Recent poll in the Army's newspaper show Clark and Kerry together get over 50% of their votes. Bush gets one third.
Which newspaper?
Do you have a link to that? It's the second time you've said it over the past couple of days and the first time somebody asked you for a source but (as far as I saw) you didn't provide one.
Most of our military weapons programs predated Clinton, and many of them were voted against by Senator Kerry at one time or another:
Message 19429328
Military spending was reduced under Clinton though it has stayed relatively constant on a real per capita basis since 1977:
Message 19438652
From that post, military spending from 1977 to 2008 (Clinton years in bold, showing an overall spending level in 2000 lower than it was in 1992, even before you factor in increases in inflation (22.74 percent for those 8 years) and population growth). On a real per capita basis defense spending under Clinton declined by about 25 percent or a little more. Here are the numbers before you adjust for inflation:
Defense spending (in millions of dollars)
1977: 97,241
1978: 104,495
1979: 116,342
1980: 133,995
1981: 157,513
1982: 185,309
1983: 209,903
1984: 227,413
1985: 252,748
1986: 273,375
1987: 281,999
1988: 290,361
1989: 303,559
1990: 299,331
1991: 273,292
1992: 298,350
Clinton era:
1993: 291,086
1994: 281,642
1995: 272,066
1996: 265,753
1997: 270,505
1998: 268,456
1999: 274,873
2000: 294,495
End of Clinton era:
2001: 305,500
2002: 348,555
2003: 376,286
Price levels have a little more than tripled since 1977 (305.61% from 1977 to 2003 using data.bls.gov. The population of the U.S. has also increased since 1977 from 220 million to 290 million (about 32 percent). So if defense spending over the past quarter century remained constant per capita (i.e., if we spend the same amount per person in constant dollars on defense now as we did then), the overall U.S. defense budget would be $392,275 million. In 2003, the actual number is $376,286 million, a little lower per capita in real terms than it was 25 years ago. But under Clinton the spending was reduced quite significantly in real terms; only the spending of other Presidents left the military with nearly the same real funding level over the 25 year period.
Nondefense spending, on the other hand, has increased since 1977 to a far greater extent:
w3.access.gpo.gov
(Subtract row 4, defense outlays, from line 35, total outlays)
National nondefense spending, 1977-2008 (in millions of dollars, 2003-2008 estimated, other numbers actual)
1977: 311,977
1978: 354,251
1979: 387,686
1980: 456,946
1981: 520,728
1982: 560,434
1983: 598,461
1984: 624,440
1985: 693,648
1986: 717,055
1987: 722,083
1988: 774,094
1989: 840,087
1990: 953,834
1991: 1,051,077
1992: 1,083,305
1993: 1,118,403
1994: 1,180,235
1995: 1,243,736
1996: 1,294,782
1997: 1,330,745
1998: 1,384,129
1999: 1,427,018
2000: 1,494,278
2001: 1,558,395
2002: 1,662,420
2003: 1,764,091
2004: 1,839,006
2005: 1,933,307
2006: 2,040,471
2007: 2,139,766
2008: 2,249,971
Using the same adjustments as above (305.61 percent increase in prices from 1977 to 2003, and 32 percent increase in population), maintaining the same per capita real spending level for nondefense items from 1977 to 2003 would yield a 2003 nondefense spending level of $1,258,531 million. The current year budgeted number for nondefense spending is $1,764,091, or roughly half a trillion higher than 25 years ago even after you adjust it for inflation and population increases.
Put another way, in real terms we have chosen over the past quarter century to increase nondefense real spending by half a trillion dollars and to decrease real defense spending by a few billion dollars.
I don't think based on these numbers and the origins of the weapons programs we have and the spending on those programs that it is accurate to say that "Clinton's people created the military we have now." It's more accurate to say that "The military we have now survived the Clinton people's attempts to starve it." |
