In a
post published yesterday afternoon, Ezra Klein points readers
to two graphs. The first relates to the sequestration cuts to
defense. The second relates to cuts in non-defense discretionary
spending. Klein’s analysis hits some excellent points, but he
missed six key components of the debate over cuts to defense and
non-defense discretionary spending.
First, Klein’s second graph shows analysis by the Economic
Policy Institute on what the Ryan, Obama, and the Simpson-Bowles
Commission aimed for in non-defense discretionary spending, as well
as what President Obama’s April “framework” would do to such
spending. Yet none of these expectations are actually going to
become law. Certainly, neither the Ryan or Obama plans is going to
get through the Senate and House, respectively, and the
Simpson-Bowles recommendations never even became official.
Second, health care costs are the same problem for the military
as they are for the general
public.
This April 2010 USA Today article spells it out
nicely:
Military health care spending is rising twice as fast as the
nation’s overall health care costs, consuming a larger chunk of the
defense budget as the Pentagon struggles to pay for two wars,
military budget figures show.
The surging costs are prompting the Pentagon and Congress to
consider the first hike in out-of-pocket fees for military retirees
and some active-duty families in 15 years, said Rear Adm. Christine
Hunter, deputy director of TRICARE, the military health care
program.
Pentagon spending on health care has increased from $19 billion
in 2001 to a projected $50.7 billion in 2011, a 167% increase.
The rapid rise has been driven by a surge in mental health and
physical problems for troops who have deployed to war multiple
times and by a flood of career military retirees fleeing
less-generous civilian health programs, Hunter said.
Aside from hiking the out-of-pocket fees for retirees and some
active-duty families, it was also
reported that TRICARE will be dropping 171,000 veterans,
retirees, and their dependents from TRICARE Prime to Standard
coverage. Essentially, this increases the out-of-pocket costs for
those affected.
We need to cut the massive fraud, waste, and duplication in the
defense budget while drastically reforming the contracting system
to better serve the troops and the public. But the fact is that two
wars have stretched future health care costs thin, so Klein’s
ignorance of this fact is significant.
Third, much of what is spent in non-defense discretionary parts
of the budget is
unconstitutional, whereas defense spending is directly stated
in the Constitution. While the aforementioned cuts to defense
spending are essential to help the nation avoid a calamitous fiscal
collapse, as well as better serve the troops, the constitutionality
of spending has to be accounted for when comparing defense to
non-defense discretionary spending.
Fourth, Klein says “non-defense discretionary spending, which
doesn’t have nearly as much political protection, is getting
gutted…” He then cites the Economic Policy Institute’s graph.
According to the defense spending graph, defense is going to take a
31% haircut. However, in averaging the expected cuts in the
now-irrelevant Obama and Ryan budget expectations (33% and 55.6%,
respectively), non-defense discretionary would be expected to take
a 44% cut. Given the rising cost of health care in the military,
and how liberals expect our economy to get better under President
Obama’s leadership (and thus certain discretionary spending should
be expected to go down), Klein’s distinction between “gutting” and
“not gutting” is debatable. This is especially true when neither
the Obama or Ryan budget is ever going to have the force of
law.
Fifth, the comparison between post-Korea and post-Vietnam
defense cuts and the sequestration cuts are somewhat invalid given
we are still actively engaged in combat in Afghanistan. This was
not the case in Korea or Vietnam, our troops on the DMZ line
post-cease fire notwithstanding.
Lastly, while he accounts for this in the closing of his piece,
most of Klein’s post tackles defense spending in constant dollars.
Meanwhile, the non-defense discretionary spending is looked at in a
percentage of GDP. They are not comparable graphs, and thus it is
at least partially intellectually dishonest to pretend they are an
apples-to-apples comparison.
This piece was co-authored by RJ Caster. RJ is a former Hill
staffer and District case manager for Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).
Casework included veterans issues. He has contributed to www.thelobbyist.net and the
Midwest Political Science Association. He currently resides in
Austin, Texas.
