In Our View: How Much is Too Much?

The headlines are a misnomer. As Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives this week unveiled a spending proposal to cover the federal government for the next decade, news reports declared that they had proposed a “budget.” That is where the subterfuge comes in. Because, rather than being a realistic budget, the document is more of a policy statement, a declaration of values, a statement of principles.

Undoubtedly, House Republicans are aware of this, and yet the proposal is valuable as a launching pad for discussion of our priorities. Those priorities, according to the committee headed by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., apparently should be cuts to social programs and domestic spending, along with an increase in defense spending. And while the cuts to food stamps and Medicaid warrant discussion, allow us for now to focus on the nature of military expenditures.

Price’s proposal seeks to boost defense spending by adding nearly $40 billion to an off-budget war funding account. By designating the money as overseas spending, lawmakers can avoid the sequestration cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011. As Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and a frequent critic of his own party’s leadership, noted, “I’m tired of seeing gimmicks in the budget process.”

As a policy statement, the increase to defense spending — while cuts are being made to social services — brings up this overriding question: “How much is too much?” According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2014 the United States spent $640 billion on defense. This not only is the highest total among all the world’s nations, it is equivalent to the next nine nations combined — China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, India, and South Korea. The United States does not rank the highest in military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, but it does account for more than one-third of the world’s defense expenditures.

National defense is important. As the world’s lone superpower, the United States often is the target of rogue states and despots trying to draw the world’s attention. But all too often, the U.S. has adopted a position as the world’s police force, interjecting itself into far-flung conflicts that come at great cost and offer few benefits. While our nation should maintain a robust defense budget, again, the question is how much is too much?

Adding to the difficulty of balancing defense spending with logic is a system that has spread military bases throughout the country. Because numerous communities in every state have become economically reliant upon a military installation, it is nearly impossible to trim Pentagon expenditures without a fight from a congressional representative. In Washington, Tacoma, Spokane, Yakima, Oak Harbor, Bremerton, Silverdale, and Everett all are home to a military base.

As a nation, that has skewed our priorities, and it plays a role in the spending proposal from House Republicans. Rather than address military spending on its merits, leaders in the House have employed a gimmick they once criticized as a “backdoor loophole.” All of this while proposing to reduce taxes on the wealthy, cut social programs, and repeal a crackdown on Wall Street that is designed to avoid the kind of economic collapse that led to the Great Recession.

To their credit, House Republicans are attempting to balance the federal budget over the next 10 years; both parties should be working toward that. But along the way, any budget proposal should better reflect our national values.