Web Letters: Cut the Military Budget--II

I find Congressman Frank's opinion interesting. However, I would remind him that "to raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy" are two of the few powers actually given to Congress in order to fulfill the government's duty to "provide for the common defense." He probably misread the preamble and thought it said "provide" when it clearly says "promote the general Welfare"--meaning that healthcare is not in the realm of any branch of the federal government.

I have often been told how the United States spends more than the next twenty nations combined on our national defense. This is true, but no ever looks into the reasons for this. Our nation maintains a large active-duty military force, reserves and a national guard. These are all made up of patriotic volunteers. Part of the costs of keeping such an army is that they need to be taken care of. The military is subject to the same competitive forces as the rest of the economy and must attract and retain individuals and pay them accordingly. Additionally, 10 percent of the military budget is housing, as the Third Amendment prohibits the military free civilian quarters. The remainder of the normal defense budget is spent on procurement, R&D, and construction, which is overwhelming on domestic bases. I would like to ask Congressmen Frank what he'd like to cut, or more specifically whom he'd like to fire from those jobs to move the money to healthcare?

Our military budget is roughly 4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. To put this in perspective, as we are currently involved on a war on two fronts, in 1944 it was 37 percent, in 1968 it was 9 percent and in 200 it was 4 percent. So we've only increased by 1 percent from a peace-time to a war economy. We spend perhaps 1.5 percent more of our GDP than European nations on our military which is not only for their defense but the defense of Japan, South Korea and operational commitments worldwide. However, healthcare is already significantly more of our GDP than that of even big health spenders like Germany, and Congressman Frank's solution is to spend more?

I understand that Congressman Frank, a homosexual, has a problem with the military because sodomy is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, making it illegal for homosexuals to serve openly. However, if he would read the Constitution, he would note that it is Congress's responsibility to to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and not up to the military itself. The Armed Forces are not responsible for the discrimination, but instead he and the rest of Congress are. As they are the majority in both houses and hold the executive, they could change it today if they so wished.

We all have our biases on these matters, and so I'll admit mine. I am a United States Marine.

Ray Provost

Charlotte, NC

Blarney ranks near the head of the long line of Democratics directly responsible for the banking meltdown. He recommends the federal government abdicate its only true constitutional responsibility, to "provide for the national defense." He wants this as a stop-gap to enable continued spending on unconstitutional programs.

Iran and Iraq were at different times both strong allies of the USA. Both suddenly changed to enemies overnight. Russia and China, while lately somewhat friendly to us, could instantly become deadly adversaries again. Strong national defense is both insurance and deterrence against attack.

Government spending is by definition wasteful. Government is a monopoly and has a monopoly on force. Without competition, waste and inefficiency are inevitable. That is why government should only do that which only it can do. Everything else should be left to the market.

David A. Bennett

East Lansing, MI

Several years ago, in the dark ages of the Bush Era, I spent yet another insomnia-filled night watching CSPAN. On tap for this am, Henry Waxman and a lovely woman, a whistle-blower named Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse. Ms. Greenhouse was here to testify about the (then unlawful) no-bid procurement process being used exclusively to award billions to private contractors in the Iraq war effort. These contractors are by now household names: Halliburton, KBR, etc. She became aware of the practices during the course of her job as chief auditor of procurement contracts for the Army (not sure if that was her exact title, but that is what she did on the job).

They were forced to meet in a small basement room in the Capitol building, as the powers that be at that time all Republicans, denied them any space to meet in the main part of the building, citing "all rooms are occupied." I believe the same ruse was used to deny the Obama family early access to Blair House just before the Inauguration.

Ms. Greenhouse went on to make a bold and heartfelt statement detailing many of the abuses, verified years later by many others, that Halliburton and KBR were engaging in. Abuses such as troops forced to eat spoiled rations, while civilian contractors in the "Green Zone" were dining on filet mignon and barbequed shrimp.

She brought several witnesses to these abuses, from active service members, to a British contractor, who testified that he charged the US Army a tiny fraction ($0.35) of what Halliburton charged ($1.31) to deliver one gallon of gas from Kuwait to Iraq.

Mr. Waxman called her the bravest woman he had ever met and asked her if she realized she would probably lose her job for coming forward. She replied that indeed she did realize that, but in good conscience, as a responsible citizen, she felt compelled to call attention to this situation.

Unfortunately, Ms. Greenhouse was unsuccessful in her effort to raise awareness very much and was ultimately fired for spurious reasons, at best. I believe she was the first to bring this issue to the public and it seems was not extended whistleblower protections.

When the 2006 Congress was sworn in, I attempted to e-mail Mr. Waxman at his website to ask him to reinstate Ms. Greenhouse, or hire her himself. I was unceremoniously dumped from the website and never tried again, as I thought the email might have been redirected. Paranoid? Perhaps, but given recent revelations about the wholesale diversion of all our phone call through little green rooms at AT&T, perhaps not.

So, as I listen to our president eloquently urge us not to waste government money, it comes to me. Wait for it... Bring back Bunny Greenhouse!

Nicole Wagner

Guerneville, CA

Barney Frank should receive a medal of valor for writing this article. Bravo, sir.

If he wasn't before, he is now one of my favorite members of Congress--just for posing the seemingly obvious common-sense questions: Why aren't we looking to savings in the DOD budget and scrutinizing it like we've been scrutinizing and challenging every item in the domestic budget? What about military pork? Yes, does anyone remember the cost of war that was brought up throughout the past couple elections? Isn't that a logical place to look when considering sources of funding to sustain our own country and prevent a worse deficit?

Just because we have seperate departmental budgets for our country's operations doesn't mean that we can't alter them and look for big savings in one in order to come up with needed funds for the other! That's the way it works at home. The DOD, as well as others, may be posessive about their budgets, but there's just one country, and right now this country's priority should be its domestic budget. People here are suffering. We need money and training and infrastructure!

Every time I hear about another proposed cut because we just can't afford something any longer, or hear a complaint about some justified expenditure, or hear someone bemoan the deficit, I shout back to the television, "So cut out the war, you idiots!" And now I understand more clearly, that's not even entirely necessary. We could just scale back, phase out sooner, look at other kinds of wasteful DOD expenditures, or just cut the DOD's allowance by 25 percent.

Like parents might try to explain to their kids who want their way, no matter what, for reasons they care passionately about, someone in Washington finally needs to say to those who would misuse their power, "Sorry, we simply can't afford it now... not in the family budget... not up for discussion."

I'm disappointed Obama has concluded we can't afford to do nothing in Iraq, as we couldn't in the US. Here we will spend what has been deemed necessary after long debate, even though we don't have it. But whether we could cut or do much less has not been publicly aired. I'm surprised no one has brought up these expenditures as even more unsustainable and unnecessary now. Perhaps they will be.

I'd like to hear exactly how much it will cost to extend our time there by three more months. I'd also like to see Rep. Frank's commentary in the Times and hear the analysts at CNN and MSNBC discussing the questions he raises, in their ad nauseam way... and watch the fiscal conservatives squirm uncomfortably when we return to the reality of the cost of ongoing warfare and military policing and how that worsens our fiscal situation here.

Sylvia Dickens

Wayland, MA

Why can't Congress limit its involvement in the military budget to telling the Pentagon, "You're getting 25 percent less money next year. You figure it out," and be done with it?

Martin Starzyk

La Grange, IL

Thanks to Barney Frank for stating the obvious, and creating an opening for debate. No offense to The Nation, but why wasn't this article published as an op-ed in the New York Times? Is Frank afraid to make this suggestion to a larger public, or were they afraid to publish it?

It is unconscionable that a Democratic president and Congress are willing to negotiate cuts to Social Security or Medicare, but will not mention the military. This needs to be on the table.

