No Defense for NYT Math
Posted March 4th, 2009 at 11:26am in Protect America 
Print This Post
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.
Author: 
3 Responses to “No Defense for NYT Math”
J.C. Hughes, Texas on March 4th, 2009 at 11:26am said:
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.
James Jay Carafano on March 4th, 2009 at 11:26am said:
thanks for the note and your concern about the future of our country.
Spiritof76, New Hampshire on March 4th, 2009 at 11:26am said:
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!