By Jen DiMascio
Democratic candidates for president share at least three messages on the defense budget: They would cut wasteful spending. They would reduce funding for missile defense, and they would oppose funding on offensive space-based weapons.
Taken in the aggregate, the results of a survey on the issue of defense spending may not add up to much. But the specifics shed light on a topic candidates don’t often address to this level of detail in a general election–much less two months away from the first primary vote.
The survey was sent to all of the candidates for president by the Caucus4Priorities, the Iowa wing of the national presidential lobbying effort called Business Leaders for Priorities, which advocates shifting federal budget dollars from the Defense Department into healthcare and education. It has significant corporate backing, including from Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream (Defense Daily, Aug. 21).
None of the Republican candidates responded to the questionnaire, but all eight Democrats did.
Peggy Huppert, the state director of Iowans for Sensible Priorities/Caucus4Priorities, is hopeful that the survey will help make the issue a part of the mainstream campaign discussion and that the seeds of a general election debate may be planted. She said Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani was recently on the radio saying cutting Pentagon spending will not keep the nation safe from terrorism.
Many of the Republican candidates are pressing for additional DoD funding. A chief example is former Gov. Mitt Romney, whose campaign is advised by former Sen. Jim Talent (R- Mo.). Romney advocates a position Talent has advanced at the Heritage Foundation–to peg the defense budget at four percent of the nation’s gross domestic product–not including supplemental funding.
The nation needs to increase funding for defense, because rising personnel costs and a planned increase in the size of the Army have put the squeeze on modernization programs that the nation needs because of disinvestment in the 1990s, the Heritage’s Baker Spring argues in a May paper.
The call for additional dollars comes at a time when the nation may have doubts about dollars for defense.
A Gallup poll taken in February found 43 percent of Americans thought the nation was spending too much for defense and the military and 20 percent said the nation was spending too little.
Even so, front-running Democrats were reluctant to commit to wholesale cuts to the Defense Department budget. Instead, many pledged to restrict wasteful spending in their response to the Iowa survey, which also asked the candidates whether they could cut or keep a number of specific programs including the V-22 Osprey helicopter, the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the DDG-1000 destroyer, the C-130J transport aircraft, the Virginia-class submarine, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat System.
For example, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) reiterated her promise to trim 500,000 contractors from the Pentagon payroll but also said she would rebuild the Army, which was worn down by the war in Iraq.
“That is why as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have asked tough question[s] about our defense needs, including concerns about many of the below. For example, I have voted to reduce funding for the F-22 Raptor because of concerns about the pace of development. I have asked tough questions about the Future Combat System, including whether it is meeting its development milestones and about its future role,” she wrote.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) also shied away from pledging specific program kills. He vowed to create a Defense Priorities Board that would evaluate the value and effectiveness of key weapons systems for the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review. But he defended the C-130J, calling it a “vital resource” for active duty forces and the National Guard.
But he also took issue with the Army’s FCS program, saying that Congress has grown skeptical of the program. “I share that skepticism,” he wrote.
Like Obama, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) said he would order his defense secretary to review major weapons systems. He added that his Pentagon would focus on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
“Every day, school boards across America go over their budgets, line by line, and make hard choices. It is time we asked the Pentagon to do the same thing,” Edwards wrote.
But overall, Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.), provided the most detailed and straightforward responses to each question about weapons systems, Huppert said.
Biden admitted to reversing course about his opinion on the Osprey during the course of the primary campaign.
“Though I have said publicly this past summer that I was against the program, the Osprey is now deployed in Iraq. I would not have funded the Osprey to begin with, and I will consider canceling the program or reducing the numbers purchased, but I cannot commit to a cancellation or a reduction this year,” Biden wrote. “The best way to resolve the competing claims of detractors and proponents will be to see how it performs this year in Iraq.”
Biden said he would slow development of the Future Combat System but did not know if he could meet the caucus’s position of cutting the budget from $3.7 billion per year to $1 billion per year.
Though Biden expressed the most detailed positions about weapons systems, Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) was the most specific about the overall cut he would make to the Pentagon budget.
If elected, Richardson said he would chop $57.14 billion from the defense budget. He said he would cut nearly all of the programs on the Caucus4Priorities list including the Osprey, the F-22, the C-130J and the Virginia-class sub. He said he would trim FCS to $1 billion but would hold on to the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer.