Should Conservatives Cut a $646-Billion Defense Budget?

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2012/09/12/should_conservatives_cut_a_646billion_defense ^ | September 12, 2012 | Terry Jeffrey

[Kaslin]

In 1989, the year President Ronald Reagan left office and the Berlin Wall came down, total spending by the Department of Defense equaled $468.7 billion in constant 2005 dollars, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

In 2005, when President George W. Bush started his second term, and the U.S. was at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, DOD spent $473.4 billion in constant 2005 dollars.

This year, under President Barack Obama, DOD will spend $582.5 billion in constant 2005 dollars.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama is spending 23 percent more on defense than Bush did when the United States was fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 24 percent more than Reagan spent when he won the Cold War.

Does that make sense?

In the 1980s, Reagan pursued a strategy designed to bankrupt the Soviet Union, which could not hope to compete with a United States that moved forward aggressively in deploying medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, building and deploying new state-of-the-art warships, researching and vowing to deploy strategic defenses against ballistic missiles, and arming and supporting anti-Soviet insurgents in Afghanistan without ever sending U.S. forces there to fight.

More than a decade has now passed since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The United States has invaded and withdrawn from an Iraq that turned out not to have stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, and Obama -- imprudently -- has given our enemies in Afghanistan a two-year advance notice that the U.S. will be handing over control of what is already an 11-year-old war in that country to an untrustworthy indigenous military force.

In his Second Inaugural Address, President George W. Bush romantically -- and foolishly -- assigned Americans the "ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Seven years later, liberty has not broken out in the regions around Tora Bora, but a pro-American government in Egypt has been replaced by a regime dominated by the Muslim brotherhood.

So, why are we spending more in real money on defense today than we did when we faced down the Soviet Empire?

A Congressional Research Service analysis divides the Defense Department budget into two broad parts: the base budget and the amount spent on "overseas contingency operations" in Afghanistan and Iraq. The base budget primarily includes normal funding for military personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, research and development, military construction and housing for military families. The contingency budget for Afghanistan and Iraq includes the additional costs incurred fighting the wars in those countries.

In fiscal 2008, during Bush's last full year in office, the government spent a total of $663 billion in current dollars on the Department of Defense, according to CRS. That included $470 billion on DOD's base budget, $145 billion on the war in Iraq and $39 billion on the war in Afghanistan.

Since then, we have withdrawn from Iraq but escalated in Afghanistan.

In fiscal 2012, during Obama's presidency, the government is spending a total of $646 billion in current dollars on DOD. That includes $531 billion on the base budget -- or $52 billion more than Bush spent in 2008. It also includes $105 billion on the war in Afghanistan -- or $66 billion more than Bush spent on Afghanistan in 2008.

Obama is additionally spending $10 billion on residual operations in Iraq -- $135 billion less than Bush spent on Iraq in 2008.

When the United States does withdraw from Afghanistan, we will no longer need to spend more than $100 billion a year there fighting the war Obama escalated.

What should a government $16 trillion in debt do with that money?

A true conservative adheres to the U.S. Constitution according to its original meaning. No true conservative, therefore, can doubt what James Madison said in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government "are few and defined" and are "exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

While the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to create a Social Security program, a Medicare program, a Medicaid program, Obamacare or even a Department of Education that helps fund public schools in Chicago, it does have a definite duty to gather the means necessary to defend from foreign enemies the security, prosperity and liberty of the American people.

But that does not mean Americans should bow down to every ill-thought-out scheme hatched by the politicians we send to Washington, D.C. When it comes to national defense, such schemes not only waste money, they waste human lives.

[Tennessee Nana]

Only the funding to build mosques on US military installations...

[Delhi Rebels]

The politicians complaining about defense cuts all are complaining about the resulting job losses in the civilian sector. That’s not what the defense budget is for.

[9YearLurker]

Yes.

[silverleaf]

Lots of defense money is going to Obama pet projects so yeah, hell yeah
And fire every Obama political appointee at the DOD or any other defense-funded agency by the end of inauguration day

I want to see the Harvard and Chicago bunch scurrying back to academia Like rats leaving the Pentagon at dawn

[KantianBurke]

Wow! A legitimate article from Townhall. Sure beats the usual rah rah blather that they put out and you waste our time posting.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I see it as a three step process.

First of all, less cuts than redirection of military spending. For example, the USN could save billions with a simple policy change in ship construction: a “design certain” policy before the contract is signed.

