In the contentious partisan climate of American politics in 2011, the unsustainability of the federal deficit may be the only major issue on which Republicans and Democrats agree. In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed freezing domestic spending for the next five years, which would bring federal discretionary spending to its lowest share of the economy since Eisenhower. U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, D-Wis., emphasized the ""crushing burden of debt"" facing the country today, while new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stated that ""everything is on the table."" It's clear that Washington politicians agree on the need to reduce the deficit, but if returning to Clinton-era tax rates for millionaires is off the table (as was made clear by the temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts), from where can Americans expect these spending cuts to come?
The elephant in the room, avoided at all costs by most politicians proposing cuts, is the federal defense budget. Including non-Department of Defense expenditures, defense spending is budgeted to exceed a trillion dollars in 2011.
Defense spending accounted for 23 percent of federal spending in 2009, 3 percent more than Social Security, 4 percent more than Medicare and Medicaid, and 11 percent more than other discretionary funding. We spend more than six times the amount second-place China spends annually and nearly twice as much as the next five countries combined (China, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and Germany).
Republicans frequently harp on the inefficiencies of the domestic public sector but never utter a word in reference to military spending. A 2008 BBC investigation estimated that $23 billion simply disappeared in Iraq. Halliburton received billions of dollars in Iraq contracts in non-competitive bids. Because 44 states contribute to the manufacturing of F-22 fighter jets, the defense budget consistently included new production of the $150 million aircraft despite the planes never seeing combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. This kind of spending continued until the Obama administration refused in 2009 to sign any defense budget that included the planes. All 187 F-22s were grounded in 2010 due to rust, with the program cost exceeding $65 billion.
No one disagrees that the security of U.S. citizens is paramount and it would be absurd to suggest that anyone would be unconcerned with domestic safety. So why can't we have a sincere bipartisan conversation about what is really necessary to preserve national security and address the excessive amount of American tax dollars being spent waging war and rebuilding foreign nations? With unemployment still hovering just under 10 percent, how can we afford to continue to spend hundreds of billions on overseas military adventures?
Cutting domestic spending in the wake of the recession could have dangerous implications. There is no disagreement that fiscal austerity is the reality of the 2011 political climate, but there needs to be a serious discussion how to narrow the deficit gap. Legislation being crafted by Republicans to defund NPR is simply political showmanship. NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government and less than 2 percent of their revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants from the government. Cutting 2 percent of a $164 million budget to solve a $3.8 trillion deficit signals that politicians are more interested in scoring political points than meaningfully lowering the deficit.
Republicans suggest cuts to scientific research, housing, education, legal services and the arts. Many of these cuts are akin to eating one's seed corn; they will stymie continued economic recovery and cripple our long-term competitiveness. Cutting $1.27 billion from Applied Research at the Department of Energy hinders our growth in emerging energy markets, and slashing school funding can cripple the American workforce for the next generation. On the other hand, continued extension of unemployment benefits keeps victims of the recession afloat while bolstering the economy.
Aside from enabling the jobless to continue searching for work, the money is directly injected into the economy, creating a multiplier effect that is a surer stimulus than Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or President's Bush's tax rebates.
It's unclear whether a continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone our permanent military bases in Germany (roughly 50,000 troops), Japan (35,000), Korea (30,000), Italy (10,000), or the UK (9,000) do anything to promote American safety at home. Policymakers need to think critically about whether we can afford to play the role of an international police force as the United States is rapidly losing ground in education, clean energy technology and the emerging markets of the next century.
Ray Kluender is a junior majoring in economics and political science. We welcome all feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
