Max writes:
> To say the Clinton budget contemplates a real
> cut in defense relative to FY1999, one has to
> stipulate an annual (defense) inflation rate of
> no less than 3.2 percent. The Clinton numbers do
> reflect a small cut (aggregate of $42 b over ten
> years) relative to what they define as "current
> services," and current services is supposed to
> be no more than an inflation adjustment. But
> their adjustments exceed their own projections
> of the both the GDP deflator and the CPI. So
> to believe the Clinton budget cuts over the
> decade, you have to believe defense inflation
> will not exceed 3.2%.
> <stuff snipped>
> If you assume just two percent inflation for
> the next ten years (a lower bound, I'd say),
> then it would be accurate to say the Clinton
> budget proposes a $110 billion increase in
> defense over ten years (i.e., $11b a year).
Let me see if I understand this: in order to consider that Clinton's
numbers *cut* the defense budget, one has to accept that the rate of
Defense inflation will be more than 150% (3.2%) of consumer inflation
(2%)? What's the excuse/reason for this?
--
Curtiss