Another Sign the GOP Isn't That Serious About Cutting Spending
This week, President Obama's deficit commission proposed around $150 billion in defense cuts, including a 10 percent cut in research and development and the redeployment of a third of all American troops stationed in Europe and Asia.
But at the Foreign Policy Initiative's annual conference in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.)—likely incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee—offered some counter-programming to the idea that the military budget is trimmable.
McKeon argued that increased defense spending was vital to national interest, taking a near-apocalyptic stance on any possible reductions in defense spending: "A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline" he argued, before stating that even a proposed 1 percent increase in defense spending over the next five years was tantamount to a spending cut. For McKeon, even an inadequate increase in defense spending signals the abdication of America's leadership in the world: "Growing our alliances will place an increased demand on hard power" he said, explaining how failing to keep pace with the rate of China or Iran's military growth will convince potential allies to align with countries that view the U.S. as a competitor or even an enemy.
Sharp eyes might spy a self-interested motive behind this view of American power. According to McKeon, America is only as powerful as its military, whose budgetary needs are partly shaped by the same House Armed Services Committee that McKeon will soon head. Furthermore, McKeon's military-spending-equals-national-greatness tack assumes that greater defense spending always produces a stronger military and, by extension, a stronger United States. But in the latest issue of The New Republic, Reason contributor Gregg Easterbrook explains [$] that defense spending increases have a lot to do with pork, corporate welfare and costly politically-motivated R&D projects. Reason writers have also noted the problems of untouchable defense pork here, here, and here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
GOOD AFTERNOON REASON!
TMQ is a Reason contributor? Ya learn something new every day
Not that defense spending can't be cut, but the "pork, corporate welfare and costly politically-motivated R&D projects" are unlikely to be the places that cuts are made. Considering that providing for the national defense is one of the few legitimate constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government, I don't see why cutting spending in that area is considered the bellwether of whether or not someone is serious about cutting the budget and scope of the government overall.
Because the presence of troops in Germany and Japan doesn't contribute to national defense. Unless they're just waiting until we pull out to reform the Axis.
Never misunderestimate them.
In other news: Joe Scarborough just got suspended from MSKKK for making campaign contributions to relatives.
Pulling troops out of Germany, Japan, and South Korea was actually proposed by Rumsfield, but was one type of defense spending cut heartily opposed by Democrats as well as Republicans. Apparently our troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea are there to serve as cultural ambassadors, even when they piss the locals off.
In all fairness though the number of troops statrioned in South Korea and Germany were substantially decreased under Bush the younger. We went from a division to a brigade in the ROK and many of the tankers who had been in Germany were brought back stateside (to Ft. Bliss and Ft. Hood primarily).
That's true. And the Democrats did bitch about it, which was a little bit "gotta bitch about what the other team is doing" and a little bit "the military is for cool uniforms, traveling the world, meeting new friends, and being cultural ambassadors, and not necessarily for killing things."
Do you think McCain would have picked someone markedly different than Gates? It's not like Gates got the job as part of the Obama administration. He's a holdover from the Bush Administration.
Oops, response to wrong post.
Because it's the single biggest source of waste of taxpayer dollars in the universe?
And you're not the arbiter of what the legitimate role of government is.
Glad to see you agreeing with McCain and disagreeing with President Obama's Defense Secretary here.
I have the feeling that the President may go with his Defense Secretary on this one. I expect so because the President's budget contained defense spending hikes, even after accounting for Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of cheering over putting most of their cost "on-budget," no one cares that we're still going to be spending more. Well Suderman does.
McCain would have been more likely to cut defense spending than Obama.
""McCain would have been more likely to cut defense spending than Obama.""
The cost of bombing Iran and the aftermath thereof wouldn't add to cost?
He's not Lindsey Graham. He was as likely to bomb Iran as for Obama to invade Pakistan.
The costs of the likely sanctions wouldn't have shown up on the budget. McCain is bad about economics in the sense that he doesn't realize the hidden costs of regulations, and sanctions fits that. (Though actually he is a committed free trader in general according to Cato.) He's good on things that find their way into line-item spending.
