New at Reason

June 20, 2007

David Weigel asks whether small-scale anti-pork reforms are the limits of small government reform, and why no one tackles defense spending.

Comments

Matt Welch|6.20.07 @ 12:19PM|#

From a recent exchange I had with anti-defense-earmark rhetorical champion (and Winslow Wheeler nemesis!) John Sidney McCain III:

Q: Senator, on the Defense budget -- We now spend about roughly the same amount on defense as the rest of the world combined. Is that a healthy ratio, and if it's not, what would be a healthy ratio?

A: Oh, it's healthy. We need a bigger Army, we need a bigger Marine corps. You look around the world -- Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan -- it's not going to be over for a long time. But we need to spend our defense dollars much more wisely, and we need to stop earmarking and pork barrel projects such as Senator Clinton just put in the Defense Authorization Bill.

|6.20.07 @ 12:25PM|#

I think we should aim our foreign policy at only pissing off half the world at once. That way, we only need enough military to beat one half of the planet at any given time.

|6.20.07 @ 12:29PM|#

I think we should aim our foreign policy at only pissing off half the world at once. That way, we only need enough military to beat one half of the planet at any given time.

Awww... you're no FUN!

|6.20.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Pro, it is our purchasing of stuff from people who control the stuff which pisses off other people who blow up other stuff, along with some of our people. That ain't changin' anytime soon, no matter how we so otherwise energetically endeavor to not piss off people. Every time you get in a car, you are pissin' somebody off. Stop it!

The DOD budget is a travesty, of course, but likely a largely unavoidable one, given it is a budget actually, ya' know, authorized by the Constitution, and given the economic dominance of the United States. If the United States Navy didn't exist, some other nation(s) would invent it, and as crappy as the situation is, it is likely preferable that the predominant military force is ultimately controlled by the American electorate than other likely candidates.

Lemme me know when the Chinese, French, and Russian versions of Ron Paul hold power, and I'll likely change my mind. Or zero out the budgets of all the activities which are currently authorized by our Congress, but not our Constitution, and then get back to me. Then again, if someobdy wanted to actually challenge on a case by case basis every DOD item which really doesn't pertain to military activity, that's o.k. with me.

|6.20.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Winslow Wheeler article here.

|6.20.07 @ 12:48PM|#

"In the early months of this year, the Democratic Congress passed an emergency spending bill for Iraq that included $20 billion in pork, including $74 million for peanut storage and $100 million for citrus growers, to bring stragglers on board."

Uh, hold it. The spending bill contained $20 billion that wasn't in the President's request, but that's a mightly sloppy definition of "pork."

The agricultural stuff is obviously pork, but that was far from the majority of that $20 billion, which reflected "real" defense spending, such as funding port security, improving first-responder communications, and other anti-terrorism efforts recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

That Democrats value this stuff more highly than does the Bush administration does not make that spending pork. It makes it closer to the F-22 project, the Missile Defense deployment, or the new nuclear attack subs that are being built. Certainly objections can be made about the wisdom of any of these projects, but that goes back to a debate about defense priorities and strategy, not pork-barrel politics.

|6.20.07 @ 12:48PM|#

Will Allen,

France is going to attack us?

|6.20.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Will Allen, that's a good argument against a Green Party-esque 2/3 cut in military spending.

It's not a very good argument against a 10-20% cut in military spending.

|6.20.07 @ 12:57PM|#

Nope, Pro, but they wouldn't be immune to attacking someody else, given the right circumstances, setting off a pretty rotten chain of events. Spending 4% of GDP to ensure that the early and middle part of the last century isn't revisited is a decent trade-off.

Of course, the French aren't nearly as likely to put forth in motion such a chain of events as our buddies in Moscow or Beijing (or the poverty case Pakistan, for that matter), but a Defense Ministry which saw fit to blow up the boat of a bunch of whale lovers shouldn't be overlooked completely.

|6.20.07 @ 12:57PM|#

The DOD budget is a travesty, of course, but likely a largely unavoidable one, given it is a budget actually, ya' know, authorized by the Constitution, and given the economic dominance of the United States.

