Over at Democracy in America, Roger McShane wonders aloud:
But I say the situation may be worse on the left, because if Democrats do not make the case for seriously cutting back military spending, who will?
He is speaking of course, of the so-called “cuts” to spending undertaken by the Obama administration. I put “cuts” in quotes because, well:
The cuts Barack Obama has pushed (outside of sequestration) are meager, despite what you may hear from Republicans. They are cuts to a ten-year plan that assumed annual increases. As Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute notes, “Over the next decade, the Pentagon’s annual base budget (which excludes most war costs) will average $517 billion in constant 2012 dollars, 11 percent higher than what Americans spent during the George W. Bush years.”
Jacques Delacroix seems to believe otherwise. In March of this year, he wrote:
In connection with Pres. Obama’s then-recent speech on cutting the US military budget, Paul also said clearly that those are cuts in increases to military expenditures, not absolute cuts. As one who has been reading the Wall Street Journal for the past thirty years and also for the past thirty days, I tell you that this is not true. I think it sounded good at the time so, the Congressman just said it, irresponsibly.
Dr. Delacroix is a numbers man (that’s how he earned his infamy), but with his track record on foreign policy I’d take his argument with a grain of salt.
At any rate, it’s nice to see the non-interventionists on both the Left and the Right get a shout out from the Economist (a supporter of the Second Gulf War), too:
And while the Republicans at least humour the Ron Paul-wing of their party, the Dennis Kucinich-wing of the Democratic Party has no voice in Charlotte.
Imperialism: the bane of free trade and individual liberty. Is it any wonder that Washington has so many enemies these days?
Notes On Liberty 
“The cuts Barack Obama….”
That paragraph is so twisted, I am not sure what it says.
“…11% higher than what Americans spent during the Georges Bush years.” Still in 2012 dollars? Confirm or disconfirm. It’s a simple question.
During the arithmetic means of all ofGeorge Bush years, first and second term? Or only the mean of the second term? It makes a big difference of course. In the first term there was little war to speak of.
It’s difficult for me to document what I said then. I can only tell you that I always exercise judgment both in selecting sources and in evaluating data and statements. I am usually pretty good at both. Nevertheless, mistakes are always possible.
If Paul really said that they were cuts in military spending, rather than cuts in increases of same I will correct the record, of course.
PS: Distantly related comment: If it’s not clear, I wish to specify that I am in favor of increased military spending. From an economic standpoint, 4% of GDP isn’t that much to spend on safety in a world brimming with gangsters, fascists, and cannibals.
From a political standpoint, of course, I see that military spending is a major source of despotism. However, the good society will come out of the democratic societies such as this one, or it will not come. Surely the Chinese Mafia society is not going to engender it. Or the puny Russian kleptocracy. There is only the American path to the weak state society and the Somali path. (I wish the Finns would volunteer their own way but the stubborn bastards won’t do it.)
What about as a percent of government spending, not GDP?
Looks like it is generally about 20% of federal spending. Given that national defense is the bulk of government’s Constitutional role, it should probably be more like 70%, maybe even higher since the rest of its Constitutional role, things like the post office, are best handled by the private sector.
Solution: Reduce defense spending by 1/2 and other spending by 19/20. Pigs might fly.
And given that the size of the nation’s perimeter and area stays the same but GDP generally goes up, and at the same time the cost of defense should go down as efficiency increases, defense’s share of GDP would tend to decrease without bringing its quality down.
You are a numbers man by trade, Dr. Delacroix. Nobody doubts your keen intellect in this regard.
The paragraph in question is twisted? Here, I’ll present it once more – word for word – and emphasize in bold the answers to your questions (since you seem to have not read it carefully):
Since this is a decade-long projection, it’s fairly certain that both of Baby Bush’s terms were taken into account.
Rep. Paul said that they were cuts in increases – you were correct about this – but in your post you were mocking him for lying or getting his facts wrong, which is just not true. You based your argument on an unknown account in the Wall Street Journal.