Joan Weissman

Albuquerque, NM

Even though this is a country that prides itself on its citizens' right to freely express themselves, it is very clear that some topics are off limits when it comes to developing a serious plan to address our country's economic problems. For example, a discussion on military spending and its impact on the economy of the United States was MIA from the presidential debates, and still appears to be MIA. Another area the United States spends boatloads of money on is foreign aid. We go ballistic over alleged "pork barrel" spending and "earmarks," but we never seem to connect military spending and military related foreign aid expenditures to the rest of the economy. The president is even afraid to identify the Middle Eastern country that has nuclear weapons. It's Israel, and we help them. What kind of world is this? From the other web letters, it is clear that the military wastes money, but money is wasted in all areas of the economy, including taxpayer-funded activities such as education and public health. The managerial arrogance that appears to have infected all areas of society is a clear deterrent to honesty and a facilitator of greed, selfishness, and gangsterism. One web letter mentioned something about the United States acting in its own self-interest. Do we? I think if we did, we would be fighting to support democracy in Mexico and helping to prevent it from becoming a narco state.

Paul Rigmaiden

Modesto, CA

A major part of the arms budgeting problem is that lead times run from twelve to twenty years. You have to guess now on what the worst-case scenario might need around 2030, and being in the dark about who, where and what will be needed. I am reminded of the anti-military budgets of the 1920s that bet strongly on peace during the years that became World War II.

Second, the pork-barrel aspect is incredible. I have repeatedly called on The Nation to challenge every single Congressmasn asnd Senator to publicize wateful defense spending within their own district. Others have done so, too, in the past. I will personally challenge Mr. Frank to identify such wate in his Massachusetts district so that Congress can eliminate it.

As far as the real threat to solvency, we need to sharply reduce the role of government in healthcare. That is the main financial killer. The rise in medically related costs is being driven by shoveling more and more tax money into it.

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby , PA

Barney Frank's proposition is nothing new or even vaguely creative, it's been an ongoing cry for decades, and being on the finance committee he naturally covets money in other government departmental wallets--the DOD is an easy target.

Having said that, and speaking from the perspective of a retired Marine, Barney is also not entirely off-target.

There are several areas of military expenditures that are more administration than military choosing--foreign basing and foreign military aid, just to name two. These serve more to benefit political policy than any military interest.

Also, weapon system development is unfortunately necessary in order to ensure that we are not surprised due to another foreign intelligence failure, like we were in WWII with the Japanese Zero and the Nazi terror weapons V-1, V-2, and various jet and rocket aircraft fielded in the late portion of the war; the Korean war shocked us with the Soviet Mig 15. But while we need to retain technological superiority, we don't need to field unneeded systems.

All of our alleged political allies have lived off our base's economic stimulus in their countries long enough. Pull everything back to our territorial borders, stop subsidizing them with cash and supplies and let the host countries learn how to diplomatically resolve the issues that our presence keeps in check.

Every nation has to do what's in its best interest.

Carl Buckland

Friendswood, TX

I agree wholeheartedly with Barney Frank. Taking up the hypocrisy angle, the "fiscal conservatives" who deride excessive government spending have been MIA over the last eight years as whistle-blowers exposing fraud and corruption in the Pentagon and defense companies have been routinely demoted and ignored. This is the worst kind of hypocrisy, denouncing socially redeemable spending while defending redistributive defense spending. As shown by the well intentioned but unfortunate attempt at bipartisanship by Obama, the right needs to be ignored in formulation of policy. Their ideas have been manifestly shown to be disastrous to our country and we cannot continue to give them any credence; it will continue to harm our country at a time when we can ill afford it.

Tim Eastman

Baltimore, MD

Anyone who wants to cut the American military budget must overcome at least two distinct power-centers: the proponents of imperialism through threat and use of aggressive war-fighting, and the proponents of armaments production.

The first of these is the undeclared, unknown, unacknowledged, but evidently vastly powerful group who desire an American Empire secured by military means (or who just plain like fighting wars). This is the group that so desperately wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, irrespective of whether these wars were really advantageous to America's security. This group supports both the existence and the frequent use of a strong military, and is well-connected politically.

The second power-center is the well-known military-industrial-Congressional complex, with its enormous budgets, military-production facilities carefully located in every Congressional district, and, presumably, vast campaign donation systems. These people want military production to continue and will not easily be dissuaded from this program.

The second power-center (military-production) can be satisfied, in principle, by a program which would not satisfy the first power-center.