Of course, you're probably just trolling. It's difficult to believe that any intelligent person would actually think it was at all likely that McCain would bomb Iran.
I mean, I can see otherwise intelligent people actually believing that Obama would close Gitmo, even though I thought that was rather obviously extremely unlikely before the election.
Way back in 2000, did you consider it "likely" that a Bush government would invade Iraq?
From the horse's mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
Do you think McCain would have picked someone markedly different than Gates? It's not like Gates got the job as part of the Obama administration. He's a holdover from the Bush Administration.
McCain actually has a long track record of wanting to cut Defense spending. Obama had no record of caring about Defense spending as a senator (as opposed to some about policy), and no record of caring about it as President.
Considering his lengthy consistent record on the issue (both under previous presidents and in this Administration), and his willingness to disagree with people like Gates, and his history of chairing the Armed Services Committee, he'd be a lot more likely to buck his Defense Secretary than Obama. And Defense Secretaries never want it cut that much.
Because the 3 biggest line items on the budget are SS, Medicare and Defense. If you can't find money to cut in those three areas, you're not being serious. The amount of cost from just the growth of the DoD is larger than the entire budgets of Education, the DoJ and Treasury combined.
Because the party which pretends to be serious about cutting spending is also the party which believes throwing money at the Pentagon is the way to achieve national greatness. And we love us some hypocrisy to gloat over.
"A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline"
More accurately, "A defense budget in decline is a result of an America in decline" This fucking foureyes needs an economics lesson.
Gee, I thought Buck was joking.
Howard P. (Buck) Mckeon (R) *
Contributor Total
Lockheed Martin $51,000
Northrop Grumman $50,500
Boeing Co $27,900
General Dynamics $20,000
Pretty sure that those four would give to anyone who's ranking member on Armed Services. Not chipping in is a good way to find your programs "unnecessary."
I'd expect an Armed Services chair to say this. That's why it's actually surprising when McCain at the same conference said that yes we can cut the defense budget, including some of the F-35s.
Buck McKeon wasn't the only speaker at the conference. McCain was there saying that yes the military budget can be cut.
Gates was also there saying that "ok, maybe we can cut some things, but the military budget isn't driving the deficit and the proposed cuts are too much.
As anyone in a corporate environment knows, no one wants to get their budget cut, even if there is plenty of room for budget cuts.
Yes, and in the government as in corporate environments, if you're an executive, you measure winning by controlling more people and more money. If you're a bureaucrat, the people and money you control includes the people you regulate.
"A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline"
Yeah, the 90s really sucked for the US.
Why are we still in Germany?
Why?
We have less than 50,000 troops in Iraq.
We have about 90,000 in Afghanistan.
We have more than 50,000 troops in Germany.
Why do we have troops in Germany?
Why?
A significant part of the logistics for the Iraq war was run from the US bases in Germany.
But then:
o more than 50,000 US soldiers in Germany
o another 10,000 in the UK
o another 10,000 in Italy
o more than 30,000 in Japan
Overall, this shows how flexible the
government reacted to the end of the cold war. 20 years ago.
BTW, the UK plans to withdraw the remaining 20,000 UK soldiers from Germany by 2020.
We can afford to bring some folks home, but this is a great point.
Also, it's probably best to keep Landstuhl open just so we have the hospital there to recieve casualties. It's the closest big military hospital for anywhere in the CENTCOM AO and a lot closer than any CONUS hsopital for evacuation of casualties.
With China's economy growing at 6 - 10% per year right now, that does give McKeon a nice fat target, doesn't it? (Note that he refers to the 'rate of growth.)
If the US can't keep up with China's growth rate, I am sure that Europe, Canada and Mexico are going to join the "Beijing Alliance for Real Force" any day. /snark
Mr. McKeon's heavily gerrymandered district includes the beautiful city of Palmdale, California.
I'll just leave this here.