Sign In
Airforce-Magazine.com: Online journal of the Air Force Association
Article Collections
Editorials
Airpower Classics
Perspectives (Articles by Topic)
Verbatim
The Chart Page
The Keeper File
Valor
Enola Gay Controversy
Advertising
Media Kit
Print Advertising
Online Advertising
 
Send Letter to Editor
Reprint Permission
About Us
Subscription Manager
How to Join AFA

Four Percent or Bust 

 

March 28, 2008—America is spending less and less on its national defense compared to that spent on entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory human resources programs. When measured as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, national security spending has been declining fairly steadily since the end of the Korean War, apart from a slight upturn during the Reagan Years. From 1995 to 2004, it was below 4 percent and has hovered around 4.0 percent since. (Note: The data here covers DOD and defense-related activities of other departments.) The Congressional Budget Office projects the downward trend will continue beyond 2018, with national defense falling below three percent by 2025. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey blames military leaders over the past seven years for attempting to make defense budgets provide the answers politicians want to hear. He advocates a minimum of 5.2 percent of the GDP for the next five years. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley says that stabilizing the defense share, and he’s talking strictly DOD, at 4 percent would provide the services as a whole an extra $80 billion or so annually, giving the Air Force the extra $20 billion it needs to fix its growing equipment woes.

Source: Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget historical budget documents.  

 

Verbatim

Too High a Risk?
"This issue is not about contractor 'A' or contractor 'B.' The issues is that we do not believe that it is prudent for up to 80 to 90 percent of the fighter fleet to be dependent on a single engine type, provided by one manufacturer. Being tied to one engine is too high an operational risk to take."
—Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), explaining why his House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee had added funds to the 2010 defense budget to cover continued development of an alternate engine for the F-35, committee markup session, June 16, 2009.

Verbatim

You Betcha
"Your decision to terminate the acquisition of the C-17s, the F- 22s, the DDG-1000, and the Future Combat System vehicles—we have concerns that it may send the wrong signal to our friends and our potential aggressors that we are reducing our capability. It may also have a long-term impact on our defense industrial base. It may diminish our capacity to provide deterrents and reduce our strength that we provide to our allies. We hope that this is not the consequence, but some of us are concerned."
—Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), parting remarks to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, Joint Chiefs Chairman, during a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing, June 9, 2009.

Sponsored Links

airforce-magazine.com material is under copyright by the Air Force Association. All rights reserved.

The Air Force Association, 1501 Lee Highway, Arlington,VA 22209-1198