Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Enormous Cuts in Military Spending? Read the Fine Print
In this age of austerity, all the politicians are talking about the need for spending cuts. But when it comes to shared burdens and slashed budgets, don't expect the Pentagon to start holding bake sales, despite what you may have heard about reductions to its obscenely bloated funding.
Citing the U.S. government's $14.3 trillion debt, lawmakers from both parties have seized the moment to try and attain long hoped-for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But the recent deal does seem to include some good news for lovers of peace: the push for reductions would encompass the war-making part of the state. Indeed, according to a “fact sheet” released by the White House on the bipartisan compromise, the recent deal to raise the national debt ceiling “puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years.”
Popular liberal pundits, such as The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson and Ezra Klein, reacted by calling the supposed defense cuts “gigantic” and “unprecedented.” The White House says they're the first spending reductions since the 1990s.
But don't start cheering yet. As with any other major bipartisan initiative in Washington – the Iraq war and the Wall Street bailouts come time mind – there's ample reason to be skeptical.
First, the cuts for 2012 are virtually nil. Security spending—which includes the Pentagon, State Department, Homeland Security, part of Veterans Affairs and intelligence spending—will be capped at $684 billion in 2012, a decline of merely $5 billion (less than 1 percent) from this year.
Yes, there are potentially far more drastic cuts down the road. In addition to the first $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade, a bipartisan Congressional committee must come up with an additional $1.5 trillion cuts by November — or trigger an automatic across-the-board reduction of $1.2 trillion starting in 2013, half of which would be expected to come from military spending.
However, expect this threat of deep military cuts – if cutting defense by 3 percent a year can be called “deep” when it has grown at a rate of 9 percent over the last decade – to be used as a bargaining chip by Democrats to extract concessions on tax increases from Republicans; don't hold your breath expecting them to actually materialize. And with House Republicans already pledging to “fight on behalf of our Armed Forces,” by which they mean the military-industrial complex, don't expect Democrats to put up much of a fight. Even were Obama so inclined, the idea that he will expend political capital on cutting military spending even as he expands the war on terror in Libya, Yemen and Somalia is doubtful, especially with an election looming.
But let's put aside cynicism and accept the Obama administration at its word. Let's assume the White House and Congress agree to cut military spending by $35 billion a year over 10 years. While the numbers may sound impressive out of context, that's like draining an Olympic-sized pool with a glass from your kitchen: you're going to be at it for awhile. The military budget has ballooned so much over the last decade that even if it was cut in half tomorrow the U.S. would still spend more than it did in 2001.
Indeed, the Obama administration's proposed military budget for 2012 – the baseline from which future cuts are projected – is at its “highest level since World War II,” according to the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “surpassing the Cold War peak” set by Ronald Reagan and a Democratic House of Representatives in 1985. Even if, instead of over a decade, the whole, entirely-subject-to-change $350 billion was cut from the defense budget in one fiscal year alone, the U.S. would still lead the globe in military spending, devoting twice as much to guns and bombs as its closest and much more populous rival, China. And that's without factoring in the cost of any new wars.
Of course, official budget numbers don't tell the whole story. Factoring in interest payments for past military expenditures, spending on veterans' care and other defense-related items not included in the Pentagon budget, economist Robert Higgs estimates the yearly grand total spent on the military is $1 trillion or more, with over half of the federal income tax going to the military. And that massive national debt that's being used to justify cuts in social spending? Nothing has contributed to it more than the dramatic rise in military spending over the last decade, a factoid you might have missed if you get your news from a television.
The tragic irony is that debt caused in large part by foreign military adventures is being used to further a class war here at home, even as the bloodshed continues in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and beyond. Too bad that, rather than denounce this morally and fiscally damaging addiction to militarism, politicians prefer to orchestrate the decline of the American empire from within.
35 Comments so far
Show AllRecall the asymmetry in Nixon's wage and price controls.
Wages were controlled -- prices, not so much.
Practically every other industrialized country in the world, outside of the United States, spends more on its citizens and their welfare than it lavishes on the military. But not the United States. That, apparently, is not the "patriotic" thing to do.
