Speaking for myself here.
William Wheeler goes to far in a Politico piece where he points out that the Department of Defense official numbers don't get to the entire budget (Hat tip, Ackerman). That's true.
Here's his accounting:
- $534B - Topline
- $6B - Mandatory expenses for DoD
- $130B - War Supplemental
Those are all uncontroversial. If someone doesn't at least reference the supplemental then they don't know the defense budget. I haven't tracked the mandatory expenses in OMB before, I'll check that out. [Here's what I find arguable:]
- $22B - DoE money for nuclear matters, selective service, and national defense stockpile. Odd grouping there and I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but it seems plausible.
- $106B - Department of Veterans Affairs. Fair enough. If we get universal health care than I might favor breaking up this number some, but until then the whole thing seems reasonable.
- $28B - Treasury Account to pay for military retirements. Wasn't particularly aware of this. Seems like a reasonable classification.
Here's the accounting I'm more dubious of:
- $43B - Homeland Security.
- $57B - Department of Defense's share of interest on the national debt.
We don't account for anything else by including its share of the debt. Why should we do that with Defense spending? Homeland security is arguable. I could see counting the Coast Guard[, although it is more policing,] but I can't really see counting the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Here's where I've got a major problem:
The foreign military aid come to about $15B and some of that aid is already on the military books. Economic aid to Iraq and Afghanistan via the State Department are civilian programs. That I could see argument on, but what's crazy is he lumps in the entire State Department budget. So all Foreign Policy is Defense Policy now? Bull. Look, the numbers above are already huge? Why fudge them to sneak in an extra 5% or so? The problem with this sort of tactic is that it throws his other numbers into doubt despite the fact that the base uncontroversial $670B number is already insanely high and is basis enough to argue for substantial cutbacks. The only explaination I can see was that he really wanted to be able to justify rounding up to one trillion dollars.
That said, I agree with him on the F-22 and he makes a fair point critiquing the F-35. It really isn't ready for a dramatic expansion.
Recent Comments