Defense Budget

Now that the primary election is over, it is incredible how few voters and politicians failed to make any connection between the $700 billion we spend every year on defense and the government deficits and financial crisis the U.S. is facing. The Bush administration added nearly $5 trillion in costs for wars which directly went into unpaid U.S. debt. Since 2001, military spending has doubled, and even then it was already more than any other country's. Now it is more than the rest of the world combined.

One of the reasons Congress seems reluctant to stop budget sequestration ("The sequester stand-off," Feb. 7) is that few realize the real consequences of indiscriminately slashing spending in blind, indiscriminate fashion - - particularly for our national security. Under sequestration, the defense budget alone would weather $500 billion in cuts across every program, affecting fundamental military capabilities. The cuts will sideline our aircraft carriers and force other ships from service, weakening us in the Pacific while also freeing Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz at will.

Today, President Obama will release his budget request, asking more for defense than any other president -- a whopping $708 billion for the Department of Defense in fiscal 2011. Also today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will release a document known inside Washington as the QDR -- the quadrennial defense review, a four-year snapshot of our security plans. The last QDR was done under Donald Rumsfeld, with George W. Bush as president, but be prepared to wonder if Mr. Bush is still president.

Biography isn't policy. President Barack Obama's choice for secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, former Nebraska Republican senator, has a resume most politicians can envy: a clean senatorial record, no ethical lapses and two Purple Hearts from a war many opposed and many more tried to avoid. Some think Hagel's 2006 comment about "the Jewish lobby" should disqualify him, believing it a code word for anti-Semitic sentiments. There is nothing wrong with criticizing the policies of any Israeli government.

Just how the Persian Gulf war tangles up a defense budget predicated on the end of the Cold War is well illustrated by the newest Washington debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative and the B-2 Stealth bomber.To hear Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tell it, you would think the success of Patriot missiles in shooting down Iraqi Scud rockets is evidence the nation should go ahead with Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" project for combating a massive Soviet intercontinental missile strike. You would think, too, the effectiveness of F-117 Stealth fighter-bombers in hitting Iraqi targets unseen by enemy radar makes a case for the B-2.Not everyone agrees.

Over the past decade, the United States has engaged in the most significant increase in defense spending since the Korean War. Trillions of dollars have been allocated for the Pentagon, with little congressional monitoring or internal oversight. The defense budget for 2012 exceeds $600 billion, nearly equaling the combined defense spending of the rest of world. Every U.S. taxpayer spends twice as much for the cost of national defense as each British citizen; five times as much as each German; and six times as much as each Japanese.

I would like to respond to Roz Ellis ("Cut military spending, not entitlements," Readers Respond, July 30). Our humongous military outlay is never on the table because it is not humongous. The cost of national defense accounted for approximately 19 percent of the federal 2009 budget. In contrast, the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other social programs accounted for approximately 55 percent of the budget. It may be prudent to scrap old ships and cut the defense budget, but these things will not solve our financial problems.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right to call out our European allies for their lack of commitment to NATO and their over dependence on the defense forces of the USA ("Gates hits NATO allies hard," June 11). Anyone who has traveled to Western Europe can only marvel at the standard of living enjoyed by the majority their citizens. Germany is an interesting case in that this is a country that suffered greatly economically as a result of two world wars but with the help of outsiders has become an economic powerhouse.

As a nonviolent activist, I was really disappointed to see the op-ed by Clayola Brown ("Sequestration would destroy U.S. economy," Aug. 27). What astonished me is that it was written by the president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute. Surely, all progressive activists greatly respect the work of A. Philip Randolph, a legendary organizer and activist. However, the current president of his institute wrote this: "Sequestration cuts in the defense budget would be especially devastating to the economy because of the aerospace sector's importance to local economies across America.

WASHINGTON -- Here's a tricky question for the serious budget-wonks:Where in the federal budget would you find spending for:* Breast-cancer research.* Environmental cleanup efforts.* Drug-enforcement programs.* Financing for public schools.* Aid to the Soviet Union.* Jobs for workers in Connecticut.* Rifle practice for neighborhood teens.* Government support for the 1996 Olympics.* Memorial Day and July 4th concerts?If you're busily thumbing through the spending programs for all 149 federal departments and agencies, let us save you the trouble: Look under "Department of Defense, Military."

