Under the agreement, a joint House-Senate committee is supposed to
propose, by Thanksgiving, $1.5 trillion of debt reduction (expenditures
less revenues) over ten years.
Significant cuts in projected military spending are on the table.
Indeed, if the joint committee doesn't agree on a plan or Congress
doesn't enact it, $1.2 trillion in cuts in projected spending over ten
years will be triggered, of which half must come from the military
If the military cuts in the trigger mechanism take place, when added to
the projected military cuts announced by the White House as part of
this week's deal, total cuts in projected military spending would amount
to $884 billion. This is very close to the $886 billion in military
cuts agreed by the plan of the Senate's "Gang of Six," a plan endorsed by President Obama
t's in the ballpark of - but less than - the $960 billion in proposed military cuts of the Frank-Paul Sustainable Defense Task Force
, the trillion dollars in proposed military cuts of the report
of the president's deficit commission, the $1.1 trillion reduction in projected military spending proposed by the Domenici-Rivlin task force
and the $1.2 trillion in military cuts recommended by the Cato Institute
. Conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn says cutting the projected military budget by a trillion dollars over ten years is "not hard" and is "common sense."
In other words: cutting projected military spending by a trillion
dollars over the next ten years has become politically plausible.
Now, some voices have said: the cuts in projected military spending in
the automatic trigger are irrelevant, because the automatic trigger is
not going to happen, because a key point of the automatic trigger is to
be so odious to Republicans on military spending, that it will build
pressure on the joint committee to come up with a compromise and for
Congress to approve the compromise because the alternative will be the
odious cuts in military spending.
But these voices neglect the fact that except for the super-hawks in
Congress (e.g. McCain, Graham, Kyl, Lieberman, McKeon) - who, despite
their media prominence, do not appear to currently control the Republican caucus - the military cuts in the automatic trigger are not that odious.
As noted above, if the automatic cuts happen, the cut in projected
military spending will be about the same as the bipartisan Senate Gang
of Six plan - endorsed by President Obama - and less than the projected
military cuts of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, the report of the
President's deficit commission, the Domenici-Rivlin task force, the Cato
Institute and conservative Sen. Tom Coburn.
For many members of
Congress - likely a majority, judging from the struggle over the recent
deal - the automatic trigger is not as odious as what some people want
to put in the joint committee report: tax increases, most odious to many
Republicans; cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits,
most odious to many Democrats. These most odious things are not in the
"The Tea Party people are anti-military spending to a greater extent
than establishment Republicans and have a healthy dose of isolationism
thanks to American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan,'' says
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who has long pushed to cut
the defense budget. "On this issue, they were a positive force."
Therefore, the automatic trigger is not Armageddon as far as military
cuts are concerned. And because the automatic trigger is not Armageddon
on military cuts, cuts in projected military spending have the potential
to play a big role in the joint committee report, because anyone who
prefers the military cuts of the trigger to the joint committee report
will have somewhere else to go.
The other key dynamic is this: because the joint committee has to come
up with a fixed amount of debt reduction, there is going to be
tremendous pressure from Democrats and Democratic constituency groups on
Democratic leaders to cut military spending, because the main
alternative to cuts in military spending will be cuts to domestic
Indeed, in a letter
sent to Congressional Democratic leaders Thursday, the AFL-CIO, the
National Organization for Women, the NAACP, Friends of the Earth, and
many other Democratic constituency groups called for cuts in military
spending to be as least as great as any cuts in domestic spending:
Any discretionary savings must rely at least as much on cuts in
national security programs as on spending cuts in non-security
discretionary programs. While there is an effort to cut spending across
the broad array of annual discretionary spending programs, national
security spending, which comprises 61% of the discretionary budget,
continues to grow. Without cuts to national security programs, even very
deep cuts to all other discretionary funding taken together will fall
far short of dealing with the deficit. We want a safe and secure nation.
But national security programs should not be immune from oversight and
fiscal responsibility. We can responsibly reduce spending in this area
without compromising our nation's security.
Thus, according to these influential Democratic constituency groups, in
the scenario in which the joint committee does not agree to any revenue
increases, the cuts to "national security programs" would be at least
as much as in the automatic trigger: 50 percent.
A trillion dollars over ten years may seem intuitively like a huge cut.
But in fact, it isn't. Remember that the baseline for all these numbers
is currently projected spending over the next ten years. The
Domenici-Rivlin task force suggested freezing military spending for five
years and not letting it grow it faster than GDP for the next five;
that would save $1.1 trillion over ten years. And, as noted above, there
are now a number of plans in circulation, from experts across the
political spectrum, showing where to cut to get $1 trillion in savings
in military spending.
A trillion in cuts in military spending over ten
years would just return military spending to the average for the cold
war. And, according to the White House
$350 billion in cuts to military spending are already agreed, so we
just have $650 billion to go to get to a trillion, which is just a
little over half of what the joint committee is charged with finding.
Cutting the military budget by a trillion dollars over ten years would
likely imply a fundamentally different foreign policy than we have
recently experienced: one without counterinsurgency wars. The Washington
To find $1 trillion in savings, the White House would have to make
major changes to its current global military strategy, under which the
Pentagon should be able to fight two wars like Iraq and Afghanistan
simultaneously. Scaling back that requirement would allow for big cuts
to the Army and Marine Corps ... Congress would be betting that the
Afghan war will wind down as planned and that the country will not be
drawn into any big, costly counterinsurgency wars in the next 10 to 15
From the point of view of the interests of the majority of Americans,
that's not a cost of cutting the military budget; it's a benefit.
Of course, a trillion in cuts in military spending is not a ceiling for
what we should aspire to. There's no reason that we should accept
cold-war levels of military spending as the best we can do. But from
where we are now, a trillion in cuts in military spending would be a
tremendous leap forward.
A historic opportunity is, of course, not at all the same thing as a
certainly. If you want to see these military cuts take place, speak up.
You can urge your representatives in Congress and the president to put
the military budget first in line for cuts here.