Right now, during construction, builders are given hundreds or thousands of changes from a legion of officers, all who just want to “put their fingerprints on the ship”. This can double or triple or more the eventual price of the ship, and often ruins a good design, making the ship worthless.

That is, once a ship design is made, all sorts of changes can be made into it, but *only until* it is submitted for bids. Once that is done, the *only* design changes that can be made are few, and must be personally approved by the Secretary of the Navy.

The other big thing is to realize that India’s military is complementary to ours, and that we should go out of our way to insure that India is our friend and that they keep improving their military as a counterbalance to China.

With their help, the costs to both of us will be much less, and we will both be safer from the current threat.

[South Dakota]

It would be different if the government was cutting all their programs but they will not do that. Any politician that cut entitlements will be kicked to the curb, not so with the defense budget.

Also, the cuts to the military will be spent somewhere else

Obama wants to fund globull warming research

[Phlyer]

Also, the cuts to the military will be spent somewhere else

Actually, they're already being spent somewhere else, even though they're still in the defense budget.

I don't think the defense budget needs to be funding millions for AIDS research, or global warming / green energy research, or a host of other topics that are not really defense.

After 8 years of Clinton, over 25% of the "defense" budget was spent on liberal social-justice topics like the above-mentioned AID research. Obama is on track to make it 50%, and that doesn't include all the 'nation building' that DoD pays for that is really nothing but foreign aid.

So, if there room to cut in the defense budget? Absolutely. And it can be done without reducing any present military capability (including things like spare parts or fuel for training as well as service personnel pay) or future capability (ongoing or future procurement of new weapons systems).

On the other hand, since at least 25% of the current spending already belongs somewhere else, your point that it might move there is certainly valid.

[af_vet_rr]

The politicians complaining about defense cuts all are complaining about the resulting job losses in the civilian sector. That’s not what the defense budget is for.

The DOD is not a trough that the porkers in Congress should be feeding at, but they are. Both parties, and both the House and the Senate. They will trot out patriotism, national security, anything they can to keep that pork flowing into their districts.

[Strategerist]

After 8 years of Clinton, over 25% of the "defense" budget was spent on liberal social-justice topics like the above-mentioned AID research. Obama is on track to make it 50%, and that doesn't include all the 'nation building' that DoD pays for that is really nothing but foreign aid.

Do you have actual sources for the above? I know the budget quite well and I'm dubious that all of what you are seemingly referring to adds up to more than 1% of the budget.

What's really killing the defense budget is compensation and benefits for personnel.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Debt and economic insecurity are far greater threats to our national security than any threats that could be reduced by increased military spending.

[Phlyer]

Do you have actual sources for the above?

I don't have a handy source for the Clinton number, but the reason I used Clinton instead of Obama was that I did see the number on Clinton - I just can't find a copy of the report. You can, of course, just decide that I'm lying because I admittedly can't prove what I contend.

The analysis segregated out the things that most people would not have considered essential to the defense of our country - most notably AIDS research, but it also included a host of liberal social measures like putting midnight basketball courts for civilians under 'military construction' and a host of social engineering through training in PC topics. And, in another admitted weakness to my 'proof', he provided anecdotal examples like I have above, without an exhaustive listing that 'proved' the number really added up to 25% of the total. There was a graph that showed the decline in defense spending under Clinton, and within that a wedge showing how much of what was still considered defense spending would not have been under that total before Clinton.

Nonetheless, I found it compelling and obviously still consider it likely to be correct. Whether it's 25% or 15%, it's still big enough to warrant significant reduction in the defense budget without real compromise to military effectiveness.

[BroJoeK]

The appropriate metric for national defense efforts is percent of GDP over time, so here it is:

• 1.5% of GDP -- the historical US peacetime defense spending prior to President Franklin Roosevelt.

• 2.1% of GDP -- FDR's 1940 pre-war defense spending.

• 42% of GDP -- Maximum WWII defense spending.

• 7% of GDP -- President Truman's lowest 1948 defense spending.

• 15% of GDP -- President Eisenhower's maximum Korean War defense effort, 1953.

• 11% of GDP -- Kennedy / Johnson's maximum defense spending, pre-Vietnam, 1962.

• 10% of GDP -- Nixon / Ford maximum defense spending, Vietnam War, 1969.

• 5.6% of GDP -- Carter's lowest defense spending, 1979.

• 7% of GDP -- Reagan / Bush I maximum defense effort, 1985.

• 3.5% of GDP -- Clinton's lowest defense spending, 1999.

• 5.1% of GDP -- Bush II's highest defense spending, 2008.

• 5.8% of GDP -- Obama's highest defense spending, 2010.

