Congress Spends More on Defense Than the Next 10 Countries Combined
We can't afford to keep funding defense contractors' cost overruns.

We're out of Afghanistan. Good. We should have gotten out before.
Our involvement there was America's longest war, longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. We accomplished little good and plenty of bad. Tens of thousands killed. A trillion dollars spent.
Now the Taliban wear American uniforms and fly American planes.
Hawks say, "If we just stayed a little longer…"
It's not true.
Yes, there had been a drop in violence in Afghanistan. But that did not mean we were winning. The Taliban were just waiting because former President Donald Trump announced we were going to leave.
Now what?
Will we continue to try to police the world?
Probably.
Washington defines U.S. national interests so broadly, says the Cato Institute's John Glaser, "that virtually no region of the world [is] considered non-vital."
This grandiosity started after WWII.
"No longer would we canonize George Washington's warning against entangling alliances," writes Glaser. "Or extol the counsel of John Quincy Adams that America 'goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.'"
Now we repeatedly go abroad, searching for monsters.
Many Americans believe the military and our use of military force shrank after WWII and after the Soviet Union collapsed. But it's not true either.
"The United States has engaged in more military interventions in the past 30 years than it had in the preceding 190 years altogether," Glaser points out.
We post soldiers all over the world: 50,000 in Japan, 35,000 in Germany, 26,000 in South Korea. Why? Is it America's job to protect South Korea from North Korea? Taiwan from China? Israel from Iran?
We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.
We can't afford to keep doing that.
We can't afford to keep funding defense contractors' cost overruns.
In my new video, Cato defense analyst Eric Gomez explains why Congress never does anything about that.
"A lot of members of Congress don't want it fixed," he says.
Defense contractors cleverly produce weapons in different states. Lockheed Martin boasts that F-35 parts are made in 48 states.
"If you're a member of Congress," says Gomez, "they're spending that money in your district….You don't want that taken away from you."
An earlier draft of President Dwight Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" speech called it the "military-industrial-congressional complex."
In Afghanistan, America spent $43 million to build a gas station (normal ones cost $500,000). Why? Some central planner decided this gas station should dispense natural gas, even though almost no cars can use it.
At least in Afghanistan our government did try to limit American involvement. Instead of having U.S. soldiers fight…forever, America would train and equip Afghans so they could defend themselves.
But that didn't work either.
The U.S. spent $200 million trying to teach Afghan soldiers to read. Five years later, half still couldn't read.
The problem, says Gomez, is that American officials don't "have any clear sense of where things are going to go, what our objective is."
"We have an objective," I push back. "Make the world safe for democracy."
"In Afghanistan, we had objectives of making it safe for democracy," says Gomez. "We had objectives of turning Iraq from Saddam Hussein into a democratic and rich society. The record has not been very good."
No.
Now the military budget exceeds $700 billion, and the Defense Department says it will spend more money fighting climate change because the "climate crisis" is an "existential" threat.
Give me a break.
Spending patterns are driven by inertia. Year after year, they give about the same share of money to the Army, Navy, and Air Force, even though today's threats from places like China mean the Navy and Air Force are much more important.
Politicians and the Pentagon need to make some choices. What exactly is the military's mission?
If America hopes to be both safe and prosperous, the military should focus on defending America itself.
COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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
Defense spending by the United States increased by $44 billion from 2019 to 2020, according to recently released figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). That increase outstripped growth in spending from other countries, and as a result, the United States now spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined (up from outspending the next 10 countries combined in 2019).
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FhOL And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP1
I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.ZXv simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.
Try now……………… Visit Here
the United States now spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined
That merely means the threat to the US is the 'axis of twelve'. We must counter that threat.
With all the woke training going on, I would expect it to get much more expensive.
Better founding fathers than neocon bounders- Stossel has become almost as much of an intellectual embarassment as Tucker Carlson.
Who at Reason dare reprint Washington's Farewell Address, or reexamine the Orange Man-unfriendly Monroe Doctrine?
If you insist upon global responsibilities and capabilities, you have to spend money to create and maintain them. A good reform would look at past and present commitments and strongly weed-out what no longer makes sense. Defending Europe and South Korea would be a good start. If we hadn't decided to reverse being energy independent we could have told the Gulf States they were on their own.
Looks like Mcauliffe lost in Virginia. And MSNBC said "Critical Race Theory Isn't Real".
That's fucking rich, when I can show you the people who invented it, call it that, and teach it in universities.
Bell Hooks
Angela Davis
Richard Delgado
Kimberly Crenshaw
Mapping the margins... etc. etc.
As one expert noted on this subject, "No they're not teaching your kids about Critical Race Theory, they're DOING Critical Race Theory to your children."
Hopefully, that trend will carry over to the People's Republic of NJ, and we'll vote out that lying, incompetent son of a bitch Murphy.
Of course, now the election is going to the mail-in ballots. You know, the ballots that the NJ legislature changed the law about just a few months ago to make it 'easier' to vote. Uh huh.
Even If CRT isn't real, Joe Biden's directive to sic the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards is real.
And Terry McAuliffe losing an election in a blue state after saying that parents shouldn't be telling schools what to teach their children is real.
And if Democrats in blue districts all over the country too closely associate themselves with Joe Biden's unpopular agenda, on education and other issues, they should expect to suffer the same fate as Terry McAuliffe in the 2022 midterms.
That's also real.
McAuliffe lost a critical race.
Except CRT is real. Full stop.
You know who didn't spend enough on defense?
Terry McAuliffe, the little fuck face.
Close all foreign military bases.
^+1 - no pun intended.
Its easy to blame the defense contractors for cost overruns, but its not all on them. The customer, DoD, will often change requirements in the middle of design/production and fuck everything up. See the F-35 for an example.
As for defense contractors building things in multiple states, that's not on them entirely. Congress critters won't vote for stuff unless their district gets something out of it. That's been normal business for almost 200 years.
"Congress critters won't vote for stuff unless their district gets something out of it."
this is also why there will never be meaningful cuts. its all one big 'jobs' program.
Good comment. Yes too many defense contracts are jobs programs. I see it in my state, Wisconsin, where the Rs & Ds don't agree on much but the need to keep defense work in our state.
You know, I am sick of this childish leftist bullshit.
And, Stossel, you should be ashamed at how many decades you've been shitting it out of your mouth. As should you all.
Is it America's job to protect South Korea from North Korea? Taiwan from China? Israel from Iran?
American is NOT protecting South Korea from North Korea or Taiwan from China. And 'Israel from Iran'? Really? If you're so naive that you don't understand that the US keeps Israel from wiping out the neighbors who want to kill them maybe you should just shut up about international affairs at all.
Anyway. The US is not 'seeking out entangling alliances'.
But it IS looking for 'monsters'.
The US military spending is done to keep the world safe for the US. It is an entirely self centered action.
If it can be rationalized as 'protecting democracy' or 'defending allies', so much the better.
But it is not that.
It is the US protecting itself from the disgusting mess that politeness makes us include with ourselves as members of the 'first world' as well at the cesspool below such.
But here's the important thing. With the US doing this, the nasties that live in that cesspool can't get out and destroy eerything. And they can't beat the US, so they persuade the US to defeat itself for them.
How? By twisting our own desires into a weapon against us.
Speak softly, but carry a big stick. That defense budget, that's the 'stick'. If we put it down someone else will pick it up. And everyone else are authoritarian fucktards.
So stop trying to get us to sell our guns and put up a big sign announcing that we're a 'gun-free zone'.
I usually like Stossel, but this is myopic garbage.
Our defense obligations still come well under entitlements, and I will cut the shit out of those before I touch military money. It's kinda like gun ownership - seems like a waste until you really need it, then there's no better option. And it's better to keep the unrest offshore.
As for Afghanistan... No amount of time on ground will mitigate the shitty decisions of leadership. The troops were not allowed to win - they were curtailed from actually eradicating jihadis, and told to coexist.
That worked out great.
$700 billion? Holy crapola. Someone get the president on the phone, the government is spending $700 billion a year on something!
...meanwhile the quarterly federal deficit is topping a trillion dollars.
You could totally eliminate the military; just straight up zero it out, fire every soldier, scuttle every ship, close every base. You could not spend one single extra penny on defense and you still wouldn't plug the hole in the federal budget for more than two months out of the year.
Defense spending is not the problem. It's not an important issue at this time.
Yeah, 700 billion used to be a big part of the budget (like 20%). Now it's barely over 10%.
There's been a lot of hand-wringing and feet-stamping over the reconciliation bill (3.5 trillion over 10 years, now down to 1.75 trillion over 10 years) and the "infrastructure" bill (another 1.2 trillion). But while no one was looking the baseline budget increased by 50%, from ~4 trillion to ~6 trillion dollars. It was a neat trick, taking the 2-trillion-dollar one-time COVID lockdown emergency only bailout spending and somehow jacking up everything in the budget to stay at that level going forward.
Great to see this subject taken on. We did not beat the USSR on the battlefield we beat them on economics. It now appears that China is using the same tactics on us. The USSR's weapons did not win the cold war, the US's weapons will not win an economic war with China. The new slogan should be "the big screen TV is mightier than the sword".
It's easy to control costs when you use slave labor.
Oh so Biden pulled out of Afghanistan so the Military could "fight Climate Change"???? LMAO!!! Which is essentially code-name for "Conquering the USA for Socialism"....
