A look at the proposed military budget
by Ian Huyett
Follow TLR on Google+
When Chuck Hagel was nominated as Defense Secretary last year, libertarians were split.
To some, President Obama’s choice was a pleasant surprise; during the Bush administration, Hagel had been a prominent Republican critic of interventionism and foreign entanglement. On the other hand, Ted Cruz – a liberty-minded Republican – vocally opposed the nomination, mistakenly suggesting that Hagel had received money from foreign sources.
At first glance, Hagel’s proposed defense budget seems to vindicate the former camp. Overall, the budget saves money while streamlining the military and reorienting it towards precision attacks. The budget will grow special operations forces, invest in research, and even slightly increase basic pay – all while cutting billions in costs, largely by retiring outdated equipment.
Yet, although you wouldn’t guess it from headlines like “Hagel calls for shrinking Army,” the secretary’s position is hardly one of fiscal restraint. In his speech outlining the budget, the secretary continually referred to the cuts as having been “imposed” and “forced” on the Department of Defense by a closefisted, Scrooge-like Congress.
Hagel opened his presentation by denouncing the Budget Control Act for limiting military spending, then criticizing the Bipartisan Budget Act for not spending enough. The secretary said that Congress’ unwillingness to spend “forces us to cut more than $75 billion over this two year period, in addition to the $37 billion cut we took last year, and the Budget Control Act’s 10-year reduction of $487 billion.”
Instead, Hagel says that Congress should have approved President Obama’s plan to spend billions more.
Hagel’s reluctance to spend less differs from remarks he’s made in the past. During his nomination last year, Hagel said that “our Special Inspector Generals have come up with billions and billions and billions of dollars that are unaccounted for – corruption, fraud, waste, abuse. It really is quite astounding. We need to learn from this.”
Why is Hagel so reluctant to make cuts if there are “billions and billions and billions” in waste to eliminate?
I have a cut to suggest: there are currently 10,000 U.S. soldiers in Britain. The U.S. controls six major bases in the country as well as dozens of smaller facilities. It’s 2014, and Britain no longer needs American protection from Germany. In fact, as Hagel himself said, it’s America that needs protection – and from new enemies.
Yet Hagel says that he will ask Congress to approve domestic base closures before he makes closures abroad. Only “if Congress continues to block these requests, even as they slice the overall budget” will he instead cut infrastructure in Europe.
Hagel’s proposal looks to be a net positive – but libertarians should continue to regard it with a critical eye.
