Fund Us Instead!

There's really nothing less convincing than the argument that some rich dudes should give money to people who share your interests, but Brad Plumer's post over here opens the door. He notes that Ike Skelton, slated to take over the House Armed Services Committee, "will be just as addicted to feeding the already-overfed defense budget and spending billions on utterly worthless projects like the B-2 bomber as his predecessor was." As Ken Silverstein writes "Skelton's entire political career has been funded by the same assortment of defense contractors that footed the bill for outgoing chairman Duncan Hunter." Much the same could be said of John Murtha who'll be running the defense subcommittee of House Appropriations.

The problem, however, scatters much more broadly than committee chairs. If you want to know why US foreign policy is the way it is, a big part of the reason is that the overwhelming majority of the financial support for people doing policy-and-politics relevant stuff is defense contractors. Then there's some money to be raised from people with right-wing views about Israel. Beyond that . . . almost nothing.

Obviously, it's hard out there for everyone in the progressive coalition, and large business enterprises and the people who own and manage them are always going to have the preponderance of funds. Nevertheless, the extent of civil society pushback on defense issues is tiny compared to what you see on, say, education, the environment, gay rights, reproductive freedom, etc. and there's nothing comparable to the labor unions who provide some kind of permanent infrastructure for populist economics. Thanks to the war, you have seen some uptick in rich-dude and foundation interest in national security issues but it's all very embryonic at this point. In their new book, Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security Michael O'Hanlon and Kurt Campbell write "there is no case for cuts to the defense budget" indeed "added capabilities are needed . . . which will probably require slight increases in the inflation-adjusted defense budget." There's something a bit off with a world in which this represents the left-most bounds of respectable opinion.

Comments

The defense budget is relatively low by historical standards. Even with supplementals added in it stands at approximately 4% of GDP. During the Cold War it was often around 10% and sometimes higher. Also, it is not that large when one considers the scale of our commitments, much of which requires reassuring other states. Think of the U.S. involvement in Japan and East Asia for instance. Finally, if the defense contractors are so strong, why was there a real decline after the end of the Cold War? You could point out in response that after initial cuts it has been rising but I would come back and say that is more plausibly the result of real world security shocks (Balkans, 9/11, Iraq) than nefarious corporate defense industry chiefs.

Posted by pt | November 27, 2006 2:09 PM

Every time your analysis suggests that the fundamental cause of some negative outcome is the dominant influence of mobilisation by powerful single-issue organised groups within both main political parties you are pointing to an essentially unsolvable problem.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 2:26 PM

Obviously, we're not far left, but my former colleague Chuck Pena advocated basically cutting the defense budget in half in March 2005, when it was particularly unpopular to do so:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3711

But you're definitely right that the Campbell/O'Hanlon position on this issue is destructive and wrong. Still, you have to talk like this if you want a political appointment. Draw your own conclusions...

Posted by Justin | November 27, 2006 2:36 PM

One of the problems of having a well-funded military is that it provides a temptation to use it. As a result, we are always one reckless president away from getting involved in an unecessary war.

The defense budget may be low relative to historical standards in terms of fraction of GDP, but it is incredibly high relative to our actual security needs. That is what should drive the funding.

A related problem is that there are a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals (the neocons and such) who are financed to dream up and promulgate foreign policy strategies that require us to have an overwhelming military superiority. And still, their strategies don't work.

Posted by Jim W | November 27, 2006 2:38 PM

As pt points out above, the defense budget has been falling (as a % of GDP) for quite a while now. So even if you have temporary increases (Reagan, Bush post-9/11), the trend is downwards. So why do you need an organized lobby to advocate for cuts? All you need is time, and the absence of events like 9/11 that cause those temporary increases (which is why the preventative use of military force may actually effectively decrease the defense budget, at least to the extent it prevents the events that would cause such increases in the budget).

Posted by Al | November 27, 2006 3:05 PM

What about all the multinational coporation who now find it harder to do business in arab countries? Seems worth a try to shake them down for some donation bling.

Posted by dan | November 27, 2006 3:10 PM

Our increase in lapping the rest of world's defense spending is slower than it might be! Nukes on the horizon! AIDS in our corn flakes!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 27, 2006 3:20 PM

Putting things in historical terms is a way of hiding other issues. Why is $500 billion per year better spent on military programs when they could have been spent to pay off the debt or fund education/welfare programs? Why should we treat 9% of GDP as an acceptable maximum? I'm sure in the early 20th century the government spent a ridiculous percent of the budget caring horses. Does that mean that as long as our spending on horses never exceed the percentage we spent 100 years ago, that is considered "restrained"?

If we are believe the claims by war resisters ( http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm ), then federal expenditures on defense (if you include pensions and health care) comprise a good 49% of our federal budget. Hey, that's raising our taxes! Hey, that's raising our debt!

Canada spends substantially less than the US and has friendly relations with most of the world. US spends significantly more and has a fair share of enemies. At some point you have to say, what has this extra spending of defense actually accomplished?

We should not be making historical comparisons. We should be asking: how much value did Americans derive from the money we spent on defense? I have no problem with defense spending per se. But defense spending combined with a reckless foreign policy make a lethal (and costly) combination.

Posted by Robert Nagle | November 27, 2006 3:41 PM

The defense budget is relatively low by historical standards. Even with supplementals added in it stands at approximately 4% of GDP. During the Cold War it was often around 10% and sometimes higher.

Right, but the Cold War was a sustained global competition with a near peer-competitor. US defense expenditures as a share of world defense expenditures have reached an absolutely absurd level. We account for about half of the world's defense spending, and the bulk of the remaining half are close allies of ours...there's simply nothing out there that justifies these levels of expenditure.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 27, 2006 3:48 PM

Finally, talking about the political problem.

I remember Democratic presidential candidates, when asked about whether we needed to remain a global superpower, just said "Yesirree!" when demographic and economic trends were obviously working against us.

Yes, maybe for 10-15 years, we can say that, but by 2020, China's GDP is expected to dwarf ours. (I suppose a bigger GDP gives them the right to spend more on defense, right?). And after that, India will follow, leaving US in the lurch. Basing defense spending on the premise that we need to remain a superpower is just begging for unrestrained spending. At some point, diverting money away from education and infrastructure and social programs reduces our competitiveness and thus our GDP.

for once, I would like a political leader to reject the notion that we NEED to be a superpower (in terms of military spending) in order to survive.

Posted by Robert Nagle | November 27, 2006 3:52 PM

I’m baffled by this post. Defense spending was $300 billion in 1990, $295 billion in 2000 and $494 billion in 2005 (see Table 7 in http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf). Given the decline in defense spending – even when not adjusted for inflation – from 1990 to 2000, how can it be true that interest groups prevent defense spending from declining? And given the fact that we’re spending ungodly billions per year in Iraq, how can it be true that defense spending cannot be cut significantly, if or when we leave Iraq?

Posted by ostap | November 27, 2006 3:55 PM

People who make this point about defense spending being a lower percentage of GDP than in the past are tacitly admitting that the defense budget is not about defense but about the defense industry. If the GDP doubles, does it suddenly become twice as expensive to defend the country? Of course not.

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 27, 2006 3:58 PM

Matt, you said there's nothing out there that justifies these levels of expenditure. You need to divide military tasks into three: provision of public goods like open access to sea lanes, nuclear umbrella for Japan, NATO guarantees for Eastern Europe, etc.; response to specific threats such as terrorism, Chinese designs on Taiwan, North Korea, etc.; and military infrastructure (such as space assets, forward basing, and so on). Now maybe some programs are not relevant to any of these tasks. The crusader certainly springs to mind. But, it is downright silly to say that there is no justification-- realizing these three tasks is a very expensive proposition. In some ways it is much more challenging than a low tech struggle against the Soviets as was the case in the early cold war period.

Posted by pt | November 27, 2006 4:06 PM

The real question is why does the news media keep 99% of the US voters in a state of ignorance re the real numbers on defense spending. Why doesn't Tim Russert put the following numbers up on his screen and ask politicans to justify them?

United States $466.0 billion FY04 actual [see Note 8]
China $65 billion 2004 [see Note 1]
Russia $50 billion [see Note 6]
France $46.5 billion 2000
Japan $44.7 billion FY05
Germany $38.8 billion 2002
United Kingdom $31.7 billion 2002
Korea, South $20.82 billion FY05
Italy $20.2 billion 2002
Saudi Arabia $18.3 billion FY00
India $17.38 billion FY05
Brazil $13.408 billion FY99
Iran $9.7 billion FY00
Australia $9.3 billion FY01/02 est.
Israel $8.97 billion FY02
Spain $8.6 billion 2002
Ref: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

The "Department of Defense" doesn't exist to defend the USA -- 19 goatherds showed that on Sept 11. After all, why did we need to create a Department of Homeland Security?

The DOD exists to protect and defend the foreign investments of US plutocrats. At the expense of common US citizens --whose standard of living is being driven into a hole by those foreign investments.

Posted by Don Williams | November 27, 2006 4:25 PM

Our spending is closer to $600 billion than $500 billion annually when you include the supplementals.

pt, when you just list those tasks they sound impressive and therefore expensive. But when you actually think about them, they are either not that expensive or are things that should not be national priorities. We spend well over half of world naval spending, is that necessary to help provide open access to sea lanes, something that is in the interest of every importing and exporting power? Are we really going to fight conventional wars with China over Taiwan, or with North Korea? Both of those would be terrible ideas, massively destructive, and not something that is in our vital interests anyway. Why exactly do we need "space assets" again? With enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, why do we need to spend extra money each year to provide a new nuclear umbrella to Japan? What's wrong with the one we've got? Your list is really the usual huffing and puffing by foreign policy "intellectuals" eager to preserve a role for their theorizing, which actually melts away on closer inspection.

Our level of defense spending actually *increases* global instability, because we not only inducing other countries to spend more, but our defense industry is eager to supply foreign clients with weaponry. We keep the newest generation of weapons, and the previous (perfectly adequate) technology gets sold overseas, where it can be used to start wars.

Posted by MQ | November 27, 2006 4:29 PM

Keeping open the sea lanes?

Aye, Matey. For "Talk Like a Pirate Day".

We need nuclear submarines to keep the Shores of Tripoli Pirate-Free!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 27, 2006 4:35 PM

Call it what it is- a war budget. And the goal is not to keep the peace, but, as pt has so eloquently described above, to rule the world.

Look around you. Do you see anyone qualified to rule the world? If George Bush consulted more frequently with super-policy-wonk Kissinger, would that make the two of them qualified to rule the world?

It's a dangerous lunacy that increasingly means the rest of the world has to plan without us, and regards the US as a potential enemy to peace and the survival of humanity.

During WW I the American people rejected every fine element of Germanic culture that had been brought to our shores in the preceding 100 years by German immigrants. Among other things, that rejection condemned two generations of Americans to hot dogs seasoned with ketchup and washed down with watery "beer". I just mention this as an example of how deep and lasting the feelings of the Muslims will be about America if we persist in killing Iraqis. It's not like the old days when a few diplomats didn't really care about the people they used as bargaining chips. We're in a democratic world now, and you can see how that will work by looking at how our democracy has worked.

In Colombia our "anti-drug" policies and desire to encircle Chavez have resulted in our working hand-in-hand with the drug lords and their paramilitary armies. This is not making us safer. The paramilitaries kill the union leaders, keeping Colombian wages down, and attracting our industries to go offshore. This is not making us richer.

OBL became a world-wide 'brand' by using 19 lunatics to attack our weak point. As long as we walk around with lead overshoes to "protect our feet", this kind of thing is bound to happen.

Posted by serial catowner | November 27, 2006 5:22 PM

Look, you can all deride the missions I outlined above. You can call it empire, hegemony, or whatever you like. But, it is what it is. There is a near consensus amongst foreign policy types in both parties that America's global interests are legitimate and should be sustained. I agree with that. Most of you all obviously don't. This, by the way, is why many on the left also find themselves strangely drawn to some of the academic realist types (as distinct from the Kissingers and Bakers of this world) because they call for retrenchment. There's nothing wrong with bucking the consensus but if I may be so bold to offer unsolicited advice, the way forward for the viewpoint displayed here is not to reject America's global interests with a quip as if they are self evidently indefensible or ridiculous but instead to seriously tease out the consequences of scaling back US interests. For instance, if the US navy did not keep sea lanes open, what would happen. The comments here suggest not much. If that's true then almost all of the naval expertise inside and outside of government is wrong. What do you know that they don't. Ditto on space, Japan, NATO, and so on. As for my position, maybe it's running the world but what's the alternative? How would that play out? Let me offer an answer-- US retrenchment would revivie spheres of influence, security competition with regions (including Eastern Europe and East Asia), and a greater likelihood of greater war. The reason is simple and two fold-- states that currently have US protection will seek to protect themselves while states with ambitions that are currently deterred by the US (think Russia, China, Iran) will no longer be deterred and may make a play for what they covet. I don't want to live in such a world. I prefer a world where dirty little wars are as bad as it gets-- the price we pay, the tradeoffs we choose, ones we try to manage and reduce but ones which lurk always in the background nevertheless. Better this price than the alternative, in my view.

