Pentagon advisory group says cuts are “essential”
The Pentagon’s “Defense Business Board” pushing President-Elect Obama to consider cutting some of the Pentagon’s more wasteful programs:
A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department’s current budget is “not sustainable,” and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military’s most prized weapons programs.
[...]
The briefings do not specify which programs should be cut, but defense analysts say that prime targets would probably include the new F-35 fight er jet, a series of Navy ship programs, and a massive Army project to build a new generation of ground combat vehicles, all of which have been skyrocketing in cost and suffering long development delays.
Such cuts would affect the New England economy. General Dynamics builds warships and submarines in Maine and Connecticut, while Raytheon, Massachusetts’ largest employer, is involved in numerous weapons programs from ships to missile defenses and satellites.
Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in.
Arguably, one of the largest obstacles to the progressive project (at least in the long term) is the sheer scale of military appropriations. The Pentagon’s proposed budget for 2009 (not including spending on Iraq and Afghanistan) is $515 billion. That is a substantial increase over 2008’s budget, and the Joint Chiefs are proposing an additional $450 billion on top of that over the next five years. As the Defense Business Board notes, a good deal of these spending increases are going towards wasteful — and in some cases, strategically unnecessary — development.
A simple ten percent cut in Pentagon funding would be more than enough (four times more, in fact) to both pay for a universal pre-K program (estimated $10 billion annually) and provide a needed 250 million mosquito nets worldwide (estimated $3 billion). The latter of which would probably have more impact with regards to national security than spending $30 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter program. But, as long as Pentagon spending is so ridiculously high, it will unfortunately crowd out spending for progressive domestic and foreign policies.




2007 Defense Department Budget was just under $500 billion, and that’s not counting the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’m all for cutting the defense budget, but are mosquito nets really more important to our national security than the JSF program?
Well, if the mosquito nets can prevent state collapse by reducing the strain on the health care system and allowing healthy people to be more productive, than I’d say yeah, they could. Collapsed states are a source of a variety of problems that cost far more to resolve than they do to cause.
And realistically, if we don’t do JSF we’re probably going to spend a lesser percentage of that money buying or providing a new block of upgrades the prior models of fighters. So we’re talking about a difference of capacity at the margins and not the loss of US air supremacy.
Obviously, those mosquito nets might not necessarily prevent state collapse, but while aid has not managed to consistently improve GDP, it does have a proven track record for disease prevention and the like. So I think a judicious balanced aid package could actually go a long way to help U.S. interests.