The Debt Limit Deal: Angst and Uncertainty for Defense Hawks.
Aug 2nd, 2011 | 20 responses
Depending on which side of the military spending issue one is in, thrills or chills are running up and down the respective spines in light of the debt ceiling deal that now looks quite certain to become law.
While to sighs of relief from those for a strong military, it looks like the cuts in next year’s defense budget will probably be small, for the years beyond there is at best uncertainty, at worst some real angst in the minds of the same defense hawks.
Some of the headlines sound ominous.
The Washington Post: “Pentagon Faces Possibility of Hundreds of Billions in Spending Cuts Over 10 Years” and “Pentagon in cross hairs of debt ‘trigger’”
Under the banner “Debt deal could cut defense $900B over next decade” USA TODAY leads with:
Cuts to defense spending in the debt reduction bill could total nearly $1 trillion over 10 years — more than double what President Obama had proposed earlier this year — and sap American military might worldwide, say analysts and members of Congress.
The New York Times, “Pentagon Faces Possibility of Hundreds of Billions in Spending Cuts Over 10 Years.”
Estimates of the cuts, and the consequences, are all over the map. The reliability and clarity of such estimates and predictions are not helped by the facts that there are no real details yet and that the Pentagon budget is a subset—a very large subset—of the so-called “security” budget, one that also includes homeland security, part of Veterans Affairs, State Department, etc.
The New York Times points out:
This year, the Pentagon got $529 billion of the $689 billion in security spending. What is not yet known about the reduced total of $684 billion in security spending for 2012 is whether Congress will hit the Pentagon with the entire $5 billion cut — budget analysts said that was unlikely — or whether the reductions will be spread throughout government agencies, or perhaps even leave the Pentagon untouched.
Additionally, there is a whole lot of uncertainty, angst, built into the “deal” by the agreement to let a bipartisan Congressional committee (made up or six Republicans and six Democrats) come up with $1.5 trillion of additional cuts by November, or “trigger” automatic across-the-board spending cuts of $1.2 trillion, one half of which would come from the military budget starting in 2013.
Such prospects—of $600 billion in additional defense cuts over the next decade—“are enough to make Pentagon generals wince and to compel the U.S. military to make big changes to its global strategy,” according to the Post.
However in all this gloom and doom for those supporting continued, big spending on our military, there appears to be a comforting voice.
McClatchy Newspapers asks, “Who gains from debt deal?” The answer, “The Pentagon, for one.”
It claims:
The last-minute deal that Congress is considering to raise the federal debt limit probably will mean trillions of dollars in government spending reductions for most agencies. But one department stands to gain: the Pentagon.
Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.
Read more here.
20 Responses to “The Debt Limit Deal: Angst and Uncertainty for Defense Hawks.”
The key issue I got from the earlier news of the new deal is what I wrote about: it could subject the military to arbitrary cuts, instead of thought and planned cuts. For a serious function of the federal government, that could have disturbing consequences.
At this point, I cannot think of a greater waste of a dollar than to send it to the Pentagon.
What is interesting though, is the debate between new weapons systems acquisition and military social benefit spending. Betcha military social benefit spending looses under Republicans. Especially now that the Republicans are under Tea Party Terrorist rule.
The answer to your possible question about the New Debate, Allen (which is contrived, but useful as a concept) is that the retirement system, notably its costs, have begun to concern the top brass in the military, because it complicates their priority-setting, made more difficult still when there will be come kind of rationalization of the federal budget (and of the federal government’s functions) someday.
Tooth to tail, you know.
Again, why not let the military itself choose where to make the cuts? Congress would choose based solely on the influence of the beneficiaries.
Prof-
I would be opposed to surrendering Constitutional power to the Pentagon.
DLS-
I’ve said nothing about new debate. It’s an old debate. As old as our country itself. Let me remind you that the opinions of “TOP Military BRASS” is subject to the will of the People through their elected representatives, of which hopefully there are no Legislative Terrorists.
It is the President’s prerogative whether or not military opinion should be made public. If “Top Military Brass” has an opinion, they can resign and make their comments known as a private citizen. The military gains far to much power in this country through unauthorized media responses.
Apparently, Allen, you don’t know about the subject: the growth in employee retirement and other personnel-related costs (which doesn’t even count as logistics, or something else more crucial to actually conducting warfare, that is a support role, but essential) is eating into the military budget, and that (as I clearly indicated) has the top people in the military concerned. There’s only so much money they can expect to have and to spend (what upsets liberals about nearly everything else but objects of its wrath like the military).
