Primer on Military Spending
by Marjolein van der Veen
How much does the U.S. federal government spend on “guns” (the military)?
• Since 2003, the U.S. federal government has spent over $500 billion per year on the military.[i] Military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level since the end of World War II - higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, and higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup.[ii] The latest defense authorization bill for 2009 approved by the House of Representatives on Sept. 24, 2008 was for $612 billion.[iii] This does not include an additional $100 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[iv] With the latter included, military spending for 2008 was about 5% of GDP.
• However, spending on the military establishment goes beyond that flowing to the Dept. of Defense. If the military-related spending by the Dept. of Energy, the State Dept., the Dept. of Veteran Affairs, Dept. of Homeland Security, Dept. of Justice, and NASA are all included, the total military spending is estimated to be at least $1.1 trillion in 2008 (or about 7.7% of GDP).[v]
How does the amount the U.S. federal government spends on “guns” compare to what it spends on “butter” (social programs)?
• The total amount of federal government spending in 2008 was over $2.8 trillion.[vi] National defense spending comprised 21% of this total.[vii] However, about 2/3 of the total (about $1.8 trillion) was comprised of mandatory spending (e.g. for Social Security), while the remaining 1/3 (almost $1 trillion) was comprised of discretionary spending. Of the discretionary budget alone, 59% went to military defense spending in 2008.[viii] That left just 41% of the discretionary budget for “butter” (social programs).
• Some forms of “butter” spending (such as for public education) happen predominantly at the state and local levels. The U.S. spent about 4.8% of GDP on public education (in 2005). Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland spent 6.2%, 5.7%, 6.8%, 5.9% of GDP on public education, respectively.[ix]
By how much has military spending increased since 2000 (before the “War on Terror”)?
• Military defense spending has increased by about 60% between 2001 and 2008 (not including spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).[x] The share of the discretionary budget going to defense has increased from 47% in 2000[xi], to 51% in 2005, to 59% in 2008.[xii]
How does U.S. military spending compare to other countries around the world?
• The U.S. accounts for almost half (48%) of total military spending for the entire world in 2005.[xiii] In FY 2008, the U.S. spent $623 billion on the military (about 4.4% of GDP). Next highest were China, Russia, and France, at $65 billion, $50 billion, and $45 billion respectively (about 0.8%, 2.2%, 2.1% of GDP, respectively).[xiv]
• The U.S. is also the largest weapons exporter in the world. The U.S. sold more than $7.1 billion worth of weapons to other countries around the world in 2005. Next highest were Russia and France, at $5.7 billion and $2.4 billion respectively.[xv]
What kinds of things is the military budget spent on?
• Below are some examples of what the military budget is (or has been) spent on:
$558 billion Cost of Iraq war from 2003-08. [xvi]
$736 million Cost of new U.S. embassy in Baghdad (21 buildings, the size of Vatican city)[xvii]
$178 billion Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2008 request) [xviii]
$113.2 billion Estimated value of the over 700 overseas military bases (2005)[xix]
$12.2 billion Ballistic missile defense (proposed for FY 2009)[xx]
$6.1 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (weapons system FY 2008 request)[xxi]
$4.6 billion F-22 fighter (weapons system FY 2008 request)[xxii]
$3.6 billion Future Combat System Combat Vehicle (weapons system FY 2008 request)
$3.1 billion CVN-21 aircraft carrier (weapons system FY 2008 request)
$2.7 billion SSN-774 Virginia attack submarine (weapons system 2008 request)
$2.6 billion V-22 Osprey (weapons system 2008 request)
$1.2 billion Trident II (weapons system 2008 request)
Other military-related spending:
$75.7 billion Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 50% for vets wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan (2008)[xxiii]
$46.4 billion Dept. of Homeland Security (2008)[xxiv]
$23.4–52 billion Nuclear warhead development and maintenance by the DOE (2008) [xxv]
$9.7 billion U.S. military aid (FY2004) [xxvi]
Doesn’t military spending help keep the country safe and secure?
• Much of the spending for weapons systems in the 2008 federal budget request are geared towards conflicts with former superpowers, like the former Soviet Union, and not for combating terrorist groups armed with explosives.[xxvii]
• A sizable portion of military spending goes to defend oil and other fossil fuels, funds which could have been invested in developing energy alternatives, specifically renewable energy. The latest NPP report estimates that “the US will spend around $100 billion of our defense budget this year alone defending access to fossil fuels worldwide. That figure does not include what is spent on the Iraq War, which, when included, will add an additional $100 billion.”[xxviii]
• Currently, only 7% of total national security spending goes to homeland security (such as port security and emergency first responders), and only 4% goes to preventive measures (such as securing nuclear materials abroad and participating in diplomatic and peacekeeping operations). Traditional military spending accounts for the remaining 89% of overall national security spending.[xxix]
• Resolving conflicts through military means often makes the country less safe. The killing of innocent civilians through unintentional bombings and other misdeeds breeds anger and ill will toward the U.S. The presence of U.S. soldiers on foreign soil results in culture clashes, resentment, and suspicions regarding US intentions.
