The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Cutting Defense Doesn’t Address Our Debt Problem and It Endangers America

By on 7.8.11 @ 11:40AM

Jim references a fine piece by Spectator alum Phil Klein, who notes that tax hikes won’t balance the budget, but spending cuts will.

“From a purely technical standpoint,” writes Phil, “it’s possible to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course without raising taxes. But it isn’t possible to increase taxes high enough to balance the long-term budget without cutting spending.”

Phil’s absolutely right. And the problem with raising taxes isn’t only its ineffectiveness in terms of debt reduction; it is that raising taxes, especially in our sluggish and weak economy, hinders economic growth and job creation. Yet without far more robust economic growth, our debt problem will become unmanageable.

But there’s a corollary to Phil’s point about tax hikes, and it is this: Just as you cannot raise taxes enough to balance the budget; so, too, can you not cut the defense budget sufficiently to defuse our rapidly ticking debt bomb. And that’s because defense spending ain’t the problem; entitlements are.

Indeed, as the Heritage Foundation’s James J. Carafano points out, you could eliminate the defense budget altogether and still, entitlements would bankrupt us within 40 years. Given all the propaganda and spin in the media that’s probably hard for most people to believe, but the data are telling.

Since 1970, reports House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI),

defense spending has shrunk as a share of the federal budget from about 39 percent to just under 16 percent — even as we conduct an ambitious global war on terrorism. The fact is, defense consumes a smaller share of the national economy today than it did throughout the Cold War.

Heritage, likewise, notes that:

Spending on national defense, a core Constitutional function of government, has declined significantly over time, despite wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending on the three major entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — has more than tripled.

In fact,

defense spending is near historic lows… Between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending is set to fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades.

Thus what Phil says about raising taxes is equally true of cutting defense:

When analysts say that [defense cuts] have to be part of the solution, they’re making an argument about the feasibility of the politics, not of the policy.

From a policy standpoint, unsustainable projected growth in entitlement programs makes [reform of these programs] necessary no matter what. [Defense cuts] aren’t required, but Republicans are being told they must accept them because they’re the price of doing business with Democrats.

But if there’s one thing the federal government absolutely must do it is defend the United States of America. Nothing else is mentioned in the Constitution, and everything else pales in comparison.

Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of cheap and careless talk about cutting “fat” in the defense budget. But Obama already has cut an estimated $330 billion from the defense budget. How much more can we cut before we start sacrificing actual warfighting capabilities?

Please understand: the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are not weapon systems, but rather pay and benefits. Yet no one in Congress is talking about cutting or reforming these parts of the defense budget.

In truth, American cannot afford any more defense cuts, which will do nothing in any case to address our fundamental problem with out-of-control entitlement spending.

View all comments (56) |

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 11:58AM

As you say. Nonetheless it is "religious" dogma to The Left that defense is too costly (if necessary at all) and of no use in this modern world. Sadly for us that world only exists in their imagination. The fear American power and believe we are wrong to defend not only others but ourselves as well.

The spending cuts must come in the regulatory agencies and social service agencies and government departments plus public funding of private groups like Urban League, La Raza, of course ACORN, and others. Not only do these departments and groups parasite huge numbers of taxpayer dollars, but their action impose great costs on business all of which retards economic expansion and costs consumers directly in addition to their tax burden.

L A Stich| 7.8.11 @ 12:12PM

Well, maybe entitlements are the problem.

But completely eliminating D of Ed, D of Energy, EPA, and cutting Government salary scale by 20% except for military, would help, too, right?

Right?

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 1:17PM

Anything and everything will help. 20% for active duty pay cut...NO. Other bureaucrats, absolutely.

CalMark| 7.8.11 @ 12:29PM

Somehow, the nation functioned just fine 10 years ago on a much smaller budget. Now, suddenly, trillion dollar deficits are "necessary."

WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY GOING?

George S| 7.8.11 @ 12:33PM

Just look at Europe. For decades, they have not needed to spend money on defense (compliments of the U.S. and NATO). So with all that saved money, they are now models of fiscal efficiency and responsibility.

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 1:18PM

"efficiency and responsibilty" not that I've noticed George.

c. j. acworth| 7.8.11 @ 7:22PM

I may be wrong, but I think that George was being sarcastic.