So when Government acts in an uncontrolled manner, it's OK, as long as they were Constitutionally authorized?

Citizen: "Why are we building a $100 Billion post office HQ?"

Congress: "Because it's authorized in the Constitution. Now get back to being a lowly peon."

|6.20.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Spending 4% of GDP to ensure that the early and middle part of the last century isn't revisited is a decent trade-off.

No it isn't.

|6.20.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Oh, I agree, Joe, but I was just commenting on the political realities of trimming wasteful pork in a budget which is actually Constitutionally authorized, and undoubtedlty accomplishes, overall, a great deal of good, as opposed to doing so to budgets which aren't Constitutionally authorized, and do nothing but cause a huge amount of harm. Like a huge percentage of the Department of Agriculture's budget, for instance. If you can't do anything substantial regarding the latter, you've got absolutely zero, nil, nada, chance to do anything substantial regarding the former.

|6.20.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Will Allen,

My concern is that we can't afford to be our military, Europe's military, and a military to be named later forever. I don't disagree that we're better behaved with weapons than a fully re-armed Europe is likely to be, but I think we could have a much smaller military and still be head and shoulders above the rest of the world as a military power.

I hardly advocate sticking our heads in the sand or disarming. But we will eventually waste our economic edge if we keep blowing cash on the military at the rate we are. Coupled with the growing bibertarian trend, that hit could happen sooner, rather than later. Also, our economic hegemony is visibly weakening as certain other countries begin to catch up. I'd rather keep the cash flow and give up some of the guns, if that's what it takes.

|6.20.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Ok, Warren, let's revist that era. That'll be a lot better than what we're enduring now!

|6.20.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Well, MP, yes , given a choice between wasting money on stuff that has authorization in the Constitution, and wasting money on stuff which doesn't, I'd rather do the former, since there at least remains some commitment to the rule of law. Perhaps you think that commitment is without value. I don't.

|6.20.07 @ 1:14PM|#

Well, pro, there are damned few things I'm willing to advocate forever, and if you'll see my post to Joe above, I don't doubt that a good deal of the DOD budget could be trimmed without threatening a return to the first half of the 20th century. I just don't think it is the optimum path to the pursuit of smaller government at this time.

|6.20.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Ok, Warren, let's revist that era. That'll be a lot better than what we're enduring now!

If we don't spend a trillion dollars, we'll all be living in caves!

Yeah, good scare tactics there, Will.

Perhaps you think that commitment is without value.

Perhaps you think I'm arguing for the elimination of the military. And perhaps your rule of law comment is completely baseless.

Your entire justification of today's level of military spending is a platform of fear mongering.

|6.20.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Will Allen brings up one interesting point--can Europe behave if fully rearmed? One would hope that the existence of the EU would stop the "internal" wars, but, how would Germany, France, or Europe as a whole deal with managing regional and near-regional issues? Whatever one may want to say about the U.S., we're much less prone to realpolitik thinking than our European allies.

In theory, I'd like to cede "responsibility" for a big chunk of the world back to the European nations, but Will's point is one we have to consider first--will they handle things okay, or will they muck it up and make things worse for us in the long haul? Russia's not quite dead, yet, and I could see some disturbing problems arising in the Middle East if it were, say, France, and not the U.S., calling the shots.

|6.20.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Perhaps you think we were living in caves in the middle of the last century, mp. Lemme know when you want to discuss something I've actually written. Until then, jabber away, if it makes you feel good.

Finally, if you really think there is a difference between wasting money in a lawful manner, and wasting money in an unlawful manner, then don't write posts which imply the opposite. Or must I also explain to you what your own writing means?

|6.20.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Making it unthinkable for Kim Jong Il to send his army across the 38th parallel costs some real money, no question about it.

But that's peanuts compared to what we'd end up spending if he ever found himself thinking that he might be able to prevail.

GILMORE|6.20.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Rather than argue on metaphysical level...

- Do we need a "missle sheild"?

