-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The long-awaited report of President Obama’s deficit commission is out (read PDF here). I’ll be posting on its various proposals throughout the day, some of which are quite good, some of which are extremely bad. But I wanted to start on its proposals on military spending.
Many foreign policy minded conservatives have either been disinterested in conversations about growth in the size of government or have actively facilitated it (see, for example, support in some of these quarters for the Medicare prescription drug plan). But as I’ve written repeatedly over the past several years, they do so at their own peril. When we face a severe debt crisis, military spending becomes a rather inviting target from which to wring out savings. And we can see this in the proposal of the fiscal commission, which calls for steep cuts in military spending to keep the deficit under control.
Under the fiscal commission plan, security spending would be frozen and then have its growth capped. The security budget would be $688 billion in 2012 and just $700 billion by 2020. Keep in mind that this would include not only spending on defense, but on all other aspects of security — homeland security, veterans and international affairs. All of this spending would shrink to 3 percent of GDP by the end of the decade, which is where defense spending alone was in 2000, after the Clinton era post-Cold War “peace dividend.” The commission leaves some wiggle room for ongoing and future war costs, but there are still limits on “overseas contingency operation” spending.
It’s one thing to argue that there’s waste in the defense budget, that certain weapons systems are outdated and that there are plenty of ways to spend that money more efficiently. But it’s dangerous to simply slash military spending to meet budget targets. At least during the 1990s, there was a reason to cut the military budget due to the collapse of the Soviet Union — and that still came back to haunt us when Sept. 11 happened. Now, we’re fighting two wars, facing the broader threat of radical Islam, looking at the prospect of a nuclear Iran that further destabalizes the Middle East, watching tensions build in Korea, and China continue to gain power. And yet the commission is talking about the possibility of bringing defense spending to historically low levels.
Liberals like to accuse conservatives of hypocrisy for railing about out of control federal spending and opposing defense cuts. Yet that’s a good opportunity to reassert that defense is actually a primary and legitimate function of government. The reason for that is pretty simple — it’s unrealistic for individuals, based on their own efforts, to carry out the functions of the military without a federal government. Liberals may respond, for instance, by arguing that some people would not be able to afford health care without government intervention. But at least in that case it’s something that the private market is able to provide for people who can pay. We can argue about whether this is fair or just, but the bottom line is that there isn’t even a practical way to create a market for competing private defense companies that only protect customers who pay for their services.
If the fiscal commission report accomplishes anything, it should convince anybody who supports a strong national defense that they need to start taking entitlement reform a lot more seriously.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/01/deficit-panel-proposes-gutting
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
George S| 12.1.10 @ 11:50AM
Military spending did not cause the debt crisis. Nor did those earning over $250k. What caused it is government -- with TARP, Medicare, stimulus -- and other unconstitutional acts. Now a commission suggests cutting defense. To what end? To enable government to divert more into social programs, like Europe who spent their defense allowance on socialism because we footed the bill for their defense?
This is a democratic republic. Let those on "commissions" put their ideas in a campaign policy platform and face the voters. Otherwise butt out. I'm sick and tired of bearing the burden of government ineptitude.
Eliza| 12.1.10 @ 11:02PM
Sir, did you read the entire report or are you merely assuming this is the only recommendation by the commission?
I did bother to read it and the knife is poised to slice through many programs, including many that should not be touched at all. When looking at a deficit in the trillions, cutting a 1-billion dollar program that is useful makes no sense--i.e. closing DoD schools in the U.S. because "they are relics of Jim Crow laws". Of course, the fact they provide education in remote areas where the local school system cannot support that many kids. FTR, I used to live in a military town where the base population was larger than that of the rest of the county and the federal government had to subsidize the local schools.
Need I remind yet another person with a memory gap that TARP was a Bush program, Medicare has been around since Johnson and his Republican Congress and programs like SSI came into being under Nixon and Reagan. Unconstitutional? Last time I read my copy of the Constitution, it gave Congress the power "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Welfare was generally defined at the time Jefferson drafted the Preamble to include health, happiness and prosperity.
I'm tired of bearing the burden of selfish people who think cutting the federal budget is going to make a difference. All it will do is shift the burden to the states, at which time the realization that you are still SOL will hit you like a ton of bricks as your local and state governments raise every tax they can to make up for what they no longer get from the feds.
Want roads? Prepare to pay tolls to drive two miles down the road. Need a cop? Whip out that credit card to pay for his gas. Yes, I know it may be hyperbole now, but where I live, you already see niggling little signs of the burden shifting and it isn't pretty.
Philip Howard| 12.2.10 @ 9:28AM
Lady, you are obviously the product of public education because you are intellectually lazy. There is no Constitutional provision to “provide for the general welfare”. There is no provision for education. There is no provision for welfare. There is no provision for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing, medical care or any of the thousands of other things that the Imperial Federal Government has taken upon itself to do. These are legitimate functions of the 50 states to do for their people if they have the money to do so. If you eliminate these things then the problem will solve itself. If you refuse to do so then the problem will only get worse.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.1.10 @ 12:11PM
Is it just Me? Is it possible that I'm missing something? That I don't get it?