George S| 7.8.11 @ 8:13PM

Not just sarcasm, but with a...drip...drip :)

Zbigniew Mazurak | 7.8.11 @ 12:48PM

FINALLY! Finally an article in a widely-read magazine that states the truth: that defense spending is NOT a cause of America's fiscal woes and that cutting it will not ameliorate, let alone solve, them. Cutting the annual defense budget by even $100 billion would contribute less than 1/16th (i.e. less than 6%) of the money needed to erase the annual budget deficit, but it would drastically weaken the military.

The entire military budget could be abolished altogether and there would've still been an annual bduget deficit of $900 billion. Even if the DOD is abolished completely tomorrow, entitlement programs will bankrupt the US in a timespan much shorter than 40 years.

And yes, pay and benefits (including standard benefits, pensions, and HC programs) are the biggest drivers of costs in the DOD. DOD HC program costs have tripled since 2000, yet no member of Congress is talking about reforming them, and veterans' organizations (as well as other special interest groups such as the misnamed "Move America Forward" group) oppose any reforms of these programs and misrepresent them as "hurting and dishonoring the troops." These programs have become a new kind of entitlement programs, and just like civilian entitlement programs, they are zealously guarded by those who benefit from them.

That is not to say that weapon costs are not rising, but they're not rising even nearly as quickly as the costs of personnel programs. This is not surprising, because personnel costs are typically the largest expenses of any organization.

It is wrong to say, however, that defense spending amounted to 4.9% of GDP in 2010. It amounted to only 3.65% of GDP in FY2010, and even total FY2010 military spending last year amounted to only 4.5% of GDP. The defense cuts offered by Obama and Congressional Republicans would cut defense spending to just 3.14% of GDP.

Mark in LA| 7.9.11 @ 11:28AM

The problem with "defense" is what is on the books and what is off. How much of our security agencies is considered defense. We don't have any actual numbers but we know it is hugh and growing - all to save us from the boogeymen we help create.

Right after World War II, it was said that an American could go anywhere in the world and be welcomed. After 65 years of our government sticking its nose into everybody else's business and pushing people around, there are many places off-limits and many places where dual citizens will not take their US passports.

Skippy| 7.9.11 @ 7:58PM

Perhaps part of the reason is that Europe was ruined, and needed the US to defend it from the very real and immediate threat of the USSR.
We did so, and it became a bad habit. We then interfered in places the Europeans traditionally would have, if they hadn't been so busy mandating massive welfare states and avoiding self-defense.
Fast forward 70 years and at whom do the fungal nations have to be mad? Why the only country that had anything resembling a spine in that time.
Us.
America and Americans don't suck, we just do what the worlds cowards...er...our allies won't do.

Mark in LA| 7.11.11 @ 3:24PM

Are you really naive enough to believe that we put troops in every corner of the world for their good and that all this waste is for them, or because it is needed? The threat of a major Red Army invasion of west Europe effectively ended in the mid 60's. This is why we are hated - our government forces its will on governments and we stupid Americans can't understand why the people would be upset - believing stupid things like anti-missle batteries in Poland are a sign of good-will to the Russians since they are only for "defense". The ignorant and stupid American doesn't know that there are serious military papers being written about how missle defense plays into the potential of first strike doctrine, no they only listen to the speech by the idiot Bush and assume every word is the gospel truth. Imagine if the RAF put a base in Wyoming and decided it could bomb anywhere they wanted for any reason and that base was used to keep corrupt dictators and monarchs in power. How do you think we would like it?

Derek Leaberry| 7.8.11 @ 12:51PM

For a bankrupt nation(fiscally and morally), the current defense establishment is too costly to maintain. The commitments in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, Germany and Korea must end. The defense of tomorrow will have to shrink because the money isn't there and not likely to be.

But we must be thankful that the potential foes of America are much fewer than they were thirty years ago. The Soviet Union with its thousands of tanks, airplanes, atomic bombs and artillery pieces, 700 ship navy and 4 million man army is gone replaced by a weakened, shrinking Russia. China is a local power addicted to selling junk to the United States, a power it is now dependent on and can't afford to go to war against. Muslim militants are weak and reliant on terror attacks, none of which come close to destroying the regimes the Jihadists wish to destroy. Jihadist are more like gnats than they are a military power.

