By the tone of some of the media coverage, you might have thought Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced a plan to slash military spending yesterday. On the front page of USA Today (1/27/12), under the headline “Panetta Backs Far Leaner Military,” readers learn in the first paragraph:
The Pentagon’s new plan to cut Defense spending means a reduction of 100,000 troops, the retiring of ships and planes and closing of bases—moves that the Defense secretary said would not compromise security.
The piece quotes critics of the cuts like Sen. Joe Lieberman and an analyst at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. And the article talks about the most commonly cited figure of $487 billion in cuts over 10 years. As economist Dean Baker writes about such coverage—”Military Budget Cuts: Denominator Please”—there is no way people can assess the significance of what sounds like a lot of money if they don’t know how much the Pentagon is planning to spend over the same 1o-year period—roughly $8 trillion.
The PBS NewsHour did little to clarify the issue. The broadcast began with Jeffrey Brown announcing, “The Pentagon today outlined almost half a trillion dollars in budget cuts that would shrink the size of the U.S. military by trimming ground forces, retiring ships and planes, and delaying some new weapons.” PBS aired clips from Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich denouncing the budget cuts, and then interviewed a Pentagon official.
Even coverage of the Pentagon’s new “austerity” that managed to include some helpful context didn’t make things very clear. “The Pentagon took the first major step toward shrinking its budget after a decade of war” was how a New York Times story by Elisabeth Bumiller (1/27/12) begins. In the fourth paragraph, readers found this:
Even though the Defense Department has been called on to find $259 billion in cuts in the next five years—and $487 billion over the decade—its base budget (not counting the costs of Afghanistan or other wars) will rise to $567 billion by 2017. But when adjusted for inflation, the increases are small enough that they will amount to a slight cut of 1.6 percent of the Pentagon’s base budget over the next five years.
So the “first major step” in cutting the military budget…isn’t really a cut?
A Washington Post piece by Craig Whitlock (1/27/12) had a more accurate lead—”The Pentagon budget will shrink slightly next year”— but later tries to make a 1 percent cut sound more significant: “While the difference may sound small, it represents a new era of austerity for the Defense Department.”
To make matters even more confusing, the Post points out later that
Although the defense budget will decline next year, to $525billion from this year’s $531billion, under Obama’s current projections it will inch upward in constant dollars between 1 percent and 2 percent annually thereafter.
Kudos to Nancy Yousef of McClatchy for writing a piece (1/26/12) that took a different tack. Under the headline “Defense Budget Plan Doesn’t Cut as Deeply as Pentagon Says,” Yousef led with this:
Pentagon officials on Thursday announced the outlines of what they called a pared-down defense budget, but their request would increase baseline spending beyond the projected end of the war in Afghanistan, even as they plan to reduce ground forces.
To Yousef, the Pentagon was ” employing a definition of the term ‘reduction’ that may be popular in Washington but is unconventional anywhere else.”
And activist/writer David Swanson pointed out that the first question at Panetta’s briefing got right at this question of whether the cuts are really cut. From the transcript:
Mr. Secretary, you talked a little bit on this, but over the next 10 years, do you see any other year than this year where the actual spending will go down from year to year? And just to the American public more broadly, how do you sort of explain what appears to be contradictory, as you talk about, repeatedly, this $500 billion in cuts in a Defense Department budget that is actually going to be increasing over time?
Panetta’s answer:
Yeah, I think the simplest way to say this is that under the budget that was submitted in the past, we had a projected growth level for the Defense budget. And that growth would’ve provided for almost $500 billion in growth. And we had obviously dedicated that to a number of plans and projects that we would have. That’s gotta be cut, and that’s a real cut in terms of what our projected growth would be.
See the new release from the Institute for Public Accuracy for more of the context largely missing from the Pentagon budget coverage.
It doesn’t add up.
Except in the profit columns of military contractors.
So – let’s campaign for some real cuts, okay? Shout it out and don’t let them get away with this.
I have a family member who works as a civilian for the Department of Defense. This person is not a higher-up at the DOD, however, currently has a home in Italy, which most expenses are paid for I believe. They also own a three-story townhouse on Capitol Hill. I visited this relative for a holiday recently. I was served $100 bottles of wine and salads with $80 vintage balsalmic vinegar. I am not kidding. So where are the DOD priorities? For anyone who believes the hyped-up we need a huge defense budget to fight “the war on terror” — don’t you just want to taste that vinegar, mmmmm.
Reminds me of lyrics:”No matter how you slice it, boy, it’s still baloney.” and scenarios that show a bargain hunter declaring a $1000 saving when purchasing a $1500 unsold item for $500. EVERY DIME SPENT ON THE MILITARY IS STOLEN FROM THE CITIZENS WHO NEED JOBS, HOMES, MEDICAL CARE, EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, RENEWABLE ENERGY, ETC. IN A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT! When we put people ahead of profits (under a more egalitarian economic system, not based on greed and exploitation like capitalism), perhaps we can make the correct priorities!
Amen
RE: funding for giverment agencies, i would like to see this:
The Post Office in 2005 had no debt, however in 2006, the Post office was told it had to come up with 5 billion to cover 75 years of retirement, ( pensions and health care) in just a 10 year time.
Personally, I think that this idea should be moved from the Post Office to the military. We do seem to have endless wars and endless damage. to humans and to economics. In order to care for those soldiers of the past 10 years and for “whatever” in our future, the military should be given the same directive with their current budget. Perhaps then, they would learn to spend more efficiently.
Perhaps too, if the military actually had limits on spending, then those corporate profiteers would just have to lower the rates on what they charge. Isn’t it time to have a “white sale” on drones, corporate America?
I would be willing to “reduce” my salary this way… First I would make outlandish demands for increases, and then talking about my belt-tightening as I accepted more modest increases when everyone else was getting fired or facing real cuts…
And, the generals “retire” to work for a lot of money at the very firms who supplied them, or the “think tanks” who supported war at every turn, who are funded by the suppliers. The actual people who are getting hit with the bullets and bombs, get little and few jobs. They pay the price while the generals get wined and dined with fat checks stuffed in their pockets.
The technology has changed since Sweden figured this all out, but the same human condition still exists today. Those who give the orders for war make the profit. Those who do the fighting get screwed.
they’re simply calling slower growth “cuts.”
nice work if you can get it.
I’m willing to say “it’s a start” on this one, hold my nose, and hope the debates don’t rattle too many sabers out of their scabbards. If the Pentagon can take a small step back, that will make it much easier to get a decent Afghanistan withdrawal plan and maybe a bigger cut next year. Am I too optimistic?
Yes, James, you’re being too optimistic. Let’s start small, but in a very constuctive way, by calling the “defense” Department the War Department, it’s older, more honest name. Always call Panetta, or whatever hawkish warmonger fills the position, Secretary of War. It’s the War Department, and it always has been, especially over the last fifty years.
This is hardly belt tightening. A better demonstration of thrift would be reducing their overall fuel purchase by 30%. Thus, showing how the military can lead.
This is how it works.Even if Obama got every tax raise he ever dreamed of….It would only be 8% of his planned new spending.Once we realize we are broke,the government will shrink .Its power will shrink.And yes the military will as well.Realizing we are broke IS the bitter pill.Printing and borrowing is all we have right now.
Finally! We must priorize the real needs of the people!