budget brings that sum in real dollars to nearly twice the amount spent for defense only eight years earlier.

Second, Kagan is wrong to suggest that the proposed budget will hinder American actions in Afghanistan or any other conflict zone. U.S. defense spending is already greater than the defense spending of all other nations combined. It’s difficult to image that increasing the budget “only 3%” would seriously jeopardize American credibility in the face of such an extreme disparity. Additionally, funding for the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq is not included in the DOD’s baseline budget. This money comes from separate supplemental appropriations, meaning that the “supposed decrease” does not directly affect our capabilities in these theaters.

Finally, the proposed budget will not contribute, as Kagan suggests, to the perception around the world that the U.S. “is in terminal decline.” U.S. standing in the world has been seriously damaged over the last eight years by, among other things, President Bush’s almost over reliance on the military as the key tool of foreign policy. Spending less money on expensive procurement programs, such as tanks and fighter jets, could signify a renewed commitment to diplomacy and development and help us rebuild credibility overseas. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted, the spigot of defense spending opened after 9/11 should come to a close and we should increase funding for diplomacy and devleopment.

While Kagan’s argument contains some serious flaws, we agree that a temporary increase in defense spending can and should be used to stimulate and grow the economy. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to use this temporary increase. The wrong way is to ask the Congress to spend money in order to impress our allies or purchase weapons that are not needed. For example, more F-22s–the most expensive fighter plan ever built–are not needed. Instead, over the next two fiscal years, the DOD should accelerate funds that would have to be spent eventually on people, projects, and reset that would improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families and enhance our overall security while enabling the economy to recover and grow.

While this would mean a temporary increase in the overall defense outlays for FY 2010 and FY 2011, it would also mean that in 2012 and 2013, defense spending on items such as military construction would tail off sharply when the economy should be back to its normal level of activity. This is the right way to increase defense spending, one that will restore American military power while revitalizing the economy.

Climate Progress

Steven Chu on climate change: “Wake up,” America, “we’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California,” Part 2

By Joe Romm on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Finally, we have a top administration official telling it like it is. Energy Secretary and Nobelist Steven Chu told a Los Angeles Times reporter:

In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.

“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said.

Precisely. [You can listen to an interview with the LAT reporter and me on "To the Point" here.]

We face desertification of perhaps a third of the earth that is “largely irreversible for 1000 years” — if homo sapiens are not sapiens enough to sharply and quickly reverse emissions trends. Part 1 looked at the canary-in-the-coal mine for desertification: “Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in.”

But the Southwest from Kansas and Oklahoma to California are right behind Australia, according to a 2007 Science (subs. req’d) paper:

Here we show that there is a broad consensus among climate models that this region will dry in the 21st century and that the transition to a more arid climate should already be under way. If these models are correct, the levels of aridity of the recent multiyear drought or the Dust Bowl and the 1950s droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.

[Note: That study "only" modeled the A1B emissions scenario, which leads to 720 ppm by 2100. We are currently on track to 1000 ppm (see here).]

A December US Geological Survey report also warned that the SW faces “permanent drying” by 2050.

Before the permanent drying — aka a desert — sets in, you’d expect to see more and longer record-breaking droughts. In fact, Lester Snow, Director of California’s Department of Water Resources said Friday

We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history.

Fundamentally, California and the SW face one of the gravest dangers predicted by climate science, the expansion of the subtropics, the dry regions of the planet getting drier and getting bigger. As New Scientist explains:

Read more

Politics

Righting the Course

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm

By Brian Beutler

If you’re of the opinion that the events of the past several days are parts of a shrewd political gambit that will ultimately result in the best stimulus package we ever could’ve hoped for, this post isn’t for you. If you’re not, here’s how a motley assortment of folks think the effort can be salvaged.

Michael Hirsh:

But now Obama needs to remind the American people that unless the Republicans get on board, they will bear political responsibility for failing to act in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Theda Skocpol:

Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy. Right now, he has only one chance to re-set this deteriorating debate: He needs to give a major speech on the economy, explain to Americans what is happening and what must be done. People will, as of now, still listen to him — and what else is his political capital for?

Jonathan Zasloff:

The administration should use its supposed vaunted community organizing to build public pressure for its version of the stimulus, and then Obama, Pelosi, and Reid should hold a press conference where they say:1) The only reason why the bill has not passed and Americans have not gotten economic relief is because of the Republican Party. And the only reason why the Republican Party has been able to obstruct is because of the filibuster (more accurately, Senate rules, but close enough.).

2) If the stimulus does not pass now, any future economic pain is solely the responsibility of the Republican Party. Any American who finds herself out of work, without medical care, etc. etc. can lay blame completely at the doorstep of the GOP.

3) Budget bills cannot be filibustered.

4) Thus, our intention is to pull the stimulus package now and resubmit it as part of the budget process. We will resubmit this budget with Democratic priorities and Democratic principles, and it will reinforce the goals that President Obama advocated during the campaign and for which the country gave him a mandate.

