Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

[mrjarrell]

Wow, talk about your odd couples getting together to tackle an issue. Who'd have thought that Ron Paul and Barney Frank would be on the same side of an issue. Calling for a reduction in Pentagon spending takes courage. Especially, when you want to get rid of peoples 30 year old pet projects. Defence spending is out of control and needs to be pared back immensely. Their attempt to trim a trillion over ten years is laudable. Getting troops home will save even more.

via HuffPo

As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.
By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion -- more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.
It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.
We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.
Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."
When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.
We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion dollars of American taxpayers' money on direct military spending in Iraq since the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating electoral disputes.
In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.
We are currently working to enlist the support of other members of Congress for our initiative. Along with our colleagues Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Walter Jones, we have addressed a letter to the President's National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which he has convened to develop concrete recommendations for reducing the budget deficit. We will make it clear to leaders of both parties that substantial reductions in military spending must be included in any future deficit reduction package. We pledge to oppose any proposal that fails to do so.
In the short term, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs will remain our nation's top priority. But it is essential that we begin to address the issue of excessive military spending in order to ensure prosperity in the future. We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not begin to face this issue now.

[ATOMonkey]

Ummm....Point of order.

Mandatory spending (social spending) is $2.184T

Non-discretionary spending is topping out at over $1T already this year.

So, if you're looking for low hanging fruit to cut deficits, I would look at places other than the Pentagon.

All of that aside, I do think that we have too many foreign bases and are fighting foreign wars with the WRONG STRATEGY and the WRONG INTENTIONS.

So, I do agree with you that we either need to fish or cut bait and bring everyone home. Let the world fend for itself for a while.

[Joe Williams]

Doesn't seem a strange collaboration to me, given that both hate the military. Getting together to attack it is natural, and shows that Ron Paul is just as willing to sell out whatever "principals" he may have to achieve his goals as any any other politician.

[Fletch]

I agree with cutting military spending, but I think it pales in comparison to cutting social spending. It's time we realized as a nation that everyone does not get a pony.

[ATOMonkey]

IMO, if we cut spending we need to decomission several bases and ships and withdraw from several foreign bases as well.

There just isn't enough money to keep that many units fully operational. We're already rationing bullets in training, and Marines don't even go on floats anymore. If you cut any more spending we won't be able to afford to train anymore.

[tenring]

If we did away with welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid, and repeal Obama Care, there would be money left to lower the National Debt.

[Keith_Indy]

It's funny that they call it "Mandatory" spending, when in fact the Congress has a lot of lee way in that spending. They can raise it, lower it, seek more or less benefits, raise or lower the age limit, and other requirements. If it has that much regulation, it is a privilege, not a right.

Anyway, if they were both saying ALL SPENDING must be cut, they'd have more credibility.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Keith_Indy

It's funny that they call it "Mandatory" spending, when in fact the Congress has a lot of lee way in that spending. They can raise it, lower it, seek more or less benefits, raise or lower the age limit, and other requirements. If it has that much regulation, it is a privilege, not a right.

Anyway, if they were both saying ALL SPENDING must be cut, they'd have more credibility.

Ron Paul believes that all spending must be cut. Barney Frank, however, does not. So it looks like this is similar to standing with the ACLU on a 4th Amendment issue or with the Pink Pistols on a 2nd Amendment issue even if you don't agree with them on other issues.

[Woodsman]

The only thing mandatory about Congress spending money is who pays for it. The spending is all discretionary, but paying for it is another matter all together.

The easiest way to cut spending is:
1) eliminate all earmarks
2) eliminate several big federal departments starting with:

• The Dept. of Education
• Dept. of Energy
• Dept. of Agriculture
• and... no unions for state or federal employees. That's double dipping.

Cut the EPA, DOJ, Treasury, etc. way back.

Flat federal tax rates at most. None of this progressive BS and deductions. And then throw in some tort reform. The above should keep Congress busy for a few weeks!

Ohh, one more thing. Congress writes the bills, not the lobbyists on K Street.

The military could probably use some minor tweaks to streamline things, but for the most part this is one area that doesn't get touched (maybe massaged for improvements, but no cuts).

[Expat]

Obviously with our current crop of little dictators in Washington, no social spending is going to be cut. If we cut the military they will simply increase their other spending to compensate.