Cut Defense?

Project for the New American Century ^ | March 9, 2004 | Gary Schmitt

[RWR8189]

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

 

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

 

SUBJECT: Cut Defense?

 

 

If congressional “budget hawks” have their way, there will be cuts made to the Bush administration’s defense spending package. Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate Budget Committee voted to slice $7 billion from the Pentagon’s FY 2005 budget. The ostensible reason for the reduction is the large federal deficit. With the national defense budget authority up by nearly $90 billion since 2001, the presumption is that there is room to cut.

 

But this is not the case. Adjusted for inflation, the $423 billion in defense budget authority requested for FY 2005 is only 15% more than the FY 2001 total. This increase is remarkably small given the fact that, during this period, the U.S. has fought two wars and is still engaged in major military operations in two theaters. Moreover, a considerable percentage of the increase in defense spending has gone to paying personnel, benefits and health costs. Compared with the Reagan-era budget ramp up in the early 1980s, a far smaller amount of today’s increases has gone to procuring new equipment and replacing aging infrastructure. Indeed, a close analysis of the administration’s defense budget reveals that current procurement plans – for new ships, planes, satellites, and missiles – cannot be supported by projected budget totals in the coming years. Add to this the fact that the active-duty military is too small to carry out the grand strategy the White House has adopted for the post-9/11 world, and one is left to conclude that Congress should be lobbying the White House to increase the Pentagon’s budget, not to cut it.

 

Even today, America’s defense burden is low – accounting for less than 4% of the GDP and less than 20% of the federal budget. (During the Reagan build-up, the comparable numbers were over 6% and 27%, respectively.) Members of Congress looking to trim the deficit should first take a hard look at other elements of the federal budget. With the nation at war, cutting defense should be the last thing on their minds.

 

[Bismarck]

We can only cut defense if we can guarantee the same quality. Otherwise, cutting defense should be out of question.

[JohnGalt]

The author makes no mention of the effects of debt financing on national security, but then he is a PNAC guy so his interest is not actually national security.

[Joee]

I put in 26 years in the Marines. I was thinking this morning how expensive it is to maintain a reasonable military force, a price almost beyond belief. I don't know, in 26 years how many times the personnel in the Marines alone had to be replaced? We would train em and then they serve and then return to civilian life in most cases.AS to the equipment, totaled every four or so years. Preventative Maintenance helped and added a might of time ---- but ----.

The price of freedom is tremendous and I think, will continue to grow. No shortcuts!

[writer33]

"We can only cut defense if we can guarantee the same quality. Otherwise, cutting defense should be out of question."

Them there's fighin' words. :) This would truly sink the Bismarck.

[Bismarck]

Well... actually I called myself after the Iron Chancellor, not the Battleship.

[writer33]

Welcome to Free Republic!

Chris

[Monti Cello]

I hope this is a set-up for Bush to veto it.

[The Old Hoosier]

We don't need to increase defense spending just because the GDP grew. That's silly.

Just cut the rest of the budget.

[Blue Scourge]

I can think of plenty of programs to make cuts to before defense

[Blue Scourge]

If in cutting you mean make things run more smoothly. than I wouldn't argue...but if it means cuts in a similar manner that Clinton did than it's a whole new ball game.

[El Gato]

All this ignores the fact that the Clinton years saw the lowest fraction of the GDP spent on the military since before the Pre WW-II buildup. As the article states, most of the Bush administration increases have gone to increased personnel costs, and to the costs of actually fighting two wars, not to mention way too many "peacekeeping" operations. Meanwhile the hardware modernization budget is still starving, the budget for new training tools and even training ammunition isn't keeping up the need either.

It's not the defense budget that is breaking the federal budget, it's entitlements.

[Ranger]

Does anyone know what $7 billion was cut? Its interesting that the cuts came from the Republicans and not the Democrats. What's up?