5) It will pass in that form.

6) To be sure, it will be much better to have a package now, but we will not compromise on what the American people voted for last November. And as we said, the public knows quite clearly upon whom the blame should land.

7) Negotiations are over. Take it or leave it.

What say you?

Climate Progress

Secretary Chu On Global Boiling: ‘Wake Up’

By Brad Johnson on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Steven ChuIn his first interview as Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu “offered some of the starkest comments yet on how seriously President Obama’s cabinet views the threat of climate change, along with a detailed assessment of the administration’s plans to combat it.” Secretary Chu told the Los Angeles Times that the nation is like “a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down”:

I’m hoping that the American people will wake up.

Chu also worried the nation doesn’t yet recognize how great a threat global warming represents:

I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen.

One danger Chu highlighted in the interview was rising drought throughout the West, with major declines in the snowpack that waters California. In the worst case, Chu said:

We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.

Chu described “public education as a key part of the administration’s strategy to fight global warming” — in addition to clean energy research, infrastructure, a national renewable electricity standard, and a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system.

Perhaps proving his point that Americans have yet to “wake up,” right-wing climate-denial bloggers retort that the Nobel Prize-winning quantum physicist and energy expert can’t be believed because he “isn’t a climate scientist.”

Update

The DeSmog Project‘s Kevin Grandia highlights Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) response:

I am hopeful Secretary Chu will take note of the real-world data, new studies and the growing chorus of international scientists that question his climate claims.

Grandia asks: “I’m interested in whether the American public is okay with their taxpayer money going into this claptrap.”

Related Posts

Politics

Gonzales Claims U.S. Attorneys Were Not ‘Fired for Political Reasons,’ DOJ Report Said ‘Quite The Opposite’

By Guest Blogger on Feb 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm

On CNN last night, host Campbell Brown asked former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales how he let nine U.S. attorneys get fired “for political reasons” while he was running the Justice Depatment. “I disagree with that,” replied Gonzales, claiming that a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general on the 2006 firings had concluded that the attorneys were not “fired for partisan political reasons.”

Gonzales claimed that the report found that “most of these U.S. attorneys” were fired for “perfomance related reasons” and that it didn’t “draw definite conclusions” about the other firings:

BROWN: Your office fired nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons. There has been no disagreement about that. I mean, how could you let that happen?

GONZALES: Campbell, Campbell, Campbell. I disagree with that. You said that nine U.S. attorneys were fired for partisan political reasons. That’s not what the report said. Quite the opposite. The report clearly found that there were performance related reasons for the removal of most of these U.S. attorneys and with respect to the remainder, they didn’t have enough information to draw definite conclusions.

Watch it:

Gonzales’ assertion that the report vindicated his office of any political motives for the dismissals, however, is false. The report did draw “definite conclusions” about the firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias

The evidence we uncovered in our investigation demonstrated that the real reason for Iglesias’s removal were the complaints from New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists about how Iglesias handled voter fraud and public corruption cases in the state.

As detailed above, many Republicans in New Mexico believed that fraudulent registrations by Democratic Party voters was a widespread problem in New Mexico, an evenly divided state politically that has had very close national elections. Beginning in the summer of 2004, New Mexico Republican Party activists talked to Iglesias about the “party’s . . . efforts” on the voter fraud issue, and sought to involve him in those efforts.

Iglesias refused to prosecute voter fraud cases sought by GOP activists and the report concluded that then-Sen. Pete Domenici’s (R-NM) complaints to the White House were a “primary factor” in Iglesias’ being placed on the firing list.

– Michael Wilson

Update

TPMmuckraker’s Murray Waas reports tonight that a federal grand jury probe is looking into the role that Domenici and former senior Bush White House aides played in Iglesias’ firing. The probe “is investigating whether Domenici and other political figures attempted to improperly press Iglesias to bring a criminal prosecution against New Mexico Democrats just prior to the 2006 congressional midterm elections.”

Politics

Your Moments of Catharsis

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm

By Brian Beutler

The clips pretty much explain themselves. I’m not sure what privilege they were claiming, but surely it wasn’t executive privilege. Right? Maybe someone should give them a crash course in the meaning of the word “executive” vis a vis “executive privilege”.

Yglesias

Where’s the Stick?

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:06 pm

by Ryan Avent

You know, the bottom line on the stimulus debate is this: a substantial package is necessary, and a substantial package will be imperfect, so we’re going to get an imperfect package. Certainly we will get a package that will not appeal to most conservatives, which is a good thing, because most conservatives are dead wrong on the issue of stimulus. But as Steve Benen notes, these conservatives are winning the public relations battle, and as a result, public support for stimulus is falling. And, as Ezra says (linking to Michael Hirsh) conservatives are winning the public relations battle over stimulus, because Democrats are letting them win it.