North Korea is firing MISSILES in to the SOUTH. They're selling Long Range Missiles and Nuclear Technology, to Iran and Syria, and whomever else has got the CASH.
Pakistan is THISCLOSE to Collapsing in to the arms of the RADICAL ISLAMISTS. Turkey has completely shed it's SECULARISM. Iran is on it's way to starting a Nuclear Conflagration with Israel. Hezbollah is threatening to TAKE OVER the Lebanese Government. China is starting to throw it's weight around in Asia. There's a Retarded Madman running Venezuela. And Nicaragua is OCCUPYING part of Costa Rica.
And these people, and the IDIOT in the White House, think that NOW is a good time to CUT DEFENCE?
Like I said: Is it just Me?
Franco| 12.1.10 @ 12:31PM
You cannot fight everyone, everywhere at once. This is strategy and tactics 101. It is economically and physically impossible (in manpower terms) to constantly intervene the world over, especially with an all-volunteer army already exhausted. Wars cost money, and there ain't enough anymore.
Draw down from Europe and South Korea. Let Taiwan and the aforementioned grow the hell up and let them defend themselves.
phil47F| 12.1.10 @ 12:47PM
Franco
I realize ignorance is bliss but you have no idea how old the type reasoning you laid out on this site is and how so many times this idealistic approach has failed horribly both in theory and practice.
Using your logic (if you want to call it that) we draw down from South Korea and let them "grow up" . North Korea would overwhelm them in weeks becase they will use nuclear weapons in a heart beat therefore drawing Japan and the entire Pacific Rim into armed conflict leading to WWIII. We will then be fighting everyone else everywhere defeating your reasoning.
Tell you what if the NOKOs will conduct live fire missions on a SOKO island (as they have recently) while the US military are there with all the technology on earth to squash them like a bug what do you think the NOKOs will do when the US vacates the Korean penninsula?
Go back to your college school work or whatever you were doing before you posted this and think
Red Phillips | 12.1.10 @ 2:38PM
First of all phil, I don't exactly know how an "approach" fails "in theory." Is there some lab where we can test foreign policy "approaches"? What I think you mean is that YOU don't think it will work.
Secondly, when has non-interventionism failed in practice? For it to fail in practice it would actually have to be tried. Thanks to meddling busy-bodies and fearful Chicken Little hysterics it hasn't been in this country in recent memory if ever. But it sure seems to be working out pretty well for the Swiss.
Chris| 12.1.10 @ 5:27PM
Yeah, the NORKS will use nukes. I mean it's not like we could simply say we're pulling out conventionally but if you use nukes you'll be glowing.
If the S. Koreans can't defend themselves by now, then it's their own fault. We should have pulled out 10-15 years ago. And, conventionally, the South matches up with the North. No reason for us to be there.
Sandy| 12.1.10 @ 4:40PM
Thank you for your excellent comment Timothy Pennell, you are so correct. Can you please explain to the Libertarians below jus?. It seems that they bought into Ron Paul's view that we could protect this country with just a few good submarines.
Sandy| 12.1.10 @ 4:42PM
My full sentence should read- Can you please explain to the Libertarians just how isolationism does't work?
Derek Leaberry| 12.1.10 @ 12:40PM
With the homosexualized and feminized military now part of the left-wing phalanx, conservatives should admit that we have one more enemy. And where is the Republican leadership on the military's drive to the left? Where are the calls for the resignations of Gates and Mullen? The silence is deafening.
The military is now a social revolutionary tool for the American Left. So be it. With deficits at $ 1.3 trillion annually, the military needs defunding just as other left-wing government projects- NPR, PBS, the Smithsonian, the Education Department etc, etc.- need defunding.
Red Phillips | 12.1.10 @ 2:59PM
Derek, what fun is it to concern one's self with the real and imminent threat of the total collapse of Christian moral presuppositions in the face of Cultural Marxist PC rightthink when instead you could be fretting about imagined fear mongered scenarios of the apocalyptic end of life as we know it if the US spends one less dime defending the world?
The former is happening right before our eyes with hardly a peep of protest from official "conservativedom" and those who do dare to acknowledge it are scolded for their divisiveness. While the latter is often hardly plausible catastrophizing.
It makes you wonder what these "conservatives" are really most interested in conserving, Christendom as we know it or spoils for the military industrial complex?
Derek Leaberry| 12.1.10 @ 3:32PM
The latter, Mr. Phillips.
JOhnny Doolittle| 12.3.10 @ 2:39PM
HAHAHAHAH you are funny. First off the military is not part of a left or right wing Phalanx. The military works for America. Second it appears that you are proposing cuts to anything associated with the government that is synched with your ideology (Whatever that may be its not really clear) Third defund the military and your rifle(s) and 1000 rounds per will not protect you. The best we can do against a foreign force with no military is destabilize the country. We see how well that works for whole countries don't we.