There’s no reason the military shouldn’t make those cuts, Prof.
Of course, if they’re given an arbitrary reduction, it’s a challenge they wouldn’t have if they could plan for an intelligent sequence of cuts in advance.
I doubt nobody believes this agreement will remain the way things are for very long, and it may not pay to rush to start planning for contingency cuts, though if the time were there, it might make a small amount of sense. (Remote as it is, theoretically it now could happen.)
DLS-
Oh I understand.
I understand that the United States spends seven times more than our closest “competitor” in defense spending. A competitor that our business leaders are manipulating government through the lobby to do more and more unregulated business with. So whom is the threat, The People’s Republic of China, or, our business leaders whom love them so much? And if “we” love them so much, through our business leaders, why do we need to spend seven times more than China in Defense?
Oh we can cut defense. We can cut the Bee-Jesse out of defense! Where our GOVERNMENT decides to cut, will be a GOVERNMENT decision. No the Pentagon’s.
Given that the US military budget is about 50% of the whole world’s total military spending, it is time for a comprehensive strategic review of our military’s mission.
1 – Do we need the resources to fight two major wars simultaneously?
2 – Could our manpower needs for active service military be cut and utilize increased National Guard and Reserve forces like Israel does.
3 – A review of our worldwide military installations. Do we really need 51 army installations in Germany? Or 35 in South Korea? Or 12 in Japan? Do we need 3 Naval installations in Italy or 2 air bases in Bulgaria?
4 – I know it is difficult politically but there are easily 200 military bases in the US that should be closed out of 400+ that exist. That alone will save billions.
5 – We have 4 equipment and procurement silos, one for each service branch. Where is the strategic review that says how much and of what type of each service branch is needed for our future security. The number and types of aircraft and ships do we need? If we leave it up to each service to determine, the Pentagon budget will always escalate.
It seems to me that the types of review, even Gates latest, are not being brutally honest given our economic situation. If we fail economically, our military will not be enough to realize true security.
Wow, not one person here has recommended we need more military. That’s a good sign. One thing that has always struck me as funny about how much we spend on the military, is that the size of other people’s military never seems to be mentioned. I really would think that would be the primary determining factor in deciding how much we should spend. The 2 theatre plus another engagement mentality has always struck me as absurd. As if we need to constantly be maintaining a force big enough to fight WWII, the biggest war ever, at all times. What a waste.
slamfu-
The size of other national militaries are small because they are not trying to control the Earth.
When the military is saying that the military is too big, it’s probably too big.
@slamfu
I would rather have a defense than a military, but that idea seems to have died in WW II.
(or we could revise the preamble to read “provide for the world’s defense”).
Jdledell:
For whatever it’s worth, I agree with most of your suggestions for a “comprehensive strategic review of our military’s mission,” hopefully with a major objective of cutting our defense spending without endangering our national security. I especially agree with closing or consolidating hundreds of military installations worldwide and in the U.S. (Here BRAC has been doing a somewhat decent job of it, but needs to do more)
Hopefully I’ll have some constructive comments and slight differences of opinion—again for whatever it’s worth—in the near future.
Thanks for your comments and those of others.
Well, Prof, certain other nations were happy to have us defend them, too (while they spent money on more social programs Allen loves).
We had to do Europe’s job in the Balkans and possibly in Libya, too.
* * *
Reductions?
I’ve been on record as wanting to get rid of so many of our overseas commitments (and their costs), and superfluous bases here at home, as well as rationalize the military’s personnel size (who knows, be a Robin Hood redistributionist, even, insofar as military pay goes, as well — it’s a bureaucracy like others in the federal government, or like old dinosaur models like old GM’s management hierarchy, or public school administrations, etc.).
That’s in addition to procurement reform.
DORIAN DE WIND-
I think we can cut defense by 75% immediately and not damage our national security. In fact I think our national security is far more in danger if we don’t make grand cuts in defense spending.
Allen:
Yes, we can and should “cut Defense.” However, by 75% is a tad too much. Do you have any specific suggestions?
I will try to come up with some.
Dorian-
Yes I Have a suggestion, cut defense 75%.
Start by eliminating all but one carrier battle group. Take it from there.
[...] The Debt Limit Deal: Angst and Uncertainty for Defense Hawks. (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Wow. Barney Frank was alarming when he wanted only a 25% cut.