The ideal defense budget

[Nubraskan]

We all know we spend too much and I think most of us recognize a need for national defense based on the guarantee of protection of life and liberty. So my question is, what's an objective, non-arbitrary determination of a defense budget? How much is enough to guarantee protection?

[AuH20]

400 billion should suffice. That's still 4 times the Chinese.

[Acala]

I think this is backwards. Government needs to have a strictly limited source of income - no taxes, no borrowing, only a uniform tariff, fees for voluntary services, and maybe a tax on corporate income to try and put the runaway corporate business form back in the bottle. Once you have reigned in government sources of income, and have an idea how much funding is available, THEN you can determine how much of that needs to be spent on defense.

[Pericles]

I think this is backwards. Government needs to have a strictly limited source of income - no taxes, no borrowing, only a uniform tariff, fees for voluntary services, and maybe a tax on corporate income to try and put the runaway corporate business form back in the bottle. Once you have reigned in government sources of income, and have an idea how much funding is available, THEN you can determine how much of that needs to be spent on defense.

Good place to start. The other variable is what missions do you give the DoD. Each mission has a resulting force structure, and therefore cost. Can't afford all of those missions? Decide which ones the country can (and more importantly, should) afford.

[jbauer]

I think its even easier. We shouldn't be allowed to borrow any money for defense. There should be a direct tax that everyone has to pay on a graduated income scale (earned, unearned & investments). If you want to see peace start charging for war. The only reason people boo Ron is they're getting the benifit (although I don't think we're seeing any benifit) without paying anything for it.

[pochy1776]

I think this is backwards. Government needs to have a strictly limited source of income - no taxes, no borrowing, only a uniform tariff, fees for voluntary services, and maybe a tax on corporate income to try and put the runaway corporate business form back in the bottle. Once you have reigned in government sources of income, and have an idea how much funding is available, THEN you can determine how much of that needs to be spent on defense.
Tarrif-Screw that, America needs free trade
No Corporate income tax. America would be the first nation to do this. Fees.. Maybe Okay. I think the states should give the fed 9 percent of its revenue.

[Zippyjuan]

Tarrif-Screw that, America needs free trade
No Corporate income tax. America would be the first nation to do this. Fees.. Maybe Okay. I think the states should give the fed 9 percent of its revenue.

Having states pay simply adds a middle man (and costs). The money from states is still paid by taxpayers in that state. US Corporate taxes (average) are the lowest today they have been in 40 years (averaging 12% http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/30/456005/reminder-corporate-taxes-very-low/ )


U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/corporatetaxcharts0222.png

Just for numbers, let's look at where we are today as far as government sources of revenue (figures for 2009- latest broken down figures I can find):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are $2.7 trillion (+7.1%).
$1.21 trillion – Individual income tax
$949.4 billion – Social Security and other payroll taxes
$339.2 billion – Corporate income tax
$68.9 billion – Excise taxes
$29.1 billion – Customs duties
$26.3 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$47.9 billion – Other


And just to keep figures relative, spending in that year:

Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
$644 billion – Social Security
$408 billion – Medicare
$224 billion – Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$360 billion – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$260 billion – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)

$515.4 billion – United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) – Global War on Terror
$70.4 billion – United States Department of Health and Human Services
$68.2 billion – United States Department of Transportation
$45.4 billion – United States Department of Education
$44.8 billion – United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$38.5 billion – United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
$38.3 billion – State and Other International Programs
$37.6 billion – United States Department of Homeland Security
$25.0 billion – United States Department of Energy
$20.8 billion – United States Department of Agriculture
$20.3 billion – United States Department of Justice
$17.6 billion – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.5 billion – United States Department of the Treasury
$10.6 billion – United States Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion – United States Department of Labor
$8.4 billion – Social Security Administration
$7.1 billion – United States Environmental Protection Agency
$6.9 billion – National Science Foundation
$6.3 billion – Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion – Legislative branch (United States Congress)
$4.7 billion – United States Army Corps of Engineers
$0.4 billion – Executive Office of the President
$0.7 billion – Small Business Administration
$7.2 billion – Other agencies
$39.0 billion(2008*) – Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

[Cutlerzzz]

and maybe a tax on corporate income to try and put the runaway corporate business form back in the bottle.

We need to punish those damn business's, and give their resources to the state so they can protect us.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Well here's a little bit of the problem:


$6.3 billion – Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
$4.7 billion – Legislative branch (United States Congress)

So it costs $6.3 billion to try people, but only $528 million to incarcerate them...
Something isn't right here... (yeah - I know, the slave labor camps aka "private prisons", but still!)

Then there is Congress... we've got what about 450 congress critters in the house and another 100 in the senate with each having a staff of maybe 8-10 people... lets call that 4,500 mouths to feed. And it costs $4.7 billion??? Seriously???

-t

[thoughtomator]

Having states pay simply adds a middle man (and costs). The money from states is still paid by taxpayers in that state. US Corporate taxes (average) are the lowest today they have been in 40 years (averaging 12% http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/30/456005/reminder-corporate-taxes-very-low/ )


Problem is that is averaging in massive companies with effective zero tax rates (e.g. GE). For a company with no special tax breaks US corp tax is now the highest in the world.

