Skip to main content

The boss organizes the workers, union organizers like to say.

Say what you want about President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security and veterans' benefits with the "chained CPI." He did accomplish one thing for liberals that they often have a hard time doing on their own.

He united them - in opposition to his proposal.

Since Friday, the following groups, among others, have contacted me expressing outrage about and pledging to vigorously oppose the President's proposal: the AFL-CIO, MoveOn, Progressive Campaign Change Committee, CREDO Action, Americans for Democratic Action, Democracy for America. Some of these groups are explicitly threatening primary challenges to any Congressional Democrat who supports the President's proposal.

But that's not all we have to celebrate. If, like most Americans, you prefer to cut what Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has called the "bloated" Pentagon budget instead of cutting Social Security and veterans' benefits, you have even more reason to rejoice.

Because at this political juncture, everyone in America who says "no cuts to Social Security or veterans' benefits" is effectively saying "cut the bloated Pentagon budget," whether they do so explicitly or not. If the "grand bargain" is killed and Social Security and veterans' benefits are spared - apparently these are all the same political event - then the Pentagon budget will be cut instead.  

And that means that at long last, we're effectively having the "guns vs. butter" debate in the United States that we have been so long denied.

And that's not all. We have a new way to talk about the Pentagon budget, that every American can easily grasp. We can talk about the Pentagon budget by using the President's proposed cuts to Social Security and veterans' benefits as the unit of measurement.

Economists talk about a "numeraire good." The idea is that you can measure economic value with any good that has economic value as the unit of measurement. It's convenient to use dollars - that's a key function of money, it's a "unit of account" - but you could just as well use bananas, or shoes, or bottles of wine. Or the President's proposed cuts to Social Security and veterans' benefits.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's proposal to use the "chained CPI" to calculate cost of living increases would save the government $127 billion over ten years by cutting Social Security and $36 billion over ten years by cutting "programs affecting veterans and the poorest elderly and disabled." That's a grand total of $163 billion over ten years from hitting seniors, veterans, and the disabled.

So, now we have a new unit of measurement for talking about the Pentagon budget. Anything in the Pentagon budget that costs $163 billion over ten years costs as much as President Obama proposes to save by hitting seniors, veterans, and the disabled.

Let us consider just three examples.

Consider the war in Afghanistan, and ignore all costs except the current appropriations cost of keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Using the rough figure of a billion dollars for every thousand troops deployed per year, suppose we withdrew all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2013, so that the cost were zero for the next ten years. And compare that to a scenario in which we keep an average of 25,000 troops there for the next ten years. Then ending the war would save $250 billion, roughly twice what President Obama proposes to save by whacking seniors, veterans, and the disabled.  

Consider the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Last year, Winslow Wheeler reported that the acquisition cost for the F-35 had risen to $379.4 billion for 2,457 aircraft. That's just the cost to buy the planes, not to fly and maintain them:

The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion -- making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain.
Assuming that everything is proportional (and that these costs don't further escalate, which Wheeler assures us they will), if the F-35 costs $1.5 trillion for 2,457 planes, that's $610 million per plane. How many F-35s would we have to not buy in order to spare seniors, veterans, and the disabled from getting whacked? We would only have to not buy $163 billion worth, or 267 planes. That would still leave 2,190 planes. We could reduce the number of F-35s we purchase by just over 10% - cut one single weapons system by 10% - and save as much money as President Obama proposes to save by whacking seniors, veterans, and the disabled.

Lastly, consider Pentagon contracting: the Project On Government Oversight notes that "every year for the last five years the Pentagon has spent more than $360 billion purchasing goods and services from contractors" and that "service contractors can cost, on average, 2.94 times more than an average Pentagon civilian employee performing the same job. "

Suppose it were true that it costs 2.9 times as much to do things through contractors as it does to use Pentagon employees. That's a different statistic - I'm substituting an apple for an orange. We don't actually have the numbers that we need to do the right calculation, because as POGO notes, the public doesn't have access to contractor workforce size and cost data. But what we're after here is just a rough sense of what Pentagon spending choices and cuts to Social Security and veterans' benefits look like when you put them on the same scale. The actual policy choice we need to make to protect Social Security and veterans' benefits and cut the Pentagon budget is merely to kill the grand bargain and let the sequester-level budget caps on discretionary spending stand.

Suppose that it were possible to in-source everything that contractors are now doing. If it costs 2.9 times as much to do it through contractors, then it should cost $124.14 billion to do the same things in house.  Call it $125 billion to use round numbers.

Thus, if it were possible to in-source everything that contractors are doing, one would save $235 billion a  year - $360 billion minus $125 billion, a cost reduction of 65%. Note that these savings would come not from ceasing to do anything that the Pentagon is now doing, only by doing the existing things more cheaply by eliminating contractors and doing the work in-house.

Now, even ignoring political constraints, it seems quite reasonable to suppose that one could not plausibly in-source everything. Some things are harder to in-source than others. Conversely, some things are easier to in-source than others. In addition, 2.9 is an average. Some things are relatively more expensive to contract, some things are relatively less expensive to contract.

By how much would one have to cut Pentagon contracting to avoid cutting Social Security and veterans' benefits? We'd need to come up with $16.3 billion a year.

Suppose we cut Pentagon contracting by 7%, bringing the work in-house.That should save about $16.5 billion a year.

So, in this calculation - which is surely not right, but is simply intended to be illustrative - we could save as much money by bringing 7% of contracted Pentagon work in-house as the President proposes to save by hitting seniors, veterans, and the disabled.

The key takeaway from all these numbers is that compared to the bloated Pentagon budget, the proposed savings from whacking seniors, veterans, and the disabled are chump change, not worth bothering with. The crucial thing to remember in all this is that none of us needs to come up with a specific plan to replace cuts to Social Security and veterans benefits with Pentagon cuts. Cutting the Pentagon budget instead - the sequester - is the default option, the status quo. All we have to do if we prefer Pentagon cuts to cuts in Social Security and veterans benefits is to kill the grand bargain. The Pentagon can then propose what mix of ending the war in Afghanistan, buying fewer or cheaper fighter planes, cutting contracting, closing foreign military bases, and retiring expensive generals it prefers to stay within its new budget. And then we can decide if we're ok with that, or prefer something else.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy.

Poll

I prefer cutting the bloated Pentagon budget to cutting Social Security and veterans' benefits

96%57 votes
3%2 votes

| 59 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Cut the defense budget, end tax loop holes, (7+ / 0-)

    prosecute individuals and companies who have evaded taxes by using offshore accounts, break-up too-big-to-fail banks, end subsidies for oil and energy behemoths who have polluted our planet, and implement a single payer medical plan...

    And make the bankers and people on Wall Street who created this financial disaster pay for the mess they created...

    ...but then again, that's what we thought Obama was going to do when we elected him in 2008. That's why there was a world-wide celebration when he entered office...little did we know...

  •  cut all "defense" spending by 50% (6+ / 0-)

    We'd still be spending more than Russia and China put together, and our stuff is better than theirs.

    Not all "defense" spending is in the actual DoD budget.  For example, the entire budget for the nuclear deterrent is hidden in the budget for the Department of Energy.

    •  good point about nuclear weapons budget (6+ / 0-)

      it's indeed in the DoE, and ripe for cuts. I left that off my list so I wouldn't have to explain that in what was already a long piece. I am for using "Pentagon" to stand for the whole military budget, including the nuclear weapons budget in DoE. The war in Afghanistan is also technically not part of the "base Pentagon budget," because it (or most of it) is actually in the "Overseas and Contingency Operations" account. But, as far as I'm concerned, the war in Afghanistan is fair game as much as the F-35 is.

      •  the reason why "base" budget only $500 billion (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, kurt, truong son traveler

        $16 billion a month in Afghanistan, $12 billion a month in Iraq.  The 100% unaccountable "black" budget for secret and more likely to be evil stuff that ironically the Chinese and Russians probably know all about, so they're really only hiding it from the voters.

        Cancel all the scifi weapons and all the stuff meant to fight the Soviet Union at its peak; nuclear powers don't fight each other directly anymore (the reason the deterrent is worth keeping IMO) and bush wars and "police actions" don't need them, especially in crowded urban areas.  Mothball the carriers and their support ships; they're sitting ducks to cheap missiles.  If you want to spend money on airplanes, keep the A-10 Warthog flying; an unglamorous plane designed for unglamorous fire support of ground troops, who love the plane.

  •  I say we reverse engines on them and begin a (0+ / 0-)

    petetion to give to Obama, the Sgt. of Arms at the Senate and the House saying we in America want to stop Social Security, Medicare, Disable Veteran's benefits and that we will just make it in different ways than we are now. Like maybe a scorched earth policy throughout the wealthy neighborhoods in major cities or things that will get the attention of these doom-koffs... :)'s only kidding of course but it is just a hapless and hopeless situation.

    Warrewn Buffett's class wins I give in and up...

    If the people in Kentucky were truly religious and Christian as they tell themselves as being then they wouldn't re-elect and send Senator Mitch McConnell back to the senate year after year.

    by leepearson on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:46:10 PM PDT

  •  Here in South Dakota (2+ / 0-)

    we have private security at the National Guard Camp.  Seriously, private security at a military camp.  WTF is that but another waste of moolah.

  •  Getting the money out of politics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robert Naiman

    is important. Now that corporations are people it allows them influence, though large contributions, all out of proportion as compared to that of the voters.

    Politicians must then vote to support those corporations and special interest groups who contribute large sums of money. If they don't do so these influential groups will contribute to future opponents and bring the currently elected politician's gravy train to a halt.

    Is there any hope of this - getting the money out of politics - happening? I don't see it.

    Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

    by truong son traveler on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:45:41 PM PDT

    •  re: Getting the money out of politics (0+ / 0-)

      I'm all for it; and for reducing the role of big money in any way we can. (I don't think the role of small money is necessarily bad and in some ways it's good.)

      But it's important to keep in mind: we can win the battle at hand without any change in the terrain. Every attempt to cut Social Security since 1992 has been defeated. The AFL, MoveOn and the other groups are mobilized. And if Social Security is spared, the Pentagon will be cut. It's win-win.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site