Defense Spending Throughout U.S. History

15 Replies to “Defense Spending Throughout U.S. History”

1. Interesting! And a bit telling.
   Your SDA URL got mixed in with the link on the picture Kate.

2. In an age when FORD spends more on healthcare for it’s employees….it is overlooked that defence spending is a piker compared to various social programmes.
   It’s like neglecting to fix the roof so that new carpets can be laid……

3. Thanks – fixed that.

4. The actual went under the average just after LBJ brought in Medicare/Medicaid and other welfare entitlements. It is more helpful to compare defense spending with GDP and entitlement program spending (including the accumulation of unfunded liabilities) with GDP. That graph would scream out for cuts to entitlements not the military.

5. %GDP would be more meaningful, honestly (as Gord said).
   After all, the size of government vastly increased for the second set; if we’re interested in historical defense spending in a more relevant sense, we should look at defense spending as proportion of GDP.
   I’m actually surprised that Heritage did it the way they did; I’m normally impressed with their thoroughness and accuracy, but this kind of stunt is the sort of thing people normally do when they’re either rank amateurs or trying to mislead.

6. Exactly, Gord. America’s problem is not its military expenditures; it’s the massive social programs combined with an ever-growing entitlement complex.

7. Spending always dips before a war, eh what?
   Wars make presidents popular, and re-election is so much easier. Patriotism and all that stuff.

8. It really doesn’t matter.
   All US expenditures will have to be cut back, including defence.

9. Isn’t this type of graph reminiscent of what leftists do with relative poverty measures. Since the total federal budget under Bush and Obama has exploded, it is not very meaningful. This graph only shows the US defense budget has not grown as fast as the runaway total federal budget. I agree with Sigivald, this type of graph makes Heritage look like it is hiding something.
   Defense spending could be better justified if more is going to support active soldiers and veterans. I remember Mark Steyn arguing that Iraq and Af’stan spending is insignificant. With the doubling of the defense budget since 200 – how much is going to field troops vs. desk warriors, bureaucrats and rent-seekers?
   If it’s anything like Canada then the results would look something like this:
   http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/03/dnd-headquaters-is-bloated-retired-lt-gen-tells-committee/
   Bug or feature?

10. 2000 not 200, of course

11. Doesn’t matter the whole budget-including defence-needs to be cut back harshly. This graph just obfuscates that.

12. after 1945 the federal governments in every country inserted themselves into every aspect of everyones lives.

13. To Sigivald and LC Bennett, I would reply that the graph does just what needs to be done, which is to dispel the erroneous notion that the debt and deficit problem is primarily a defense spending problem, and redirects attention to the out of control social entitlements spending.
    Agreed that defense spending is big, growing as a portion of GDP, and needs to be retracted, but it ain’t the elephant in the room.

14. Kate:
    Can’t see the graphic. I have tracking protection enabled and the graphic is filtered. Something rotten in it.
    Cheers
    JE

15. Timely comment by Francis Fukuyama on this point:
    “The US government in the late 19th century looked a lot like what Ron Paul presumably hopes it will become again at some point: governance took place almost exclusively at a state and local level; the federal government consumed less than 5 percent of GDP (mostly post offices, customs houses, and an extremely small frontier army) and was a mass of patronage appointments controlled by the two political parties.”
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/03/american-exceptionalism/