Our government has been spending too much relative to its revenues and our economy hasn't grown as fast as we'd like it to. Military spending plays a role in this. Consider the effect on the economy if the Gov't spends $2 billion constructing a submarine versus spending the same amount on domestic infrastructure. Consider the economic effects of paying a healthy and modestly intelligent young man to sit, with a gun, along a border in some place like South Korea or Austria (and then paying veterans benefits to him for life thereafter) versus paying the same amount to provide for tuition, room and board for whatever additional education might benefit him. I am not saying there's no value in a sub or in protecting international borders not our own, and I don't wish to ignore the fact that submarine construction means lots of nice jobs in Groton and elsewhere. I'm merely pointing out that alternative activities would have a greater impact on our economy. Building bridges creates just as many jobs as building a submarine, but that bridge then contributes thereafter to economic efficiency etc, whereas the sub costs a fortune to operate and hopefully would never be used. It's a matter of leverage.

Of course, if through lack of military strength we suffered from the harms a hostile force could cause, our bridge and college student might not be worth much. But what if we were just as secure, yet able to redirect significant funds from low-leverage defense spending to high-leverage domestic spending? Politicians often like to call spending an "investment" and sometimes they're blowing wind, but the fact is that many forms of government spending do provide a continuing return in enhanced productivity, lower costs, or innovation.

If a significant amount of money that had otherwise gone into military spending since the end of the Cold War had instead gone into domestic spending on high-return programs, the increase in economic activity might have been more than enough to generate sufficient tax revenues to maintain a balanced budget. Alternatively, if the same funds had simply not been spent at all, the budgets would have been more in balance - maybe even in the black. Looking forward, if we were able now to increase the overall leverage of government expenditures, or reduce spending significantly, working our way out of our current hole will become that much easier.

How and where can we reduce military spending? Especially: how and where without sacrificing security? There are lot of proposals on the table, but they don't add up to enough to make an enormous difference. The US is currently looking at the military taking up about 20% of the entire federal budget. Entitlement programs are where the really big dollars are at. We need to figure out some way to reduce overall healthcare costs in the USA. But that discussion is for another thread. Twenty percent isn't chicken feed, especially if it could be reduced dramatically. But how?

I ran some data. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute tracks military spending and has international data from 1988 through 2009. I downloaded the spreadsheet. I looked at thirrteen countries beside the USA: countries whose security our military currently helps preserve. They are: South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. (I did not include the UK since they've pretty much carried their share and outspend the others consistently.) None of these nations is poor. I was able to calculate the average military spending of the 13 since 1988 as a percentage of GDP. It was 1.67%. For 2009, the most recent year, it was 1.45%. The United States has, over the same period of time, on average, spent 4.07% of GDP. In 2009 that was up to 4.7%. Over the entire period the USA spent an average of 2.4% more of GDP per annum on the military than the average of the other 13.

Without singling out any of the 13 countries, I'll simply note that they've been able to do what we have not: invest an extra point or two of GDP in economy-building activities or debt reduction, year after year, for decades. The GDP of the USA is about $13 trillion. If we could split the difference with them, and spend 1.2% of GDP less, that would be $156 billion saved. Had we been doing that for the last fifteen years...

The President's 2012 budget has us spending $3.7 trillion. My savings represent a bit over 4% of that. That's about what we spend for food, nutrition and housing assistance (i.e. poverty programs) combined. It's nearly twice what the Feds spend on education. It's more than all the scientific and medical research combined. It's well over twice what we spend on international affairs/aid; a good 50% more than the Feds spend on all transportation infrastructure.

The combined GDP of the 13 nations I listed is quite a bit more than the GDP of the USA. For us to spend 1.2% less they'd need to spend just 0.9% more, a level they had, on average, maintained in 1988.

How did the USA get into this position, and why are we reluctant to correct it? I could begin an answer but I know I've already lost 97% of you.

You need to look back at how the cold war economys were setup to derive the true nature of this enite situation. This information you have provided also doesnt mention the fact that those 13 nations (and especially us, australia) buy alot of military hardware from the united states. (exclusively aircraft and tanks).

At the end of the day ''money'' is wort nothing. better to have 13 friends then 1.45% debt reduction i think.

As for USA's internal issues (housing medical etc etc). As ive said to a few people now, the slate needs to be wiped clean and the entire corrupt system needs to be built from the ground up, otherwise you just end up fixing old problems to create new ones....... and red tape is expensive.

This thread should have been called "Payin' the Cost To Be the Boss"

I just wanted to say for the record that in theory we are a neutral nation and the last allied soldier left on october 26th 1955. I'll be the first to admit that our military is mostly crap and that we're leeching our security from the fact that we're in the middle of Europe, but i wasn't aware that we're leeching off of you guys.

Back to the point at hand though. Isn't this one of the areas were American public selfperception and actual policy goals are highly divergent ? The public perception is that the US is somewhat isolationist and wants to only trade and be left alone and is usually only dragged into international conflicts against it's will and at high costs. The way i see it though is that the US intentionally positioned itself to be able to police and control areas that are ressource rich or important pathways for transportations.
Currently it's a benign control and in the interest of everyone, but it's the decision of the Americans how long that remains the case.
Plus there's a lot of R&D financing going on and you can use military spending to subsidies American companies that's easier to get through congress as military spending than as other sorts of public expenditure (which usually gets the Republcians up in arms). Think the contract for refueling tankers that went first to EADS, was suddenly reevaluated and then ended up with Boeing.

Whilst the Soviet Union was a credible threat, the ability to convert this military spending into influence was significant. Nations would be influenced to act as the United states would like them to, because the Soviets were always an active threat. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the ability to influence others has greatly diminished. Without a threat from the Soviets neutrals and friends will act more in their own self interest and ignore what the US would like it to do, because there are few negative consequences. Economically because the US economy is usually more reliant on trading partners then the trading partners on the US. Militarily because there is seldom a threat that the US is required as an ally to defend against, anymore. (Certain regimes excepted till recently.)

Plus, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, in particular, has proved that there are very real limits to the wielding of military power today. When the eventual outcome in Iraq creates an ally to the largest regional enemy of the US, returns don't look like worth the investment.

Something else that isn't mentioned here is the creation of a military industrial complex that exaggerated the threats that enemies represented, and exaggerated the benefits that could be obtained from specific military interventions. Where is the need for 12 carrier groups or new landing craft ? Generally the need is a creation of over active imaginations and really good sales efforts by manufacturers.

I wonder why X you think its essential that allies pick up the slack in military spending? If they don't perceive threats in the same way as the US, and they feel their needs are being adequately provided by current levels of spending ... why should they be pressed to copy the mistake of the US? If their citizens priorities are on health care, education and domestic infrastructure and they are happy with their ability to meet outside threats or participate in foreign adventuires then surely thats their choice? Surely the lessons of the last 15 years are that military spending can be limited to weapons and forces that are useful in places and events like Afghanistan and Libya . But gaining the benefit of lower spending through more targeted and careful planning of resources will have to over come the lobbyists and their hold on elected officials.
Perhaps the solution to all of this is the elimination of private funding for politics and the introduction of public funding. Eliminate the power of the corporations to influence democratic process and there would be a more effective (from the average persons point of view) set of priorities in governance.
And basically it comes down to the question "Why do we fight"?

Faxmonkey wrote:I Isn't this one of the areas were American public selfperception and actual policy goals are highly divergent ? The public perception is that the US is somewhat isolationist and wants to only trade and be left alone and is usually only dragged into international conflicts against it's will and at high costs.

I would dispute this. The pulbic preception in the United States isn't that we are isolationist and gets dragged into things. If anything, I would say it is the exact opposite.

rickyp wrote:I wonder why X you think its essential that allies pick up the slack in military spending?

