Defense Budget - An analysis

[Lurker]

I have heard a lot of talk about military budgets and how one party is supposed to be better than the other as far as defense so I decided to investigate. I looked at inflation adjusted defense budgets from Eisenhower to Clinton and this is what I discovered when I looked at the average increases/decreases for each president per year they were in office:

Defense Cuts:
Eisenhower (R) –5%/year
Nixon (R) -4.7%/year
Bush (R) –3.25%/year
Ford (R) –2.5%/year
Clinton (D) –1.9%/year

Defense Increases
Johnson (D) +4.7%/year
Reagan (R) +4.5%/year
Kennedy (D) +4%/year
Carter (D) +1.75%/year

Interesting that the largest % cuts came under Republican presidencies. Only one democrat cut defense budgets. So if you want your peace dividend it might be best to elect a Republican. If you want to protect your country, it might be best to elect a Democrat.

Lurker

[Drooper]

AN easy answer to that. Eisenhower presided from 1953, still relatively soon after WW2. Defence spending was still be ramped down.

Likewise, Bush was setting policy in the light of the end of the Cold War.

Ditto Nixon, who was winding down the Vietnam war.

Edited to Add:

By contrast Johnson was escalating spending in Vietnam.

It all goes to show that leaders, regardless of their political affiliations have to respond to events.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Drooper
AN easy answer to that. Eisenhower presided from 1953, still relatively soon after WW2. Defence spending was still be ramped down.

Likewise, Bush was setting policy in the light of the end of the Cold War.

Ditto Nixon, who was winding down the Vietnam war.

Edited to Add:

By contrast Johnson was escalating spending in Vietnam.

Oh, I agree there are explanations for it all. But it certainly does not support the idea that Democrats are against the military while Republicans are for it which is the common myth.

As to Ike, defense ramped up sharply until 1953 and then Ike started cutting it. Of course he did this in the face of Korea, did he not?

Lurker

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Lurker


As to Ike, defense ramped up sharply until 1953 and then Ike started cutting it. Of course he did this in the face of Korea, did he not?

Lurker

Yes, you're right. That was an oversight on my part.

As to Democrats being "against war". My point was it just goes to show that you have to do what you have to do and even Al Gore in office today might not have prevented military action in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Drooper


Yes, you're right. That was an oversight on my part.

As to Democrats being "against war". My point was it just goes to show that you have to do what you have to do and even Al Gore in office today might not have prevented military action in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Agreed. It is easy to stereotype political groups but sometimes the evidence does not support the assertion. Regarding Dems versus Repubs and who is more favorably inclined to Defense, I think it is a debateable point.

Lurker

P.S. I am just rambling so I can get to 50 posts and have an icon!