Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    Military Spending Cuts are Necessary

    Millions of Americans have become unified by the message of lower taxes and less government spending over the past few years. Our voices were heard last November when a significant number of deficit hawks were elected to Congress. Many signaled that they were willing to put every item of the budget on the table. Yes, that includes military  spending. As Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has said “national defense is the most important thing we do in Washington, but there’s still waste in the military budget.” Unlike most of what Washington does, defense is a constitutional function of the federal government. But we cannot restore fiscal responsibility without addressing the bloated defense budget.

    Just to be clear, FreedomWorks does not take a position on foreign policy. However, we have always railed against wasteful spending in all areas of the federal budget. The Department of Defense (DoD) budget is just as prone to reckless spending as any other government department. Politicians are not angels. It’s foolish to believe that every single dollar in the defense budget is spent in the wisest possible manner. The truth is that the defense budget has been greatly susceptible to earmarks and pet projects.

    Only brave leaders are willing to call for cuts in military spending. An unfortunate stigma still exists that those who propose reasonable military cuts must not support the troops. That’s far from the truth. Both parties have shown a willingness to cut the military budget. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barry Frank (D-Mass.) recently set party differences aside to call for significant reductions in military expenditures. Department of Defense spending has enjoyed protected status that has been isolated from serious scrutiny. We are not calling for military spending cuts that would put the troops in harm way. We are instead calling for sensible cuts such as ending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program that funds an extra General Electric engine. This simple cut would save taxpayers $485 million dollars. That’s just a small fraction of the defense budget that needs to go.

    Powerful special interests benefit from heavy military spending. Rent seeking General Electric is one of the biggest defense contractors in the United States. They heavily lobby for a bloated defense budget that would add to their company’s bottom line at the expense of taxpayers. Last month, the Pentagon cancelled General Electric’s alternate F136 engine. The House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon has been committed to keeping the General Electric engine alive. He has been increasingly hostile towards any military spending cuts. That makes sense since his top campaign contributors include defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing Co. and General Dynamics. General Electric also donated thousands of dollars to his reelection campaign in 2010.

    The House is expected to consider H.R. 1540 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 soon. The bill sponsored by Rep. McKeon would provide $690 billion in funding for the Department of Defense. It includes funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The Washington Post reports that “the pressure is for less and less spending, but McKeon makes clear that he would ‘like to see a higher top-line number.’ He concedes that ‘every dollar is precious,’ but is concerned about ‘cutting back to the degree we have in the last few years.” He is “visibly irritated” by the modest military cuts that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed. How much has Washington cut back in military spending? Not enough.

    The Pentagon budget for 2010 was $693 billion—more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. That’s nearly half of all military spending on earth. Military spending has doubled over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Under President Bush, military spending averaged 3.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product. It has increased to 4.9 percent—a full percentage point higher—under President Obama. U.S. military outlays in real terms are higher than at any time in our entire history.  Think about it: we’re spending more than we ever spent during the Cold War, Korean War and Vietnam War.

    More Americans are concerned about our national debt which has sparked greater scrutiny of the entire federal budget. We cannot afford to avoid certain parts of the budget. Unfortunately, several GOP presidential candidates have noted that they will not even touch the bloated defense budget. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently stated that “I’m not going to cut the defense spending.” Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty joined him by saying “I'm not one who's going to stand before you and say we need to cut the defense budget.” True fiscal stewards will put wasteful military spending on the cutting board.

    The subject of military spending is finally getting more attention like it deserves. We must ask ourselves the question: “how much is too much spending?” A public debate on military spending is needed without any ad hominem attacks. The Washington Post reports that there is an “odd combination of fiscal conservatives and liberals who would like nothing better than to hack away at the Pentagon. McKeon seems determined to make sure that doesn’t happen.” It is impossible to reduce the size and scope of the federal government without tackling the bloated defense budget. We should not have any sacred cows in dealing with our $14.3 trillion national debt.  

    1 comments
    Donna Dobbs
    04/30/2012

    are you kidding me? where is your proof that the pentagon doesnt need the F-35 Joint Striker Program? Cite your sources. Honestly looking at the website for the program (http://www.jsf.mil/) it states that this program will allower safer frontlines and it will be more affordable for the military after it is developed. it will make warfare very different but much safer. How do you know how much it will save tax payers? did you consider that possibly paying for the research now will end up in saving tax payers money after the F-35 is created and launched in the defence budget. maybe after the release of the F-35 congress will reduce the budget. think logically here. you state that there are multiple areas of which the defence budget is wasting their money and you only stated one that proves to be a better investment than cutting the budget and allowing our national security to be at risk. to have a good national defence you need money plain and simple. Of course we are spending more than we did in the Korean and Cold wars together but considering the times now the cost of war has risen, production prices have risen, hell everything has risen in price since 1945-1991. our resources have become more expensive due to exportation and importation of products, people have to pay for something somehow it is not free. calm down and double check your facts, statistics, and quotes before you state them and cite them. honestly im going into the airforce in august and to be honest we do need the money we have to help us fund our research and our missions that are carried out to protect the nation and if that budget is cut then what the hell will we have left to protect ourselvs??? shitty weapons? crapy technology? all because our government is too cheep to protect themselves and are greedy to put green in their pocket. (if the spending is cut that would be the situation) The us is part of the United Nations and assist in acting as "world police" so to speek and with out the funding that we have now we will not be acting as the "world police" for the United Nations. Consider all the facts before you state and consider all the points before you throw down one side and attempt to demolish the other.