The Debate, Defense and the Fiscal Cliff: Why Tonight Is Really About the Budget (Again)

×
Debate Obama MittFor the past few months, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and their respective supporters have traded punches on dozens of topics, from health care to the Detroit bailout to Bain Capital. Behind the blusters, though, most of the battles between the two candidates have boiled down to one topic: the economy.

Whether the question is tax rates or health care or the 47%, the ultimate questions facing Romney and Obama -- and, by extension, the voters -- are how can America fund the programs it needs, and how can it cut the rest.

Ostensibly, tonight's debate is on foreign policy, but the battle over the budget will underlie everything the two candidates say. To some extent, America's foreign policy is scripted by two factors: its pocketbook and its willingness to write checks for overseas military engagements. On this at least, Obama and Romney are miles apart -- and occupy positions that seem somewhat out of character to the rest of their politics.

In terms of budgeting, Romney has consistently called for massive budget cuts, specifically to Obamacare, Amtrak, Title X Family Planning, Foreign Aid, and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. When it comes to defense, however, he has gone in the opposite direction: Under his plan, defense spending would rise to "a floor of 4% of GDP." Put into straight numbers, this means that the defense budget would go from $711 billion to $790 billion per year -- a 10% increase.

It's not clear that defense is underfunded: According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, defense is America's top "discretionary" budget item. It currently accounts for one-fifth of all federal spending, which puts it on a level with Social Security and 1% behind the country's combined Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP spending. Put another way, America spends 7% more on defense than it does on its safety net programs.

The gargantuan scale of U.S. defense spending becomes even more clear when viewed against the rest of the world. In terms of military budgets, America is -- far and away -- the world leader: 41% of all defense spending in the world is done by the U.S.; the next-biggest spender is China, at a measly 8.2%. In terms of straight dollars spent, America also leads the world; the next-highest defense spender is -- again -- China, but their $143 billion defense budget is a modest 20% of America's. In fact, the only place where America falls to second in defense spending is in terms of GDP. There, Saudi Arabia leads the pack with 8.7% of its GDP going to its military.

In the second presidential debate, Obama responded to Romney's proposed budget increase by saying that "Governor Romney ... wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs even though the military's not asking for them." To some extent, this is true: Obama has proposed -- with the cooperation of the military -- $487 billion in defense cuts over 10 years. A large fraction of these cuts will come from reducing personnel, as the military moves toward a less manpower-intensive model.

While Obama's military cuts are unattractive to some military hawks, if he wins reelection, he'll be carrying an even larger gun into the next round of budget negotiations: An annual spending cut of $50 billion to the defense budget. And it's an automatic weapon.

When members of Congress failed to pass a budget based on the recommendations of President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission back in March, they left the nation with a painful alternative that they'd built into their previous byzantine attempt to postpone compromise: Automatic spending cuts across the board to all discretionary federal spending -- and that includes defense.

It's one, but hardly the only, piece in the looming crisis that has come to be called the fiscal cliff.

For the Defense Department, the $50 billion cut would slash the military deeply. Generally, pundits and analysts have assumed that the president would seek a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff before it hits in January, but New York magazine's Jonathan Chait offers a contrarian perspective: he suggests that the president would be best served by sitting tight and allowing the combination of tax increases and mandatory budget cuts to go into effect on Jan. 1.

As I've noted before, the fiscal cliff -- on a straight percentage basis, at least -- will be hardest on high-net-worth households. It will do away with the massive Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, as well as the low capital gains, dividend, carried interest, and inheritance tax rates that overwhelmingly benefit the rich. Chait adds to this, pointing out that the new year's mandatory budget cuts would go a long way toward reducing deficits, and would put the Republicans on the defensive when it comes to the inevitable tax, debt ceiling and spending negotiations that would accompany a second Obama term. With massive, pre-programmed defense cuts on the horizon, he argues, Republicans in Congress would be much quicker to strike a deal.

For a fiscal hawk like Romney, increasing the defense budget plays against character; conversely, Obama's reputation as a big spender is certainly undermined by his determination to cut the military's budget. But with a cliff up ahead, it seems likely that both sides are prepared to expand their playbooks.