[pochy1776]

Having states pay simply adds a middle man (and costs). The money from states is still paid by taxpayers in that state. US Corporate taxes (average) are the lowest today they have been in 40 years (averaging 12% http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/30/456005/reminder-corporate-taxes-very-low/ )



Just for numbers, let's look at where we are today as far as government sources of revenue (figures for 2009- latest broken down figures I can find):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget


And just to keep figures relative, spending in that year:

You Win. BUT America's Corporate Tax rate is the highest of all OECD Nations.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Having states pay simply adds a middle man (and costs).

Lets flip that. I remember reading that when we are taxed federally (and my fed taxes always dwarf my state taxes) the money earmarked to return to the states for things like education and highways goes to Washington and somehow racks up costs, as in up to 40% for bureaucracy. What else do we get for this? "If you don't implement No Child Left Behind, we will withhold your highway funding". "If you don't abide by the national speed limit on highways, we will withhold highway funding", etc.

The house of representatives is supposed to hold the nations purse strings, but wouldn't it be better if the states held the purse strings for congress and were able to withhold money from the federal government if they thought they could do something better - like build highways - or if they objected to policies being shoved down their throats - like NCLB?

The problem we have is that states have grown dependent on federal handouts, as has much of the population. A big difference here is that the federal government can simply print and borrow money, while the states are more limited and have to live within their budgets more. Getting rid of federal taxes and and raising state taxes would be a huge step in the right direction of a smaller federal government. It also would allow people to vote with their feet when it came to taxes, laws and regulations. States like California would go under and states like NH would prosper. In time, things would balance.

Back to the original topic of this thread. The US is not supposed to maintain a standing army for more than 2 years, and that only in times of war. How about if most of the military was returned to the states and make the states pay for maintaining whatever size force they felt comfortable with. On a national level - keep procurment, training, quick reaction forces and big ticket items like subs, aircraft carriers, bombers, etc.

Be more like Switzerland - promote recreational shooting through CMP and subsidize ammo costs at ranges, have reserve forces that can be called up in case of war or disaster, add fallout shelters as mandatory to new building construction, build hangers into cutbacks and beef up sections of highway to act as airstrips, build hospitals into the sides of mountains. Build bridges with boreholes for demolition. No one in their right mind will attack Switzerland. The entire country is armed and anyone trying it would get their ass kicked!

THAT IS NATIONAL DEFENSE!
(and it would cost a tiny fraction of what we currently spend!)

-t

[Feeding the Abscess]

erowe1 posted something sometime back that, adjusted to 2010 dollars, the US spent $6 billion on defense in 1900. And we were warmongering in the Philippines and other areas of SE Asia at that time. I'll be a hawk and say that after 4 years, non-VA spending needs to be cut to $30 billion. VA expenses are projected to rise to the $170-200 billion level within a few years; add the two together, and you've got a $200 billion defense budget by 2016.

I'd then advocate reducing that amount by $10 billion a year.

[AuH20]

Ideally, we'd like to get below pre-911 spending levels:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ideally, we'd like to get below pre-911 spending:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png

I love that Ron was voting against the DoD budgets even when they were in the $200 billion range during the Clinton years.

[Zippyjuan]

erowe1 posted something sometime back that, adjusted to 2010 dollars, the US spent $6 billion on defense in 1900. And we were warmongering in the Philippines and other areas of SE Asia at that time. I'll be a hawk and say that after 4 years, non-VA spending needs to be cut to $30 billion. VA expenses are projected to rise to the $170-200 billion level within a few years; add the two together, and you've got a $200 billion defense budget by 2016.

I'd then advocate reducing that amount by $10 billion a year.

Defense spending in 1900 was about one percent of GDP. It is about five percent today. http://www.usfederalbudget.us/past_spending


Defense Spending since 1900

Defense spending in the United States has fluctuated in the last century, rising from one percent of GDP, peaking at 42 percent in World War II, declining from 10 percent in the Cold War to five percent today.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Defense spending in 1900 was about one percent of GDP. It is about five percent today. http://www.usfederalbudget.us/past_spending

The economy was much smaller in 1900 than it is now, I'll stick with the inflation adjusted numbers and let the percentage of GDP fall where it may.

[Pericles]

In constant dollars, the cost of outfitting an infantryman has increased drastically as well. In 2010 dollars, a World War II infantryman is about $2000 outfitted, while as 2010 infantryman is about $20,000 outfitted - start at $5000 for night vision, $1500 for body armor, $500 kevlar helmet, all of the gore tex field gear, and so on.

[Zippyjuan]

The economy was much smaller in 1900 than it is now, I'll stick with the inflation adjusted numbers and let the percentage of GDP fall where it may.

Which is why as a percent of GDP is a useful number- it accounts for the country being larger and having more resources. Even the physical size of the country is bigger today than it was in 1900. Since 1900 we added Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii to the list of states. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763770.html

[thoughtomator]

This country could be solidly defended for $100B/year or less. Nuclear subs are one hell of a weapon not only in absolute terms but also in terms of cost effectiveness. Other than that a modest reaction force for any surprise attacks and an armed citizenry are more than enough to defend a country where any major opponent needs to cross thousands of miles of ocean to get here. The USA would be a killing ground for any invader.