Before superstorm Sandy pounded the shores of the East Coast, it had already claimed its first American victims. With the storm still a day from landfall, the U.S. Coast Guard received a distress signal from the tall ship Bounty located approximately 90 miles off the cost of North Carolina. Tragically, the ship's captain and one of her crew were claimed by the sea, but a matter of hours later, 14 other sailors were safe on shore. All in a day's work for the service whose motto is semper paratus - always ready.

Going off the fiscal cliff would not be the end of the world ("Obama talks tough," Nov. 15). The U.S. defense budget now totals more than spending on defense by the next top six countries combined even as we are getting out of two foreign wars. Surely that budget can stand a 10 percent cut. The checks I received from the Bush tax cuts were only for about $150. But if workers expect to receive Social Security benefits when they retire, they need to fund that program with the 2 percent payroll tax just like current recipients have done for their entire working careers.

Over the past decade, the United States has engaged in the most significant increase in defense spending since the Korean War. Trillions of dollars have been allocated for the Pentagon, with little congressional monitoring or internal oversight. The defense budget for 2012 exceeds $600 billion, nearly equaling the combined defense spending of the rest of world. Every U.S. taxpayer spends twice as much for the cost of national defense as each British citizen; five times as much as each German; and six times as much as each Japanese.

As a nonviolent activist, I was really disappointed to see the op-ed by Clayola Brown ("Sequestration would destroy U.S. economy," Aug. 27). What astonished me is that it was written by the president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute. Surely, all progressive activists greatly respect the work of A. Philip Randolph, a legendary organizer and activist. However, the current president of his institute wrote this: "Sequestration cuts in the defense budget would be especially devastating to the economy because of the aerospace sector's importance to local economies across America.

Across America, manufacturing workers and their families are starting to hope again. Unemployment remains unacceptably high at 8.2 percent, but it has come down from 10 percent in October 2009. After the worst recession since the Great Depression, the U.S. economy has created 4 million jobs over the past two years. Working families have a message for Congress: Keep the fragile recovery alive. But unbelievably, Congress is on the verge of tacitly approving huge budget cuts that would send up to 1.5 million Americans back to the unemployment lines.

The defining political issue of 2012 won't be the government's size. It will be who government is for. Americans have never much liked government. After all, the nation was conceived in a revolution against government. But the surge of cynicism engulfing America isn't about how big government has become. It's a growing perception that our government is no longer working for average people. It's for big business, Wall Street and the very rich. In a recent Pew Foundation poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.

SAN DIEGO -- Even war on the horizon cannot stop the "de-Reaganizing" of the U.S. defense budget as it continues to recede from the hefty levels of the early and mid-1980s, defense electronics officials say.By the year 2000, defense spending will decline by one-third and dip even below pre-World War II levels in terms of share of the gross national product, the Electronic Industries Association said yesterday in an annual 10-year market forecast of the...

It has been widely understood that the Clinton administration planned to pay for new social programs mainly by cuts in defense spending. It is, therefore, no surprise that the budget proposed by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin features deep cuts and proposes a level of spending that is more than $128 billion below the levels proposed by the Bush administration. What was not understood was that the Clinton/Aspin budget would propose to use those reduced dollars to pay for new activities not previously funded by the Department of Defense.

I would like to respond to Roz Ellis ("Cut military spending, not entitlements," Readers Respond, July 30). Our humongous military outlay is never on the table because it is not humongous. The cost of national defense accounted for approximately 19 percent of the federal 2009 budget. In contrast, the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other social programs accounted for approximately 55 percent of the budget. It may be prudent to scrap old ships and cut the defense budget, but these things will not solve our financial problems.

CIA Director Leon Panetta becomes secretary of defense Thursday, taking over Washington's largest and most powerful bureaucracy with a budget that amounts to nearly 60 percent of discretionary federal spending. He will be stepping into the shoes of the most influential member of the Obama administration, Robert M. Gates, who has been canonized for his efforts over the past five years. For the past two months, Secretary of Defense Gates has been on a farewell tour of U.S. think tanks, universities and military academies, advocating policies that will make Mr. Panetta's job extremely difficult.