 |
| Eco-nomics |
|
1998 MILITARY SPENDING
The military capability of the United States remains unrivaled by any nation, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. The United States is the only country which supports forces intended to fight two major wars at virtually the same time, and to do so without the assistance of allies. The strategy review just completed by the Pentagon did not eliminate this unnecessary capability. Although committed to balancing the federal budget, Congress has added $18 Billion
to the Pentagon budget request over the last two years. At the same time, legislators
have approved massive cuts in federal domestic programs. Letter from the Director The Clinton Administration Fiscal Year 1998 budget request, which includes its multi- year spending plan for the military, shows a growing consensus in government on increasing Pentagon spending. Unlike previous years, when the Clinton Administration proposed budgets containing cuts in military spending -- to which Congress later added -- this year's request makes only minor cuts in the Pentagon budget, and actually exceeds Congress' proposed military spending in future years. The United States needs a realistic assessment of the existing and future threats to our national security, a strategy to deal with them, and a military force structure prepared to implement this strategy. Such a procedure could then be the benchmark for weapons procurement. America needs to stop wasting scarce taxpayer dollars on weapons designed to fight World War III against a rival superpower. The Pentagon has concluded its Quadrennial Defense Review, which we previewed in our March, 1997 "Defense Monitor." This review was supposed to prepare the U.S. military to better meet the security threats of the next century. While CDI considered this to be an unparalleled opportunity to achieve significant changes in the way our military operates, we were concerned from the very beginning that underlying assumptions guiding the review would result in "more of the same." Our concerns were justified; the QDR will have no impact on Pentagon strategy. CDI's work in educating the American public about the true threats to our national security, and our efforts to de-mystify the Pentagon's budget, have never been more critical. Hopefully, the pressure to balance the federal budget will force our country to reexamine how and why we fund our military forces as we do. -Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan, USN (Ret.) On February 6, 1997, the Clinton Administration released its budget request for Fiscal Year 1998, which included $265 Billion for the military. While this represents the thirteenth straight year of reductions in the military budget since the Reagan Administration's spending spree, the Administration's multi-year spending plan calls for military spending to level off this year, and then actually go up. The "Peace Dividend" envisioned by many at the end of the Cold War has failed to materialize. The President's budget calls for $1.6 trillion for the military between now and the year 2002. During that same period, the Clinton Administration and Congress have agreed that they will achieve a balanced budget. The deficit for 1997 is estimated to be $126 Billion. If Congress and the Administration do actually eliminate this annual deficit, while at the same time increasing spending for the military, drastic cuts in other federal programs become a virtual certainty. Meanwhile, Congress has already indicated its intention to add nearly $4 Billion
to the Administration's FY '98 request for the military. How Severe is the "Budget Crunch"? In fact, of the nearly $11 Billion added to the military budget by Congress last year, $4.6 Billion was for weapons purchases not included in the FYDP. Some Pentagon officials are concerned that continuing this practice will have a "bow-wave" effect; it will commit the U.S. to even greater weapons expenditures in the future, putting extreme pressure on other areas of the military budget and adversely affecting troop readiness, repairs and maintenance of existing equipment and facilities, and basic "quality of life" programs (troop pay, housing, etc.) For example, during a recent press briefing, Defense Secretary William Cohen confirmed that between 10,000 and 12,000 U.S. service personnel and their families are eligible for food stamps. The United States already has by far the strongest military force in the world. The U.S. built its massive military to confront the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union has dissolved and the Warsaw Pact is gone. The Russian military is a shambles. The U.S. and other countries are sending Billions of dollars in economic assistance to Russia. There is no other nation or group of nations nearly as powerful as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were, or as the U.S. is. QUESTION: What percentage of the $67 Billion worth of spare parts and supplies currently stockpiled by the pentagon is considered surplus? ANSWER: According to the General Accounting Office 61% of the inventory, worth $41 Billion dollars, is unneeded. WE ARE STILL SPENDING AT NEAR COLD WAR LEVELS COLD WAR SPENDING (in 1997 dollars): $13,400,000,000,000 COLD WAR AVER AGE: $303.7 Billion/year PROPOSED FY ' 98 DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
The Pentagon's "Bottom-Up Review" in 1993 produced a "new" military strategy to fight two Major Regional Conflicts (MRCs), at the same time, at short notice, and if necessary without allies. (Later, the requirement was changed from "two simultaneous MRCs" to "two nearly simultaneous MRCs") Given the rapid pace at which the post-Cold War world is evolving, last year Congress
mandated that the Pentagon conduct an updated review and created a congressionally
approved panel to oversee the process. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was completed
on May 15, 1997. The National Defense Panel is expected to release its own report
on U.S. military strategy beyond the year 2015 in December. As expected, the QDR
did not eliminate the "2 MRC" requirement. A Radical Redefinition of "National Security" What are we buying?