Posted by pt | November 27, 2006 5:41 PM

Aye, Matey. For "Talk Like a Pirate Day".

Wikipedia: Seaborne piracy against transport vessels remains a significant issue (with estimated worldwide losses of US$13 to $16 billion per year[1]), particularly in the waters between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, off the Somali coast, and in the Strait of Malacca and Singapore.

Nonetheless, to the extent that other countries are free riding on our Navy, we ought to pull back and make other countries (or private shipping companies) pay to keep the sea lanes open.

Posted by Al | November 27, 2006 6:25 PM

"But, it is what it is. There is a near consensus amongst foreign policy types in both parties that America's global interests are legitimate and should be sustained. I agree with that. Most of you all obviously don't."

Ah, the appeal to pure authority...do you think this 'near consensus' you speak of has anything to do with the fact that America's global interests are a full employment program for 'foreign policy types'?

"This, by the way, is why many on the left also find themselves strangely drawn to some of the academic realist types (as distinct from the Kissingers and Bakers of this world) because they call for retrenchment."

I think I'm a realist type who is strangely drawn to the left, rather than the reverse.

"the way forward for the viewpoint displayed here is not to reject America's global interests with a quip as if they are self evidently indefensible or ridiculous but instead to seriously tease out the consequences of scaling back US interests."

Yes, I agree. And you did try to do that. But I have to say, your projection of what would happen without our benevolent hegemony seemed rather arbitrary, more or less made up out of whole cloth actually. There is a lot of this among foreign policy "experts". Nobody is suggesting that the U.S. disappear from the world scene, just that we don't have to spend as much as the rest of the world put together to play a responsible role in the world security system. Especially since we have already amassed, you know, the most terrifyingly destructive arsenal in world history. Call me a crazy peacenik, but I really don't think that Russia, China, Iran, etc. would go hog wild and try to conquer the world if we had a somewhat less advanced jet fighter or a few less bombers. As both we and Russia have learned to our sorrow, conquering foreign countries is really not that much of a paying or practical proposition any more.

Posted by MQ | November 27, 2006 8:14 PM

Modern pirates work the same waters as did the pirates of song and story. When did the American navy ever ply the waters where the the sun comes up like thunder? During the Vietnam War, a bit. WW2 a bit. Our shrinking navy works the oil lanes but it isn't as if they ever worked the East Indies much before.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 27, 2006 9:14 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

Posted by miguel | November 28, 2006 2:12 AM

RE:

The defense budget is relatively low by historical standards

This is not true, not compared to the peacetime standards pre-1948, i.e. for about 3 /4's of the lifetime of our republic.

Posted by Marshall | November 28, 2006 8:26 AM

Great post, Matt. I enjoy it when you write about issues for which there is a largely agreed-upon status quo and then show that the status quo is largely wrong. Arguing around the margins of whatever the policy of the day is is all well and good, but arguing about changing long-standing policy is much more impactful. It's all policy, but here you are arguing policy on a fundamental level.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | November 28, 2006 2:17 PM

Regardless of what defense contractors want or don't want, the fact is that the defense budget is going to drop, as we simply cannot afford to continue spending at the rate we have been. And now that we have a more sane group running Congress, I think that realization is going to be acted upon.

Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's not like we need to continue to spend as much as the entire rest of the world put together to keep the sea lanes open. We don't have to choose between continuing to spend at ruinous levels and completely abandoning our global responsibilities - that's a classic false dilemma.

Posted by Sean_P | November 28, 2006 11:23 PM