Germany rebuffs Trump's call for a big jump in military spending
Austin Davis, Special for USA TODAY
Published 11:07 a.m. ET March 12, 2017 | Updated 3 hours ago
BERLIN — Europe's most populous and economically powerful country can easily afford to spend more on its military defense, as NATO requires and President Trump demands. Yet Germany, still haunted by the horrors of World War II, simply doesn't want to do that ...
The world's fourth-largest economy spent $37 billion — 1.2% of its economic output — on defense last year, according to government figures. That is far short of the 2% set by NATO and a third of the 3.6% of gross domestic product that the United States spent in 2016, according to NATO figures.
That shortfall by Germany and other NATO countries is why Trump renewed his call in a speech to Congress on Feb. 28 for NATO members to pay their fair share of defense costs. "Our partners must meet their financial obligations," Trump said. "Now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that. In fact, I can tell you that the money is pouring in."
That's not quite the case in the German capital. The federal government plans to increase its military spending by $2.1 billion this year. It would bring total spending to $39 billion, a 5.4% annual boost. The increase pales in comparison with the 10%, or $54 billion, hike in U.S. defense spending Trump proposes for 2018 ...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/12/germany-rebuffs-trumps-call-big-jump-military-spending/98871940/
= new reply since forum marked as read
From Politifact:
For 2016, NATO’s total military budget is about $2 billion...
Each member contributes an agreed upon percentage of the shared budget. The United States leads the pack, paying 22 percent, as Samp said. This year, that comes to about $460 million. (Germany comes in second, paying about 15 percent.)
The total military spending goals for NATO members is at least 2% of GDP. For us, meeting that goal requires military budget of 320 billion. We spend almost twice that (and would spend more than twice that with DT's increase).
So, what does "pulling out of NATO" mean? Does it just mean we stop contributing about $460 million (our 22% of the 2 billion NATO budget)?
Or does it mean we'll suddenly say "we're going to start spending less than 2% of GDP on defense too"? Somehow, I don't think that's what he means. It would mean cutting our military spending in half. We are meeting (and far exceeding) spending goals "on our own." And DT is actually trying to increase, not decrease, that spending.
It is true that other members are not fulfilling the 2% GDP goal. According to this article in the Economist, it looks like only Britain, Greece, Poland, and Estonia are meeting, or exceeding, that goal. And yes, calling on nations to meet their goals is a good thing.
But, I don't understand what DT is complaining about when he complains that our portion of the combined total defense budgets of all the member nations is too high. We could cut our portion of the combined total way down by just reducing the the 2% goal.
