Hold the Line on Defense Spending

Another Federal budget season approaches and once again, pundits are attempting use it as an excuse to paint Democrats as weak on national security. In fact, reports that the White House has decided to cut the defense budget in Fiscal Year 2010 are nonsense. If the reports are accurate, the White House has actually proposed increasing defense spending by about 3%, which would represent budget discipline at Defense that has been sorely absent for the past 8 years.

The Pentagon is playing a standard budget game and the Defense "cut" claim being made is simply false. It is true that the purportedly proposed $527 billion will be less than the "wish list" the Pentagon put together last year. But the plan had no formal standing, and was clearly intended as a setup for the incoming administration, no matter who won the 2008 election. If the military "bid high," then anything the White House did to provide less growth could be called a cut.

Despite instructions by the Bush White House that they would not send a federal budget to Congress before they left office, DOD went ahead and prepared one anyway. The resulting document was an unconstrained effort, driven by the military services, to lay out the maximum amount of funding they desired. It created an appetite for more than $580 billion in FY 2010, or roughly 14% more than the base defense budget Congress provided for this year.

This phony "cut" debate conceals an underlying reality: there has basically been no discipline in defense budgeting for the last eight years. In FY2001, the defense appropriation was $315 billion, including supplemental funding. In FY 2009, including the supplementals, defense will actually receive nearly $650 billion, or more than twice as much as it did eight budgets ago.

When DOD's resources are fully counted, they reflect historically unprecedented growth. Going back to World War II, our annual defense spending now dwarfs any previous period in history. It is more than the defense spending of every other country in the world combined. It has provided new generations of aircraft, ships, missiles, military vehicles, led to significant growth in the projected costs of current and future weapons programs, providing an almost unprecedented fiscal boon to the manufacturers of military equipment.

And it has happened not just because of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but because funding ostensibly dedicated to those operations helped take the wheels off the normal scrutiny and discipline the defense budget undergoes. Those war funds are a big part of the problem. Emergency budget requests are not subject to the same internal Pentagon budget discipline. They have not been scrubbed by the White House in the same way as the base budget. And the Congress, lacking time and political will, tends to rubber stamp them.

Now the nation is faced with an unprecedented fiscal and economic crisis. The war in Iraq is about to wind down and in Afghanistan, operations are not yet winding up to the same degree. Neither are they part of the base budget.

Nobody, Democrat or Republican, will argue with the underlying proposition that our military forces should have the funding they require. But all programs, agencies and budgets are always fiscally constrained. It should be so at DOD, as well. And what is required should be driven by policy, not by service appetite. Policy is made in the White House. When the services drew up the "wish list" the White House had already abandoned policy-making and the new team is still shaping its policy.

It is appropriate to hold the line on defense, provide basic growth this year, and delve into the work of defining policy -- shaping the appropriate role for our civilian and military institutions in executing the new strategy for U.S. international engagement. The White House has to coordinate that review; the State Dept. needs to weigh in, and DOD needs to carry out its regular Quadrennial Defense Review. If there are genuine, policy-driven, defense requirements in the near term for an Iraq withdrawal and a deployment to Afghanistan, those need to be tightly defined and supplemental funding requested.

But the base budget for defense, and anything that was not truly emergency, needs to be disciplined. It is time for "regular order" in the way DOD does its budget. And the guidance the White House sent out is an excellent start.

---

Gordon Adams is a Professor of International Relations at the School of International Service, American University and a Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center. From 1993-97, he was the senior White House official for national security budgeting.

Comments

[wallyone]

To make cuts, you have to go to where the money is--THE DOD. It is my fondest hope that we can reverse the growth of the (Ike's warning) military-industrial complex during the Obama administration from its ridiculous heights. Start first by drastically reducing nukes? Land based ICBM's? Unlimited surveillance?

[noneIn2008]

There is so much pork in the defense budget that a reduction would not hurt lobbyists. But when they run the defense department, you will hear all kinds of crying.
When we get out of Iraq, there will be enormous savings. Book them now. Why are we still there?

[SecretSquirrel666]

Quite often, acquisition decisions are made by Congressmen looking to bring jobs/money to their district/state and help ensure their re-election. This happens on both sides of the aisle and then the military is told to figure out doctrine and how to employ a piece of equipment they didn't want or ask for in the first place.

