How Conservatives Can Be "Cheap Hawks"

As the “Super Committee” strives to trim $1.2 trillion from the federal budget, many conservatives have expressed concern about the potential for massive, arbitrary cuts to defense spending.  They point out that $350 billion has already been slashed from the defense budget, and insist that it would be dangerous to cut one dollar more.  Worse yet, if the Super Committee cannot come to an agreement, defense will be cut by an automatic $600 billion.

Our country needs a strong national defense.  Protecting America is the single most important task of the federal government.  In a broader sense, America’s military strength has underpinned global security for decades, and an abdication of that leadership role could have enormous, negative ripple effects.  Retreat from Asia would be particularly unwise at a time when China is building up its military capabilities in order to strengthen its strategic posture in the region.

At the same time, our country desperately needs to get its finances in order. Entitlement spending is on an unsustainable path, and discretionary spending has been surging too.  Liberals argue for increased taxes to improve the country’s balance sheet, and are reluctant to agree to any plan that includes major entitlement cuts.  Conservatives insist that the problem is not that Americans are taxed too little, rather that government has gotten too big.  Except for defense, that is, where many conservatives seem unwilling to budge.

Both sides need to show more flexibility.  Liberals need to understand that we can’t tax our way to solvency – the numbers simply don’t add up.  And conservatives need to understand that there is room for government to scale back across the board, and that includes defense. 

There’s nothing magical about the current level of defense spending, and there is just as much waste in defense as anywhere else in the federal government.  Rather than getting hung up on top-line dollar amounts, the defense budget should be built based upon our needs.  It should be forward-looking and willing to discard expensive concepts that aren’t working or aren’t relevant for current and future threats.  It certainly should not be shaped by parochial Congressional interests.

Moreover, conservatives look disingenuous when we claim the country has a spending problem in need of drastic measures, yet are unwilling to entertain even the slightest modification of the budget for defense.  Trying to hold the line on both taxes and defense makes us seem unreasonable.

Not all conservatives believe that more defense spending is necessarily better.  Newt Gingrich likes to describe himself as a “hawk, but a cheap hawk.”  Ron Paul says we can cut defense spending without harming our national defense.  Both have a point, even if Mr. Paul’s proposals go too far.

In fact, in recent years, a number of conservative, liberal, and bipartisan groups have taken a look at defense spending and found room for savings.  A cursory review of their plans highlights some interesting common ground that should be explored.  The following are just a few examples; more details and more proposals can be found in the reports themselves.

• Reduce or cancel the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program:  The F-35 fighter jet program has been marked by cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems, to the great frustration of Pentagon officials who already have restructured and cut back the program.  Given the availability of alternative aircraft, the trend toward asymmetric warfare, and the increasing use of unmanned drones, this program may be ripe for additional reductions.

• Reduce or cancel the V-22 Osprey program:  The V-22 Osprey is an aircraft that can take off and land vertically like a helicopter, then fly in “airplane mode” at higher speeds than a conventional helicopter. Cost overruns and dangerous performance problems have generated substantial criticism – Dick Cheney himself tried to cancel it when he was Defense Secretary during the first Bush Administration.  Alternative aircraft are less expensive and more reliable.

• Reduce the nuclear arsenal:  America possesses more than enough nuclear weapons to serve as an effective deterrent.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) points out that analysts at the Air War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies found the U.S. could maintain effective deterrent capabilities with as few as 311 strategic nuclear weapons, an 84 percent reduction from current levels. Even a less drastic reduction or an acceleration of already agreed-upon cuts could produce substantial savings.

• Reduce troop levels in Europe:  In this day and age, it’s difficult to justify tens of thousands of troops stationed in Europe.  The end of the Cold War and improved transport systems leave our large and costly troop presence in Europe outdated and unneeded. 

• Reform the military health care system:  The Pentagon has not been immune to the rising cost of healthcare that is draining government coffers and family budgets.  Health care costs, according to former Secretary Gates, are “eating the Department of Defense alive.”  While our troops deserve the finest medical care, particularly for injuries sustained in the line of duty, these costs are spiraling and the system is in dire need of reform. 

Simpson-Bowles Commission, “Illustrative Savings:”  http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf

Sustainable Defense Task Force:  http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf

Cato Institute “Downsizing the federal Government:”  http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense/cut_military_spending

Senator Coburn “Back in Black:”  http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c6590d01-017a-47b0-a15c-1336220ea7bf

Unified Security Budget Task Force: http://www.fpif.org/reports/unified_security_budget_fy2012

Center for American Progress “Top 10 Fiscally Responsible Defense Cuts:” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/responsible_defense_cuts.html

Considering ideas from these and other sources, together with reductions related to the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that savings can be found in the defense budget without weakening America’s national security.  Even if some of the savings were reinvested into forward-looking programs like cyber security and unmanned drones, the point is that current defense spending levels are not sacrosanct, and should be open to modification. 

The $600 billion in arbitrary cuts to defense that would result from the Super Committee’s failing to reach agreement are undoubtedly too much, and should be avoided.  However, a smaller level of defense savings certainly could be achieved without abrogating America’s global leadership role. 

Conservatives should show we mean business when it comes to deficit reduction by preparing a reasonable package of defense cuts to pair with substantial entitlement reforms.