Monday, March 14, 2005

Cogging in the media machine

Babble on.

I'd be lying to you if I said I wasn't having a bit of a puffed-chest moment reading this article this morning:

The initial exultation over military spending promises in last month's federal budget is giving way to sober second thought by some in the defence community.

Upon closer scrutiny, the government's promise of $12.8 billion in new spending over five years may not be all it's cracked up to be, say observers.

For at least the next three years, spending - adjusted for inflation - will still be well below peak levels in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

And there are no guarantees the minority Liberal government will be around to keep the promises, or that the economy that must support the spending increases will hold up.
...
One-time increases in defence spending over the next two years have been pegged at $500 million and $600 million, most of which is targeted specifically for infrastructure upgrades.

But figures adjusted for inflation indicate this and next year's budgets are only equivalent to or less than adjusted spending last year, when planes were grounded and ships tied up for lack of resources to operate them.

A look at defence spending from 1986 to the present suggests the military is still far below the peak 1988-89 level of $16.1 billion adjusted to 2005 dollars.
...
SPENDING HABITS

A look at defence spending since 1986-87, with figures converted to 2005 dollars in brackets. All figures represent billions of dollars. (Conversions were made using the Bank of Canada's Inflation Calculator):
1986-87 $9.9 ($15.5)

1987-88 $10.7 ($16.1)

1988-89 $11.2 ($16.1)

1989-90 $11.6 ($15.8)

1990-91 $12.3 ($15.7)

1991-92 $11.7 ($14.8)

1992-93 $11.9 ($14.7)

1993-94 $12.0 ($14.7)

1994-95 $11.8 ($14.3)

1995-96 $11.4 ($13.6)

1996-97 $10.6 ($12.4)

1997-98 $10.2 ($11.8)

1998-99 $10.3 ($11.8)

1999-2000 $11.5 ($12.9)

2000-01 $11.5 ($12.5)

2001-02 $12.2 ($13.2)

2002-03 $12.4 ($12.8)

2003-04 $13.2 ($13.4)

2004-05 Projected at $13.3

2005-06 Projected at $13.4


Mr. Stephen Thorne is a man of his word.

What strikes me is that the government of Canada spent more on our military in constant dollars in 1995-96 than it will in 2005-06. So much for a "renewed commitment" from our Liberal oligarchy.

I am inordinately proud of having played a miniscule role in all this. More than that, I'm glad someone's saying what needs to be said: we can't continue to underfund our Armed Forces if we're going to keep sending men and women in uniform into dangerous situations. Even if you put moral issues like that aside, our lack of miltary resources is crippling our foreign policy. The Liberal smoke-and-mirrors budget is a drop in the bucket - no, a promised drop in the bucket.

Now, since a picture is worth a thousand words, we need to get a graphic presentation of these figures into circulation. Time for this techno-idiot to get off his duff and finally figure out how to post an original image with Blogspot.

Babble off.

Update: VW at The Phantom Observer beat me to the graphic. I still have to figure out how to put something like that up myself, though.

10 Comments:

At 12:11 p.m., Blogger Andrew said...

Wow - awesome job!

 
At 12:23 p.m., Blogger AdSense Angel said...

Good for you, Babbler!

 
At 1:47 p.m., Blogger VW said...

Damian, I've plugged the CP numbers into Excel and come up with a chart, here.

Good job, finding that article.

The Phantom Observer
phantomobserver.blogspot.com

 
At 5:57 p.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

RightJab, with that level of experience, you should really chime in on military matters.

We need some Canadian milbloggers!

 
At 6:12 p.m., Blogger Shannon said...

Wow. You rock, Damian!

Not bad for a teenage diary that hardly anyone reads by a guy who doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about. Keep it up and you might get a real job someday!

 
At 6:29 p.m., Blogger Robert McClelland said...

I must be missing something because I don't see what the big deal is over something that is undisputed common knowledge.

And how do you know you had anything to do with this story? Did the writer contact you or are you just assuming that because you both wrote about the same thing it must have been a result of your research?

 
At 7:16 p.m., Blogger Shannon said...

Robert: You are missing something. Go back and read what Damian wrote two posts ago.

 
At 9:43 a.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Thanks TH, you're a stand-up guy.

Honestly, though, I'm OK with it. If a blogger had treated the story this way, I'd be upset.

But the MSM still plays by different rules, and this is Thorne's day-job. If you got a great work idea from the blogosphere, and wanted to clear it with your boss or clients, would you make sure they knew you got the idea from your blogging hobby?

Thorne and I have spoken by phone and e-mail, and he knows. The people in the blogosphere I respect know. That's all the stroking my fragile little ego needs.

It's probably a good thing he didn't mention the blog at all: my prime motivation is to get the information out there, and we all know that anytime the MSM mentions a blogger, it turns into a story about blogging. This is a story about defence budgets, and Liberal smoke-and-mirrors.

 
At 1:34 p.m., Blogger Declan said...

It would be interesting to see the inflation adjusted defense figures plotted with similar figures for federal government spending in total, or spending exlcuding interest payments on the debt, or transfers to the provinces. Or maybe plotted as a percentage of ogvernment spending.

That way we could tell if the defense spending cuts were just the same medicine that all federal spending received over the 1995-2004 period or if they were treated worse than other areas.

I guess I too need to figure out the whole chart thing (I appreciated the Phantom's description of how to do it)

Anyway, good work Damian.

 
At 8:11 p.m., Blogger What it takes to win. said...

Well Done Damian!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home