Lastly, with the aid of men like Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates, the military is no longer institutionally conservative. It is instead a institutionally left-wing. The military has been feminized and homosexualized to a great extent sure to continue. The military engages in quotas and affirmative action as fervently as any federal government body or Fortune 500 corporation. It boggles the mind that any conservative would wish to boost an institution as adversarial to conservative values as the modern American military.

Oldefarte| 7.8.11 @ 1:17PM

John, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you partially on this one. The Defense Dept expendatures has always contained excessive hardware spending on supersonic planes, ships, armaments etc that are far beyond what's needed [the sad fact is that these Cadillac hardware items are not even used in our wars, and instead we traditionally rely upon our boots-on-the-ground land armies due to political correctness]. Much of this hardware primarily benefits the numerous defense contractors dependent upon these massive and unnecessary purchases from Uncle Sam's taxpayers]. Take a broad axe to much of this excessive hi-tech hardware, you bet ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 1:21PM

Indeed there are things that can be cut such as the f-22 second engine and so on. Every vet knows where cuts could happen. That is called good management. Cuts, broad based and deep, including the elimination of entire regulatory agencies are another matter are are exactly what we need.

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 1:22PM

OOPS "and are exactly what we need."

Darn fingers don't keep up.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 7.8.11 @ 3:13PM

Utter gibberish. These "supersonic planes, ships, armaments, etc." are actually NEEDED and the spending on them is not excessive - it is actually inadequate. The vast majority of the US military's current equipment is worn out and obsolete. It needs to be replaced. It's also unable to survive today's AD weapons and other modern weapons developed by America's enemies. This is not "excessive hi-tech hardware", it's must-have equipment.

Oldefarte| 7.8.11 @ 4:22PM

BS! Our greatest threat comes from raghead-terrorists whose weapontry are Russian rifles and homemade roadside bombs, and we're building atomic naval ships and supersonic airplanes to combat that? Grow a brain! Additionally, if I had a nickel for every US domestic military base whose operations/locations are duplicated [and due to locals political connections from influencial congressmen preventing the loss of local tax revenues resulting from the closings of these duplicate military installation upon local businesses] that could be consolidated [closing unnecessary bases/forts], I'd have a 15 room estate in Hawaii. Whats essential to the military could be paid for in triplicate if the waste/fraud/abuse was eliminated from the military's budget!!!!!!!!

Skippy| 7.9.11 @ 8:06PM

The ragheads are the current threat.
The Red Chinese are the next threat.
How are those boots gonna fare against those hordes?

Dan Phillips| 7.8.11 @ 2:45PM

John, how does cutting defense "endanger" America? If we cut our defense spending even dramatically, who would invade us? Is China going to invade us? Russia? Iran? If they will invade us at the slightest sign of "weaking" then why aren't they invading Switzerland right now?

What cutting "defense" really endangers is not America proper, but our ability to play global hegemon. But global hegemon is not a necessary or proper role for the US. It is the mental construct of a bunch of interventionist ideologues.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 7.8.11 @ 3:15PM

In 1941, America's defense was weak, and America was attacked directly.

In 2001, America's defense was weak (so were its homeland defenses), and it was attacked.

MOreove, it's ridiculous that America's interests are limited to the borders of the United STates. America's crucial interests are global, and a strong military second to none is necessary to defend them. Then there are ballistic missiles of all ranges (including ICBMs), which threaten America directly. You clearly know NOTHING about defense issues. Defense cuts WOULD endanger America.

Clint| 7.8.11 @ 3:27PM

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.

Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Dan Phillips| 7.8.11 @ 4:25PM

"In 2001, America's defense was weak (so were its homeland defenses), and it was attacked."

9/11 had nothing, to do with "weak" defense because it was not a traditional military attack. A "stronger" military would have done nothing to deter 9/11, and that's even if I accept your premise that our defenses were "weak," which I do not.

"it's ridiculous that America's interests are limited to the borders of the United STates."

Of course we have interests outside our borders. Every nation does.

"America's crucial interests are global, and a strong military second to none is necessary to defend them."

But every nation does not feel the need to have a military "second to none" to defend them. (In fact. it would be impossible for every nation to have a military "second to none." Someone is going to be second. Someone is going to be third. etc.) Many nations get grain from the US. Do they feel the need to station troops here to protect their flow of grain? Would we let them even if they did?

