How much can we cut defense?
But I would like to see someone specify how far we could cut. Should we be spending the same amount as China? Twice as much? Would that be a stable equilibrium, or would we be encouraging the emergence of global competitors who would then force us to spend more again?
When I think about this, I think of Google. It’s safe to say that Google spends more than anyone else on the development of web services, including improving stuff that they aleady spend more on than anyone else, and do better than anyone else, like . . . web search. You could argue that they should stop, because it’s a waste of money: they’ve already got the top ranked search engine, and webmail program. Why continue to spend money making those things better when they’ve already got such a dominant position? …
I don’t think that many strategic advisors would recommend Google cut back its spending to the level of its next biggest competitor. The reason is obvious: Google’s continued spending keeps competitors out of the market. If they cut back that far, there’s a real risk that someone more nimble will come along and start cutting into your market. Every user that Google loses to a competitor makes their services just slightly less outstanding.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
When people argue for defense cuts, what they’re really arguing is that they think the US military should be completely disbanded with a small contingent of EU-style parade troops, primarily for a small degree of internal security and emergency disaster. “Cutting spending” is just “death by a thousand cuts” the same way gun control is.
Doomberg on January 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM
The simple fact, is when the left talks about cutting the military, the funds released will NOT be used for paying down debt – it will be used for more domestic spending, more vote buying with “free stuff”, in perpetuity.
Rebar on January 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM
Defense should be a minimum of 1/20th the cost of the economy it is meant to defend. 5% of GDP.
astonerii on January 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM
As I enjoy pointing out to the Left, whenever the subject comes up, defense spending – including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – is $633bn for FY2013. We could cut defense spending to $0 and STILL run a deficit. Defense spending is a blip compared to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
ramesees on January 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM
I think we can cut down on our 700 foreign military bases and still be OK.
Seven Seas on January 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM
I think welfare recipients should be our new fighting force. You accept welfare…prepare to be sent to exotic places, given a weapon, and commit to fighting to the death.
I think I just solved a couple of issues.
trs on January 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM
This argument reminds me of the argument that rich people could “pay a little more”. We could close all our overseas bases and still run a budget deficit. So clearly the budget is not the primary reason you want to close the bases.
alwaysfiredup on January 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM
When the left gets serious about cutting spending in regard to entitlements, the right will get serious about defense cuts. To solve the problem, all sacred cows will have to be sacrificed. As simple as that. Otherwise, its just politics.
tommy71 on January 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM
I think its time we stop subsidizing other countries defenses. The US should cut the military budget in half and make Europe responsible for its own defense again. We can no longer afford to be the world policeman.
Ric on January 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Odd, the President insisted to Boehner that spending isn’t the problem.
Except, apparently, for defense.
SteveMG on January 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Because cutting military spending is not sufficient in and of itself is no reason no to do it. We should cut the military, entitlements, and discretionary spending. We should cut everything. Cut. Cut more. Blindly, wildly cut. Hack and slash. Cut.
Ted Torgerson on January 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Nonsense. I argue for military cuts, and I have few illusions about the dangerous nature of the world in which the US exists.
But there are two undeniable facts. First, the biggest threat to the security of the nation does not come from another nation state, or non-state terrorist organization. The biggest threat we face is our own fiscal profligacy. If the dollar tanks, civil society will go with it. And good luck raising an army then.
Second, there is a very large voting part of this country, maybe a majority, of both political elites and rank-and-file, who insist that in order to cut domestic spending, you have to also cut military spending. And you can kvetch all you want about “primary governmental responsibility”. It doesn’t change their political opinion, or the fact that they vote on it.
JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM
And that argument reminds me of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
We on the Right (at least those of us who hold ourselves to a higher standard on such matters) is not if the rich should pay a higher amount. It is the efficacy of trying to extort higher taxes out of them, given the mobile nature of capital, and the effect that higher marginal rates has on hours worked or capital risked.
But the fact is DoD spending is the single largest item on the discretionary part of ledger. And given our committment to defend Europe, Japan, S Korea, Australia, and the entirety of the Western Hemisphere, the argument that we can’t dial back on our foreign policy becomes a bit of a punchline, especially when we are talking about nations wealthy enough to defend themselves.
JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Second, there is a very large voting part of this country, maybe a majority, of both political elites and rank-and-file, who insist that in order to cut domestic spending, you have to also cut military spending. And you can kvetch all you want about “primary governmental responsibility”. It doesn’t change their political opinion, or the fact that they vote on it.
JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM
There’s also a very large bloc in this country who insists that any spending cuts be paired with tax increases. Interestingly enough, we’ve gotten plenty of tax increases but no signifcant spending cuts.
Funny how that works.
Doomberg on January 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM
We can cut it out completely. All we have to do is surrender, which is what the libruls, marxists, and islamists want. What we want doesn’t matter.
Old Country Boy on January 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM