Budget cuts to the Pentagon

After consistently growing since 1998, the US military budget for 2013 will be about one percent smaller--about $525 billion. This is significant in that the military has been receiving large budget increases after the 9/11 attacks. The proposed budget involves cutting the size of the Army and Marines (though they will still be bigger than they were before US involvement in Afganistan and Iraq), reducing the amount of Air Force tactical squadrons, the Navy retiring seven old cruisers earlier than expected and cutting back production on other ships, and spending more on unmanned vehicles and Special Operations forces.

Still, the military budget cuts have been called a "rounding error" compared to total government spending. There will need to be further cuts as the Pentagon is trying to cut projected spending by $487 billion. The cuts can possibly be expanded by $600 billion depending on how things work out between the White House and Congress.

A defense analyst Thomas Donnelly said regarding relations between the President and Congress, "Either it will get worse for the Department of Defense if Obama gets reelected or Newt Gingrich gets elected, or it will get better for the Pentagon if Mitt Romney gets elected."

Defense Secretary Panetta said he will ask Congress to reduce retirement benefits and pay increases. President Obama has asked for less money to fund the military actions in the Middle East this year as the Iraq War closes.

I think that these budget cuts are a step in the right direction. The large budget of the US military is a vestige of the Cold War, and it is no longer necessary to be responsible for 45% of the world's military spending. As the US finally pulls out of Iraq, there are less excuses to keep spending up (unless the government comes up with evidence/"evidence" to get involved in other countries or the South China Sea). What are your ideas on this matter, AP folks?

Cuts In Military Spending

Leon E. Panetta, the Defense Secretary, is going to present his strategy to cut the Pentagon’s budget by hundreds of billions this week. He is expected to propose to shrink the size of the military to only be large enough to fight one ground war and conduct multiple other smaller operations. Pentagon officials are still debating on where the cuts will be made in almost every important area of spending. The idea is to eliminate $450 billion over the course of 10 years, which is about 8% of the current budget.

On top of the obvious concern of how the cuts will affect the future of the American military, the real issue being faced is not the cuts themselves, but where the cuts are coming from. A large chunk of the funding, about a third of the budget, is spent on military personnel costs. It goes to pay for salaries and allowances, health care, retirement, and additional costs. Mr. Panetta himself acknowledged that the personnel cost is unsustainable and the “generous retirement benefits may have to be scaled back to save crucial weapons programs.” On the one hand, spending a huge portion of our defense budget on “generous” benefits is irresponsible, but on the other is it fair to “break a promise to those who risked their lives for the country?” Despite the ethical debate, taking away from the Pentagon’s health care and retirement funds would potentially save billions in the coming years.

Although most of the Pentagon’s budget is put to good use, there is also a lot of government oversight as usual. Hopefully Congress will come up with or approve a way to decrease the spending over time. But, as the article said, “nowhere is balancing budget and strategy more challenging than in deciding how large a ground combat force the nation needs and can afford.”