RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Cut the Deficit–Cut Military Spending

by Jim Wallis 02-04-2010

President Obama’s 2011 budget, submitted to Congress this week, totals $3.8 trillion and projects a deficit of $1.6 trillion. And while analysts have had only two days to dissect the massive document, the president’s priorities are clear: jobs and the military. The biggest problem he faces is the rapidly growing deficit.

With the economy still in recession and unemployment still at 10 percent, the domestic priority is clearly job creation. The budget includes a $100 billion jobs program, with substantial amounts targeted to tax breaks for small businesses in order to stimulate job creation. Also included are tax credits that assist lower-income workers with expenses such as child care, which make it more possible for them to find employment.

And despite the administration’s plan to enact an overall freeze on discretionary domestic spending, it appears programs that focus on low-income and poor people were increased. Bob Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said in a statement on the budget that “Contrary to fears expressed last week that the President’s proposed freeze on total non-security discretionary funding would provide inadequate support for education, for vulnerable Americans, and the like, the budget actually does well in these areas.” It appears that major programs in nutrition, housing, education, TANF, etc. all are higher than last year.

But as usual, the sacred cow that cannot be touched is the military. First, a thanks to the administration for having the honesty to include the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget, rather than waiting several months and then coming back with requests for supplemental funding as has been the practice in past years. Let’s at least know up front what we’re dealing with. In round numbers, the military budget includes an operating budget of $549 billion, plus funding for the two wars at $192 billion (including an already planned request for $33 billion this spring), for a total of $741 billion.

I, too, am concerned about the rapidly growing deficit. While some degree of deficit spending is necessary in a time of severe recession, it is growing so fast that it threatens our future and our children’s futures. Last night, I ran into David Walker on the Amtrak train coming home from Philadelphia. We are both on book tours, and his new book is Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility. David and I had talked over the holidays, but now we had the chance to sit down and have a long train conversation about this topic. He is also concerned that the deficit not be cut on the backs of our poorest people and that the most vulnerable be protected. And he also thinks cutting excessive and wasteful military spending must be part of the solution. So here’s a suggestion: Let’s start with the military.

In a preliminary analysis of this budget, Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, and other defense experts said that:

A close analysis of the FY 2011 defense budget reveals that it does not go far enough to impose real fiscal discipline on our defense spending … There are a number of reasonable cuts that could be made to this portion of the budget without sacrificing national security or undermining our troops.

Congressman Barney Frank was also at Davos and told me that he is proposing a 25 percent cut in the military budget. He said he will need help from the faith community. I support his effort, and we will saying more about it as details emerge.

The wars we have been fighting are a huge part of the massive deficit we now face, wars that I have also challenged on many other grounds. It’s time to stop subsidizing the shameful profits of the “military industrial complex” that former President Eisenhower warned us about long ago. I personally would favor spending more on the returning veterans who are too often abandoned when their service is over. But cut the defense contractors who serve their own profits much more than any true idea of national security. Protect the veterans, cut the contractors. Now there is one way to attack the deficit.

We in the faith community say we subscribe to the biblical injunction to “beat our swords into plowshares.” So let’s be in the middle of the budget deficit debate and push hard for the right priorities. As David Walker and I agreed last night on the tracks between Philadelphia and DC, this is a moral question.

+Click here to tell President Obama: Budgets are moral documents – cut our military spending.

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

+Click here to get email updates from Jim Wallis

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Guest
    Concerned about the deficit? How about concern for the national debt? That's the problem. 2/3 of our federal gov't spending is on entitlements. Why don't we start there? I'm so tired of hearing the "military industrial complex." I wish you folks would bother listening to the entire speech and put it into context, instead of picking and choosing the parts you like to exploit. The current military looks nothing like it did during the post-WW2 era. Let's also remember the primary role of having a federal government in the first place - to defend the sovereignty of a nation and protect it's citizens. You have to have a military to do that, folks.
  • pawheel
    I really can't accept the consideration of the military boosting employment as a good thing. I personally know many of my childrens friends who chose the military for that reason, and a couple that chose military subcontractor for the same reason (which pays better), but to me that's a pretty sad statement about our country. Can't we use some of the Military budget to assist employment growth in some form, other than mostly overblown projects like over hyped rail development, etc? For example, no matter what you think of global climate change, using some of the manpower and brainpower that now goes to the military to develop new weapons and such could help us reduce foreign oil addiction with true clean energy solutions. We have to start somewhere and both political sides have said we need to get off of foriegn oil addiction. And the construction industry is on it's knees - I know more people who work construction than any other field except I.T. and most of them have spent most of the last year or more unemployed, including most of my extended family.
  • pawheel
    Sam Hamilton,
    I get the impression that since 9/11 especially, being "soft" on defense is considered weak, anti-American, with the terrorists (as in the Bush quote "..youre either with us or your against us"), pick your favorite phrase. Whichever you choose, for a Congressman or Presidential candidate it leaves themn so easily vulnerable to a full frontal attack as any one of the above descriptions by the people who would have used the attack phrase "commumist" 40 years ago.
  • ford49
    Your compassion is completely underwhelming. I hope and pray life never afflicts you with events that puts you in a position to eat those words.

