In The Media
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
{
"authors": [
"Jessica Tuchman Mathews"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Military"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Defense Spending is Not More Important Than Investing in the People
Of all federal spending other than the mandatory allotments to entitlements and interest on the national debt, discretionary spending is everything else the government does.
Published on Aug 5, 2019
Source: Washington Post
Robert J. Samuelson’s July 29 op-ed, “Are we shortchanging the military?,” seemed to have an underlying assumption that the issue is “the defense budget vs. the welfare state.” The reason we exist as a country — reasons succinctly proclaimed in the Constitution’s preamble and clearly stated as a major goal of the founders of this union — is to “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general Welfare.” It is not either-or, but both-and.
We debate and argue about the details, of course. But sometimes the pro-defense advocates ignore or denigrate a basic promise of our Constitution: to promote the general welfare.
Michael Stout, Washington
Robert J. Samuelson’s July 29 op-ed attacked my July 18 New York Review of Books article on defense spending, calling my arguments “false, deceptive or incomplete.”
He claimed I use a “misleading trick” that only “budget wonks” would spot. Nonsense. What I wrote was “the valid measure of affordability is defense spending’s share of the federal discretionary budget: that is, of all federal spending other than the mandatory allotments to entitlements and interest on the national debt. Discretionary spending is everything else the government does.” What could be clearer? And, just as I wrote, defense spending is close to 60 percent of this discretionary pot on which Congress can, each year, work its will.
I noted the United States spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined. Mr. Samuelson called this a “statistical fluke” because I failed to compare countries’ spending using “purchasing power parity” — estimates based on a theoretical basket of goods and services that reflect purchasing patterns in each country. Military spending differs. The price of conscripts is likely to be lower than such a typical basket; the price of advanced weapons systems much higher. Market exchange rates are therefore more accurate.
Mr. Samuelson called my piece a “tirade” that peddles an “anti-defense mythology” based on “mostly fictions.” I invite readers to judge the tone and reasoning of the piece for themselves. My facts, from official sources, are correct. My core arguments, which he ignored, are worthy of attention.
About the Author
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Distinguished Fellow
Mathews is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She served as Carnegie’s president for 18 years.
- Washington Already Knows How to Deal with North Korea
- Trump Wins—and Now?Commentary
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont
