100°F
weather icon Clear

Trump on military spending: An encouraging sign

As on most issues, President-elect Donald Trump has been all over the map on military issues throughout his campaign and post-campaign pronouncements.

One day he muses about disbanding NATO, the next day he promises to “rebuild” the U.S. military, which is already by far not just the most well-funded war machine, but the most well-funded enterprise of any kind on Planet Earth (the 2017 U.S. military budget exceeds Wal-Mart’s 2015 gross revenues by about $100 billion). He’s hard to pin down.

Still, Trump’s December 12 tweet on Lockheed’s F-35 contract is encouraging to those who’d like to see real U.S. “defense” spending cuts. “The F-35 program and cost is out of control,” he wrote. “Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.”

If the F-35 — called the Joint Strike Fighter because it’s supposed to be used by all U.S. armed forces and several allies, replacing various other aircraft — ever actually rolls out ready for combat, its life cycle cost will come to more than a trillion dollars and the prices of various models will run in the range of $100 million per aircraft.

For the sake of comparison, that’s more than three times the price of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, the current U.S. Navy and Marine Corps fighter/attack workhorse.

The F-35 is indeed one of the more insane wastes of taxpayer money in recent history. If Trump could find a way to kill the whole project, both taxpayers and the armed forces would be better off for its demise.

But even if Trump is serious, he’s in for a fight with 75 years of history. Since World War II, the primary function of the U.S. government has been to transfer wealth from the pockets of American workers to the bank accounts of “defense” contractors like Lockheed Martin.

Even as long ago as 1960, when president Dwight Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell speech, his warning was too little, too late.

American politicians already were, and still are, addicted to military spending (and to the campaign contributions it calls forth and the make-work jobs it brings to their states and districts).

Breaking that bad habit is a daunting job. Like they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step is admitting you have a problem. The only problem American politicians seem to see with spending half a trillion dollars a year on the pretense of “defending” the U.S. is that they don’t get to spend more.

Instead of singling out particular boondoggles like the F-35, Trump might have more success imposing fiscal discipline across the board. That is, demand spending cuts to the Department of Defense’s top budget line and let DoD figure out the details of how to make do with less.

A 75 percent cut, phased in over ten years, sounds about right. The U.S. government would still be the single biggest military spender on the planet, but only by about 2 1/2 times, instead of 10 times, as much as its closest competitor (China).

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
DAN SCHINHOFEN: Special session fiasco part 2

During this current “special session”, our Democrat-controlled Legislature has prioritized police “reforms” and seem to have forgotten that we are in, what they call, “a health emergency”. While Nevada does have some bad officers, from the vast majority of police in our state, we have not seen racism as a driving issue. Still our state Democratic leaders think that getting on the record with specious “reforms” is a priority, so that their other Democratic friends feel good.

TIM BURKE: Nevada Democrats force November mail-in ballot

The act of physically going to a polling location and casting my vote in-person has always given me a feeling of satisfaction that I am participating in the election process.

THOMAS KNAPP: Afghanistan Bounties: Pot, Meet Kettle (and Turn Off the Stove!)

“These are anarchists, these are not protesters,” President Donald Trump said on July 20th, defending his decision to unleash Department of Homeland Security hooligans on anti-police-violence demonstrators in Portland. Anarchist-bashing — referring to “radical-left anarchists” in Minneapolis, “ugly anarchists” in Seattle, etc. — has become a consistent Trump campaign theme since May.

CHUCK BAKER: Land, Land, but not an inch to spare

“Don’t Fence Me In” was a popular song in the 1940s. Some might say it could be today’s theme song for Nellis AFB. Between all the land held in Nevada by the local air base and the Bureau of Land Management, it appears that control over boundaries and borders will be with Silver State entities for quite some time. And not just in the south.

TIM BURKE: First Amendment protects free speech, not violence

In the rural counties of Nevada, it is not uncommon to have residents assemble and express their conservative viewpoints. Here in Pahrump, during patriotic holidays like the Fourth of July, you might find someone standing along the main roadways waving an American flag to show their support for this country. It is also common to see American flags attached to residents’ cars and trucks around town. These residents are exercising their First Amendment rights.