[Peace-discuss] Cross-party call to cut military

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul
	Posted: July 6, 2010 09:02 AM
	Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important 
issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere 
with our ability to work together when we do agree.

By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include 
substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as 
part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military 
expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon 
budget for 2010 is $693 billion -- more than all other discretionary spending 
programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.

It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the 
projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our 
economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.

We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in 
the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we 
may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our 
servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting 
essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to 
prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on 
September 11, 2001.

Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet 
Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of 
protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we 
continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and 
currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such 
expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have 
greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend 
overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to 
a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their 
social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national 
health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the 
comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low 
military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."

When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a 
strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American 
taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply 
flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability 
by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often 
generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.

We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than 
the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those 
who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion 
dollars of American taxpayers' money on direct military spending in Iraq since 
the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. 
We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating 
electoral disputes.

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have 
convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military 
expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a 
detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by 
approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating 
certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with 
these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any 
nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our 
security rather than diminish it.

We are currently working to enlist the support of other members of Congress for 
our initiative. Along with our colleagues Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman 
Walter Jones, we have addressed a letter to the President's National Committee 
on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which he has convened to develop concrete 
recommendations for reducing the budget deficit. We will make it clear to 
leaders of both parties that substantial reductions in military spending must be 
included in any future deficit reduction package. We pledge to oppose any 
proposal that fails to do so.

In the short term, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs will remain our 
nation's top priority. But it is essential that we begin to address the issue of 
excessive military spending in order to ensure prosperity in the future. We may 
not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do 
agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not 
begin to face this issue now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html