Military downsizing wrong way to balance U.S. budget

Military spending has been, and continues to be, a convenient
target for those who believe that our nation’s money might be
better spent elsewhere. And, in times of relative peace, the
absolute necessity of a strong, well-prepared American military is
more difficult to convey. Simply put, the many forces threatening
international peace necessitate an increase from current spending
levels.

The idea that the end of the Cold War has brought peace and
stability is false. The names and nationalities of rogue regimes
have changed, but America’s role as a watchdog has not. If we
are not prepared to act when necessary, regional destabilization
caused by conflicts will do irreversible damage, not only to
American interests, but also to the region as a whole.

Whether you realize it or not, a fateful decision has already
been made for all Americans. When ““ not if ““ the time
for military action comes, we will be unable to respond quickly,
and in force, to international conflicts. We should know better.
The correct choice between readiness and complacency is one we have
already been taught. Our triumph in Desert Storm was due primarily
to several armored divisions which had previously been monitoring
Cold War tensions. These divisions were quickly relocated to
Kuwait, where they crushed Saddam Hussein. Nine years later, such a
rapid, decisive response is no longer possible.

We have been unprepared before. The year was 1941, and the
consequence of our underestimation was no less than the tragedy at
Pearl Harbor. Must we learn this lesson again at the expense of
thousands more American lives? The economic objection to military
spending centers on its size relative to other federal
expenditures. Currently, our nation budgets $297.1 billion for
defense, an average of approximately $1,100 per person. This is a
minuscule amount of money considering the nearly limitless scope of
U.S. military activities. More surprisingly, 18 percent of our
budget goes for defense spending, but 20 percent is allocated for
interest on the national debt. While it is true that federal
expenditures for defense are larger than federal funding of
education or social spending, only a fool would take such a
comparison at face value. In fact, education and social welfare are
funded both on the federal and state levels, while the military is
solely a federal expenditure.

Even if we believe that federal social spending and our
nation’s defense are of exactly equal importance, it is poor
reasoning to conclude that our nation cares less for our people
than for defending them. Military spending is, and must remain, a
federal activity because of the nature of defense. We deal with
other countries as a single entity on the international level
because the logistics of 50 states each dealing with other
countries separately is unworkable. Such an approach would make a
shambles of the situation, and would in effect destroy America as
we know it. This is the very reason that the Constitution mandates
that the federal government is responsible for the “raising
of armies.” It is also unlikely that total defense spending
would be reduced under such a scheme.

The same cannot be said of social welfare or educational
spending. As it exists, a national entity is given the task of
deciding the appropriate funding for the states. Such a hierarchy
leads to misallocation, waste and frustration on the part of those
who truly need the funding. These two kinds of spending are
tailor-made for state control, and it is unacceptable that
Washington bureaucrats have usurped the superior system of local
control.

This is the exact reason why the framers of our Constitution
specified that the federal government would be responsible for a
small, but very important number of duties, chief among them
“organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.”
Oddly, nowhere does the Constitution read “The federal
government shall play nursemaid to its citizens’ every
need.” Instead, it specifies that any rights not specifically
intended for the federal government are reserved for the states.
Social welfare and education were among the many rights reserved
exclusively for the states, precisely because local control brings
accountability, highly targeted funding and a well-served
constituency.

A central question to most government entities is whether the
program could be privatized to everyone’s benefit. A
completely or mostly privatized educational system has many
proponents. Even those who are traditionally liberal consider the
idea seriously when they see the decaying schools so many students
are compelled to attend. Social programs could likewise be improved
if administered on the local level. But there is simply no way to
privatize the military. It performs a function completely unlike
any other government enterprise, and could not perform effectively
any other way.

The military is vitally important on a personal level for
millions of Americans. And unlike the demeaning handouts that are
the hallmark of social programs, the military builds pride,
self-sufficiency and marketable trade skills. Sociological studies
show a dramatic drop in rates of depression and suicide following a
move from the government dole to employment (Sociological Research
Institute, 1996). The job, regardless of pay, was shown as the
differentiating factor.

In addition, the military has been one of the most important
stepping-stones to the middle class for generations. The
opportunities the military offers are color-blind. A young Polish
immigrant benefited from World War II service and the G.I. Bill as
much as a young Latino benefits from service today. Despite
billions in cuts, the service continues to offer enlistment
bonuses, tuition reimbursement and a chance to rise in the ranks
based on skill and hard work. Because of its egalitarian nature,
the military has aided those who are ready to prove themselves by
giving a hand up rather than a handout.

Many believe that military cuts are an innocent undertaking.
They imagine cutting a few billion here and a few billion there,
and soon, having a surplus sufficient to give a Sidwell
Friends-quality education to every child in America. If only it
were that simple. There is a face to military cuts ““ the
26-year-old PFC with a wife and two small children, and the 100,000
other families like his. The plight of the military working poor,
more than any other situation in America today, cries out for a
remedy. If there is any group to which we should guarantee a
“living wage,” it should not be laundry workers or
medical records-keepers ““ it should be the underpaid
servicemen and women who have pledged to put their allegiance to
our country above everything else they hold dear … even life.

In our thirst to slash the military budget (while pork-barrel
social projects go untouched), we consign these hard-working
families to years of hand-to-mouth living. The local charities in
military towns know the plight of these families. They’re the
ones lining up on Saturday mornings at the food bank to receive the
food they could not otherwise afford to put on the table. The
cashiers at the local supermarket know military families ““
they’re the ones paying with food stamps.

Support defense cuts if you will ““ but would you rather
see your taxes support adequate military pay, or welfare when
destitute military families simply stop trying to make ends
meet?