Bobby| 12.3.10 @ 2:42PM
Johnny you are a goofball. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. As always I can see straight through you and your feeble attempts to incite someone to anger.
JmsA| 12.1.10 @ 1:55PM
"Gitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
(If you desire peace, prepare for war).
--Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma Rei Militaris, Circa 309AD
Tony| 12.1.10 @ 7:27PM
Wow, some real right-wing nut jobs here.
Yes, of course. We must cut EVERYTHING except defense. Never mind that our defense budget is 630 billion. Every single tax dollar of ours should go into the war machine!
Just so you are informed, here are some defense budgets from around the world.
China: 65 billion
Russia: 50 billion
North Korea: 5 billion
Germany: 35 billion
England: 42.8 billion
Iran: 4.3 billion
Isn't it painfully obvious we are spending a disproportionate amount on defense when compared to other countries? I agree with others who say countries like S. Korea need to defend themselves. That, or they can PAY US to keep our troops stationed there.
The truth of the matter is our budget deficit is 14 trillion and has about 200 trillion of unfunded liabilities. It is impossible to think you could close these figures merely by cutting pork, taxing some a bit more, and closing down certain programs. If you do not cut defense, you will not have a country very soon. It is as simple as that. Our country (which is essentially broke) won't be able to borrow any more - China and Japan will not fund our debt. This will force the government to print money (already happening) and our currency will collapse (starting to happen). Already certain countries like China and Russia have agreed to settle business WITHOUT using the U.S. dollar.
What could be a more obvious signal that we have to get our financial house in order than that?
Red Phillips | 12.2.10 @ 1:16AM
Tony, thanks for the budget numbers for comparison. The American numbers are absurdly high by comparison. Our military is one big make work project.
Blackwatch| 12.1.10 @ 9:46PM
Our defense expenses will need to be pared--but not at the expense of the safety and security of our democratic allies. We will need to make it explicit to the communists and the Jew Haters that we will use nukes as we see fit to counter any aggression either conventional or nuclear against our recognized allies. Tactical nuke artillery, nuke gravity bombs, or nuke cruise missiles/ICBMS nothing is off the table to defend our allies.
THEN ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS HAVE THE BALLS TO DESTROY PYONGYANG, TEHRAN, DAMASCUS, WHEREVER IF THEY LAUNCH AN ATTACK ON ONE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC ALLIES. IT WILL ONLY TAKE ONE EXAMPLE FOR THE OTHERS TO FALL IN LINE.
Eliza| 12.1.10 @ 11:08PM
Considering that we have enough stored firepower to destroy the world 1000 over on behalf of our "democratic" allies already, do we REALLY need to do it 1001 times?
Red Phillips | 12.2.10 @ 1:21AM
Blackwatch, where in the Constitution does it say the purpose of the US military is "the safety and security" of our allies? The purpose of the US military is the "safety and security" of the US.
Denver| 12.1.10 @ 11:20PM
The military needs to be rethought.
The Cold War is over. NATO has no mission.
Neo-cons grow the military. Conservatives make no entangling alliances and are friends of Liberty everywhere but protectors only of our own.
Sea_Hunter| 12.2.10 @ 11:18AM
To try and get back on topic, one must ask how much of our military budget is actually military? In looking over the military budget it becomes obvious that a goodly number of items are in there more as "earmarks" than as actual needs of the military. Time and time again the military proposes its' needs, and time and time again Congress adds to the list. We made far more FFG's (fast frigates) in New England than the military asked for. That money could have been spent far more wisely elsewhere. Yes, the military budget can be cut without any laps in defense if and only if Congress stops the practice of adding billions of dollars of waste by keeping jobs in selected states through "earmarks".
As to North Korea - - - They have a huge army, NOT. A million man army trained to goose step in a public square isn't an army, it's a fashion statement. North Korea has no fuel, it has fighter aircraft, but training is impossible without fuel. It could sling a nuke or two, but then, it's very difficult being a dictator of a country that no longer exists, which would be the end result of that action. If we really want to stop the North Korean government from continuing the game of saber rattling to get concessions, all we need do is mine their harbors. (harbours for those in the UK.) China will complain, loudly, the UN will wag its' finger and the North will learn that rattling the cage no longer works, which was the plan to begin with.
As for Iran, it is a bigger danger to the rest of the Arab world than it is to Israel. I know that sounds odd, but it is true. It has to do with the battles between the Suni and the Sheite (please excuse my spelling of those two words) factions of Islam. Iran is one, Saudi Arabia another. If Iran goes nuke, the Arab states will not back it, indeed may well take care of the problem themselves.
As to the rest of the world - - - we need ask ourselves if it is in our national interest to get involved, and frankly, I don't think so.
So, yes we can cut the defense budget a chunk if Congress will keep their sticky little fingers out of the deal. To that I think we can all say: FAT CHANCE.