- Do we need the Paladin artillery system updated?

- Do we need the F35?

- DD(X) Destroyers?

Discuss

|6.20.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Perhaps you think we were living in caves in the middle of the last century, mp. Lemme know when you want to discuss something I've actually written.
It was a parody on your baseless scare tactic comment that we'd be revisiting WWI/WWII if we didn't spend oodles of moolah.

Finally, if you really think there is a difference between wasting money in a lawful manner, and wasting money in an unlawful manner, then don't write posts which imply the opposite. Or must I also explain to you what your own writing means?

Maybe I think that the lawfulness of the spending is irrelevant in a discussion of the amount of spending.

|6.20.07 @ 1:31PM|#

But that's peanuts compared to what we'd end up spending if he ever found himself thinking that he might be able to prevail.

That presumes a policy of bailing out South Korea. Which I'm sure Will Allen is all for, but I couldn't really give a crap about.

|6.20.07 @ 1:37PM|#

I actually don't think the North Koreans are capable of carrying out conventional offensive military operations at this point, MP, and I rather doubt that even Dear Leader thinks otherwise, so, no, I don't think we need to maintain our current commitment, at least not at present levels. By all means, though, keep jabbering in ignorance.

|6.20.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Yes, MP, you think the lawfulness of spending is irrelevent to a discussion of the amount of spending. I don't, because I think a commitment to the rule of law is foremost in any discussion of government activity.

|6.20.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Gilmore, I am far from an expert, but my off the cuff take is that the abililty to shoot down even just a few ballistic missiles is a worthwile technical ability, even at great expense. The F-35 may not be needed right now, but if it were canceled the U.S. would really have to accelerate the development of pilotless fighters. I just don't know enough about surface vessels to have an informed opinion about a new class of destroyers. I suspect future artillery needs are a function of the degree of dominance future U.S. airpower has, which relates to the development of pilotless aircraft.

|6.20.07 @ 1:51PM|#

I don't think we need to maintain our current commitment, at least not at present levels.
You presume the need to have some level of commitment, because you think it's our responsibility to assist South Korea in a defensive capacity against any possible aggressive actions by North Korea. Bickering over the level of support to give South Korea is irrelevant when we disagree on that fundamental point.

|6.20.07 @ 1:53PM|#

You know, I've never understood the politicization of missile defense. The American left seems to think that, no matter what, it's a bad idea. Why? It may not be perfect, but why is sitting completely helpless a better policy?

I think this position is due to left over opposition to "Star Wars"--i.e., a missile shield against all-out Soviet attack (which would've cost untold billions and arguably could've provoked a first strike). But that's such a different animal than what we're talking about today. Not to mention that some space defense capability would be a good idea. While we have the upper hand.

|6.20.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Good gravy, MP, would you please stop the ignorant attributions of opinions to me? No, I don't think the U.S. has a "responsibility" to South Korea. I think the U.S. has an interest in seeing that war does not break out on the Korean Peninsula. To the degree that some U.S. forces aids in that goal, I support some U.S. forces dedicated to that goal. I think North Korea's ability to carry out offensive military operations becomes more degraded with each passing year, and South Korea's ability to govern itself in a prospeprous and stable fashion increases with each passing year, thus the utility of U.S. forces in ensuring that war does not break out on the Korean peninsula decreases with each passing year. Whether that utility has reached zero, or when it will do so, I can't be sure, because I don't presume to have perfect knowledge, and thus I pursue change in these matters rather cautiously.

Will you endeavor to obtain my opinion from me, as opposed to creating it in the space between your ears?

|6.20.07 @ 2:08PM|#

MP,

"That presumes a policy of bailing out South Korea."

Politics is the art of the possible, MP. If your spending-reduction ideas rely on the theory that the U.S. will adopt a military stance that allows democratic allies to be overrun by Stalinist tyrants, you're not really going to cut spending.