[Stirner]

Let's face it. Uncle Sam enjoys war. Our nation has never stopped forcefully imposing itself upon the world. In William Williams work, EMPIRE AS A WAY OF LIFE (Oxford U., 1980), he cataloged 23 armed interventions by the United States into foreign countries (not declared wars!) between 1798-1827; 73 between 1831-1896; 40 between 1898-1919, and 19 between 1920-1941 -- he stopped his counting at that date. A national anthem that features "Bombs bursting in air" (and a recent Presidential Candidate who chanted "bomb, bomb, bomb") gives you an idea of how Uncle Sam loves war. Now more than ever the medal-bedecked heroes of the Pentagon want more and more weapons. Why war in Afghanistan? Uncle Sam says "Why not?". Only a 3% raise for the militarists? Not enough. Cough up Sheepies!

[Chas53]

We cannot afford to be the World's Policeman. How many countries do we have troops in? Over 100! Bring them home, close bases, decommission weapon systems etc. etc.. Just think of what we could do for infrastructure here with all of that moola. If we can build stealth fighters, Predator Drones etc etc., why can't we construct an alternative energy system, including nuclear??????

[Pleneras]

All government has to do is replace Halliburton and its contract buddies with decent American companies who build and we will save billions. This is where the wasted money went > to Halliburton and right into the pockets of Cheney, Bush & Company. These men left government filthy rich.

[Givethemhellharry]

DOD should be cut 20% over the previous years budget for the next five years. That would be 125 B in 2010, 100B in 2011, 80B in 2012, 60B in 2013 and 40B in 2014. That would still leave us as the country that spends more on the military than any other. Let our "allies" start picking up the slack

[oldgeek1]

Many programs within the Defense budget do little other than fund jobs, that is fact. There is certainly nothing wrong with white collar welfare, its just that funding could be put to better use by the DOD.

If the cuts to Defense can be targeted to those programs that truly will not improve our national security and only hit the mega contractors who are only defending their bottom line, the cuts should be made.

The arguments that Defense cannot be cut are those of fools or zealots who will cry for the need to support our troops or those other such tired sayings. The fact is that many programs will do nothing to improve our national security posture and are a drain and strain on DoD's budget.

[divineorder]

Trillions disappeared while Clinton was Pres, more during Bush. Just went missing. This pig (porkulous) really needs to go on a crash diet.

[sanfranciscofeet]

Defense spending is the true culprit of our weak economy. If Obama is really going to go "line-by-line" through the budget, he could surely find plenty of cuts in DOD, while still keeping us safe. Any increase, even 3% is not acceptable. I seem to recall President Clinton had the guts to decrease defense spending. Obama should do the same.

[divineorder]

Gates is for getting rid of programs with no real defense need to fill. I am coming around to supporting Obama's choice on this.

See
Obama, Gates offer surprising signals of change, new economy, healthcare ?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/12/74156/2245/156/696507

[DocTwain]

The early reports of a 10% cut--not enough, but a good start--were encouraging.

This decision to pander to the war cartel and throw more money we don't have down its gaping maw is just another demonstration that Obama is NOT a progressive, will NOT speak like an honest man about the plutocratic corruption we have suffered from for the last eight years, and will NOT bring the change we need. We don't need a weak centrist at this moment of crisis.

[TheBaffler]

Holding the line would be disastrous, we need to radically slash the military budget and end the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

[richardmcnoggin]

As far as I can tell the constitution only authorizes the Federal Govenment to provide for defense and general welfare. ( general welfare needs to be specificly determined and defined) All this other garbage in the porkulus bill is unconstitutional.

[Joseph Sochet]

A constitutional scholar, you are not.

[MajorKong]

Let me guess. "Porkulus" is the latest slogan handed down from right-wing central since it showed up everywhere at about the same time.

Gee, it's almost as if you guys were all being fed the same talking points.

[DocTwain]

Yes, the military is supposed to provide for the common DEFENSE. Not for an imperialist, neocon war that was not even preemptive, because there was not threat to preempt. The military-industrial complex was given far too much power and influence. The DOD displaced the State Department in foreign policy and the war cartel led us into a profiteering war on the basis of lies. The founding fathers would be appalled to see such a waste of tax dollars, especially when the People are suffering. These cartelists are out of control! Slash their budget by 34% over the next three years!

[mommadona]

Want to know where to find those funds so desperately needed in COMMUNITIES?

DUH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8