Category: Spending
Posted by Libby Spencer on Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:44 PMThe real costs of policy - Updated
Building a bit more on the discussion of pricing and the media presentation of policy costs referenced here, Ezra Klein expands on those points in this column. As he notes, the framing of the rhetoric is a powerful tool:
"The stimulus, for instance, was explained as a two-year cost, so it was $800 billion, rather than $400 billion a year. Health-care reform is being sold as a 10-year cost, so it's $900 billion, rather than $90 billion a year. The defense appropriation is explained in terms of single-year cost, so it's $680 billion, as opposed to the $10 trillion or so that it would cost if you took into account expected growth."
As Ezra points out, policy wonks aren't so affected by these rhetorical tricks, but the average voter just hears the numbers and doesn't do the math. He makes a good point that if all policy was described by it's annual costs, it would be easier for the general public to understand the issues. For instance in looking at health care and defense spending, "how much is $90 billion as a percent of what we'll spend this year? How about $680 billion?" And that $680 billion does NOT include the price of maintaining our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So maybe everyone who's obsessing about the runaway deficit might want to take a look at the sacred cow of "defense" spending. If we really want to eliminate our debt, I'm betting there's a possible $90 billion a year in cuts there that would easily pay for the relatively paltry cost of providing health care security for Americans.
Addendum: I no sooner published this when I found Matthew Yglesias posting on how much safer we would be if we invested more in our infrastructure and less on defense spending. Look at the chart. China, the next biggest spender, spent much less than $200bn to our $680bn. We "invest" in heavy military equipment we don't need and will be obsolete by the time we do need it, while China is investing in its future. There's a lesson there.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
This is comical
This is probably too complex for Libby to comprehend, and her source from StinkProgress wants to ignore, but comparing the US Defense budget against China is like Apples to Oranges...
"China's 'Official' Budget"
"China's defense spending is by no means transparent. China's published defense budget does not include large categories of expenditure, including expenses for strategic forces, foreign acquisitions, military-related research and development, and China's paramilitary forces.
However, the largest problem in estimating defense spending arises from inadequate accounting methods by the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). Budgeted functions are hidden under construction, administrative expenses, and under state organizations such as the Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND), which mix PLA and other state activities. Further sources of income outside the national defense budget include official local and regional government expenses for local army contributions, pensions, militia upkeep and off-budget income from PLA commercial enterprises and defense industries, as well as income from international arms sales and unit-level production (e.g. farming)."
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm
"China to Boost Defense Spending by 15% in 2009"
"China's defense spending is on par with Japan, Russia and Britain, but is still dwarfed by U.S. military expenditures, which are nearly 10 times as large. International military experts say China's defense budget may be much higher than Beijing claims because spending on military hardware and other items are not included. "
Source: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/as_china_politics/2009/03/04/188134.html
Bottom line: No one really knows what China is spending on their military buildup...
This is comical
Libby wrote: "I no sooner published this when I found Matthew Yglesias posting on how much safer we would be if we invested more in our infrastructure and less on defense spending"
1. Who is Matthew Yglesias ?? What position does he hold with the Goverment, what is his background ?
2. You dont actually believe that do you ?
3. Do you believe that the Chinese gave actual factual figures to Armscontrolcenter.org (I am sure they are great and bi-partisan source)
Let's point out some things. China is not the Worlds Police Force the U.S. is. Now if you would like to have the U.S. pull back on that task I am all for it, however I bet the rest of the world would not like it.
Another thing, China only has to worry about defending China and no one else. The U.S. on the other hand, is involved in Nato and other organizations like that, which we are required (by treaty) to provide a presence and assistance when asked.
There is also a thing called deterrence, if we did not keep up with R&D of Military Technology we would fall behind very quickly and then we would be even weaker still. Just having the "Big Stick" has prevented far more than you will ever know about...
Fact vs. Spin
Sorry... Extra tag before my second "quote"...
Fact vs. Spin
Once again Libby makes an argument who's premise is flawed and information inaccurate:
Quote: "Health-care reform is being sold as a 10-year cost, so it's $900 billion, rather than $90 billion a year."
Even the Dems say the cost will actually be $1.2T:
"AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
Quote: "If we really want to eliminate our debt, I'm betting there's a possible $90 billion a year in cuts there that would easily pay for the relatively paltry cost of providing health care security for Americans."
By that same token, I'm sure we could take "stimulus money" yet to be spent and divert it for this purpose. SInce you previously claimed the Obama has turned the economy around, we don't need to spend it for "stimulus programs"... Correct? (FYI - I'm now using your own claims against you...)
Besides, experts disagree with Libby, here's an insightful opinion on defense spending as stimulus from the WSJ:
"Defense Spending Would Be Great Stimulus"
"All three service branches are in need of upgrade and repair."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123008280526532053.html
| Jump to top |
