Make money, spend money, dolla dolla bill y’all

Richard Smith – guest blogging at Spencer Ackerman’s place – is a little annoyed with the standard liberal line on defense spending:

Back in October Barney Frank made an argument for cutting the DoD budget by 25 percent. I thought, and still think, this is a pretty ridiculous idea.

Absolutely, the Defense budget is bloated and needs reformed. Without a doubt, there are weapons systems and defense programs that we invest in that are outdated and obsolete, and those funds could be better spent on domestic social programs. But why through out a number like 25 percent? Where did Frank get that number? Did he go line-by-line through the Defense budget to arrive at that figure? If the DoD budget could be cut 15 percent, would Barney Frank still be disappointed.

In truth, Barney Frank is one of my favorite members of Congress (and yes, I am nerdy enough to have favorite members of Congress) but this idea is totally off base. Likewise for the current attitude that same to be prevalent in the progressive community with regards to military spending.

Here is a hypothetical: what if we cut a $20 billion dollar program from the defense budget, but spent $30 billion to establish a counterinsurgency school? This would be an increase in defense spending, but it would replace obsolete programs with a program that would be beneficial to combat leaders. Would the progressive community challenge such an idea? While I won’t venture a guess on that, I would sincerely hope that we can move past the idea that the military industrial complex must be suffocated and instead, start thinking abut making smart cuts and not throwing out arbitrary numbers.

Speaking as someone who has repeatedly made the case for a smaller defense budget, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for progressives to ask for arbitrary, across the board cuts.  As far as I understand it, the chief problem with Pentagon spending is that it’s essentially limitless; the Pentagon can request virtually any sum of money and it will be delivered with little debate or opposition.  And why would there be?  Politically, increasing defense spending is win-win.  By contrast, reducing defense spending – or even reallocating it within the defense budget – is a recipe for political disaster (see: the reaction to Obama’s budget proposal).  An across-the-board cut is certainly arbitrary, but it would probably force the Pentagon to reevaluate is proliferate spending, and make necessary cuts to wasteful programs.

In any case, this is a near-useless hypothetical; I can’t even imagine a scenario where cutting military spending – much less arbitrarily – would be a politically advantageous – or even neutral – move.  In the current environment, where high military spending is a matter of course, I would be more than satisfied with Smith’s suggestion of reallocating spending to more useful ventures, like a counter-insurgency school or needed equipment (like a littoral combat ship, which if I remember correctly, is actually on the budget for the next year).

Advertisement