I neglected to mention this in my previous posts, but it’s worth noting that Romney referred to “massive defense cuts” under the current administration that have never happened. The notion of Obama as military budget-cutter has been circulating for years. Robert Kagan is listed as one of Romney’s advisers, and he was among the first to use this criticism. The truth, as usual, is rather different from what Romney says:

There have been no “massive defense cuts” under Obama, although he has slowed the projected rate of increase and in April asked the Pentagon to identify an additional $400 billion in reductions over the next 12 years. When he took office, the defense budget was $513 billion, not counting $153 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the budget year that ended Sept. 30, the figure was $530 billion, with an additional $159 billion to pay for the wars.

For the current fiscal year, Obama requested $553 billion for the defense budget, exclusive of war costs. But in a deal worked out by Congress and the White House as part of a deficit-reduction plan in August, he was forced to come down to $513 billion.

It can’t be stressed enough that total military spending in real terms is higher than it was at the height of the Reagan build-up. Romney also wants to add 100,000 new personnel at a time when personnel costs are one of the main drivers of higher military spending. Todd Harrison’s analysis of the FY 2012 budget request sums up the growth of personnel costs over the last decade:

Increases in military pay and benefits account for 19 percent of the growth. Since FY 2001, overall active-duty end strength has remained relatively flat, hovering between 1,451,000 and 1,510,000. But during this time Congress repeatedly enacted pay raises in excess of the employment cost index (ECI) and added or expanded a number of benefits that increased the cost of military personnel on a per person basis by 46 percent in real terms. Military healthcare is a significant contributor to the growth in personnel costs, rising by 85 percent in real terms over the past decade.

Between his ship-building proposal and personnel increases, Romney is pledging to explode military spending and make it an even larger burden on the country than it already is. The 2012 election looks to be shaping up as a choice between the incumbent defender of steady increases in Pentagon spending and a likely challenger eager to throw tens of billions more dollars at the Pentagon.