This is something I consider akin to an "elephant in the room" that nobody has the balls to tackle (especially after 9/11). I feel that we could reduce our "defense spending" (defense against what?) by 50% and still be just fine.
Even though our military budget isn't as high of a percentage of our GDP as it was in the past it's still higher than most of the world. See this map:
And when you consider that we spend almost half of what the whole world spends on defense, and roughly eight times what China spends it looks even more absurd. We don't need this, we aren't threatened by anyone that this kind of spend helps with.
And this doesn't even take into account the wars, which aren't a part of the budget I want to cut and that come at exorbitant cost. Before 9/11, even the hawks were talking about this. Rumsfeld wanted to declare "war" on it one day before 9/11, saying that by some accounts 2.3 trillion dollars couldn't be accounted for in the Pentagon bureaucracy. See this video:
We have ridiculous projects like the XM2001 Crusader that were painful for Rumsfeld to cut, even though it was pretty obvious that it was a cold-war relic that was practically useless to us. But we only manage to trim the most extraordinary stuff, like the F-22 Raptor and never get around to really auditing the military, and reining in military spending.
What gives? Why are politicians too chicken to tackle the military-industrial complex? Especially after 9/11 they aren't willing to face that we spend far more on our military than we need to. They seem afraid to be considered responsible for terrorist attacks if they reduce the military spending. They are afraid to death of being seen as "weakening" the military but this is just plain waste, not strength.
Why don't Americans fight for this huge chunk of the federal budget? What do the opponents of defense spending reduction fear will happen if we get this under control?
Just about every huge budget problem we have, can be fixed just by not feeding this beast whatever it wants. Once we are out of the recession, and out of Afghanistan I want to see America tackle the military-industrial complex. Too much money is being spent on military pork and bureaucratic waste. If we can't afford to be paying for fundamental social services like health care then we shouldn't be able to afford making defense contractors so wealthy and wasteful. Instead of spending such a huge chunk on hardware to kill the citizens of other countries how about spending it on keeping our own citizens alive and healthy?
Excellent topic, Robert & one I have very strong feelings about. I will return later, to see what A2Kers have to say about it.
0 Replies
DontTreadOnMe
1
Reply
Fri 11 Sep, 2009 06:41 pm
Bush I announced during the '92 sotu that he wanted to cut defense spending by a third. he labeled it a "peace dividend". i'd have to look it up to be sure, but i think it was cheney that actually wanted to cut even more.
apparently Obama has killed the missile shield. that's a good start in my opinion.
maybe the first place to go is really getting rid of the crazy stuff like the $200 hammers and the "good buddy" contracts.
speaking of which, Xe, Wackenhut etc.
0 Replies
ossobuco
1
Reply
Fri 11 Sep, 2009 06:43 pm
@Robert Gentel,
That's easy for me to give a general answer to, but I don't pay enough routine attention for specifics. I've often, if not always, thought our military expenses were out of whack with matters of 'home improvement' such as infrastructure, schooling (I believe in many free excellent universities, like the one I went to in the early sixties, UCLA*, and good schools to prime people for the work when they get to the universities, and that would suck up a lot of money, federal or other), transportation, single payer health care 'plus', funding for science of many kinds from basic to nearly immediately practical, yadda yadda. I'd like to see our manufacturing power and non conglomerate agribusiness get a hand and a handle.
You probably know I'm ferally anti bomb for various reasons having to do with my father's experience and having to do with enough reading about bombs in war - though I'm not entirely or even mostly anti defensive war. I don't want to parse that: even though those are my feelings, I understand others' opinions. While I was working up all this as my point of view over the years, the military industrial complex multiplied with some scary stuff and a great amount of waste. People whine about medicare and welfare... a great irony to me.
So yes, I'd reduce "defense" spending dramatically but smartly. I'm not smart enough but there are probably some out there who are. Things change with time, including means of waging war. I think a bunch of what we have going is probably obsolete for twenty years from now, and not because of lack of firepower.
Seriously, with absolute disregard for one's politics on the military the military spending is obscenely exorbitant. Even if I subscribed to extreme militarism I'd still want a significant reduction in military spending. We don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined and could reduce the military spending by at least 15% without losing any military superiority if it just had less waste and pork.
Together with our closest allies we account for about about two thirds of the world's military spending and we could reduce that spend without ceding any military superiority if the forces were modernized correctly this is all within reach.
Specifically, I'd like to see a lower headcount, a continuation of spending cuts on programs to develop new heavy artillery (e.g. the Crusader was a good cut by Rumsfeld) and focusing equipment spending on the modernization programs like Future Combat System and not on nuclear weapon (where I'd like to see a further reduction in stockpiles).
And none of that is even that drastic or controversial and doesn't touch my other concerns like service overlap (I'd like to see the services work together in ways that can eliminate redundancy).
I really believe that the US military and its allies can get much more bang for the buck and very much want to get some of that budget freed up to go toward the elimination of deficit spending.
