Skip to content Skip to footer

Military Cuts Don’t Translate Into Less Spending

(Photo: Mark Harkin / Flickr)

After Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave a major speech at the Pentagon, The New York Times declared that the Pentagon would shrink the Army to pre-World War II levels. While he did announce an intention to reduce a number of military programs, the Pentagon isn’t planning major reductions in spending any time soon.

What exactly did Hagel announce?

Personnel

The Pentagon’s new budget, slated to be rolled out in full during the first week of March, will call for shrinking the number of active-duty troops in the Army from 520,000 to between 440,000 and 450,000. The Army National Guard would also decrease in size, shedding around 20,000 members, while the Army Reserve would lose around 10,000 and the Marine Corps would shrink by 8,000. The proposal would, however, add 4,000 members to the ranks of special operations.

The new budget would freeze pay for flag officers and generals — a recognition that the military has become top-heavy, with swollen ranks of highly-paid generals and other top officials.

Benefits for active duty personnel and their families also would be reduced, as Hagel acknowledged that payroll costs at the Pentagon have increased 40 percent more than in the private sector. His new proposal includes slowing the growth in the housing allowance for military personnel and reducing subsidies for household goods at military commissaries. And in an effort to contain healthcare costs for military personnel, service members and their families would see higher deductibles and co-pays in their TRICARE health insurance.

Weapons and Bases

The new proposal includes some changes to weapons programs, including eliminating the Air Force A-10 attack jet and the U-2 spy plane fleet, and reducing the number of Navy littoral combat ships, from 52 to 32. The Pentagon didn’t propose any reductions to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is the costliest system in military history and still has never flown in any military operation.

The budget also asks Congress to approve a new round of military base realignment and closure (BRAC) in 2017.

Actual Spending Projections

Despite all of these changes, the new Pentagon budget doesn’t project a commensurate decline in spending. Back in December Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray agreed on a budget blueprint that would allow military spending to grow slightly in fiscal 2015 relative to 2014 and 2013. On top of that, Secretary Hagel’s speech comes at a time when the president is proposing an additional $26 billion on top of that December agreement. That extra cash would support an “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative” that would fund “readiness and modernization” efforts. This extra funding is essentially a Pentagon wish list that would continue to protect the military from making any significant spending reductions in the near future.

Meanwhile, new five-year spending projections at the Pentagon show that it plans to exceed the spending caps of sequestration by $115 billion over the next five years. What’s more, the Pentagon receives many tens of billions in additional funding to operate wars overseas, and that money isn’t subject to caps. In fiscal 2014 that war budget, known officially as “Overseas Contingency Operations,” totaled $85 billion — and is being widely criticized for containing funding that wasn’t actually meant for war operations but instead would function as a slush fund for the Pentagon.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.