Pro-Lib,

A lot of leftie opposition to SDI (or whatever the hell they're calling it now) stems from the possibility that it could cause another arms race. Proponents describe it as a shield, but a closer metaphor would be to the hand-guard on a sword. It would allow us to attack without worrying as much about sustaining injuries ourselves. This motivates other countries to try to come up with more effective deterrents. I halfway buy this argument.

|6.20.07 @ 2:27PM|#

joe,

I understood the position more when we had to deal with the heavily armed black box that was the Soviet Union, but it seems less applicable now. I see it more as raising the bar for any potential opponents to launch attacks. In the unlikely event that someone would launch a missile with a nuclear warhead against us or our allies, it would be nice to have an option other than nuking them back.

|6.20.07 @ 2:30PM|#

There is a strategic element to the argument against missile defense, as joe points out, but another large element is just mindless tribalism by some Democrats. Much like there are Republicans possessed of a mindless tribalism in their opposition to gay marriage. Stupidity has no natural partisan home.

Monty Python|6.20.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Warren, That's not argument, it's just contradiction.

|6.20.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Pro Lib,

Maybe. Russia and China haven't gone away.

I'm split on the whole thing. Right now, I can finesse the question by saying that we should spend money for research, but that the deployment of this vaporware is money down the drain.

|6.20.07 @ 2:43PM|#

No, I don't think the U.S. has a "responsibility" to South Korea. I think the U.S. has an interest in seeing that war does not break out on the Korean Peninsula.

There is no practical difference between the two. You're "well, I'll support a pull-out when the utility = 0" is simply a cop-out. Why? Because somehow I doubt you'd look anywhere in the world right now and find utility = 0, thus giving you reason to meddle wherever you see fit.

Some of us aren't utilitarians.

|6.20.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Uh, no, MP. To give an example, there is zero utility in having U.S. forces help prevent an outbreak of hostilities between Canada and Iceland. Or Uganda and Zaire.

Now, once and for all, would you please just stop making stuff up, out of thin air, regarding my views? Pretty please?

|6.20.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Someone said it on an earlier thread, but it bares repeating. The problem with the US military is we spend all our money on cool, shiny new killing machines instead of things like manpower and counter-insurgency training.

Theo|6.20.07 @ 3:27PM|#

If you add the defense budgets of the top 20 spenders worldwide excluding the US, their budgets together don't even come close to what we spend. I'm tired of my paycheck getting bled for fiascos like the Iraq war, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. We should be cutting our defense budget by at least 10%-20%. Closing most of our bases around the world and stop amassing a massive arsenal that already has absolutely no rivals would be a step in the right direction. We need to re-focus our spending in training counter-intelligence, competent translators in the military and espionage instead of constantly going on massive recruiting campaigns and invading other countries. We should also give our troops better health insurance and salaries instead of blowing all of our money on maintaining nuclear silos.

|6.20.07 @ 4:22PM|#

"We should be cutting our defense budget by at least 10%-20% ... We should also give our troops better health insurance and salaries instead of blowing all of our money on maintaining nuclear silos."

Make up your mind what you want, Theo. I'm the son of a career military officer, so I've heard actual military officers argue this issue. Most of the military budget goes toward paying for personnel and their support costs, not military hardware. Not that I'm against cutting B.S. like "ooastal cancer prevention" as cited in the article, and scaling back or eliminating hardware recommended by Congress but opposed by the military, but to cut the budget 10% to 20% would likely require cutting DoD personnel, which would mean scaling back or ending our commitments in Iraq, Korea, Germany, ad nauseam. If we quit trying to be the world's police force, we can have a strong military prepared to defend OUR country only and yet have a military budget cut by 20% or more.

|6.20.07 @ 4:37PM|#

I just don't know enough about surface vessels to have an informed opinion about a new class of destroyers.

Raises hand. I do, I do.

No. The DDG51 (Arleigh Burke) class is still a generation ahead of anything else out there. These are extremely capable (read deadly) machines. Continue R&D on surface combatants, yes. When/If the rail gun is a proven reality, THEN you design and build a new class of destroyers (cruisers too).

|6.20.07 @ 4:42PM|#

I don't think we can realistically get around the need to project power. Nobody else can. I do believe our ability to project pays dividends, as odd as that may seem at this particular moment. I don't think we need to ramp up personnel until someone can convince me that rebuilding is possible at any reasonable price.

