[ New report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
outlined three different ways to cut $1 trillion in Department of
Defense spending over the next decade. The options in the budget
watchdog’s new report are anything but radical.]
[[link removed]]

REPORT OUTLINING HOW TO CUT $1 TRILLION FROM DEFENSE BUDGET IS JUST A
START  
[[link removed]]


 

Mandy Smithberger & William D. Hartung
November 9, 2021
TomDispatch [[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ New report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has outlined
three different ways to cut $1 trillion in Department of Defense
spending over the next decade. The options in the budget watchdog’s
new report are anything but radical. _

An Air Force F-35A Lightning II prepares to receive fuel from a
KC-135 Stratotanker during a training sortie over the United Kingdom,
on April 28, 2017., photo: Senior Airman Justine Rho / U.S. Air Force
// Truthout

 

Even as Congress moves to increase the Pentagon budget well beyond the
astronomical levels proposed by the Biden administration, a
new report [[link removed]] from the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has outlined three different ways to
cut $1 trillion in Department of Defense spending over the next
decade.  A rational defense policy could yield far more in the way of
reductions, but resistance from the Pentagon, weapons contractors, and
their many allies in Congress would be fierce.

After all, in its consideration of the bill that authorizes such
budget levels for next year, the Democratic-controlled House of
Representatives recently voted to add $25 billion
[[link removed]] to
the already staggering $750 billion
[[link removed]] the
Biden administration requested for the Pentagon and related work on
nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy. By any measure, that’s
an astonishing figure, given that the request itself was already far
higher
[[link removed]] than
spending at the peaks of the Korean and Vietnam Wars or President
Ronald Reagan’s military buildup of the 1980s. 

In any reasonable world, such a military budget should be considered
both unaffordable and deeply unsuitable when it comes to addressing
the true threats to this country’s “defense,” including
cyberattacks, pandemics, and the devastation
[[link removed]] already
being wrought by climate change. Worst of all, providing a blank check
to the military-industrial-congressional complex ensures the continued
production of troubled weapon systems like Lockheed Martin’s
exorbitantly expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
[[link removed]],
which is typically behind schedule, far above projected costs, and
still not considered effective in combat.

Changing course would mean real reform and genuine accountability,
starting with serious cuts to a budget for which “bloated” is far
too kind an adjective.

THREE OPTIONS FOR REDUCTIONS

At the request of Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
the CBO devised three different approaches to cutting approximately $1
trillion (a decrease of a mere 14%) from the Pentagon budget over the
next decade.  Historically, it could hardly be a more modest
proposal. After all, without any such plan, the Pentagon budget
actually did decrease by 30%
[[link removed]] between 1988 and 1997.

Such a CBO-style reduction would still leave the department with
about $6.3 trillion [[link removed]] to spend
over that 10-year period, 80% more than the cost of President
Biden’s original $3.5 trillion
[[link removed]] Build
Back Better proposal for domestic investments. Of course, that figure,
unlike the Pentagon budget, has already been dramatically whittled
down
[[link removed]] to
half its original size, thanks to laughable claims by “moderate”
Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) that it would break the bank
in Washington.  Yet such critics of expanded social and economic
programs rarely offer similar thoughts when it comes to the
Pentagon’s far larger bite of the budgetary pie.

The options in the budget watchdog’s new report are anything but
radical: 

Option one would preserve the “current post-Cold War strategy of
deterring aggression through [the] threat of immediate U.S. military
response with the objectives of denying an adversary’s gains and
recapturing lost territory.” The proposed cuts would hit each
military service equally, with some new weapons programs slowed down
and a few, as in the case of the B-21 bomber, cancelled. 

Option two “adopts a Cold War-like strategy for large nuclear powers
of making aggression very costly and recognizing that the size of
conventional conflict would be limited by the threat of a nuclear
response.” That leaves nearly $2 trillion
[[link removed]] for the
Pentagon’s planned “modernization”
[[link removed]] of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal untouched, while relying more heavily on working
with allies in conventional war situations than current strategy
allows for.  It would mean that the military might take longer to
deploy in large numbers to a conflict.

Option three “de-emphasizes use of U.S. military force in regional
conflicts in favor of preserving U.S. control of the global commons
(sea, air, space, and the Arctic), ensuring open access to the commons
for allies and unimpeded global commerce.” In other words, Afghan-
or Iraq-style boots-on-the-ground U.S. interventions would largely be
avoided in favor of the use of long-range and “over-the-horizon
[[link removed]]”
weapons like drones, naval blockades, the enforcement of no-fly zones,
and the further arming and training of allies.

But looking more broadly at the question of what will make the world a
safer place in an era of pandemics, climate change, racial injustice,
and economic inequality
[[link removed]],
reductions well beyond the $1 trillion figure embedded in the CBO’s
recommendations would be both necessary and possible in a more
reasonable American world.  The CBO’s scenarios remain focused on
military methods for solving security problems, assuring an
all-too-narrow view of what might be saved by a new approach to
security.

