Reducing the amount of spending on the military was, about 15-20 years ago, a popular, mainstream position in the late 1980's and early 1990's. For example, Bill Clinton cut the size of the military by about 16-19%, and that was on top of earlier cuts made during the first Bush administration. However, since those reductions, there has been little mainstream chatter about reducing military spending. Many political observers might instinctively think that the September 11th attacks have now made reducing military spending a third rail in American politics.
Those observers would be wrong, for two reasons. First, costly adventures overseas amid an economic downturn at home have once again turned the public mood back toward a reduction in military spending. Long-term Gallup poll trendlines show this change:
Gallup Poll. Feb. 11-14, 2008. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"There is much discussion as to the amount of money the government in Washington should spend for national defense and military purposes. How do you feel about this? Do you think we are spending too little, about the right amount, or too much?"
Too Little: 22%
About Right: 30%
Too Much: 44%
Unsure: 3%
Long-term trends, and further discussion, in the extended entry. |
Long-term Gallup poll trends on military spending
| Date |
Too Little |
About Right |
Too Much |
Unsure |
| Feb 08 |
22% |
30% |
44% |
3% |
| Feb 07 |
20% |
35% |
43% |
2% |
| Feb 06 |
25% |
40% |
32% |
3% |
| Feb 05 |
30% |
38% |
30% |
2% |
| Feb 04 |
22% |
45% |
31% |
2% |
| Feb 03 |
24% |
44% |
27% |
4% |
| Feb 02 |
33% |
48% |
17% |
2% |
| Feb 01 |
41% |
38% |
19% |
2% |
| Mar 93 |
17% |
38% |
42% |
3% |
| Jan 90 |
9% |
36% |
50% |
5% |
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this table is not that the public is coming around to the idea that we are spending too much on defense, but that the belief we are spending too little on defense actually occurred before the attacks of September 11th, 2001. While cutting defense spending was a popular idea at the start of the 1990's, opinion actually turned in the other direction as the decade continued. This leads to the second reason why my hypothetical political observers would be wrong.
It appears that the current national economic outlook has as much impact on the public's view of defense spending as does the perception of security threats. In good economic times, like the 1990's, people want to spend more on defense, probably at least partially because they believe we can afford such spending. However, during the current economic downturn, just like during weak economic times in the early 1990's, defense spending appears less affordable to the public.
The last time Gallup polled this question was nine months ago, but they seem to ask this question every year. After the economic meltdown that started in September, it seems quite likely that the percentage of Americans who think we are spending "too much" on the military rose. It is even possible that is now the majority opinion in America.
This public opinion change provides the new Obama administration with an auspicious opportunity to redirect federal spending away from the military. House Finance Chairman Barney Frank is already proposing just that:
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes.
Further, Representative Jan Schakowsky, one of Obama's biggest supporters and a leading candidate to replace him in the Senate, will likely be pushing legislation to phase out the use of military contractors over the next five years:
U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), member of the House Intelligence Committee, announced legislation today to phase out the use of private military contractors over the next five years. Congresswoman Schakowsky participated in today's Government Reform Committee hearing on Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq. Schakowsky had an opportunity to question the witnesses including Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater.
Cutting back on contractors would significantly reduce defense spending. Combine this bill with withdrawal from Iraq, and Barney Frank's call to reduce other defense spending by 25%, and overall the federal government would be shifting several hundred billion dollars a year away from the military.
This is a huge opportunity. While I am not particularly keen on Obama's willingness to seize the moment, remember that all appropriation spending legislation starts, in accordance with the Constitution, in the newly progressive U.S. House. Thus, if the House were to make cuts, then in order to prevent the cuts from taking effect, either Obama would have to veto, or Senate Democrats would have to oppose, what are at this point probably popular, majority-backed cuts in military spending.
In other words, both public opinion and opinion within the House leadership appear to be turning toward reducing military spending. So, it could really happen. That Obama is leaning toward keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense for a while longer is a truly bad sign for how Obama plans to manage the military, managing the military and acquiring funds for it are two separate things entirely. We can reduce the size of the military no matter who is Secretary of Defense. And, for the first time in about fifteen years, it looks as though Democrats might do just that. This is extremely important, because directing federal spending away from the military is not just good for our economy and our nation, but it also makes a real dent in one of the largest pieces of conservative political infrastructure and corporate welfare: the military industrial complex. |