This program is a sort of pacifist military-production system by which weapons are produced and then (without any military use) buried in a deep pit. This is a "jobs program," sort of like hiring people to dig holes and then fill them in again. Very expensive of money and scarce natural resources, but not otherwise too damaging. Keeps those military-production facilities busy, and all those people at work. Profits and campaign contributions keep flowing.

At least such a "build but don't use" treatment of military equipment would not require the killing and destruction (and scattering of depleted uranium dust and cluster bomblets and land-mines) that the actual military use is thought (by militarists) to require.

Such a program would have the further advantage of avoiding (so one would hope) the expense of paying off all the war-profiteers (destroying and then rebuilding Iraq is rather like digging holes and then filling them in again, except that the profits are enormous, especially where, as recently, the US has not required any accounting for expenditures). Such a program would have the advantage of reducing the costs of maintaining so large a military, would let the National Guard soldiers go home and would leave the mercenaries (of the Blackwater variety) to find other, less bellicose, work.

A further benefit of this sort of military spending would be that by weaning our military away from frequent war-fighting, we might so thoroughly dis-accustom the American people from its casual acceptance of war-fighting (and its far too casual acceptance of "collateral damage") that it would begin to question unnecessary and illegal war-fighting wherever and by whomever done. (That might of course bring on a third pro-military power-center, better left undiscussed here.)

Peter Belmont

Brooklyn, NY

Barney Frank is almost apologetic about what is an eminently sensible solution.

Maybe he needs to review the figures. The US spends more on national security than the rest of the world combined:
• The FY '08 DOD budget was $653 billion. That doesn't include the Iraq spending, which was done entirely through "emergency supplementals," another $200 billion;
• $23 billion in the DOE budget for nuclear weapons;
•$25 billion for foreign military assistance to State;
•$75 billion for veterans' assistance;
•$38 billion to Treasury for military retirement;
•$2 billion to Justice for FBI paramilitary activities;
•$64 billion to the Department of Homeland Security;
•$45-50 billion to the intelligence community;
•$7-8 billion for NASA's military activities;
•interest on the military portion of the national debt, which includes at least $200 billion per year.

The $52 billion spent on nuclear weapons (DOD +DOE) in 2008 is almost double what the US allots to general science, space and technology, and fourteen times what DOE spends on alternative energy R&D.

Does all this make us safer? How many more bombers or fighters would it have taken to prevent 9/11? Is there a sufficient number of ships and aircraft carriers that can prevent another 9/11? How many sailors, soldiers, and marines will it take to prevent another 9/11?

Instead, ask the question, How are we going to power the grid and supply fuel for transportation in the future? Do we really face a terrorist/security risk greater than the rest of the world combined, and greater than the certainty of petroleum shortages in the future?

Tom Maertens

Mankato, MN

I can tell you where to cut! Back in the Dark Ages, I was a munitions specialist in the Air Force. I worked in the ammunition area, popularly known as the "bomb dump." While this was back in the late '50s, any weapons improvements have largely been in the area of delivery systems. You still have to put some kind of fuse in a bomb and drop it! We also had rockets, 50-caliber, and 20mm Cannon shells for aircraft. This was basically a supply function, but you needed a general knowledge of these items in order to properly store and maintain them. I also try to keep track of defense issues. There are two main areas you need to cut in the defense budget! Dump that worthless Star Wars missile defense systems that do not work, and get rid of the private defense contractors working directly in the Pentagon. For that matter get these people out of government. The profit motive does not belong in government and drives costs through the roof.

There is no, I repeat no, air or missile defense system, that works perfectly all the time. Any missile attack would consist of large numbers of missiles to overwhelm any defense system. The only real defense is deterrents, and, in some cases, mutually assured destruction. Once the missiles start flying, everybody is in trouble! Diplomacy is the way to go!

I also worked in communications in the Army, and was generally exposed to it's organizational structure. While I opposed the Iraq War, I really had a fit when I saw civilian contractors trying to handle logistics for the army and getting killed. Logistics is a military specialty that is supposed to supply the needs of frontline troops yesterday. It needs to be fast, efficient and disciplined. People die if they do not do their job right. Get those contractors off of the battlefield!

Pervis James Casey

Riverside, CA