NUCLEAR EXCESS

The CBO, for instance, chose not to look at possible savings from
simply scaling back (not even ending) the Pentagon’s $2-trillion
[[link removed]],
three-decades-long plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed
missiles, bombers, and submarines, complete with accompanying new
warheads. Scaling back such a buildup, which will only further imperil
this planet, could easily save in excess of $100 billion
[[link removed]] over
the next decade.

One significant step toward nuclear sanity would be to adopt
the alternative nuclear posture
[[link removed]] proposed
by the organization Global Zero. That would involve the elimination of
all land-based nuclear missiles and rely instead on a smaller force of
ballistic missile submarines and bombers as part of a
“deterrence-only” strategy.

Land-based, intercontinental ballistic missiles were
accurately described
[[link removed]] by
former Secretary of Defense William Perry as “some of the most
dangerous weapons in the world.” The reason: a president would have
only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them upon being
warned of an oncoming nuclear attack by an enemy power. That would, of
course, greatly increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war and the
potential destruction of the planet prompted by a false alarm (of
which there have been several
[[link removed]] in
the past).  Eliminating such missiles would make the world a far
safer place, while saving tens of billions of dollars
[[link removed]] in
the process.

CAPPING CONTRACTORS

While most people think about the Pentagon budget in terms of what it
spends on new guns, ships, planes, and missiles, services are about
half of what it buys every year. These are the contracts that go to
various corporate “Beltway bandits” to consult with the military
or perform jobs that could often be done more cheaply by federal
employees. Both the Defense Business Board
[[link removed]] and
the Pentagon’s own cost estimating office
[[link removed]] have
identified service contracting as an area where there are significant
opportunities for large-scale savings.

[[link removed]]

BUY THE BOOK
[[link removed]]

Last year, the Pentagon spent nearly $204 billion on various service
contracts. That’s more than the budgets for the Departments
of Health and Human Services
[[link removed]], State
[[link removed]],
or Homeland Security
[[link removed]].
Reducing spending on contractors by even 15% would instantly save tens
of billions of dollars annually.

In the past, Congress and the Pentagon have shown that just such
savings could easily be realized. For example, a provision
[[link removed]] in
a 2011 defense law simply capped such spending at 2010 levels.
Government spending data shows that, in the end, it was reduced
by $42 billion
[[link removed]] over
four years.

CLOSING UNNEEDED BASES

While the Biden administration seeks to expand domestic infrastructure
spending, the Pentagon has been desperate to shed costly and
unnecessary military facilities. Both the Obama and Trump
administrations
[[link removed]] asked
Congress to authorize another round of what’s called base
realignment and closure to help the Defense Department get rid of its
excess capacity. The Pentagon estimates that it could save $2 billion
[[link removed]] annually
that way.

The CBO report cited above explicitly excludes any consideration of
such cost savings as politically unfeasible, given the present
Congress. But considering the ways in which climate change is going to
threaten current military basing arrangements domestically and
globally, that would be an obvious way to go.

Another CBO report [[link removed]] warns
that the future effects of climate change — from rising sea levels
(and flooding coastlines) to ever more powerful storms — will both
reduce the government’s revenue and increase its mandatory spending,
if its base situation remains as it is now. After all, ever fiercer
tropical storms and hurricanes, as well as rising levels of flooding,
are already resulting in billions of dollars
[[link removed]] in
damage to military bases. Meanwhile, it’s estimated that, in the
decades to come, more than 1,700 U.S. military installations
[[link removed]] worldwide
may be impacted by sea-level rise. Future rounds of base closings,
both domestic and global, should be planned now with the impact of
climate change in mind.

TURNING AROUND CONGRESS, FIGHTING OFF LOBBYISTS

So far, boosting Pentagon spending has been one of the only things a
bipartisan majority of this Congress can agree on, as indicated by
that House decision to add $25 billion to the Pentagon budget request
for Fiscal Year 2022.  A similar measure is included in the Senate
version, which it will debate soon. There are, however, glimmers of
hope on the horizon as the number of members of Congress willing to
oppose the longstanding practice of shoveling ever more funds at the
Pentagon, no questions asked, is indeed growing.

For example, a majority
[[link removed]] of Democrats and members
of the leadership in the House of Representatives supported an
ultimately unsuccessful provision to strip some excess funds from the
Pentagon this year. A smaller group
[[link removed]] voted to cut the
department’s budget across the board by 10%. Still, it was a number
that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. That core group
is only likely to grow in the years to come as the costs of
non-military challenges like pandemics, climate change, and the
financial impact of racial and economic injustice supplant traditional
military risks as the most urgent threats to American lives and
livelihoods. 

