• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • On Indefensible Defense Cuts

    Only politicians determined to spend $1 billion a day to “stimulate” the economy could balk at committing tens of millions less than that to bolster our national defense.

    So it was good news this evening when the Senate Armed Services Committee added funds to buy seven more F-22 fighters and a backup engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, as Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Bloomberg.

    Investing  previously-committed billions next year to protect America had appeared to be too much to ask  either the Obama administration or  liberals in Congress. They’re just not that into a strong defense as much as putting taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars so government can take over businesses, overreact to global warming, control our health care and — all together now — “create or save” jobs (green or otherwise).

    President Obama’s defense budget for fiscal 2010 falls short of “the basic building blocks” required to maintain, strengthen and modernize our core defense program, warns Heritage defense expert Baker Spring. As our downloadable chart shows, the White House’s own numbers anticipate reducing military spending almost to 2001 levels within five years, measured as a percentage of U.S. economic output. It would fall to pre-9/11 levels within 10 years.

    In a detailed critique, Spring writes:

    The U.S. needs to fund defense programs that protect Americans and friends and allies against ongoing threats from hostile states such as Iran and North Korea, as well as potential threats such as the one posed by a hostile China.”

    The Senate panel today added $1.75 billion for the extra F-22s (for a total of 194) and $440 million for the backup engine for the F-35 fighter, Bloomberg reported. The Pentagon had opposed both proposals, and the administration vowed to veto legislation including them.

    Since the Kennedy administration, annual defense spending has averaged 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).  The Obama plan advocated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates allocates $562.8 billion to core defense, about 3.8 percent of GDP. Funding then is slated to increase by $10 billion a year over four years — but Spring notes that means no real growth after inflation. “As a result, the core defense budget will fall to less than 3.3 percent of GDP in 2014.”

    Mackenzie Eaglen, another Heritage defense expert, runs down the  merits and  flaws of  action on the bill by the House  Armed Services Committee here, as that panel’s counterparts in the Senate continued their markup.  Failure to restore  $1.2 billion in missile defense cuts is a major flaw, Eaglen and researcher Eric Sayers write.

    House Republicans, led by Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), are readying a motion to restore the deleted missile defense  components and other ”critical equipment,” including 250 MRAP armored vehicles, 800 Humvees, 800 FMTV trucks, 35 Stryker vehicles, four Super Hercules transport planes and two Blackhawk helicopters. Source of funds: $5.5 billion in “stimulus” additions to the Department of Energy’s environmental cleanup fund.

    Gates’ determination to cancel weapons programs does not make him a reformer, Eaglen writes in an op-ed written with Lexington Institute senior fellow Rebecca Grant.

    The Pentagon, as Spring argues, should emphasize “developing and deploying the next generation of weapons and equipment that U.S. forces will need to fight effectively.” Doing what’s possible to protect America from missile attack, rather than cutting new phases of that program, must be part of the focus, he argues.

    It’s a good time for Americans to consider: Should the defense of our freedom be sacrificed to liberal lawmakers’ pet causes and to runaway automatic spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – not to mention a government-run health care program?

    Spring argues:

    Growth in entitlement spending, not defense spending, created the fiscal crisis facing the government. Spending 4 percent of GDP on defense will not jeopardize either the health of the economy or the prosperity of the American people.”

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to On Indefensible Defense Cuts

    1. Barbara Jeffcoat, Hu says:

      "Provide for the common defense" is the Constitutional mandate imposed on our government by its citizens through their Constitution. It is the Number One responsibility of that government, upheld by oath from our elected representatives and our president. To have that which must be PROVIDED held hostage to more lowly pursuits (ie, promote the general welfare) is indefensible. National defense is the only function assigned to or assumed by our government that is best, most effectively, and most efficiently undertaken by the federal government. It is always my #1 consideration when I decide whom I will support for President or other national, elected office.

    2. Luke Niederhauser, A says:

      I could not agree more with Barbara. If we do not have a National defence, there will be no general welfare.

    3. David, Worcester, MA says:

      The United States' portion of the worldwide defense budget is already 48 percent of the world's total. We should be cutting back on defense spending as we can no longer afford it. Our so-called friends and allies should be spending more to contribute to worldwide peace and prosperity.

      The quote from Spring, "The U.S. needs to fund defense programs that protect Americans and friends and allies against ongoing threats from hostile states such as Iran and North Korea, as well as potential threats such as the one posed by a hostile China.”, is a false assumption. No, we don't need to protect our friends and allies! We choose to.

      The United States can no longer be the protector of the world, especially when the world does not want us to, or they complain about it when we do. It is time for our "friends and allies" to contribute their fare share and increase their defense spending.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.