Oh Max, have you been reduced to this sophistry. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Max Sawicky) To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:4763] RE: Military spending Date sent: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:03:01 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For the general amusement I've attached a .WKS file with U.S. > defense spending data from 1940 to present, in terms of current > dollars, $1992 dollars, % of GDP, and % of Federal outlays. The > deflator is a general one, not defense-specific, so it could > overstate real increases in defense spending and understate real > decreases, though probably not by much. > > The defense category is broader than just DoD; it includes Dept > of Energy nukes and some other tidbits. Source is Office of Mgmt > and Budget. Numbers for FY2000-2004 are Administration > proposals. > > The ebb in defense/GDP since 1986 is evident, as is the decline > in defense/outlays. In the latter case, the Clinton budget > flattens out the path, meaning the decline in defense/outlays is > arrested. The Clinton budget does increase nominal spending by > FY2004, but only after a decrease in nominal and real from 1999 > to 2000. There was an increase from 1998 to 1999 (as the Shalom > article states), but it was only $8 billion nominal, and $4 > billion real. So as I mentioned, I don't mind portraying Clinton > as a defense spending hawk, but he's not a very prolific one so > far; more like the Democratic defense counter-part to the > "dime-store New Deal." > > Clinton spending is not far below the 1976 to 1990 period because > by 1976 defense had been depressed (the famous peace dividend), > it did not run up again as a percent of outlays or GDP until the > first Reagan term, and it was allowed to sink after 1986 by > Reagan and then Bush. The Reagan buildup was relatively sudden, > short-lived, and not all that big in share terms. In absolute > dollars -- both real and nominal -- it stands out more. But you > have the numbers and can judge for yourselves. Alternative > interpretations are welcome. Evaluating the charts is a little > like art appreciation. > > On balance the Shalom article, as far as interpreting the > spending numbers goes, seems overheated. > > I repeat my suggestion that the fundamental political-economic > development in U.S. fiscal policy is not found in the defense > trend, but in prospective disposition of budget surpluses. I'd > be interested in illumination on the latter policy. > > > >From an article by Stephen Shalom titled "The Continuity of US > > Imperialism," in the current issue of New Politics. > > The complete article > > can be found at: > > http://www.wilpaterson.edu/wpcpages/icip/newpol/ > > > > mbs >
[PEN-L:4764] Re: RE: Military spending
ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224] Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:48:05 -0600
