Sen. Obama's Myth that Reduction in Defense Spending Can Pay for Social Programs

The Obama campaign is quick in reminding us that if it were not for the Bush wars overseas in Iraq, we probably could lessen the financial crisis that we're now facing.

Anyone with a grasp of Economics 101 knows that their rhetoric doesn't match the reality of the dire situation that Americans face. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have us believe that it's military spending, and not the excessive social programs that he's advocating in his campaign, that will further damage and tank the U.S. economy.

Where is the money going to come from to pay for expensive new social programs that Mr. Obama seems determined to enact if elected? The military budget is an easy target, but even if we cut military spending to its post-war low, that is only .7 percent of GDP.

The United States spends 3.7 percent of its GDP on its military, less than China's 11 percent, more than France's 2.6 percent and less than Saudi Arabia's 10 percent. This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8 percent of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3 percent in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War, in 1968, the percentage reached a high of 9.4 percent.

If the military budget is cut and we raise the white flag in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will contribute less than 1 percent of GDP to other programs.

The truth is, the U.S. spends a significantly smaller percentage of its national income on the military, even with the war, than it does on entitlements. Even if the U.S. completely eliminated military spending, our entitlement programs are not able to properly fund in the current form.

Benefits must be adjusted for the times. What we don't need are tax-and-spend politicians, but leadership that is willing to make tough and necessary decisions that will put policies and programs in place to ensure that what we're facing today can't and will not ever happen again.