Good point, Ricky. Actually, I don't; I was merely showing what the relative contributions would have to be if overall spending were to remain the same. I had earlier asked, "what if we were just as secure, yet able to redirect significant funds...?" and the "just as secure" part is what led me to seek to maintain current spending levels. I could have made it much clearer that we could reduce military spending unilaterally based on any one or combination of these three bases: 1) the threats that exist don't justify the strength we maintain, or 2) the threats are there, and our dependents (aka "allies") will pick up the slack eventually, when they see how their security has suffered, or 3) they won't, and we can arrange things so that our reductions hurt only their security, and not our own. Option two: just live less securely. Costs and benefits.

These are hypotheticals. Rhetorical questions, designed to get people to think, rather than respond as if I'd made firm policy recommendations. Sass says we've paid to be boss. Question: was it worth it? Especially since the end of the Cold War?

On the other hand, I think I sniff at least a bit of naiveté when it comes to the international value of services provided by the US military even today. One has to listen for the dog that does not bark: the thousands of pirates not operating in blue water everywhere and the non-adventurousness of bad actors with large armed forces of their own.

Costs and benefits. What if, starting with the first Gulf War, the USA had simply said: we can live with the consequences of non-intervention? Visit HERE and go down the list starting in 1990. What if we'd simply pulled out of Liberia, not fought the Gulf War, not transported Belgian troops to Zaire? Not intervened in Somalia, Macedonia, Haiti, or Bosnia? When the USS Cole was attacked, what if we'd simply withdrawn all naval assets to more secure bases and not consistently run operations far from them? What if, after 9/11, we'd simply indicted bin Laden and a few others and then cooperated with international efforts to freeze assets and airports and whatnot, but made no use of our military? Just keep going, right up to a few weeks ago. What if we'd told our friends in Europe who were begging us to take the lead against Ghaddafi that we simply didn't see costs/benefits as they seemed to see them?

If we'd not used our military to protect oil flows we'd today be much less dependent on oil. I guarantee it. And what if, since we'd not have needed our military very much, we'd pared it down to half what it is today and pocketed the difference for twenty years? Or used it for better things?

I'm simply asking you to think about things in a different light. The USA is in a huge financial hole and we either get out of it or we don't. If we don't get out of the hole we'll be forced to cut our military expenditures heavily and suddenly, and not from choice. To get out of the hole, if we're to do so, we need to at least consider some pretty deep cuts. So in order to think about how we might survive in the future with a smaller military, think about how we'd have done since 1990 with one the size of Britain's.

When looking for places to cut, it makes sense to look at the military if only because military spending gives us less return on the dollar than spending that directly improves economic efficiency. A healthy populace increases efficiency; ditto for an educated one. Ditto for good roads and other infrastructure.

Sass says we've paid to be boss. Even if it was worth it to do that before, is it still worth it? Would we rather be boss or be solvent? That's a false choice, but not 100% false.

MX left out the question of whether we want to be the world's military superpower. I assume from what he's said previously that he does, and if that's the case then we likely aren't too far off in regards to military spending. The only real efficiency to be gained would be readjustment with our allies (NATO & Japan) to equalize costs.

Liberal interventionists as personified by Obama would be quite happy to save a bit on the military by relying more heavily and developing our alliances, whereas the NeoCons personified by Cheney would continue to insist that the US maintain dominance across the board, and would feel the costs are worth the benefits of not having their hands tied.

The military isn't actually literally defending the homeland from being overrun, it is working to maintain US global dominance. There are different narratives used in the US to support our basis for superpower.

The budget just needs to be balanced, that's the first and only relevant question. Once that's achieved then you have a national debate about taxes and spending. If the budget is balanced people will spend on the military based on cost benefit.

neal

The budget just needs to be balanced, that's the first and only relevant question. Once that's achieved then you have a national debate about taxes and spending.

