""Spending cuts have to come first,"" Paul Ryan said in response to President Obama's State of the Union Address. Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending goes the GOP broken record. Republicans disagree, however, on how deep the incision will be and in which organ of the federal body.
Almost a year ago, President Obama's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, threw his $708 billion 2011 budget proposal on the operating table.
Republicans have had a mixed reaction. Well established Republicans, led by Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., oppose Gate's cuts to unnecessary programs like the $14 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (an amphibious tank for the Marines). On the other side, many Tea Party Republicans and Liberals want real cuts this year. Retired Army colonel, Freshman Republican Chris Gibson said, ""This deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.""
Over the past decade the Department of Defense Budget increased every year, ballooning from $316 billion in 2001, to $693 billion in 2010. The 2011 DOD Budget continues this climb though future cuts are planned in 2015 (assuming the 7-year-old war in Iraq and the 9-year-old war in Afghanistan end when expected).
Military spending does not stop with the DOD. It seems military support has spread into every organ of the federal body: The Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-terrorism operations, Cyber and Nuclear Security in the Department of Energy, Department of the Treasury's Military Retirement Fund, the Department of Veteran's Affairs and more. Economist Robert Higgs found an additional $228 billion in military related spending in these other departments in 2006. This increased the 2006 DOD figure by 46 percent to a grand total of $728 billion in military related spending. In 2011, I would expect similar proportions.
All these massive numbers have no meaning without a wider context. So how does U.S. spending compare around the globe? The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports that in 2009 the U.S. had $663 billion in ""military expenditures."" In a distant second China spent $99 billion. In fact, the U.S. spends more than the next 14 countries combined. What justifies this hyper-super-duper power standing in the world other than ad hoc United States' ""scholarship?"" When does the Department of Defense become the Department of Offense?
If the U.S. already has the largest military budget in the world, why are some Republicans like McKeon so adamant about increasing war spending? The New York Times give some simple yet important insight:
""Mr. McKeon, who represents a California district that is home to major defense contractors, was the single biggest recipient in the House of campaign contributions from military aerospace companies and their employees ... Ms. Hartzler's district has two large military bases, Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base, home to the B-2 stealth bomber and a new ground-control station for unmanned Predator Drones.""
It is a vicious cycle: military industry corporations fund candidates (through campaign contributions), who in turn fund these corporations (through legislation). This is not a new idea.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five star general, warned U.S. citizens in 1961, ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.""
The cycle of self-interest has not and will not break from within. Politicians like McKeon are working to stay in office; corporate executives like Bob Stevens of Lockheed Martin are working to maximize profits; and employees at these corporations are just trying to make a living—even my dad worked for Lockheed Martin.
The cancer of the military-industrial complex has spread for years and will worsen without operation. If opposition in Congress stands strong they may improve surface level symptoms; however, only the voice of the U.S. people, with heightened political awareness, can butcher this malignant tumor.