• 4.7% of GDP -- Obama's lowest defense spending, 2012.

Of course, future spending has to be based on the understood threats, world-wide.
My suggestion is those threats are not today less than they were under Bush the Younger, and therefore roughly 5% of GDP should be an appropriate number for planning purposes.

[Little Ray]

Yes. Everybody has to take a hit to bring the budget under control and we can’t remain on a permanent state of readiness for global war.

But I cut a several cabinet level posts and departments and zero them out, before I got around to the military (Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, Energy, DEA, BATFE, etc.).

[Phlyer]

. . . therefore roughly 5% of GDP should be an appropriate number for planning purposes.

As a long term objective I think your analysis is correct and where we should head.

Unfortunately, in the near term, due to the totally unconscionable spending of the past decade, we need to cut overall spending to something less than 20% of GDP. With current federal contractual obligations including service of the national debt, that may not leave enough for the correct long-term support for defense spending.

I work in the defense industry, and I can readily identify ways in which defense spending can be cut without reducing acquistion and support of weapons systems. I have relatives in uniform and with their second-hand information I can identify ways in which operational spending can be cut without reducing operational readiness, troop pay, or things like allowance for quarters.

I do not want cutting defense to be first on the list of ways to reduce federal spending. It's nearly the *last* item on my list of things to cut. But we must reduce spending and now - in a time of relative peace - there is justification for lower spending than when there were active wars or active competition with a major power.

And we need to get overal spending down now, including retiring as much as practical of the national debt, because in about 10 years we're going to be facing an aggressive, near-peer confrontation with both China and Russia. That means in a few years (~5) we'll need to embark on a defense buildup similar to the Reagan years.

So, my 'solution' would be to more or less hold the line on defense spending (~4.5% of GDP) for five years as part of a general spending reduction, then elevate it to ~7% when we've gotten overall spending in line.

And hope that there is enough time to do that before a major conflict arises - probably as a proxy fight with China or Russia (or both) pulling the strings on the adversary.

[BroJoeK]

Phlyer: "I work in the defense industry, and I can readily identify ways in which defense spending can be cut without reducing acquistion and support of weapons systems."

I am highly dubious of all such claims, since they imply that current decision-makers are idiots, and that seems doubtful.
Indeed, no government institution has a stronger incentive to be cost-effective than the military, since lives and national survival are at stake.

Yes, I understand the role of Congress, and its need to keep projects in members' districts viable.
It is also historically true that no future war will be exactly the same as any past war, and therefore our current training & equipment may or may-not be effective when needed.

So the military must be prepared for any contingency, most of which will never happen, and that by definition is "wasteful".
Indeed, an astute enemy will study carefully exactly what we are and are-not prepared for, and will attack us in the latter.

So here's my point: budget cutting simply reduces the number of contingencies the military is prepared for, and increases the probability that we will be attacked in some area of weakness.

Phlyer: "So, my 'solution' would be to more or less hold the line on defense spending (~4.5% of GDP) for five years as part of a general spending reduction, then elevate it to ~7% when we've gotten overall spending in line."

Without knowing the true conditions of each service -- their training, equipment, morale, etc. -- it's impossible to say exactly what they need.
But if 5% under Bush II was adequate during war time, then surely it will be adequate in relatively peaceful years.
And that would avoid the need to ever increase to 7%, short of some unexpected national emergency.

As for where our Federal budget cuts should occur, I have a simple solution: get out a copy of the Constitution and read -- where does it specify each Federal function.
Those Federal functions not specified in the Constitution should be first for budget cuts.

Problem solved, right?

;-)

[Phlyer]

. . .since they imply that current decision-makers are idiots . .

Not idiots, just bureaucrats.

A retired president of Bell Aerospace (not sure of his name, but he retired in the early 80's so you can look it up) said that he would accept - sight unseen - any contract for 1/4 the price if he could perform without government reporting requirements. In my own company we proposed test programs to the government - on things we wanted to do so the bid wasn't padded - and when they wouldn't approve proceeded to do them on our own money for 1/3 the contract bid price. Norman Augustine of "Augustine's Laws" said something much the same.

Bureaucrats exist for three reasons, in decreasing order of importance. 1) Protect their own positions, which they do by demanding bulletproof CYA data for any decisions they can't avoid. 2) Grow the bureaucracy, because their power comes not from serving the country. It comes from building an empire. 3) (If they must. . . ) Prevent nasty, unscrupulous contractors from 'getting away' with anything.