A changed tone in Washington, if costless, would be a wonderful thing. But voters put Obama and Democratic majorities into office in order to get results. If Obama chooses to embrace Republicans even as they actively work against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, then we have to question his judgment. It takes two to change the tone. Republicans aren’t interested, and they’re using his overtures to undermine the American economy and the Obama presidency. Obama’s mandate is his to deploy or squander, and the speed with which he has lost control of the storyline on stimulus suggests that he has miscalculated in figuring how much magnanimity that mandate affords him.

Whatever illusions the administration might have had that making nice on the stimulus bill would generate a comity that would carry over to other legislative priorities must now be shattered. This is what the process is going to look like for the next two years. Obama must either find a way to win or get as much enjoyment as he can out of the presidency while he has it. And winning needn’t mean an all out declaration of war on his GOP antagonists. But at this point Obama seems reluctant to twist arms at all. Given the stakes, this is inexcusable.

Health

NFIB Back To Fear-Mongering About Employer Mandate

By Igor Volsky on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:05 pm

nfibmyer.jpgDuring President Clinton’s failed effort to reform the health care system, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) misrepresented Clinton’s employer mandate as a crushing financial burden that would cost thousands of jobs. The organization dispatched a constant stream of “Fax Alerts” and “Action Alerts” to its tens of thousands of small-business owners and published hundreds of anti-mandate editorials in local newspapers.

Fifteen years later, as this President prepares his own health care initiatives, the NFIB is back to its old play book. Last week, the group released two studies showing that an employer health insurance mandate would “cause 1.6 million jobs to disappear (66% from small businesses) and would cause U.S. real GDP to contract by approximately $200 billion“:

Employer mandates, the paper explains, ultimately reduce the number of jobs and pass costs along to the employees who are the alleged beneficiaries of the mandates. The mandates also impede business investment and effectively impose regressive taxes on both employees and owners of small businesses.

Progressives see the employer mandate as one way of building comprehensive reform and moving the country towards universal coverage — without fundamentally disrupting the health system. Since some 60 percent of Americans already receive health insurance from their employers, requiring all large firms to insure their employees could significantly reduce the number of uninsured, guarantee continuity of coverage, and spread the cost of insurance across different payers (the government, employers, and the individual).

In April 2006, this theory of “shared responsibility” was put to the test. Massachusetts adopted comprehensive health care reform and required employers with more than ten employees to either set up a Section 125 plan and offer a “fair and reasonable” contribution for their employees’ coverage, or “pay an annual ‘fair share’ contribution of $295 per employee.”

Now, if we’re to believe the NFIB studies, employers should have passed the costs of health insurance to consumers, reduced wages, or fired lots of people. Instead, the great majority of Massachusetts businesses embraced health reform:

- Few firms reported making changes as a result of health reform.

- Firms reported making few changes in cost sharing or in offering more plans are a result of the mandate.

- Employer coverage increased by five percentage points.

- Massachusetts employers were less likely than employers nationally to terminate or restrict eligibility for health benefits.

These most recent NFIB studies, like their historical counterparts, have already made their way into local newspapers. And while their conclusions are predictable, their methodologies are suspect. The NFIB model assumes the mandate applies to small businesses despite Obama’s campaign promise to the contrary, inflates the employer contribution to 50 percent of the cost of insurance (compared to the Massachusetts mandate of $300), and relies on faulty premium growth projections (premiums are expected to slow as a result of universal coverage).

All of this is a cautionary tale. NFIB is going for a repeat performance of 1993 and it’s up to us to call them on it.

Politics

TARP recipients spent $114 million last year lobbying Congress and funding political campaigns.

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm

The Center for Responsive Politics reports today that beneficiaries of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program “have spent a total of $114.2 million on lobbying in the past year and contributions toward the 2008 election.” The companies’ political activities in 2008 “have, in part, yielded them $295.2 billion from the federal government,” which the Center notes is “an extraordinary return of 258,449 percent.” The Wall Street Journal reported last week that “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced rules aimed at curbing the influence of lobbyists, politicians and others in determining which firms get bailout cash.”

Media

Retiring Yepsen

By ThinkProgress on Feb 4, 2009 at 4:07 pm

By Kay Steiger

David Yepsen The chief political writer for the Des Moines Register, David Yepsen, announced today that he’s leaving journalism to go to an Illinois-based think tank. For those of you who have election amnesia, Yepsen is one of those guys who argued that college students from Illinois probably shouldn’t vote in the Iowa caucuses (there’s more on his argument in this Newsweek article). He reasoned that college students have residence in their home state and shouldn’t be able to caucus in the state where they go to school. Incidentally, he was siding with Hillary Clinton’s campaign over the dispute and against Barack Obama’s campaign. The youth vote, you’ll remember, was a large chunk of why Obama was successful in Iowa. He’s been one of the more influential political columnists because of Iowa’s order in the primary process, but after all those years of calling the shots (sometimes incorrectly) I guess he wants to get out of the business of putting words on a printed page.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up