The Hidden Costs of U.S. Defense Budget Cuts

Jordan Summers

 An unfortunate and unjust consequence of the current administration’s efforts to “balance” the budget amidst dramatic spending is the reduction of our nation’s defense budget.  The injustice is that the brave and selfless men and women who serve in our armed forces are most adversely affected by these reductions.  By forcing the Pentagon to find ways to cut spending, we are sending the message that the lives of our soldiers are somehow less valuable than before.  Most distressing is the long-term impact that significant budget cuts will have on the safety and effectiveness of our troops.  As we are currently fighting multiple wars, the main concern for our military’s leadership is to direct spending into these efforts, thus forcing cuts to be made on programs dedicated to the future effectiveness of our armed forces and the tools we equip them with. 

Some argue that the fact that we spend dramatically more on defense than any other country in the world reflects irresponsibility and wastefulness—I disagree.  I would argue that our higher spending illustrates the elevated value that we place on the lives of our most courageous citizens.

It is true that we can increase the efficiency of our defense spending, just as government-contracted defense firms can increase their efficiency and effectiveness.  It is also true that steps should be taken to rein in costs.  However, dramatic changes take time and money, both of which are constrained by our current conflicts, and are only further exacerbated by the budget cuts. 

Failure to remain on the forefront of military technology will undermine our foreign policy initiatives and place our soldiers in increasingly vulnerable positions.  The gap between the equipment at their disposal and those of our enemies will decrease—which is an ominous development.  Let me make it clear that I am not advocating war as an effective method of foreign policy.  However, my hope is that an army equipped to address the evolving demands of military conflict would provide added support for our leaders in their foreign policy efforts—geared, of course, to avoid military conflict whenever possible.

While the primary concern is the effect budget cuts will have on our soldiers, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the effect that they have had on our growing unemployment rate.  Defense contractors like General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems are faced with the reality that cancelled defense programs leave them with many well-paid employees without a role to fill.  While the administration is quick to hype their “job creation” efforts (which are often only temporary employment) they fail to mention the permanent jobs that are being destroyed to fund them.

While the job loss resulting from defense budget cuts is devastating, the most inexcusable cost of these reductions is that they undermine the future safety of our men and women in uniform.

A Time for Change: Remaking the Grand Old Party

Jordan Summers

The Grand Old Party is suffering from some significant credibility issues.  After being completely overwhelmed during the 2008 election, the Republican Party is facing a period of significant choice.  After getting fat and happy, the party is confronted with a landmark decision regarding the direction the party should take in its pursuit of positions of influence.  As an individual who voted Republican in the two elections, I find the immediate reaction of the conservative base alarming. 

Take a look at the current faces of the Republican Party.  Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and to some extent George W. Bush are among the most recognizable and vocal members of the GOP.  Even those who seemed to show significant promise have fallen. Take for example Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, whose inept response to President Obama’s address in February sent him back into relative obscurity, or Nevada Senator John Ensign, whose recent revelation of an affair doused any presidential ambitions he may have had.  The call from many within the conservative base to reemphasize the party’s alleged hypocritical and irrational “values” will only amplify the leadership’s failure to live up to those values.

Undoubtedly many in the right are immeasurably frustrated by the fact that these individuals still represent the party.  Too often Republican leaders, who have most vocally preached the morals and values, have undermined the party’s credibility by violating the same principles and values which they have demanded of others.  The acceptance of the recent failures of the Bush administration, and taking responsibility for the poor decisions of many of the party’s leaders are the first steps back to relevance.

Ultimately, the problem is that the party has lost direction. Its leaders once took a stance of great humility, and deferred to the power of the American people rather than government programs and bureaucracies.  Currently, the party seems more focused on returning to power than self-improvement. The GOP should return to being a party that emphasizes the vital role of families in our society—without placing a constraining definition of what constitutes a family.  It should be a party that works to get out of the way of the people and businesses, a party that allows the true competitive advantage of the United States to take hold.

By becoming the party that leads by example instead of preaching, and by reaching across party lines when it’s reasonable, the party can transform its public image.  In fact, there are already signs of opportunity for the Republican Party to reach out to independent voters who support many of the Democrats’ social views but express significant concern over the fiscal policies of our new administration.  It is values like fiscal conservatism and personal choice that can help bridge the gap and attain voters