OMG its raining today! The Climate Changed! It was sunny yesterday!!! Call in the Military! /s
What exactly is the military's mission?
Transgenderism and equity.
We need to quit pretending that "defense" spending is actually defense spending. Most of it is left-wing programs (welfare, CRT, environmentalism) stashed in the defense budget.
We also need to quit pretending that what we spend on actual defense is for defending America. America defends a bunch of other countries that spend zilch on their own defense. That's the problem.
We need to quit pretending that "defense" spending is actually defense spending. Most of it is left-wing programs (welfare, CRT, environmentalism) stashed in the defense budget.
The people complaining about defense spending aren't talking about the military social justice side of things, that's fine. They're complaining about the money we spend on actual weapons and supplies.
We also need to quit pretending that what we spend on actual defense is for defending America. America defends a bunch of other countries that spend zilch on their own defense. That's the problem.
We're spending on keeping all the moron nations in line. So that Americans can pretty much do what they like anywhere in the world.
How will we address the hypersonic missile gap (fill in your preferred weapon here) if we don't increase funding yesterday?
Better management decisions?
Funny! Thanks for the laugh, although you are correct. One problem is a big part of "management" includes 535 elected federal reps who have a keen interest in this. Jerbs, for one thing. Heck, even the ones who want to shrink the military probably would prefer it shrink somewhere that is not part of their district.
By supporting BLM, which makes us all richer and stronger.
What I read is that the Communist Chinese did one test, we did three.
Winner!
The US has a new problem on its hands: China! Cold war, V 2.0.
It is going to be expensive and there is no assurance that we will win. China is a MUCH more dangerous adversary than Russia. I never thought Russia (USSR) would pull the trigger first. I think it is likely that China will do so. We (and the rest of the western world) are in for a rough century, I think.
This problem was created by Richard Nixon and his diplomatic overtures to China.
I agree with Stossel about Afghanistan. The US should have bombed them until the rubble bounced in 2001, then left with a promise that we would return if they harbored Al Queda or their likes again.
China has no plans to invade the United States.
Taiwan, now...
What do you think China plans to do with all those shiny, new weapon systems? Taiwan is certainly in the cross hairs and so is the rest of Asia. There is really only one reason to arm up the way CHina has done and that is to confront and engage the west.
"We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined."
So what? Other than the US & Communist China, no nation spends over 100 billion. (2020 figures)
As a percent of GDP, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Israel spend more than we do. And we spend a lot of our "defense" money renaming bases for political purposes, and doing social research in gender studies, and a lot of stuff not related to killing bad guys.
"the United States now spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined"
I live for the day that I'll no longer see such crap repeated as fact.
Neither Russia nor China follow established double-entry western accounting methods. They report whatever expenses and income they want to report and don't report what they don't want to report.
So if they don't want to report the true expense of a weapons program, they pick a number between zero and infinity. If they want to buy diesel at a penny per 100 gallons, they'll command some supplier to sell it for a penny per 100 gallons.
And even when they report some spending that's true, it's not necessarily comparable to US spending.
For example, personnel expenses chew up a large portion of the US military budget.
China pays a captain in their military less than what a private makes in our military. So China has roughly 2,185,000 in their military (over half of that in the reserves) while the US has 1,388,100 (with 60% of that in the reserves).
But China is paying pennies in salaries and pensions while the US is paying real money in salaries and pensions plus substantial signing bonuses just to get people to join (or stay in) the military.
So you're not getting fair comparisons when you're lumping in those countries with other countries which genuinely have small militaries and small budgets.
So.
Well.
Said.
Was going to say something similar myself....you did much better!
I'm not a fan of the waste in the military bureaucracy, believe me!
But just two points I will make of many possible, we treat our military personnel MUCH better than our adversaries, and the Cold War is very much back on with China, Russia, and depending on how you look at it Iran (Possible no shit nukes), N Korea, Pakistan.
Point three, one over my limit- What has happened in Ukraine, (Country of) Georgia, Syria, Hong Kong? Iran captured US Navy Sailors and missile attacked a US Base. What will happen in Taiwan? If Taiwan falls what about South Korea? Japan? Pacific nations aren't gearing up to face China for no reason. Look at Australia's nuclear sub deal. There are real threats in this world.
Pull my libertarian card.
I was going to make the same point but you said it way better than I ever could. This is just another example of lazy journalism.
You will pry my defense budget from my cold, dead fingers after I've run out of ammo.
Until then, enjoy the offshoring of conflict and the world having something like police... Until we defund that too.
Build Back Better Brandon!
The Pentagon budget is a giant trough in which both Democrats and Republicans swill. It is an obvious example of the hand in glove relationship between various industries and government. Of the billions that flow to defense contractors each year, many millions are kicked back to the political class as tribute. It's ALWAYS about the money.