Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionOp-Eds

Blank check for the military will send America the way of the Soviet Union

DefenseFinanceArmed ForcesMilitary EquipmentBudgets and Budgeting

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many strategists suggested that the Cold War arms race had bankrupted its economy and caused its downfall. More than 20 years later, it appears that some in Washington are driving the U.S. toward a similar fate.

Most recently, House Republicans (led by Rep. Paul Ryan) introduced a budget that both lavishly funds the Pentagon and slashes domestic programs. Mr. Ryan has even questioned whether generals were being honest in their assessment of the president's budget, suggesting, "We don't think the generals are giving us their true advice." House Republicans seem to be ignoring the advice of our military leaders and are seeking to fund the Pentagon beyond what it requires or has requested.

For example, the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) is now slated to cost the American taxpayer $1.5 trillion, with about a trillion attributable to its expensive maintenance costs.  This is a perfect example of wasteful programs: the F-35 is becoming too expensive to bother flying in the first place.  Instead of delaying contracts, it's time for elected officials to pull the plug.

Meanwhile, the foundations of a strong economy — public education, infrastructure development, commitments to research and development and a secure safety net that protects our most vulnerable citizens from poverty — go starved for funding. This is the trade-off of the Ryan Republican budget proposal.

Military leaders agree that we must address our economic security as the foundation of our national security. Adm. Michael Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted that "the most significant threat to our national security is our debt." With that in mind, this is a time for tough decisions on both sides of the aisle, not a time to toe the party line and protect unwanted programs.

Meanwhile, the United States is in an arms race with itself. No other country can compete with the size of our military budgets, the lethality of our weapons or the global reach of our armed services.

We dominate a vacuum of power. The Air Force's only rival in the air is the U.S. Navy, owner of the world's second-largest air force. On the seas, the Navy is unrivaled but continues to add ships to the fleet. In this vacuum, members of Congress challenge each service to outspend each other, far beyond what is feasible for true national security. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta noted, "you've also got to take into consideration the national security threat that comes from the huge deficits and the huge debt that we're running." We cannot afford to avoid tough decisions when it comes to our budget. We certainly can't afford to give each branch of the military a blank check for weapons systems we don't need.

Meanwhile, we maintain a vast and redundant nuclear arsenal that brings very little national security benefit and is more relevant to the Cold War than any 21st century threats. Instead of escalating our own nuclear arsenal, we should be dedicated to preventing rogue states and terrorist organizations from acquiring nuclear materials.

Lobbyists and private contractors profit from this arms race. Hugely expensive projects like nuclear submarines and a new generation of bomber contribute more to defending the bottom line of major contractors than they do to defending America. Our government now employs more defense contractors than members of the military, at a greater cost to the American citizen. It is time to move away from a self-perpetuating procurement process that counts national security in dollars — not sense.

Runaway Pentagon spending exacts a very high price on our economy. It is no exaggeration to say that excessive military spending is starving state and city budgets, costing us millions of jobs and perpetuating the recession for many Americans. Dollar for dollar, money invested in weapons produces fewer jobs than money invested in education, green jobs, or a myriad of other industries, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

If our leaders in Washington want to strengthen our security, they should enact smart cuts in theU.S. militarybudget and reallocate those funds to the most fundamental source of our strength: our economy.

This is a dangerous time for elected officials to play politics with the budget. Luckily, Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Ben Cardin are both in positions to lead the charge against short-sighted budgets. Senator Mikulski is a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee and Senator Cardin is a member of the Budget Committee. They have opportunities to be vocal advocates of Pentagon budget reform and demand more common sense when it comes to reinforcing our economy.

This is a time to make serious decisions and strengthen our economic foundation, but the Ryan budget misses that mark by a wide margin. It is an unserious effort when serious ones are required.

Jeff Blum, a Baltimore native, is executive director of USAction, a federation of 22 state affiliates (including Progressive Maryland) that organizes for progressive change. His email is jblum@usaction.org.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
DefenseFinanceArmed ForcesMilitary EquipmentBudgets and Budgeting
  • Schaller fails to see danger of U.S. debt

    Columnist Thomas F. Schaller's analysis is incredibly myopic ("Avoiding Europe's austerity nightmare," April 18). To compare the economic condition of the U.S. to those of Greece or Spain at the beginning of the economic crisis is comparing apples and oranges.

  • Military spending is misplaced U.S. priority

    On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs — education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch with the...

  • A better budget remedy than the Buffett rule

    You end your editorial on the Buffett Rule ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13) with the question, "Where will the $50 billion come from to balance the budget, if not from this minimum tax plan?"

  • Skeptical of Buffett and need for higher taxes

    First, I'm an 80-year-old living on Social Security, and I know all the tax loopholes need to be closed ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13). But isn't it correct that Warren Buffett owes the IRS a great deal of taxes for a number of years? Let's have a true picture of Mr. Buffett.

  • The Buffett Rule backlash
    The Buffett Rule backlash

    Our view: Taxing the wealthy at rates others already face wouldn't solve the nation's deficit, but it would restore a modicum of fairness to the tax code

  • Godless Republicans turn back on poor and sick

    Some churchmen take exception to some of President Barack Obama's positions on matters of faith. I suggest these men of faith take a closer look at the true meaning of religion. All three Abrahamic religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — have as their central theme the...

Comments
Loading