Cut Weapons, Not Education

Flickr/mashleymorgan (Creative Commons)

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A pillar of Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, we’re learning, will be a three-year spending freeze in domestic areas like education, transportation, housing, national parks, and farm subsidies, among others. Reeling from Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s victory last week and a growing disenchantment with his ambitious domestic agenda (health care, climate change, financial reform), Obama’s move is no doubt intended to show he’s tough on the deficit, and to allay fears among fellow Democrats staring down a potentially bleak November election season. Its political utility aside, the spending freeze, as it stands now, is a wrongheaded, ill-fated move—not only because it targets areas where more funding is needed, but it exempts the most pork-riddled, wasteful area of them all: defense spending.

Filled with billion-dollar boondoggles and pie-in-the-sky projects (weaponized cyborg bugs, anyone?), if Obama wants to freeze—or even cut—government spending, the defense budget is the first place he should look. Administration officials say the three-year freeze will save $10 to $15 billion in the 2011 fiscal year and $250 billion over the next decade. By comparison, the new war budget Obama requested totaled a record $708 billion—for one fiscal year. Perhaps some of that total could be trimmed. Or the president could crack down on over-budget weapons programs, or “overruns,” which as Mother Jones has reported last summer, alone add up to $296 billion. (Our total weapons commitments, overruns included, reach a staggering $1.6 trillion.)

While we’re at it, here are a few other defense expenditures on which Obama could freeze spending:

  • F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Washington officials are rushing these over budget, behind schedule, much maligned planes into production without even fully testing them—and at a cost of $299 billion;
  • C-17 cargo plane: For three years the Pentagon has said it doesn’t need any more of these $250-million-apiece jumbo jets, yet the C-17 is a popular Congressional pet project and will almost certainly make it into the supplemental war spending bill; and
  • LPD-17 assault ships: These amphibious Naval ships—which could cost $1.76 billion each, $804 billion over budget, according to the GAO—were so shoddily built by contractor Northrop Grumman that they were “sidelined” earlier this month while inspectors rechecked every pipe weld on the 684-foot ship.

That’s to say nothing of the thousands of dollars in booze and snacks official military escorts bought US politicians on foreign trips, as the Wall Street Journal reported—a small but undoubtedly wasteful sum.

Yet Obama apparently has no plans to trim bloated defense spending, while pulling back in areas that need the money more than ever. For instance, many economists—among them White House economic adviser Christina Romer, Moody’s Economy.com chief economist Mark Zandi, and Princeton’s Paul Krugman—say more stimulus is needed to ensure a vigorous recovery (and not the jobless one we’re seeing now); the new freeze, however, likely signals the end of any more stimulus funding. State governments need as much help as they can get, as two dozen face unemployment funds in red and worsening by the day. The housing crisis rolls on mostly unabated—the administration’s $75 billion flagship homeowner relief is a bust, and foreclosures set new records in 2009. And education—perpetually under the knife when budget cuts are made—should be the last place the president and his team look to squeeze out savings. While American K-12 students’ achievement in the classroom continues to slip behind the rest of the world,  access to higher education disappears owed to fewer class offerings, higher tuition costs, and layoffs on campuses nationwide among faculties and staffs.

All of which is to say, before slashing already anemic domestic budgets, Obama should look hard at the billion-dollar planes and busted battleships weighing down our defense budget. With this spending freeze, Obama clearly wants to hone his tough-on-the-deficit image, but he’ll do more harm than good with the cuts he’s envisioning right now.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate