Defense Allies Push GDP-Tied Funds

Pentagon officials, with the support of Republican lawmakers, are pushing a proposal to set a floor for military spending at 4 percent of gross domestic product. Majority Democrats roundly reject the idea as out of sync with the nation’s needs, and it is therefore not likely to get much traction in Congress. But Republicans are expected to use rhetorical and parliamentary means in the coming months to make the GDP-based floor a refrain in the defense spending debate for fiscal 2009 and beyond. As entitlement spending puts more pressure on the budget, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, military leaders and their congressional allies are concerned that competition for federal dollars will grow. “This is the only way we can stop the inexorable slide of national defense,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., a proponent of the requirement. In December, Franks and Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., introduced a joint resolution (H J Res 67, S J Res 26) that would require the defense base budget to equal 4 percent of GDP, at a minimum. Democrats and budget experts criticize the idea as fiscally irresponsible and out of line with the real needs of national security. Enactment of such a law, they say, could push defense spending over the $700 billion mark — and that does not include war funding and other supplemental needs. “If we have lower growth, you’ll all be back next year saying, ‘What we meant to say was 5 percent of GDP,’ ” Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at a Feb. 6 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee. “It doesn’t seem to me to be a very useful metric for what defense spending ought to be.” That is not expected to stop proponents from pushing the idea. Franks said he had received assurances from Republican leaders that the resolution would get several airings, and that they would insist on a floor vote this year as the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill is written. Since President Bush submitted his fiscal 2009 budget request to Congress earlier this month, Gates and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have stepped up efforts to promote the idea. That reflects Pentagon concerns that after several years of rising defense budgets, the military is set for a rude awakening as supplemental war funding goes away. Conservatives for years have pushed the idea of a spending floor. But many analysts say defense spending should be based on the perception of threats and the country’s priorities in meeting those threats, not on a percentage of the country’s GDP, which is estimated to reach $14.5 trillion for 2008. “It’s an extremely lazy way to do defense strategy,” said Robert Work, vice president for strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a military research organization. “Strategy is about making choices, and by keeping our numbers arbitrarily high, you don’t have to make hard choices.” Comparing Previous Eras Congressional Democrats also are taking swipes at the Dole-Franks proposal. At the Feb. 6 Armed Services hearing on the defense budget, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., criticized the idea as unnecessary, given that defense spending has more than doubled since 2000, when war costs are taken into account. “That has to be a matter of concern, because we do have, in the end, finite resources,” Spratt said. The Dole-Franks bill lays out their ration­ale for increased defense spending based on the military’s growing needs for personnel and equipment and the uncertainty of future operations. They argue that the country can afford it, especially when compared with defense spending as a share of GDP during past conflicts: 13-14 percent during the Korean War, 7-9 percent during the Vietnam War and 37-38 percent during World War II. Others say the GDP link is arbitrary. “I find absolutely no logic whatsoever in using [the 4 percent] number as a starting point,” said Democrat Dave Loebsack of Iowa, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I don’t think it makes any difference what percent of our GDP was devoted to the military in 1953.” Winslow Wheeler, a former longtime appropriations staff member who now heads the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, said raising defense spending to the level in the Dole-Franks measure would require either raising taxes or increasing the national debt. “They haven’t said one word about where they intend to get the money for their ever-increasing defense budget,” he said. Many Democrats point out that although administration officials have long championed a 4 percent GDP peg for defense, Bush himself has never asked for that amount of money or used it in projections of future defense spending. “Politically, they can’t do it,” said Democrat John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “Even this administration can’t go to that level.” Current Projections According to figures from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Bush administration predicts that GDP in fiscal 2009 will be just over $15.2 trillion, and Bush is requesting approximately $541 billion for national defense, not including supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That comes to 3.6 percent of GDP in 2009. If only the defense base budget is counted, as the Dole-Franks bill suggests, that $515.4 billion request would equal 3.4 percent of GDP. OMB’s long-term projections of defense spending relative to the economy are even less favorable to the Republicans’ argument. In 2013, the White House projects a defense base budget of $549 billion and total defense spending of $572 billion. Set against their estimate of a GDP around $18.5 trillion that year, defense spending would come in at 3 percent and 3.1 percent of GDP, respectively. If the Dole-Franks bill were enacted, the 2013 defense budget would be $738.5 billion, at a minimum.