    As for radical Islam, I think saying they are on the ropes is premature; we will be dealing with this matter for decades or longer. We in the West are reaping a bit of what we have sowed in that part of the world for a century or more.
  • ford49
    Fundamentalist I agree on this one!
  • TinMan
    I think all areas of the budget including entitlements should be cut across the board.

    Also, if they really care about the deficit, eliminate all pork.

    Perhaps the feds could consider not trying to solve everything and instead partner with the church instead to offer more social programs.
  • ckgmailOTscholar
    Further amend it to the "military industrial medical prison complex." Lobbyists for the medical insurance companies were able to gut the proposed health reform act. And believe me the prison industry has taken the place of agricultural field workers in many rural agricultural areas. Many displaced farmers work as prison guards. The PC term is correctional officers. And displaced field hands, or their offspring, are the prisoners.
  • ckgmailOTscholar
    Remember, TARP was originated under the previous administration. It was scaled down considerably from what the then Secretary of the Treasury asked for. And we do not know what would have happened if the banks had not been rescued. Perhaps unemployment would be 20% or greater. We don't know.
  • pcnot4me
    I think the place to start would be for our commander in chief to get rid of all the "corpsmen" he talked about. LOL
  • JohnH54
    NF, you do understand that Jim Wallis has a superior ability and understanding as to the type of jobs that should be created, don't you? /sarc

    You can cut spending, but the real decisions have to be made at the level of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These will bankrupt us, have bankrupted us.

    Cut military spending all you want, but you will put people out of work.

    Much better to spend money on things that will never be used and never provide security like rail programs. I can hardly wait for the day when I, instead of getting in my car and getting from Columbus to Cleveland in about two hours (or less), drive 20 minutes to the train station, pay to park my car, wait for the train, take the 3 hour 45 minute train to Cleveland, get there, arrange for transportation, go to my one hour meeting or court hearing, then check into the hotel for an overnight stay at which time, I get to spend almost five hours getting back to Columbus.

    It's this kind of moronic thinking that this is somehow better, more efficient, that has many of us scratching our heads at the lack of wisdom of those who propose it.

    I do agree that we could do as well with less money in the Pentagon budget. It's filled with pork. Make some real decisions on how to spend it, but recognize that entitlement spending and age demographics are the real problem.
  • karenykarl
    Yes, and there is only one thing to do. Be there when it happens. Write your congressman.
  • letjusticerolldown
    We could balance the Federal budget tomorrow and the world would go on. It might even rattle Washington enough we might even see a bit of real reform. Individuals make far more drastic moves everyday than anything the Feds contemplate to balance the budget.

    The military goes after as big a budget it can get and then asks "How much military/mission can we buy with this?"

    What about a radical concept of clearly outlining our security and foreign policy objectives. Plan an appropriate military and pay for it? We could buy more security for 50% of the current budget if we wanted to.

    Medicare, Soc Sec, and tax reform will not become simpler sometime in the future. The options have been defined ad nauseum.

    Make the decisions now!
  • I agree... cut the military budget.
  • I'm glad Rep. Frank has the courage and boldness to try to give a go to the 25% military spending cut again this year. Went nowhere last year. I think it sank with barely a trace because groups like Sojourners and FCNL were so taken in by Obama that they wouldn't mount a campaign around it.

    It's even more propitious this year, as both Speaker Pelosi and House Minority Leader Boehner have said that military spending has to be looked at. We have a chance to open the debate for real.
  • Hmm, I would say that TARP has been pretty ineffective, what with the 10%+ unemployment and all.
  • SamHamilton
    Good point. Something tells me that if Barney Frank had a military base or major weapons contractor in his district he'd be arguing right now that this base is vital(!) to national security and that only other bases/projects should be closed.
  • SamHamilton
    I understand that some people here generally think throwing money out the door at random projects regardless of their value or worth and calling it "stimulus" is a good idea, but we shouldn't be spending taxpayer dollars simply because it creates jobs.
  • SamHamilton
    I agree with Jim here. It's beyond me why President Obama thinks that defense and "homeland security" should be off limits to a spending freeze or cut.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Military spending has actually been shown as the LEAST effective use of taxes for job creation.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Thank you Jim for saying this. Militaristic imperialism is the self-indulgent vice that will destroy our economy just as it destroyed Russia's.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008