Bruce Watson is a senior features writer for DailyFinance. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.


Also on DailyFinance:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________





Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Introduction to Retirement Funds

Target date funds help you maintain a long term portfolio.

View Course »

Advice for Recent College Grads

Prepare yourself for the "real world".

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

13 Comments

Filter by:
dencuddy

You mean Ryans fiscal cliff he was so proud of?

October 22 2012 at 11:56 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
SPQR

We are Rome!! without defense we we just be a bunch of losers

October 22 2012 at 11:42 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
johnaltojr

Budget you mean we have to do one

October 22 2012 at 11:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Charles F. Mara

Obama blew Romney away with Facts. Romney was a fish out of water. He scares me. He is like McCarthy in the 40s. Romney was actually nervous up there and if you looked close he was sweating.
How could anyone vote for this guy.

October 22 2012 at 10:53 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Charles F. Mara's comment
johnaltojr

Charlie you must have been watching a different debate then the rest of the world

October 22 2012 at 11:24 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
frank1946

What Budget ? Harry and Obama are terrified of one.

Ryan's puts off any spending cuts for 12 years !

Feds on 4 day work week very soon.

October 22 2012 at 9:56 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Jim Davis

Make no mistake about it, a 20% tax cut will increase the deficit and is a threat to social security, and medicare.

October 22 2012 at 8:13 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
joejoegolfn

People don't understand how powerful Romney's plan to make North America energy independent is. Millions of jobs created and the money to pay off the debt is awesome. We would put the 500 billion dollars into our economy instead of sending it to people who don't like us. Not only that, but we could fully develop natural gas for transportation and electricity we could export most of our coal and oil to other countries. Fix the tax code and make people want to come here and invest to rebuild our manufacturing base and we will become a world leader again. The FAIR TAX is the only tax plan that takes power away from the politicians and helps lower income people and gets rid of the irs. The US would be a beacon on hill again for good in the world. We just need to elect people who puts america first and themselves second.

October 22 2012 at 7:57 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to joejoegolfn's comment
SPQR

you must be goofy, Romney just want to infuse tons of money back into the economy so we can buy more chinese goods. We already export most of our coal to China already. We don't want anyone else here we are too crowded already. It is cheaper to buy equipment from Germany and have them come over to show us how to use it. It is the basic products that we consume all the time that we need to make here

October 22 2012 at 11:46 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
grassyno

If Bush knew there were a terror attack on US and denied it for two weeks straight, the media would be howling for his impeachment. They openly mocked GW's claim that our intelligence Department was to blame for believing in WMB in Iraq, even though Russia, UK, Germany and France's intell all came to the same conclusion. And yet, when Obama blames his Intell guys for something the State Department knew was false within 24 hours (that the embassy attacks were terrorist attacks, not some protest about a video), all we hear from most mainstream reporters is a collective yawn. They are so in the tank for Obama it's not even funny.

October 22 2012 at 7:43 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Kuntheer

When you don't build that submarine, they lay off blue collar workers, who can't keep their home, can't buy a beer at the local club, can't slip candy a dollar at the local strip club, that business shut down too, their kids go on welfare, the workers, and local businesses stop paying taxes. The sailors aren’t based in the community, don't support the liquor story, and don’t pay the alcohol tax, the state income dries up. It takes a village.

October 22 2012 at 6:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Kuntheer's comment
SPQR

you forgot funding the pensions of bloated state and federal workers

October 22 2012 at 11:47 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Yaeger

If I were going to gamble on my vote, which I am doing because I am a independent. My vote would be for Obama. Good old Mitt is just too slick for me. What impresses me about him, is just how hard that super pac money has really worked for him, in convincing people that he is the mesiah. Give me a break are supporters of Mitt, really that stone cold racist or love tricker and illusions?

October 22 2012 at 6:20 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Yaeger's comment
freethedems2012

I always vote for the lesser evil. You must vote for the most evil.

October 22 2012 at 10:35 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply