Woah, back up the missle trolly a second...

Titus, let me ask you something. You wrote in your response to "baddboy" that ...


" In fact, 2 out of 3 of the above mentioned SECDEFs (MacNamera, Brown, Aspin) spent an average budget that was LARGER than Bush has spent yet, and he is a WAR TIME PRESIDENT! In fact, according the GAO (gao.gov) data, Bush’s defense budgets are STILL 5% or more UNDER the 45 year average… taking us all the way back to 1962!"


This 5% business and the 45 year average, those numbers are relative to the annual budget proposed by those administrations at the time, isn't it? In other words Bush/ Rummy in fact did spend more than any of the three sec defs you mentioned in actual dollars. In fact a great deal more if I'm not mistaken. The averages you quote from the GAO are based on what percentage of the over all budget the defense spending constituted at the time. Well, given that today's budget is MUCH larger in terms of real dollars (i.e. prescription drugs, and a billion other new expenditures non-defense related) then talking about defense spending in terms of percentages is a bit deceptive, if the conclusion you wish others to draw is that defense spending is down under Bush/Rummy. It may very well be down in terms of what percentage of the overall budget it represents, but NOT in terms of real dollars spent, meaning the percentage drop that defense spending has incurred may have as much to do with how large other portions of the budget have become, versus an actual real dollar cut cut in military spending.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Rummy et al did no wrong in setting their budgets, but lets not get crazy - they did spend more actual dollars then the predecessors you mentioned.

This reminds of the argument Democrats make concerning welfare and other social safety net programs. Every time Republicans propose a reduction in the rate of spending (which they've done too little of lately I assure you - so lets use the Gingrich Congress), Clinton and others called it a quote "cut." Well it wasn't. It was a reduction in the rate of growth - but that still meant more growth, more real dollars pumped in then the year before, but at a slower rate. Which isn't a cut at all. So let's just be careful when you describe "defense spending cuts" using percentages. Ok?
FR