Your response proves my point. What you are interested in defending is not America as a nation like all others, but an ideological construct of America as global hegemon somehow different from other nations.

You say I know nothing about defense. I say you know nothing about true philosophical conservatism.

Derek Leaberry| 7.8.11 @ 4:37PM

We have eleven aircraft carriers with three more planned or under construction. Couldn't we do with, say, eight? Italy has 2 carriers in service and Russia, France, the UK, India, Spain, Brazil, Thailand and China have one. We are formally allies with four of those countries, have friendly relations with three, and have potentially adversarial relations with two, Russia and China.

Dan Phillips| 7.8.11 @ 4:49PM

But Derek, don't you realize that the instant America shows any sign of "weakness" the Russian Bear will be crossing the Bearing Straight and invading Alaska? Or at least that's what will happen if you live in the delusionally fearful world of the Chicken Little interventionist alarmists.

The US would do better spending its time figuring out how to get a heavyweight boxer who can beat the Klitschko brothers than worrying about Russia's one aircraft carrier navy.

Oldefarte| 7.8.11 @ 4:26PM

You obviously are a typical warmonger WITH LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTING, BUDGETS OR THE WASTE/FRAUD [ever heard of the $400 screwdrivers within the military's budgets?] CONTAINED WITHIN SAME!!!!!!!!

Mark in LA| 7.11.11 @ 3:36PM

In 1941, America's defense was weak, and America was attacked directly.

I always wonder why you guys make crap up to fit your agenda's. Nobody in Japan thought America's defenses were weak. Hitler never responded to all our acts of war (yes, acts of war) against Germany prior to Pearl Harbor so its doubtful he thought us weak.

Japan attacked us because we cut off her flow of oil and scrap steel which was vital to the expansion of her empire. She either had to back down (lose face) or fight. Yes, unlike the idiot economists believe, trading with someone does not reduce frictions it creates them. Japan was hoping for a quick end and a negotiated peace that would give her control of the western Pacific and a free hand in Asia. Nobody in high places in the Japanese government had any delusions about American weakness. They were just full of themselves since they had been at war off and on sucessfully since the war with Russia in 1905 and figured their fighting spirit would make up for what they lacked in equipment.

Derek Leaberry| 7.8.11 @ 3:25PM

If the US attempts to be world policeman we will end up like the Western Roman Empire, overextended and lurching toward financial insolvency. Who will be our Romulus Augustus?

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 3:33PM

Dan lives in wolkenkuckkuckshiem. If only wishing would make it so. The Left is infected with wishful thinking. That's why it's called realpolitik.

Dan Phillips| 7.8.11 @ 4:31PM

But I'm not a leftist, which is why I am pointing out to Mr. Mazurak the deficiency of his alleged (I suppose) conservatism.

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 5:25PM

Maybe then a better explanation is in order from you then Dan. Conservatives are of course not adventurists. We understand that military action is a last resort (unlike the current whatever in Libya) and that when used it must be applied in overwhelming force. That is why we need a million man army, a four hundred ship navy and a fifty wing air force. Unless we are prepared to go we lose deterrence and deterrence did work.

Skippy| 7.9.11 @ 8:09PM

RTFO!

Skippy| 7.9.11 @ 8:10PM

RTFO!

Roger Fortier | 7.8.11 @ 2:46PM

John, generally agree that defense is too important to be left to progressives. But there is discussion on benefit reduction. See COLA change for military retiree pay @ http://www.armytimes.com/news/.....s-070611w/

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 3:55PM

As an aside, although related, the end of NASA missions will put some tens of thousands out of work in Florida, Alabama, Houston and other places. Great work Mr. President. Of course it will also retard our technological advantage and growth to say nothing of placing us at a disadvantage in space applications and of course exploration. Just another example of Left wing wishing it were so.

Dan Phillips| 7.8.11 @ 4:38PM

Yesterday we were discussing Constitutional Conservatives. Here is a useful litmus test. If you support NASA, you aren't one. Were, Al Adab, is the authorization for space exploration for space exploration's sake or "technological advantage" or whatever found in the Constitution? One could argue that military space applications are authorized by the Constitution, but space exploration for scientific or technological advancement is not.