One has to believe that it is extremely difficult for the average American to engage in the pursuit of happiness whens he knows that the deck is stacked against him. It also appears that the United States government is doing its best in striking out the clause in the Preamble to the Constitution which refers to promoting the General Welfare of the people while thinking nothing of maintaining the coffers of the U.S. war machine.
As the medical officer noted at the end of the classic film The Bridge On the River Kwai:
"Madness! Madness!"
"Endless Money Forms the Sinews of War".-Cicero [106-43BC], Roman statesman and philosopher
Those damned Republicans tricked Obama again!
;-)
I know you are being sarcastic. But they don't need to trick anyone. They, along with Dems in congress write the Laws. Obama doesn't have any real power in that department.
Aren't these 'cuts' the result of Obama's recently 'negotiated' ice floe budget?
Ice floe as in setting the elderly and infirm adrift to freeze or drown.
'They, along with Dems in congress write the Laws. Obama doesn't have any real power in that department."
That is crap. LBJ twisted many arms to pass the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, knowing that the democrats would lose the south forever. But he did it because it was the right thing to do. Obama will twist the arms of liberals like Kucinich, but when it comes to right wing lunatics like Boehner and Cantor, Obama is on there side. He is far to the right of Richard Nixon and seems to fashion himself after Ronald Reagan.
LOL, you fanboys never give up. Obama's 2012 - you better hope he means it.
I Read a weekly email from Foreign Policy in Focus. They talked about an "Empire Tax". This Tax on large Corporations And the Big Banks, would be used to fund all future Wars. No more large National Debt because war would be strictly Pay as you go. I know I'm dreaming but please don't Wake me up.
The military budget will be cut - really cut - only when the U.S. has become a 3rd world nation, so far into debt that it makes today's deficit look like good times, and the US dollar is no longer the global reserve currency, causing its value to be almost worthless. And even then it will probably take an armed peasants' revolution against the fascist government we have to force them to do it. If then.
Just like Rome and every other empire in history, the U.S. is literally destroying itself through its gargantuan military expenditures and astronomical debt. It will - is, actually - slash every penny it can on "social spending" - on its own (non-rich) citizens, until they are nothing but a huge, hundred-million-horde of poor, destitute, homeless beggars. But even cutting every single dime of public spending will not offset the trillions spent on wars, "security," tax-cuts on the rich and the corporations, and Amereicha will eventually find itself where every other Empire does: bankrupt and unable to function any longer.
This isn't rocket science. The U.S. WILL fall under the weight of its own hubris and reckless military spending. It is simply not sustainable to spend trillions more than you take in in revenue every year, with the expenditures steadily rising and revenue steadily decreasing. There is - duh - an eventual crashing point using this model. And we are headed there, sooner than later.
DEMONSTORM: Excellent post! You describe all the reasons why I raise the rallying cry against Mars Rules. Unfortunately, US citizens have been so conditioned to see war as the proof of patriotism, with military might as the most telling example of macho heroism, while the machinations of the MIC managed to weave their tentacles into the financial infrastructure of every state. So now, with jobs scarce, the Catch-22 is that few want to cut the military for fear of more job losses.
Of course the military, or the ideal Mars was designed to serve, was TRUE defense. An empire crumbling from within is hardly the beneficiary of said defense; however, the same manpower being used to gun down families of foreign lands all through the night, could instead be put to use redesigning the nation's infrastructure in ways that might be sustainable (given the inevitability of future diminished supplies of oil). The same brain-power rewarded for designing yet more heinous weapon systems, could instead be put to work designing greener forms of energy and efficient systems for their usage.
What I see, and am forced to witness, like the Cassandras that came before me, are crimes of enormous proportions being carried out by those who are blind, soulless, and filled like hot air balloons with hubris.
Mars is NOT the only principle... and were the circle understood and respected, with all voices accounted for, it would NOT be able to take on this type of power, and unleash its darkest forces as the enemy not only to human life, but to all sentient beings within nature's miraculous web works.
So-called "defense" is quite literally killing us all.
Keep trying, Siouxrose, keep trying.
Thanks.
Absolutely OUTSTANDING comment, Siouxrose! Your last sentence is about the best summary I've seen of our current situation.
I really don't have any hope anymore that the fall of this nation will be exactly as you describe, Demonstorm.