The credible ability to project power, topple regimes needs to be in place. After that, I don't care.

|6.20.07 @ 4:42PM|#

Wow, J sub D, "still a generation ahead of anything else out there" sounds exactly like the "obsolete" fighters and attack jets the military needs to replace with F-22s and JSFs.

|6.20.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Wow, J sub D, "still a generation ahead of anything else out there" sounds exactly like the "obsolete" fighters and attack jets the military needs to replace with F-22s and JSFs.

Not my area of expertise. I can neither confirm or deny the need/desirability of those weapons.

|6.20.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Rail guns? My step-son put together a Gauss rifle, similar to your rail gun in many respects. He has a tactical and strategic advantage over the other kids in his class, let me tell you.

|6.20.07 @ 5:56PM|#

Rail guns? My step-son put together a Gauss rifle, similar to your rail gun in many respects. He has a tactical and strategic advantage over the other kids in his class, let me tell you.

It's good that you brag on him about that. Tell him you did. He deserves it.

libertreee|6.20.07 @ 6:56PM|#

I don't think we can realistically get around the need to project power. Nobody else can. -JasonL

Switzerland does. We are supposed to be like Switzerland, and could be. All of our guns, surrounded by oceans and friendly countries, etc.

Luke|6.20.07 @ 9:58PM|#

Uncle PL, that rifle's got a bad motivator!

John Rhoads|6.21.07 @ 2:38AM|#

I completely don't buy the idea that Europe will revert to its 20th century ways if we didn't retain military dominance. 20th century Europe was largely a function of a bunch of really stupid conflicting treaties obligating people to go to war with each other. Take away the Treaty of Versailles and you have no WWII. Take away mutual defense pacts of the early 1900s and you have no WWI. I don't really see Europe falling back to any of these.

For the most part, current military technology makes the idea of military equals battling each other pretty much a non-starter. Even a lunatic like Stalin could see that. We can go to war with a country like Iraq, but starting a war against someone like Russia would pretty much require the actions of a crazy man, regardless of how much bigger one military is than the other. The US-Soviet Union relationship was just as bad as or worse than the German/French relationship in the early 20th century...but both sides were able to recognize how catastrophic an honest to goodness total war would be.

There are certainly possible military problems for the future, but whatever the future of war will look like, it wont be the first half of the 20th century.

|6.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#

I think we're doing it completely wrong. We should start with defense spending first and let them take whatever money they deem appropriate from the GDP. When they are done, we just distribute the remainder to whomever has the largest voter base and that way everybody wins all the time.

If -I- were president however, I would have very little problem slashing the defense budget. Pull out the troops -now-, as in: drop everything that's not a nuke and we can't have falling into the hands of the local population and come back home. This war is lost as it is and we have to start looking at the problems at home:
- an educational system that is the butt of the joke all across the world
- the -only- industrialized nation that has no universal health care system
- horrible environmental destruction [remember when Tommy used to be able to go fishing with his father? Yeah, well, if you drink from the water now, you'll be puking your guts out for the next two weeks. Tough cookies, kid.]
- obscene imbalance between the highest incomes and the lowest incomes.
- an aging population
- illegal immigration by the legion
- total inability to deal with any major catastrophy without being embarrassed before all the world
- squandering all our political capital in one of the most stupendous miscarriages of justice in the history of the country
- Alberto Gonzales
- the absolute largest public debt in the history of the species

Enough stuff going on to warrant doing something for the home team for a change. We could have spent half a trillion dollars fostering friendship and positive development of the American people instead of giving other people reasons galore for hating and despising us.

It's just me, I think there are better things to do with money than to blow up other people for the benefit of a very few people's interests.

|6.24.07 @ 10:15PM|#

What good is a large defence budget when your enemy uses IED's??