Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

[RonPaulRules]

I don't know the details of this is BS or not, but I am pretty sure this is BS. Anyone know more on this that can shed some light?

h xxp://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/11/28/fact-check-ron-paul-is-wrong-about-defense-spending/

[seyferjm]

Daniel Horowitz? Any relation David Horozwitz, who hates Ron Paul?

[sailingaway]

Yeah, I commented there. I'll fetch it.


The article is all semantics, in any event
sailingaway Monday, November 28th at 11:06AM EST (link)
What Ron Paul said was that the cuts just come from future increases. Horowitz blasts him for this, then describes what the cuts come from in his own terms: future increases…..for inflation.

It is in fact future increases and ‘inflation’ is pure projection until it happens and is just automatic increases in all programs, across the board.

So what Ron Paul said was absolutely true under Horowitz’s own analysis, he is just saying ‘that kind of ‘increase’ shouldn’t be looked at as an ‘increase’ in the way he sees things’. However, I see no logic for the specific rate of increase for ‘inflation’.

This is not a meaningless issue, both because he ascribes inaccuracy to someone who was accurate, but merely disagrees with him on assumptions, and because inflation is a product of an unbalanced budget, as the FED prints more money to cover payments, diluting the value of the money. That is what inflation IS. So this automatic raise, even if accurately projected, assumes continuing an unbalanced budget. Why would we want to do that?

Ron Paul’s budget plan cuts a trillion in the first year, and, due to preserving Social Security and Medicare, veterans benefits and indigent accounts (the latter in block grants to the states) doesn’t balance the budget until 3 years out. He would have liked to balance it in one, but understands about dislocation and he views senior entitlements as a contract issue, and, accordingly, a top priority.

But three years out, the budget would be fully balanced and even in year one it would be much closer to balanced than it is now. So with THAT scenario there is no justification for presuming an increase for inflation, at all.

to which he basically asked me couldn't I read his CBO chart which showed how much would be cut from current spending 'adjusted for inflation' which isn't current spending, but future increased spending. It is all in the 'adjustment for inflation'.

[specsaregood]

LOL@


So where do Ron Paul and some good conservative/libertarian commentators obtain their data to suggest that defense spending will still rise over the next ten years, albeit at a slower rate (baseline reductions)?

The answer is they are including the war spending (OCO) in their calculation. The CBO is forced to score current policy, irrespective of the likelihood of its implementation. Therefore, they not only assume the continuation of the war over the next ten years, they anticipate increased spending on OCO:

If you include those phantom numbers into the equation, then you can arrive at the conclusion that overall defense spending will not decrease over the next ten years, even after sequestration. However, this baseline is bogus because that money will never be spent. In fact, such projected war spending is so universally disregarded that conservatives (rightfully so) will not count “the war savings” as real cuts. The reality is that we will never spend that money, and as such, the baseline is irrelevant.

The bolded part is truly funny.

[Kotin]

Dont post this in grassroots.. No hit pieces in grassroots.. Titles are tweeted.. Cmon...

[South Park Fan]

Quote from the comments section:
The article is all semantics, in any event
sailingaway Monday, November 28th at 11:06AM EST (link)
What Ron Paul said was that the cuts just come from future increases. Horowitz blasts him for this, then describes what the cuts come from in his own terms: future increases…..for inflation.

It is in fact future increases and ‘inflation’ is pure projection until it happens and is just automatic increases in all programs, across the board.

So what Ron Paul said was absolutely true under Horowitz’s own analysis, he is just saying ‘that kind of ‘increase’ shouldn’t be looked at as an ‘increase’ in the way he sees things’. However, I see no logic for the specific rate of increase for ‘inflation’.

This is not a meaningless issue, both because he ascribes inaccuracy to someone who was accurate, but merely disagrees with him on assumptions, and because inflation is a product of an unbalanced budget, as the FED prints more money to cover payments, diluting the value of the money. That is what inflation IS. So this automatic raise, even if accurately projected, assumes continuing an unbalanced budget. Why would we want to do that?

Ron Paul’s budget plan cuts a trillion in the first year, and, due to preserving Social Security and Medicare, veterans benefits and indigent accounts (the latter in block grants to the states) doesn’t balance the budget until 3 years out. He would have liked to balance it in one, but understands about dislocation and he views senior entitlements as a contract issue, and, accordingly, a top priority.

But three years out, the budget would be fully balanced and even in year one it would be much closer to balanced than it is now. So with THAT scenario there is no justification for presuming an increase for inflation, at all.

[RonPaulRules]

Sorry I posted it in the wrong spot. I was not aware. My Bad.

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL@

The bolded part is truly funny.
LOLZ! :D The stuff after the bolded part makes me giggle too. :)

[Kotin]

Sorry I posted it in the wrong spot. I was not aware. My Bad.

Not a problem :) just for future reference.. I come off as a jerk only cause I have to deal with this dozens of times a day on occasion.

[pcosmar]

redstate.com

Nuff said.
:(

[ZanZibar]

Dont post this in grassroots.. No hit pieces in grassroots.. Titles are tweeted.. Cmon...What is the Twitter feed?

[kylejack]

Well, Paul is correct in the context in which he has been speaking lately. Which is to say that he has introduced a new talking point that not all "Defense" spending is defense spending, and that we don't have to cut any funding for things which are actually defending us as opposed to attacking others.

[kylejack]

Paul does take a few liberties. When he refers to how many 'bases' we have, he is apparently including embassy guards as well, which is usually not really much of a base at all. Paul would presumably not close all of our foreign embassies, so these 'bases' would remain in place.

There are exceptions. The Iraq 'embassy' is definitely a major base masquerading as an embassy so that we can keep a major presence in Iraq past the end of this year.