What type of fall do you predict, Observer? Fall it will - as I said: it is an unsustainable model that the U.S. is following. The question is, how will the U.S. fall? Will it gradually fade away with a soft whimper, or will it go down with a loud, violent crash, taking much of the world with it? The latter is what I fear.....
There is no way that the congress or any administration will really cut away from the defense department budget.
There will be some devilishly devious strategies employed to pretend that they are cutting. The "official" budget will appear reduced, but somehow it will be "supplemented."
NO one knows what the real amount is which goes to the military anyway.
They most certainly will not reduce the amounts paid to private contractors.
The American Government was subjected to a military junta on November 22, 1963. Ever since, the CIA, the war department and the military have had a blank check, because of the acquiesence, since then, of the Presidents and Congress.
Ah, you've been doing your research and reading, Mr. Revere. If everyone in the country were as informed as you are, we wouldn't be ruled by a corporatocracy that is protected by Congress and uses endless war as its cash cow.
The military is the last thing an empire, even one that knows it is dying, will ever cut. This country will be a big version of Haiti before there are ANY military cuts! History tells us as much .....
My thought exactly, philf.
And it's the shorter version of the virtual consensus on the comments posted so far.
The overclass running the Amerikan Imperium, via the enablers in its political servant class, will perforate arteries and veins throughout the ordinary unprivileged parts of the body politic and turn on the pumps and taps, while showily drawing a few drops from the capillaries feeding the massive malignant tumor of the military/security complex.
All bad things must come to an end, perhaps. But a capitalist empire's power elite will never voluntarily Do the Right Things to restore and protect the common welfare along the way.
"But let's put aside cynicism and accept the Obama administration at its word."
I wish people would use the appropriate term, skepticism, for a questioning attitude, and reserve the term cynicism for what the Obama administration (and the rest of the politicians, experts, pundits and militarists) engage in. Isn't what they do to the language bad enough?
As per Demonstorm: "The U.S. WILL fall under the weight of its own hubris and reckless military spending."
Need an example? The Soviet Union.
hmm, I don't see any solution put forward in the article.
Not all problems have a solution, death is one that comes to mind.
This article addresses step 1, education of the issue. From there we can address a solution.
Or even any reason to believe the Democrats won't actually insist on spending cuts. Instead, we have unsupported assertions. I'm willing to believe the worst about the Democrats but we really should have some reason to do it.
Part of the problem is the infantilism of media persons such as Peter Alexander of NBC News.
This morning I watched a video tape starring Alexander and purporting to reveal dramatic new details related to the killing of "the world's top terrorist."
Was Osama Bin Laden really "the world's top terrorist?" Was he even the mastermind of 9/11 ? Did Noam Chomsky win the Boston Marathon?
Or was Bin Laden "the world's top terrorist" in someone's reality show? Sort of the way that David Petraeus, in the popular view, is a general greater than Marshall, Patton, Hannibal, or Vercingetorix?
Does reality matter or do we just all agree to demonize someone and then murder him without interrogation or trial? Because he was reported to be a bad guy over and over, so it must be true.
Or similarly we adulate somebody until he becomes the dictator dominating us all, beginning no doubt with his take-over of the CIA .
Peter Alexander positively lit up like a Christmas tree as he described the iron grids separating different rooms in the lower part of the Osama compound.
This, he suggested, his eyes alight with bloodthirsty glee, was a clue to the bigger game lurking up above, the tall rangy fellow with the long beard.
The glee continued with Alexander's description of the massive bear-hugs used by the Navy Seals to move the two women to the side. And with Alexander's delighted description of the two shots that killed Bin Laden, the second to his head.
And no, he averred with palpable delight, there was no chance whatsoever for capture and interrogation since this was a mission solely to kill.
And this, as for so many other Americans like the approving wretch King, whose identity somehow was tied up in this, was respite from all bad news starting with 9/11, a feel good moment to transcend all others.
The report ended with King's invitation to the White House, where he would meet company similar to himself. If he wanted to get along with the dog, he was told, he should bring along a treat.
If reading my indictment of a Mr. Alexander for terminal infantilism, please know that in the last few paragraphs I inexplicably changed his last name to "King" but didn't mean it, I must have been tired.
I refer to another post in this same kite's tail extending down from the Benjamin article.
After some thought it occurs to me that this article is just the first volley of the campaign to drum up support for the dems in the elections.
First we are presented with terrible problems.
later we will be presented with the solution. ie, vote democratic party.
Getting votes for the dems has always been the goal of moveon and codepink.
The proof of that is their actions after the elections.Once the dems were in power they ceased nearly all anti-war campaigning.
You are comparing apples to oranges when comparing Moveon to Code Pink. Yes Moveon is a Democratic party supporter but what evidence can you provide that Codepink is a Democratic party supporter. Codepink is loosely organized and is not affiliated with any party. It's actions are actually against Democratic party policies. The fact that after the Dems were in power and anti-war campaigning subsided was not unique to Code Pink, but consistent to most all anti-war groups, such as ANSWER and Not in Our Name. The reason is that we realized after Obama took office (many saw it before) that he and the Democrats were not listening to Progressives. If Medea Benjamin ever gets on Common Dreams and promotes the Democrats, as they are today, you will have proved me wrong. My bet is that it won't happen, your assumption is that it will happen.
You're right. I don't know enough about the two to make comparisons.
And I hope I'm wrong. It would be good to have some real anti-war movements.
Like many posters, I don't believe we will actually cut the military budget. I agree with Paul Revere that we live in a military dictatorship, though I call it a "soft" military dictatorship.
Many years ago, I lived in a country with an actual military dictatorship and I lived through various States of Siege enacted by the military dictatorship when they wanted to crack down even further. The atmosphere was very similar to America today. The rich and upper middle class remained virtually unaffected. The quiet middle class did OK, too. But the poor and the honest intellectuals suffered. I remember a university professor friend going to prison, and never seeing him again.
We have much the same situation. We enforce laws primarily against minorities and those who act. We put people like Bradley Manning and Tim DeChristopher in prison and fire university professors like Ward Churchill (disclaimer, I represent him on appeal)
Any body listening out there? The Congress appropriated $180 Billion for modernizing nuclear weapons. For what? We built 70,000 nuclear weapons and used 2 against Japan over 50 years ago. The National Nuclear Security Administration wants to build a $6 Billion facility at Los Alamos, NM for making plutonium bomb cores. The facility will be on the side of a volcano in a seismically unstable and dangerous area. It's nothing more than welfare for bomb makers at the National Laboratories and stealing money from education, health care alternative energy research, etc.
SOS... Stupidity on Steroids, it is almost impossible to believe that people vote in favor of these policies. Like the professional athletes who abuse steroids, we await the injury, the health problems, or the violent rage that defines the abuser. Used moderately for treatment of certain injury, they aid the body, just as a military maintained for defense, national guard for civil emergency, and coast guard for rescue and patrol of coast line are essential for the nation -- our addiction to military action all around the globe is hastening our decline. It is only a matter of time before our violent rage ignites another "hot spot", our over extended budget and declining middle class destroys our social structure at home, and we injure and destroy others in the rage and death throes of our abusive culture. Perhaps with information on our secret military actions and budgets, we can address this issue of American Stupidity of Steroids.
Didn't Rome fall in part because of lead pipes? We have fracking, uptake inhibitors showing in water supplys, drugs.
Didn't Rome fall in part because the swill ran thin? The fed prints money, the gov't gives it to banksters and speculators, unsustainable.
Didn't the Viet Nam War End in part because the soldiers found ways to not fight what they saw as rediculous? How can we fasilitate that here and now? (Smedley Butler, Omar Bradley, Gererals taking early retirement in the Bush era).
When is a good a time to practice diplomacy and point out our commonalities, not the bad guys poor charactor? If we only notice commonality in our socks we have stoped devisiveness and negativity. I'm as guilty as anyone playing pundit and critic but it doesn't make a better peace. It fails in that.
Didn't ancient Rome fall because it had become a savage imperialist state with civilization from sub Sahraran Africa needing a defense from the Visgoths sacking Rome? Yes I think that's right. People even if they don't think concsiously about know deep down inside we once had a real civilzation which has nothing to do with Western savagery. Young children when they're real yound exemplify this. We all know this. We want civilization deep down inside and thus the Rome/Berlin/Tokyo Axis fell in 1945 sacked by the United Nations and rightly so. No lie about Western savagery can live forever to paraphrase Carlyle.