Nowhere on that list is a requirement to assist industry to deliver high-value, high-efficiency products to the government.

That doesnt' make them stupid. It just makes them bureaucrats. If your family depended on you retaining your position in the bureaucracy, and even growing it in importance (budget/salaries), then you might do the same thing. One must understand 'the enemy' in order to defeat him, and the value system of bureaucrats inherently builds inefficiencies. By now (since the last life-or-death struggle in 1942), the US Government generally and DoD in particular bureaucracies have grown until they are sucking all the life out of the system they are supposed to be serving. (And don't even get me started on NASA!)

. . . it's impossible to say exactly what they need.

Which is why I used only 1 or 2 significant figures, and an approximation signal (~) as well. The federal budget has 12 significant figures, and the DoD budget has 11. It's not required to know 'exactly' what they need in advance to set policy.

Those Federal functions not specified in the Constitution should be first for budget cuts.

On this we agree absolutely. As I said earlier, I wouldn't start with DoD cuts, except in letting the DoD bureaucrats know they won't be allowed to stifle cost-effectiveness by getting rid of some of the non-value-added 'oversight' and the overseers that go with it. On the other hand, the whole budget problem is really about dealing with 'entitlements', and *none* of them are even allowed by the Constitution.

The federal government seized 1/8 of all the compensation my father received throughout his working life for Social Security. At the end of his life, he needed that money to live on. We can't just eliminate those payments without ruining the lives of honest, hard-working men and women who would have been fine without the bureaucracy 30 years ago, but have no alternative now.

Nonetheless, Social Security is not Constitutional. Neither is Medicare, nor Medicaid, nor Food Stamps, nor any of the other "entitlement" programs. We need to move back from that heresy and toward the Constitution.

In the meantime, there are at least 5 cabinet-level departments that could be eliminated immediately or at least demoted to less than cabinet level (Education, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, HUD) and at least 3 others that could be essentially eliminated with the small value-added part going somewhere else (e.g. the nuclear regulatory part of Dept. of Energy to DoD).

Anyone whe honestly reads the Constitution would reach essentially the same conclusion. Which means I'll add another 'characteristic' to bureaucrats which is not the same as stupid. They are inherently dishonest - as established with great clarity by Friedrich Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom."

[BroJoeK]

Phyler: "Nowhere on that list is a requirement to assist industry to deliver high-value, high-efficiency products to the government."

I think I understand your points here, since they are the same ones I first heard as a boy, some 50 years ago.

And in every election, politicians promise to fight against Pentagon "waste, fraud and abuse", and every new administration then claims to have "saved" taxpayers billions through their new "streamlined" procedures.
Indeed, it sometimes seems that what one administration hails as a great advancement in procedures, the next discards as just so much bureaucratic hummana-hummana.

That's ten new administrations now, and yet as near as I can tell, the problem is today described in exactly the same words as 50 years ago.

And that's why I'm highly dubious of any claims that some knight in shining armor is going to ride into town, to kill off all money-wasting "dragons" and "sacred cows". ;-)
Since, by all accounts, that's never happened before, why should anyone think it might happen now?

Bottom line: National defense, unlike so much else our Federal Government does, is a serious constitutional requirement, and yes, rooting out wasteful spending should be a daily responsibility of every manager at every level.
However, all that said and done, the nation must provide itself whatever defense it truly needs, almost regardless of the cost.

As for all those other Federal programs you mentioned -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- they are not constitutional, and should be overhauled both to protect beneficiaries and get that money out of Federal coffers, away from temptations to Congress to spend on other pet projects.

And exactly when will that happen?
Doubtless when those sacred cows come home... ;-)

[Phlyer]

And in every election, politicians promise to fight against Pentagon "waste, fraud and abuse",

Ah, but one bureaucrat's 'waste, fraud, and abuse' is another bureaucrat's 'essential oversight' or 'vital national interest.'

Did you know, for example, that contractors are awarded 'fee' (profit) based on the percentage of subcontract work that gets awarded to "Small and Disadvantaged Businesses." And the amount of those contracts is reimbursed whether the "SDB" is efficient or not? So, if your profit depends on awarding work to SDBs, and the cost of their contracts is reimbursable regardless of whether they are more or less efficient than some other contractor . . what do you do?"

Yet it is a 'vital national interest' to subsidize those small and/or (some are a 'twofer') disadvantaged businesses. Right? No fraud, waste, or abuse there. Right?

My bottom line is that I think we can trim a bit from the DoD budget just to make the point that there are no sacred cows. Then go after the real non-value-added bureaucracies with a meat cleaver.