Critics of the various programs are concerned by the monumental cost of each aircraft, which, given the advanced technologies yet to be developed, are likely to grow. The cost of the F-22, for example, may still exceed the current $71 Billion cost estimate by as much as $15 Billion. The justification for these huge expenditures has been called into question, particularly given the superiority of the existing fleet of U.S. aircraft to those deployed by foreign countries. A study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that during the development of these new aircraft, aircraft in the current fleet would have to be kept in service well beyond the twenty years that the Pentagon had planned to operate them. Meanwhile the General Accounting Office stated in a 1993 study that F-22 production could be delayed until 2010 without undue risk to U.S. air superiority. Thus, the Pentagon could continue to purchase new models of existing, proven aircraft, at a lower cost, while maintain U.S. air dominance. In a 1997 study the CBO also concluded that the three programs have already exceeded the projected $350 Billion pricetag by $7 Billion. Further, CBO said that buying all three aircraft will cost between $14 Billion and $18 Billion each year from 2008 to 2014. This would consume up to 46 percent of the Pentagon's current annual budget for all weapons purchases, including ships, tanks, rifles, etc. Tactical aircraft purchases now total only about 6 percent of the procurement budget. The U.S. is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the world's dominant
air power. Rather than committing our nation to huge expenditures for unneeded aircraft,
we should continue to purchase new models of current aircraft, while continuing to
develop the technologies which will be incorporated into the aircraft of the future. Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) In light of the changed relationship with a post-Soviet Russia and in the aftermath of the Gulf War, President Clinton refocused the program to concentrate on Theater Missile Defense (TMD). TMD systems would protect a given theater of operation, generally meaning U.S. troops deployed abroad, against the more likely threat of short- to medium- range ballistic missiles, similar to those used by Iraq. Because of budgetary, technological, and treaty constraints, defenses against long-range ballistic missiles, referred to as National Missile Defense (NMD), are now focused on protecting the United States from accidental launch or from attach by a rogue state armed with a handful of these missiles. The Clinton Administration's plan for NMD is commonly referred to as a "3+3" plan. Currently in a deployment readiness posture, hardware is being developed so that at the end of 3 years (by the year 2000), a decision may be made as to whether or not threats warrant deployment of an ABM compliant NMD system. Deployment would then take an additional 3 years to accomplish. Indicative of the changes in the program, the Clinton Administration scrapped the name "SDI" and changed it to Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). President Clinton's initial plans call for spending an additional $21.4 Billion on BMD over the next six years. Last year, the President requested $2.8 Billion for BMD; he received $3.7 Billion. His FY 1998 request, at $3.5 Billion, is more in tune with the wishes of the Congress. Congressional critics find fault with the pace and funding requests of the BMD program under President Clinton. Many wish to pick up the tempo of both TMD and NMD regardless of technological difficulties. (For example, the interceptor being developed for the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) has repeatedly failed to hit its targets.) These critics seek deployment of an NMD system by the year 2000. Although restricted by the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM ) Treaty to one NMD site with no more than 100 ground- based interceptors, some argue for a multiple site NMD system complete with space-based missiles. Current and projected threats do not warrant upping the tempo of NMD efforts. The only nations which can directly strike the United States today with ballistic missiles are Russia, which with the help of the United States is eliminating many of its ballistic missiles under the terms of the START Treaties; China, which only has 7 intercontinental ballistic missiles; France one of our closest allies; and the United Kingdom, which gets its submarine-launched ballistic missiles from the United States. North Korea is often labeled a near-term threat. While this famine-ridden country may be developing medium- to long-range ballistic missile capabilities, the missile that intelligence sources point to, which no one has ever seen, would barely allow the North Koreans to someday strike one of the uninhabited pieces of rock in the Alaskan Aleutian Island chain. Given the lack of threats, high cost, and numerous technological difficulties encountered, increasing the tempo or funding for BMD activities is both unwarranted and unwise. Military Spending: How does it Compare to Other Federal Programs? Despite talk about declining military spending and suggestions that the military has taken its "fair share" of spending cuts, military spending still consumes a huge chunk of federal government funds. And the military budget continues to be kept "off the table" in budget balancing efforts by both the President and the Congress. In the President's proposed federal budget for Fiscal Year 1998, the "National
Defense" category of federal spending (excluding veterans programs and other
military-related spending) amounts to a whopping 50 percent of all discretionary
spending, the money the President and Congress can allocate and spend each year.
The other category of federal spending is mandatory spending, the money the federal
government spends automatically unless the President and Congress change the laws
that govern it. Mandatory spending includes entitlements, money or benefits provided
directly to individuals such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps,
and Federal Retirement. It also includes interest payments on the national debt. A "Leaner, Meaner" Military Controlling Weapons Costs |
| Back
to Top Back to Eco-nomics Directory Home |
