A bipartisan commission of defense experts has released a plan that would reduce the US’s defense spending by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years — a plan sure to gather support from progressives and libertarians, but unlikely to pass through Congress.
The commission’s report comes at a time when public concern about the US’s national debt has hit a fever pitch, and the claim that nearly $1 trillion can be saved from defense spending will certainly color future debates about what government services to cut.
The Sustainable Defense Task Force, put together at the behest of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to “explore options for reducing the defense budgetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s contribution to the federal deficit without compromising the essential security of the US,” recommends saving $200 billion by reducing the presence of US troops in Western Europe and the Far East, and reducing total troop strength to 1.3 million.
The report (PDF) also recommends eliminating “costly and unworkable weapons systems,” for a savings of $130 billion, and reducing the US’s nuclear arsenal to 1,050 warheads, for a savings of $113 billion.
The commission, which includes members from conservative groups such as the Cato Institute and from liberal groups such as the Center for American Progress, also recommended “a strategy of restraint that would emphasize the ability to bring force from the sea to defeat and deter enemies rather than putting large numbers of troops ashore in extended operations.”
In all, the savings are expected to total $960 billion.
Rep. Frank joined libertarian Texas Republican Ron Paul and a number of other legislators to release the report Friday.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“With our nation staring down the barrel of record deficits, the Pentagon budgetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s explosive growth is unsustainable,Ã¢â‚¬Â task force member Laura Peterson, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in a press release. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s plenty of fat to cut from the military budget without compromising our safety. In fact, military and political leaders agree that economic stability is vital to our national security.Ã¢â‚¬Â
But despite the political appeal of lower deficits, Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent suggests the commission’s proposals won’t become law because “[f]ew communities of Washington wonks run into greater structural and institutional obstacles than advocates of reduced defense spending.” Writes Ackerman:
Defense companies put billions into PR campaigns for the necessity of this or that project that runs over cost. Legislators have every career incentive to lard the defense budget with job-creating bloat for their districts. The media treats civilian and military spending as two entirely different entities, with military spending emerging from a magical, never-ending fountain of cash. And then thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the general jingoism that equates curbed defense spending with a deficit of patriotism.
Writing at FireDogLake, David Dayen also doubts the recommendations will ever be enacted, but notes that “having this debate out in the open is important. At least a small sliver of official Washington doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t consider military spending magical spending that has no cost to the bottom line.”
Including the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, The US defense budget for fiscal year 2011 is $708 billion, up from $691 billion the year before. When other defense-related costs — such as aiding domestic counter-terrorism operations and providing veterans’ health care — are added, defense costs this year exceed $1 trillion.
A program to cut $960 billion from defense spending over 10 years would see about $96 billion cut from defense spending, on average, per year.
Massive anti-coup protests explode across Bolivia ‘against the many violations to Democracy’
"Do you think we are ignorant?"
Chanting "resign now" to Bolivia's interim, self-declared president Jeanine Añez, protesters across the Latin American country on Friday made their displeasure with the overthrow of the government by right-wing Christian extremists last Sunday known.
Thousands of demonstrators marched through the cities of La Paz and El Alto. Friday's protests follow days of unrest as the Bolivian people rejected Sunday's coup, which forced democratically-elected President Evo Morales to resign and flee the country.
Fox’s John Roberts: Trump’s attack on Yovanovitch caused ‘a lot of damage’ to foreheads at the White House
On today's edition of Your World, Fox News Neil Cavuto asked White House correspondent John Roberts what he thinks the consequences will be for President Trump's apparent attempt to intimidate former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch -- at the very moment she was testifying at the second public hearing of the House's impeachment inquiry.
"I don't know how much political damage that tweet is going to do, Neil, but certainly I think there was a lot of damage here at the White House to a collective group of foreheads as people went like this..." Roberts said, while mimicking someone smacking their forehead in frustration. "...as the President tweeted that out right in the middle of the hearing."
‘American hero’ Marie Yovanovitch gets standing ovation ‘drowning out and effectively answering’ GOP’s ‘limp objections’
'Poignant and Perfect'
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was heralded with a standing ovation as her five-plus hours of calm and patriotic testimony ended and House Republicans tried to commandeer the last whiffs of Friday's impeachment proceedings.
Republicans demanded they be given extra time to speak as the hearing was gaveled to a close, claiming they had been disparaged and had the right to respond.
They did not.
As she stood and began to walk away, audience members in the gallery cheered, and gave Ambassador Yovanovitch a standing ovation.