In Our View: Spending Goes on Defense

When it comes to the defense of the United States, many would argue that no expense is too great. And while this nation’s security must stand among the most inviolate duties of government, a similar argument can be made that the law of diminishing returns is at play with debate over the Pentagon’s budget for the coming year.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter unveiled his department’s vision for a future of battling the Islamic State and other adversaries. “Now we have to think and do a lot of different things about a lot of different challenges — not just ISIL and other terrorist groups, but also competitors like Russia and China, and threats like North Korea and Iran,” Carter said during a speech at the Economic Club in Washington, D.C.

Undoubtedly, the world is a dangerous place, and the United States has antagonists ranging from nations who are challengers for global influence to non-nations motivated by murderous demagoguery. Carter said the Pentagon is planning to increase spending for fighting Islamic State by 50 percent, to $7.5 billion, and to quadruple spending in Europe to reassure allies and deter Russian aggression.

Because Congress approved and President Barack Obama signed a two-year budget agreement last fall, those expenses will draw money from elsewhere in this year’s $582 billion defense budget. And that is what brings us to the law of diminishing returns, an economic principle that says at a certain point, increased spending on an item only marginally improves effectiveness (or, in the case of a business, profit margin).

Many members of Congress have expressed the opinion that last year’s budget deal falls short of meeting the nation’s defense needs. In January, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said: “Last fall’s budget agreement does not provide enough money for defense.” And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has said: “What we must also acknowledge is that, while the threat posed by (the Islamic State) and our other adversaries is growing, our national security budgets are increasingly disconnected from our national security requirements.”

In addition, several Republican presidential candidates have criticized President Obama’s handling of the military. Ted Cruz, for example, said, “Barack Obama, right now, No. 1, over seven years has dramatically degraded our military.” It should be noted, however, that according to PolitiFact, for five straight years Congress has adopted military budgets smaller than those requested by the president.

While Republicans understandably are attempting to score political points in an election year, they also are ignoring a pertinent fact: The U.S. defense budget of $582 billion is by far the largest of any nation, representing about one-third of the world’s military expenditures. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2014 the United States spent more on the military than the next 10 nations combined — and most of those are our allies.

Given that, it seems difficult to argue that the United States military is not well-prepared to defend this nation or intervene overseas when necessary. Carter said: “In this budget, we’re taking the long view. We have to, because even as we fight today’s fights, we must also be prepared for the fights that might come 10, 20, or 30 years down the road.”

That sounds reasonable — more reasonable than suggesting that increased spending will enhance this nation’s security.