But in one budget area, Romney is running the opposite direction. The former Massachusetts governor wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds. By one estimate, additional spending would exceed $2 trillion over the next decade.

Romney’s plan calls for linking the Pentagon’s base budget to Gross Domestic Product, and allowing the military to spend at least $4 dollars out of every $100 the American economy produces.

With the Pentagon’s base budget — which does not include war costs — forecast to hit 3.5% of GDP in 2013, a jump to 4% would mean an increase of around $100 billion dollars in defense spending in 2013.

The additional spending really piles up in future years.

Compared to the Pentagon’s current budget, Romney’s plan would lead to $2.1 trillion in additional spending over the next ten years, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by Travis Sharp, a budget expert at the Center for a New American Security.

And that number assumes a gradual increase to 4% of GDP. The additional spending would hit $2.3 trillion over a decade if the Pentagon’s budget were to immediately jump to 4% of GDP.

Sharp said the United States could certainly ramp up spending to meet Romney’s target. But the bigger question, he said, is whether the investment would be worth the cost.

“Romney’s plan might reduce military risk in some areas,” Sharp said. “But you can never eliminate all the risk — no matter how much you spend.”

Romney appears willing to foot the bill. “This will not be a cost-free process,” his campaign website says. “We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it.”

Romney’s plan to spend more at the Pentagon adds yet another layer of complexity to a set of proposals that would remake the fiscal landscape.

Romney has proposed a slew of tax cuts, and plans to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP. But in both cases, the Romney campaign hasn’t fully explained how those provisions will be paid for.

The lack of detail means that Romney’s claim of moving toward a balanced budget requires a great deal of trust.

Other budget experts expressed similar concerns about Romney’s proposal, including Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said the plan for additional spending does not “reflect fiscal reality.”

The 4% idea is not a new one. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen have endorsed the idea. And conservatives have occasionally used the slogan “4% for Freedom.”

“GDP rises and falls. Do you really want your defense budget falling in a recession?” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“Spending should be determined by the security environment — not the size of your economy,” he suggested.

Asked if the military needs to spend 4% of GDP, Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who advocates for lower military spending, said “of course not.”

“These artificial ways to decide the defense budget make no sense,” Korb said. “And if you pursue this, how are you going to balance the budget?”

On the campaign trail, Romney frequently says that the Navy has fewer ships now than in 1917, and that the Air Force is smaller than any time since 1947. The additional funding would provide funds to bolster the fleets, Romney says.

The anecdote is largely dismissed by military experts as irrelevant, since today’s Navy and Air Force are the most advanced and versatile on the planet. Non-partisan fact checkers have looked on the claim, and its associated insinuations, with scorn.

But with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, there is an emerging coalition of liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans who have other priorities.

A Romney campaign official told CNNMoney that “reversing Obama-era defense cuts” is the “first step toward the 4 percent GDP benchmark.”

It’s true that Obama policies have slowed the rate of growth at the Pentagon. But spending on defense is still projected to grow over the next half decade.

“The Pentagon is in no danger of losing its pre-eminence under the current budget plan,” Sharp said. “Romney’s plan would make the military even more pre-eminent, but you can never eliminate all the risk no matter how much you spend.”

Sanctions, not war, will lead Iran to suspend its  nuclear weapons program. Less, not more, annual military spending will  keep America safe.

Those are the political talking points being served up to Democratic  pundits on national security issues by one liberal-leaning Washington  organization in a new briefing book. The Truman National Security  Project document presents a stark contrast to the policy whims of  Republicans, and will help drive Democratic candidates’ campaign-trail  messages on security and foreign policy issues.

On Iran,  Truman advises Democrats to acknowledge that Tehran is seeking nuclear  weapons and poses a threat to the U.S. But unlike hawkish Republicans  who call for preemptive military strikes to change that, the briefing  calls for “responsible options” like stiff sanctions, “tough diplomacy,”  and reducing America’s dependence on oil.