Opposition to increased Pentagon spending is growing outside of
Washington as well. An ever wider range
[[link removed]] of not just progressive
but conservative organizations now support substantial reductions in
the Pentagon budget. The challenge, however, is to translate such
sentiments into a concerted, multifaceted campaign of public pressure
that will move a majority of the members of Congress to stop giving
the Pentagon a yearly blank check. A new poll
[[link removed]] from
the Eurasia Group Foundation found that twice as many Americans now
support cutting the Pentagon budget as support increasing it.

Any attempt to curb Pentagon spending will run up against a strikingly
powerful arms industry that deploys campaign contributions, lobbyists,
and promises of defense-related employment to keep budgets high. In
this century alone, the Pentagon has spent more than $14 trillion
[[link removed]], up to
one half of which has gone to contractors. During those same years,
the arms industry has spent
[[link removed]] $285
million on campaign contributions and $2.5 billion on lobbying, most
of it focused on members of the armed services and defense
appropriations committees that take the lead in deciding how much the
country spends for military purposes. 

The arms industry’s lobbying efforts are especially insidious. In an
average year, it employs around 700 lobbyists
[[link removed]],
more than one for every member of Congress. The top five corporate
weapons makers got a return of $1,909
[[link removed]] in
taxpayer funds for every dollar they spent on lobbying.  Most of
their lobbyists once worked in the Pentagon or Congress and arrived in
the world of arms contractors via the infamous “revolving door.” 
Of course, they then used their relationships with their former
colleagues in government to curry favor for their corporate
employers.  A 2018 investigation
[[link removed]] by the
Project On Government Oversight found that, in the prior decade, 380
high-ranking Pentagon officials and military officers had become
lobbyists, board members, executives, or consultants for weapons
contractors within two years of leaving their government jobs.

A September 2021 study by the Government Accountability Office found
[[link removed]] that, as of 2019, the
top 14 arms contractors employed more than 1,700 former military or
Pentagon civilian employees, including many who had previously been
involved in making or enforcing the rules for buying major weapons
systems.

The revolving door spins both ways, with executives and board members
of the major weapons makers moving into powerful senior positions in
government where they’re well situated to help their former (and,
more than likely, future) employers. The process starts at the
top.  Four of the past five
[[link removed]] secretaries
of defense have also been executives, lobbyists, or board members of
Raytheon, Boeing, or General Dynamics, three of the top five weapons
makers that split tens of billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts
annually. Both the House
[[link removed]] and Senate
[[link removed]] versions
of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act extend the periods of
time in which those entering the government from such industries have
to recuse themselves from decisions involving their former companies.
Still, as long as the Pentagon continues to pluck officials from the
very outfits driving those exploding budgets, we should all know more
or less what to expect. 

So far, the system is working — if you happen to be an arms
contractor. The top five weapons companies alone split
[[link removed]] $166
billion in Pentagon contracts in Fiscal Year 2020, well over one-third
of those issued by the Department of Defense that year.  To give you
some sense of the scale of all this — and our government’s twisted
priorities — Lockheed Martin alone received
[[link removed]] $75
billion in Pentagon contracts in Fiscal Year 2020,  nearly one and
one-half times the $52.5 billion
[[link removed]] allocated
for the State Department and the Agency for International Development
combined.

WHICH WAY FORWARD?

The Congressional Budget Office’s new report charts a path toward a
more rational approach to Pentagon spending, but the $1 trillion in
savings it proposes should only be a starting point. Hundreds of
billions more could be saved over the next decade by reassessing our
national security strategy, cutting back the Pentagon’s nuclear
buildup, capping its use of private contractors, and scaling back the
colossal sums of waste, fraud, and abuse baked into its budget. All of
this could be done while making this country and the world a
significantly safer place by shifting such funds to addressing the
non-military risks that threaten the future of humanity.

Whether our leaders meet the challenges of today or continue to
succumb to the power of the arms lobby is an open question.

_[MANDY SMITHBERGER, a TomDispatch regular
[[link removed]], is
the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On
Government Oversight (POGO)._

_WILLIAM D. HARTUNG, a TomDispatch regular,
[[link removed]] is the director of the
Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy and
the author of “Profits of War: Corporate Beneficiaries of the
Post-9/11 Surge in Pentagon Spending
[[link removed]]”
(Brown University's the Costs of War Project and the Center for
International Policy, September 2021).]_

_Copyright 2021 William D. Hartung and Mandy
Smithberger. Cross-posted with permission. May not be reprinted
without permission from TomDispatch [[link removed]]._

_Follow TomDispatch on Twitter
[[link removed]] and join us on Facebook
[[link removed]]. Check out the newest Dispatch
Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, Songlands
[[link removed]] (the
final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s
novel Every Body Has a Story
[[link removed]], and
Tom Engelhardt’s A Nation Unmade by War
[[link removed]],
as well as Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century:
The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power
[[link removed]] and
John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since
World War II
[[link removed]]._

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]