What I most care about is putting deficit spending back in its place as the exception rather than the rule, and using the exorbitant military spending to get there.
I think we can do up to 50%. But would love to actually run the numbers sometime and make a real world recommendation that takes the latest figures into account. Maybe others here would like to help propose more specific cuts. Here is one useful place to start the research:
I wouldn't have been able to describe all that but it makes sense from here.
0 Replies
edgarblythe
1
Reply
Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:02 pm
I have been crying for such a reduction for years.
0 Replies
Diest TKO
1
Reply
Sat 12 Sep, 2009 12:22 am
As a defense contractor, I can tell you that I am observing spending cuts in my area. I see a real effort to cut down on waste spending. It puts pressure on my company to demonstrate it's value come contract rebid. I think it squeezes out more value for the dollar too.
Despite my industry, defense is only one part of our country, and I think that more domestic investment is needed. Certainly defense expansion can slow if people aren't ready to stop it or shrink it, and we'd still be every bit as safe.
Just my opinion.
T
K
O
0 Replies
rabel22
1
Reply
Sat 12 Sep, 2009 12:34 am
What is the military budget? 515 billion or 750 billion.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Sat 12 Sep, 2009 02:51 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Why are politicians too chicken to tackle the military-industrial complex?
While i don't suggest that you are unaware of this, i would say that the problem is not one of moral courage, but rather of catering to the electorate. Defense spending ia a major part of the pork barrel. Ronald Reagan was a crony of many members of the southern California "defense industry," and it is not difficult to see why he touted increased "defense spending." For many members of Congress, cutting defense spending is fine, so long as it doesn't cut what is spent in their own constituencies. Because of the way deals are made in Congress, the pork is widely distributed, and those with the biggest stake in the defense pork barrel can make support of large defense spending the price of their support on other issues.
This one of the areas in which a President could assume leadership which he or she would not normally have. Congress may authorize defense spending, but they don't authorize waste, inefficiency and corruption. It would stake some courage, because of the fear factor you alluded to, but a President, acting the capacity of commander in chief, could give heavy, public support to the offices of the IG of the respective services, and then lean on them to go after waste, inefficiency and corruption. That alone would dramatically reduce the amount of our budget which gets pissed down the defense hole.
0 Replies
FreeDuck
3
Reply
Sat 12 Sep, 2009 09:04 am
@Robert Gentel,
Foxfyre has this theory of electorate dependency that might prove useful. (Kidding.)
Seriously I just think it's really really difficult. Defense spending spreads far and wide. Their are contractors, sub-contractors, sub-contractors to the sub-contractors, etc... Try working as a computer programmer in the DC area and not working on a defense related contract. Then there are the local economies that depend on one specific type of aircraft or weapon system. Not long ago I was reading about how my senator, Dixby Shameless is fighting to keep funding for the F-22 that the air force does not want and won't use, simply because a Georgia factory would lose the income. It's just very difficult to undo the kinds of dependencies that have been put in place.
I think about what we could be doing with that money, though. Health care, education, research, transportation, and yes even tax cuts ... it's astounding.
... the F-22 that the air force does not want and won't use...
While I agree with cuts to this program, I don't think this part is accurate. I believe the air force does want them. Here is their page on the F-22 where they call them "vital":
Defense spending spreads far and wide. Their are contractors, sub-contractors, sub-contractors to the sub-contractors, etc... Try working as a computer programmer in the DC area and not working on a defense related contract. Then there are the local economies that depend on one specific type of aircraft or weapon system.
Yup, this point that you and Setanta made is a big reason why I don't want to see this tackled till the recession goes away. Right now, its value as economic stimulus makes it even harder to argue against.
Continuing to procure more of the fighters is taking money away from more pressing needs, Obama said in a letter as the Senate begins debating S 1390, the 2010 defense authorization act.
The bill includes about $1.75 billion for the purchase of seven more F-22s that the Pentagon says it does not want or need.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, in their own letter to Congress, said continuing to spend money beyond 2009 on the F-22 would come “at the expense of other Air Force and defense programs.”
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "that the air force does not want more of".
Interesting, I'm going to have to research it a bit more. My impression was that this was somewhat of a conflict between the Air Force and the Pentagon, but that isn't an impression that I can source so may well be wrong.
That could be. And like I said, it could be that they like and use the F-22, but that they just don't need any more of them.
0 Replies
DrewDad
1
Reply
Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:37 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Seriously I just think it's really really difficult. Defense spending spreads far and wide. Their are contractors, sub-contractors, sub-contractors to the sub-contractors, etc...
Yep. That's the real elephant in the room: defense spending is a huge engine in our economy.
Just look at the problems in deciding which bases to close.
Any reduction in defense spending needs to be done slowly and methodically.
This makes sense, and the only way to make a smooth transition is to come up with a whole realm of new ideas. Well, in my opinion. I see chopping reduction with no reason but common sense as a losing idea politically and otherwise. A switch to better ideas seems smart to me.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace