A Scalpel or a Sword?
As you will may remember from the Debt Ceiling debacle in early August, the deal then worked out has some automatic triggers. If the Super Committee created by the legislation fails to produce sufficient spending cuts, those triggers will kick in and cuts will be forced upon Congress. The biggest target of these cuts is the defense budget, and as the New York Times is reporting, it’s Leon Panetta who is now considering what those cuts will be. This is one of the most despicable parts of our current budget morass, and it’s astonishing that nobody much seems to notice: One of the few legitimate functions of government is the national defense, and yet among all the things to be cut, defense will be hit the most deeply. I have no problem with an examination of the necessities of our defense spending, but I’m also aware that while government spends money on all sorts of things for which it has no actual constitutional authority, defense is clearly one of the budget categories for which the federal government exists. In part, this is the result of the can-kicking in which Boehner and House Republicans joined by making their deal with the devil in August, but it’s also the built-in result of generations of governmental growth in other areas of expenditure.
Defense spending now stands at approximately $700 billion. That’s an astonishing number that is as large as the entire federal budget just thirty years ago. Part of that number owes to our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the actual baseline spending for defense being $530 billion. That’s still an incredible amount of money, but it is only $130 billion(yes, “only”) more than the defense budget at the height of the Reagan administration, but in inflation-adjusted dollars, it’s actually less. Defense constitutes the largest single line-item in the discretionary portion of the budget, but the entitlements, in the non-discretionary budget, have begun to dwarf the spending on defense. Social Security is a larger program, and Medicare and Medicaid together exceed the total defense spending. It should seem odd to Americans that programs for which there is no clear constitutional authorization are considered “non-discretionary,” while programs that are most definitely among the legitimate roles of our federal government are considered “discretionary.”
What this means is that we don’t have a choice on a year-to-year basis about those items in the non-discretionary budget. We are going to spend to support them, because previous legislation has mandated it. Discretionary budget items are those that are adjusted on an annual basis, and not necessarily tied to previous legislation. You can look at it this way for simplicity’s sake: Non-discretionary spending is comprised of entitlement programs. Discretionary spending is comprised of everything else. In our federal budget, non-discretionary spending is roughly twice the size of discretionary spending.
I am certain defense can be trimmed without hampering the nation’s immediate defenses, but I am less certain that over the long run, we can maintain a force capable of deterring and repelling enemies around the globe. Even in the midst of a deep recession, we are having difficulties with recruiting and retention of military personnel. This is because just like any other large organization, most of the defense budget is actually spent on salaries and benefits for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. In precisely the same way that the CEO of a large corporation will make cuts to employees first, mainly because it’s the biggest single operational cost, the Defense Department suffers from the same basic problem: Service-members cost a great deal, and a good deal more than their already pathetic pay and benefits represent. Training costs are phenomenal, and the costs of supporting units in the field are huge.
Many will suggest, naively, that we simply “buy a few less $400 toilet seats.” While that makes for a good laugh line, the reality is that the defense budget has finally managed to clean up most of those sorts of egregious expenditures over the last decade or so, largely because the Defense Department has had no choice. Still, there are matters that should be examined, like the billions of dollars simply missing, and other problems with big-ticket line items. Nevertheless, in our dangerous world, there is an ever-escalating competition between us and our would-be and real enemies, where high technology will be contribute directly to reducing the number of flag-draped caskets that arrive at Andrews AFB during each future engagement. This sobering recognition is among the reasons that any such spending cuts in the military budget must be accomplished as some might say, “not with a machete, but with a scalpel.” We must be certain that whatever cuts we make do not leave us naked to attacks, and that when we do engage in warfare, our troops are given every advantage we can provide to win with minimal losses.
One of the areas in which Secretary Panetta is looking for cuts to defense is in the area of medical and other benefits, in addition to gross payroll. That’s a mistake. We already have difficulties attracting people to serve in the military, and this too can have a dramatic affect on morale, and readiness. In truth, to make the level of cuts they’re intending, nearly $200 billion annually, we’re going to be forced to withdraw from virtually all overseas engagements and forward locations. This poses another danger, inasmuch as we may be slower to respond to crises around the globe, and we may be less able to react when things go awry in one theater of operations or another. We can ill-afford to be caught short again, because the direction of global terrorism is marching toward weapons of mass destruction. The 9/11 attacks of 2001 were just a sample of the sort of mayhem the terrorists around the globe are going to be able to create, and this says nothing of our strategic adversaries such as Russia, China, and several others.
This impending doom for the DoD makes plain the problem with our current budgetary priorities. We are spending far too heavily on entitlement programs of every description, and it will no begin to affect our nation’s defenses. There are those who argue that the military should be cut, but they don’t think in terms of scalpels or even machetes, but guillotines. This short-sighted approach is surely destined to create a situation in which we will face increased vulnerabilities on some fronts, and escalating troubles with recruitment and retention. Our fighting forces deserve the best equipment and training we can afford, but now the question is: What can we afford? The answer to this question is likely to be unsatisfactory, because too many politicians derive too much support by virtue of entitlement spending, and while the argument could be made that there is a certain element of the same thing with the defense budget where it comes down to large bases and projects, it’s also true that they aren’t so concerned about the costs in morale and readiness for ordinary soldiers. What the American people must begin to recognize is that we’ve blown our budget not so much by virtue of military spending, but because we’ve over-extended our social spending to such a degree that it is now squeezing out defense. There’s something terribly wrong in our thinking when we look at military spending as “discretionary” but Medicaid as “non-discretionary.” What is our government here to do, after all? Now we’ve been reduced to the near inevitability that a big-government liberal, Leon Panetta, is going to be hacking away at our nation’s defenses. We should all be worried at this prospect.