Al Adab| 7.8.11 @ 5:30PM

Dan,
It is of course not found in the Constitution as you note. A purist would say that therefore it is not authorized. So be it. Nonetheless we should understand the implications of our choices. I would submit that it is in fact integral to military preparedness and capacity. It would likely not be wise to repeat the mistake of the Ming chinese who stopped their world exploration in the 1420's with ultimte disasterous results.

Please overlook my somewhat glib first reation to your post, but do be clear.

Warrior | 7.8.11 @ 11:15PM

The technology for the shuttle is almost half a century old. Using dollars to support the ISS and Hubble telescope have military applications? If an argument was to be made for space exploration as being necessary, then maybe NASA should get back to exactly that.

Handy| 7.9.11 @ 4:52AM

None of you people have a clue about defense matters. Not those who hate what's going on, nor you chicken hawks.

Skippy| 7.9.11 @ 8:12PM

Enlighten us.

Handy| 7.10.11 @ 7:07AM

Sorry not to respond directly. I posted a couple below. Not exhaustive, but you may get the idea.

Trust me, you don't really want exhaustive from me. LOL, and Cheers.

Conservative View| 7.9.11 @ 9:58AM

Some observations on defense spending. Back in 1941 the contract to build a warship went on for six pages. That's it, just six pages. Today, the contract to build a warship goes on for more than six hundred. The present contracts even state such things as the width of line on a blueprint.

We are putting boots on the ground for a singular reason, that of having influance over a government. We want to rebuild governments. That idea needs rethinking. Boots are the modern equal to gunboats in the early 1900's. We got more and better boots than you have, so you do it our way. Right, perhaps we need to scratch our heads a little bit harder over that.

If we can outgrow this idea that we need to put boots on the ground to wage a modern war we would be much better off. We have a strong Navy and a strong Air Force, and more than a strong ground force. We have what we need to choke any potential enemy. North Korea acts up, not a problem. We just blockade the place. The worst mistake we could possibly make would be invadeing the country and that is for a simple reason - - - we win. And then what. You want to spend all that money feeding a bunch of starving North Koreans? I sure don't.

Cutting defense spending can happen to a certain extent. We can draw down our ground forces some. What really bothers the heck out of me is that no one in Washington is calling for cuts of wasteful programs, ah la OSHA, EPA, NEA, Department of Education. And no one is talking about cutting back on stupid grants --- the study of shrimp on a treadmill, the study of homosexual men in south america and why they visit bars, and the like.

When I hear that the EPA is on the chopping block, I'll believe that Congress is finally getting real about cutting spending. Hell, if NPR goes on the chopping block I'll begin to have a glimmer of faith. But at the moment I sure aint holding my breath.

Sandy| 7.9.11 @ 10:57AM

Thank you John Guardiano, Al Adab and Zbigniew Mazurak for writing in support of a strong defense for our country. If some had the ability or desire to do the research on our Defense spending with respect to the GDP, they can easily find that there are numerous reports that show our defense spending is at one of the lowest levels in history. Many would rather rely on the words of the anti-war zealots like Ron Paul, who is in reality closer to the Liberal/Progressive beliefs of those such as Code Pink.

Ron Paul has unleashed a horde of disillusioned and delusional cult like crowd that scream Constitution Constitution, but purposely misinterpret the very meaning in the document which "clearly" states that the main function of the government is in protecting this country from enemies both home and abroad. Ron Paul said that the 9/11 attackers were nothing but a bunch of thugs with boxcutters. He stated that the threat of the radical islamists is "made up" just as the threat of Communists was "made up" back in the 50's and 60's, even though it can be proven that there are Communists now serving in high government positions, and the Communist Party is out in the open now.

Ron Paul should be thrown out of the Republican party as he is a fraud that is getting support from a demographic that is still wet behind the ears, and some who should know better. It is the very same demographic that helped put the Marxist in the WH, but Paul is promising them to legalize drugs, and a life free of any personal responsibility. It's not just the liberals who support "if it feels good do it" it is the delusional libertarians as well.

Clint| 7.9.11 @ 11:37AM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Clint| 7.9.11 @ 11:41AM

"Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."

Skippy| 7.9.11 @ 8:17PM

As long as our guys are manufacturing jihadi bodies, it's all good with me.
Ron Paul is a self-blinded whackjob.