Maybe I'm being picky but I don't think you can do the first (balance the budget) without the national debate.
One of the striking things about the Bush years is that the two great interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan) were always kept out of the official budget. As if military action wasn't something that required expense justification.
Perhaps during the Cold War, that mindset - that any cost must be incurred and any debt assumed for the existential battle...prepared Americans for ongoing militarism.
But, I think that the end of the Cold War has allowed Americans to begin to look at threats with less fear. (Exaggerated terrorism aside, as it is not an existential threat the way nuclear war with the Soviets was and I think that eventually this has become apparent to most people..)
So what today holds more fear for the average American? An old age with a too expensive, in many cases, unattainable health care system or Osama bin Laden in a cave somewhere?

Minister X wrote:How and where can we reduce military spending? Especially: how and where without sacrificing security?

I don't want to derail the discussion. I believe, based on anecdotal information from a relative who has dealt with defense contracts on both sides of the fence (government and contractor) for 25 years that there is an enormous amount of waste in that system. If we were serious about reforming it, I think we would see reductions of 50% or more in hardware (submarines, planes, etc.--can't do much for the cost of a rifle). The inefficiency, waste, and nonsense we allow in this area is shocking. If I could get him to take some time out of his 70 hour work weeks to explain it, I think you would all vomit.

The states have been making tough choices on priorities as they balance their budgets. The Feds have done a terrible job precisely because they can get away with it. Not to diverge too far on the matter, but how else can you really decide how much security is enough without having to balance it out with other needs and wants?

This process happens with law enforcement. We are constantly balancing the needs between security and cost within the framework of a budget. At least on the local and state level.

The inefficiency, waste, and nonsense we allow in this area is shocking. If I could get him to take some time out of his 70 hour work weeks to explain it, I think you would all vomit.

I believe Steve is talking here about the so-called 'military industrial complex' that's been building up since before Eisenhower first warned about it. It's hardly surprising that a very small group of massive corporations that have been joined at the hip to government for over 50 years have managed to pervert the system of defence contracting to such an extent that they're ripping off the taxpayer by hundreds of billions. The same happens in Britain too, although obviously on a smaller scale. When the new government came to power they were shocked at some of the procurement contracts that had been signed by the outgoing government. They wanted to cancel one of the two new aircraft carriers that had been commissioned but found that the penalty clauses that had been built into the contracts meant that it would have been more expensive than simply going ahead and building it. The same applies to pretty much every major defence procurement contract.

Sassenach wrote:

The inefficiency, waste, and nonsense we allow in this area is shocking. If I could get him to take some time out of his 70 hour work weeks to explain it, I think you would all vomit.

I believe Steve is talking here about the so-called 'military industrial complex' that's been building up since before Eisenhower first warned about it.

Oh, it's more complicated than that. Contractors not being able to take hints from government contract compliance officers, contractors being forced into inefficient methods, the government not holding companies accountable. We could get everything we're getting now--at a Wal-mart like discount if we started from scratch on this process.

Sassenach wrote:When the new government came to power they were shocked at some of the procurement contracts that had been signed by the outgoing government. They wanted to cancel one of the two new aircraft carriers that had been commissioned but found that the penalty clauses that had been built into the contracts meant that it would have been more expensive than simply going ahead and building it. The same applies to pretty much every major defence procurement contract.

Defence procurement is one area that really is ripe for cuts. Not sure about the DoD, but the UK MOD is pretty useless. Politicians and Civil servants don't like to argue much with generals, so are not great at screwing them down on costs. They are likewise not really thinking about tightening the purse and don't want to be accused of scrimping when it comes to the national defence. Generals (and Admirals and Air Marshalls) like to have flashy big toys to play with. And they tend to build capacity for the last war, not the next one. And while the new speedy fighter plane is massively over budget, late, and designed for a war against the Soviets, troops complain that they don't have the right basic equipment.