While  Republicans often dismiss the effects economic sanctions are having on  the Iranian regime, the Truman Project instructs its trainees to argue  the sanctions are having “a significant impact on Iran’s economy.”

The  briefing book warns a military attack on Iran’s nuclear targets would  only delay—not permanently cripple—the Middle East nation’s nuclear-arms  program, while also advising a message that a strike would only lead to  “regional chaos and violence against Israel.”

“Iran would  swiftly retaliate against Israel through its terrorist proxies. It would  also probably attack U.S. citizens and military bases,” states the  briefing book. “Military strikes will rally the Iranian people around a  regime they currently dislike and only set the nuclear program back by  two or three years.”

Whereas GOP lawmakers and candidates  typically offer tough talk about what Washington should do about Iran’s  nuclear program, the Truman Project guide states “saber-rattling may  scare Iran into acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

Portions of the  briefing book were leaked and became available online Monday. The  Truman group is an organization that “recruits, trains, and positions a  new generation of progressives across America to lead on national  security,” according to its website.

On annual military  spending, the briefing book includes a figure at which many hawkish  Republicans recoil when it is brought up: “Defense spending has grown  over 600 percent since the 1960s.”

Annual defense spending  was below $100 billion in 1962 and, when factoring in war costs,  approaches $800 billion today–and is up from around $300 billion before  the 9/11 attacks.

Look for Democratic candidates and  pundits during the campaign to take a page from the book by placing  defense spending in an economic context.

“A country with a  weak economy cannot remain a strong power. America must get its economic  house in order as part of a smart security strategy,” according to  Truman. “Meanwhile, many new security threats, such as terrorism and  cyber warfare, defy military solutions alone.”

Notably,  however, other than calls for more flexible weapon systems and nuclear  arms reductions, the Truman briefing offers no detailed policy  prescriptions on the organization’s preferred level of military  spending, nor specific programs that could be terminated.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/04/16/a-look-at-democratic-national-security-talking-points

In the common practice of dumping government documents on a Friday afternoon, just as the news cycle is wrapping up for the week – a move critics say allows the administration to avoid widespread coverage of embarrassing actions – the White House released an executive order on “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”

Filled with language about “government-owned equipment” and a “defense executive reserve,” among other vague statements, rumors began to spread that the executive order expanded the president’s power to do everything from seizing whole industries to drafting private armies.

A Canada Free Press article titled “Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!” spread concerns of gasoline ration cards; while an Examiner article declared the order would “nationalize everything” and “allow for a civilian draft.” Facebook, email and Twitter were suddenly abuzz, and even the extremely popular Drudge Report posted a link to the White House release under the title “Martial Law? Obama Issues Executive Order.”

No, says William A. Jacobson, associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School.

“If someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language,” warns Jacobson. “There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.”

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

Obama’s executive order specifically assigns “executive departments and agencies responsible for plans and programs related to national defense” to do five things:

• “identify” requirements for emergencies;
• “assess” the capability of the country’s industrial and technological base;
• “be prepared” to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat;
• “improve the efficiency” of the industrial base to support national defense;
• “foster cooperation” between commercial and defense sectors.

Later provisions in the order establish the protocol for government agencies to purchase equipment needed in times of national emergency and even make loans to ensure the availability of that equipment.

Despite the vague nature of the functions, none mention anything about martial law or seizing private property. The five functions are also identical to those identified in Clinton’s EO 12919.

So why did Obama issue the order at all?

A side-by-side analysis of Obama’s order compared to Clinton’s, conducted by Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, reveals Obama’s order is essentially just an update to reflect changes in government agency structure.

“If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the cabinet itself,” Morrissey writes. “In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (10 in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

“I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems,” adds Jacobson, “but unless and until someone [demonstrates any expansion of powers in the order], I’ll consider this to be routine.”

“The timing of this release might have looked a little strange,” Morrissey concludes, “but this is really nothing to worry about at all.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/executive-order-panic-martial-law-in-america/