Clint| 7.9.11 @ 8:37PM

The RINO-CINO Fops have attempted to smear up & marginalize Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin And Both Our Tea Party Presidential Candidates, Michele Bachmann & Dr. Ron Paul.

"When Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them."

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Dan Phillips| 7.9.11 @ 5:53PM

Sandy, next time you should probably get your facts straight before you spout off. Defense spending is not at "one of the lowest levels in history." What you are probably referring to is since WWII, but defense spending prior to WWI, for example, was much lower.

As Joel McDurmon of American Vision said in Five Truths that Republicans Hate:

"There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, then outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party."

Opposition to a standing army is closer to the conservative position than is knee-jerk militarism.

Surely you don't think Joel McDurmon is some kind of closeted leftist.

http://americanvision.org/3095.....dium=email

Clint| 7.9.11 @ 11:34AM

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

"Much of the waste in defense is directly attributable to the appropriations process. The vote delays on the MX missile and the suspension of the B-1 bomber cost this country billions of dollars--dollars that were lost forever as those systems that were set back had to be reprogrammed at higher cost.

"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."

The President particularly praised the commission's recommendation for five-year spending projections and two-year budget cycles for the Pentagon. "We are the only major country in the world that rewrites its defense budget every year," Reagan said.

"The waste that results is immense," he said. "No company in the private sector could survive if it couldn't plan for the future. The effect of funding programs this way is less defense and more cost."
Reagan appointed the commission, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, last June and asked it to propose reforms that would end "horror stories" about $600 toilet seat covers, $400 hammers and fierce interservice rivalries."

Oldefarte| 7.9.11 @ 2:51PM

From Wikipedia: ".....The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues.[citation needed] According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.[24] Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs in accordance with the law, outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[25] Military spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.[26] For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.[27] Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[28][29]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.[27] Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor".[30] This calculation does not take into account some other defense-related non-DOD spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, which has increased even as a percentage of the national GDP........"

Clint| 8.31.11 @ 8:04PM

"Military Expenditures

The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion).

The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. accounts for 40% of the world’s yearly defense outlays."

Handy| 7.9.11 @ 8:49PM

Reagan, cited by Clint above, was right, but he did not go far enough. The fits and starts in the Defense Department are hugely expensive. Not only for procurement programs, but for training and personnel.

It has been said many times that it is easier to stay in shape than to get in shape. So it is with soldiers, too. To qualify an infantryman costs about $100,000 currently (basic and advanced individual training). To keep him current costs only about $50,000 annually, but he gets more proficient with experience. (Note: If he is deployed and engaged, he can burn through about $1,000,000 per year.)

We need some long term thinking about what we do with our trained soldiers. In my humble opinion, we should make the reserve components much more attractive. To keep an E-5 up to speed in a reserve unit costs less than $20,000 annually. If these folks want to leave active duty, or if we must let them go, doesn't it make sense to retain them in the reserves?

Wouldn't it be great to amortize our original training costs over a period of 20 or more years rather than an initial enlistment of 4?

(Obviously, the numbers vary by Military Occupational Specialty.)

Oldbull| 7.9.11 @ 8:55PM

Oldefarte, what's your point?

Handy| 7.9.11 @ 9:11PM

OldeF just likes to prove that he is senile every now and then. Just so he doesn't forget.

Next thing you know he'll be yelling, "Get Off My Lawn!!!"

Handy| 7.9.11 @ 9:06PM

When a major system procurement program is cancelled, that doesn't mean that we don't keep paying. When the B-1 was nixed, Rockwell actually made more money than if it had gone into production. Short term, anyway. I know. I was there.

That was in 1976. The US Air Force kept paying for contract cancellation provisions for several more years, but got no new capabilities until the program was resurrected under Reagan. By then, the company had to basically start from scratch, production-wise. Tremendous waste.

Regardless of anyone's preference or disdain for a
particular major system, there is an old axiom which should apply. "If you have reached the half way point, don't turn back."

yisong| 10.28.11 @ 2:07AM

Our Product available including: Single and Double Row Ball, Three Row Roller, Cross Roller Sealed and Unsealed Internal Geared, External Geared and Non-Geared Clearance or Preloaded. http://www.1stbearing.com

More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/07/08/cutting-defense-doesnt-address

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky | 2:00PM

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan | 1:33PM

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|117 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|70 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|62 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|11 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|27 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|21 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.