Pentagon Worried About Spending Cuts

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


As the economy collapses around our heads, the federal government is preparing financial bailout packages totaling an estimated $2 trillion–and that, perhaps, just to start. There’s a lot of money going out the door, but one potential loser could be the Pentagon, reports UPI. A notoriously profligate spender (read this), the Defense Department, according to the Congressional Budget Office, accounts for more than half of all federal discretionary spending and about 4.5 percent of GDP. And despite what you may think, the Pentagon’s budget has not declined since the end of the Cold War; it’s now 20 percent greater, adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1985 when President Reagan was spending the Soviets into the ground.

In short, the Pentagon is flush with cash, but could the glory days of almost limitless spending be winding down? Defense Secretary Robert Gates seems to think so. “The spigot of defense spending that opened on Sept. 11 is closing,” he said at a Senate hearing last month. But the reality of a leaner fiscal climate comes at a bad time for the military services, which are straining to maintain readiness while fighting a two-front war. There’s equipment to refurbish or replace, soaring personnel costs, and next-generation weapons to develop.The latter accounts for much of the Pentagon’s bloat. Big-ticket weapons systems are an ever-growing drain on the budget, and the military services have shown little, if any, restraint in approaching Congress for additional funds when their pet projects have gone over budget, often many times over the original cost estimates. The biggest offenders are the Air Force’s F-22 and F-35 fighters, the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army’s Future Combat Systems program. On average, between 2000 and 2007, says the CBO, the difference between initial cost estimates and the actual price tag upon delivery rose from 6 percent to 27 percent. And systems were, as a rule, delivered 21 months later than expected.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest