• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • No Defense for NYT Math

    I am sure the folks at The New York Times can add, but they make no sense when they talk about defense dollars. The latest headline trumpets, “Proposed Military Spending Is Highest Since WWII” . Here are the numbers that really put defense spending in their proper perspective. When the United States fought WWII, war costs accounted for about 46 percent of GDP. Today the Pentagon costs us about 4 percent of GDP.

    It is equally stupid to argue that defense spending is at the root cause of our economic woes. During the Cold War, the US averaged just under 8 percent of GDP on defense spending and our economy was half the size it is today. So it is silly to argue that defense spending is the problem when we are spending half of what we did twenty years ago in an economy over twice as large.

    We have to be deadly serious about all these paper thin excuses for arguments to curtail defense spending—they are simply “cop-outs” for government to forgo its most important and fundamental obligation to the American people: to “provide for the common defense.” Our men and women in uniform need a fully funded military so that when we put them in harm’s way they will have the support and equipment to get the job done and come home safe.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to No Defense for NYT Math

    1. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Thank you Mr. Carafano for highlighting the NYT's arithmetic error and clarifying the federal governments' primary responsibility to the nation. Mr. Carafano's and the HF's watchdog efforts are very much needed and appreciated.

    2. James Carafano James Jay Carafano says:

      thanks for the note and your concern about the future of our country.

    3. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      NY Times math reflects the math ability of students coming out of our public school factories. However, NYT is very good at distorting what is factually wrong as absolutely correct.

      NY Times' hatred of our military is palpable. Just down the road from its building, the win towers came crashing down. NYT was not disturbed that much by it. However, the next one may be nuclear or biological. Sad to say, NY Times won't be able to escape that calamity. Terrorist will also most likely target NYC because of its "attractive" population density. Good luck, NYT!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.