• Whereas the U.S. spent over $647 billion on the military in 2008, federal spending on the State Department -- which is responsible for diplomacy, promoting mutual understanding and intercultural exchange -- was only about $22.1 billion (and $39 billion for 2009).[xxx]
Isn’t U.S. military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan (or military spending in general) providing an economic stimulus to our economy, and helping to create jobs?
• Much of the military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to private military contractors, 80% of whom are non-U.S. citizens. Private military contractors far outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq. As of early 2008, there were 190,000 contractors, compared to 150,000 U.S. troops. Private contractors account for 20% of the total U.S. budget for the Iraq war.[xxxi] To the extent that government funds are spent outside of the U.S. and paid to non-U.S. citizens, it represents leakage from the circular flow and fails to stimulate the domestic economy.
• While a “military Keynesian stimulus” may provide a short-term boost to the economy, it also presents significant opportunity costs and undermines the long-term health and strength of the economy. A study by Global Insight in 2007 found that “after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year the effect of increased military spending turns negative.” Military industries crowd out the civilian economy, and ultimately slow economic growth and reduce employment.[xxxii] Money spent on the military could have been invested in health, education, science and technology, renewable energy, and other investments in promoting long term growth and employment.
• While the GDP counts expenditures on national defense as an addition to GDP, some alternative measures of well-being treat defensive expenditures as costs rather than as benefits. The Genuine Progress Indicator counts defensive expenditures, aimed to prevent the erosion in one’s quality of life or compensate for misfortunes of various kinds, as costs that are subtracted from GDP.[xxxiii]
Why does Congress continue to spend so much on the military, at the expense of domestic social programs?
• The largest U.S. military corporations include: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, L-3 Communications, BAE Systems, United Technologies, and SAIC.[xxxiv] These large military corporations generate substantial income and wealth for their CEOs and shareholders. They also have pools of lobbyists in Washington D.C., and make sizeable campaign donations to Congressional and Presidential candidates.[xxxv] There are military bases and industries located in just about every Congressional district in the U.S.
• President Eisenhower warned of the “military industrial complex” in his 1961 speech, when he said “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”[xxxvi]
April 2009 update:
• In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced his proposed changes to Defense spending, which includes cuts in cold war weapons (e.g. the F-22, a satellite program, and a $1.4 billion cut in missile defense), and shifts towards the military needs of the 21st century (intelligence and surveillance equipment, including more drones, helicopters, special forces, experts to train foreign military units, and combat ships that operate in shallow waters to support ground combat).[xxxvii] After adjusting for inflation, basic Pentagon spending in 2010 will rise to $534 billion from $513 billion, with $130 billion more to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan.[xxxviii]
1
[i] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/u_s_military_spending
[ii] http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/020707.html
[iii] http://www.truthout.org/092908B
[iv] http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/06-5
[v] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
[vi] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
[vii] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/charts
[viii] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Proposed%20Discretionary%20Budget
[ix] http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_41266761_1_1_1_37455,00.html
[x] http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/19757. This figure includes the nuclear warhead work in the Dept. of Energy. The Pentagon’s basic budget by itself increased 40% during the Bush years.
[xi] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/pdf/guide.pdf
[xii] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/charts
[xiii] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/world_military_spending
[xiv] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884; http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/
[xv] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/top_arms_exporters . While the U.S. slipped to second place in 2006, it regained its position as the number one arms exporter to the developing world in 2007. (See: http://www.truthout.org/010709C). The leading purchasers were Saudi Arabia, India, and Pakistan.
[xvi] http://www.nationalpriorities.org
[xvii] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/middleeast/06embassy.html
[xviii] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar0508
[xix] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/military_bases_and_troops, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm, http://www.alternet.org/story/47998, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5415, http://www.truthout.org/102708M
[xx] http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/020707.html
[xxi] http://www.csbaonline.org/2006-1/2.DefenseBudget/ByWeapon.shtml
[xxii] At more than $350 million each, the F-22 is "the most expensive fighter plane ever built,” according to Hartung and Preble, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/03-1. It was meant to counter a Soviet plane that was never built.
[xxiii] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
[xxiv] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
[xxv] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884; However, a new study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimates the US government is spending at least $52 billion a year on nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-related programs. The majority of the $52 billion is spent on upgrading, operating and sustaining the US nuclear arsenal. Only about ten percent of the money is devoted to controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and technology. See: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/13/headlines
[xxvi] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/military_aid
[xxvii] http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/020707.html
[xxviii] http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/17-1
[xxix] http://www.nationalpriorities.org/national_security
[xxx] http://www.kowaldesign.com/cgi/Budget.pl?estimates=030332
[xxxi]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/massive_military_contractorss.php
[xxxii] http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
[xxxiii] http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
[xxxiv] http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/Top_100_Report.3.07.pdf
[xxxv] http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php
[xxxvi] http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html, view on youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
[xxxvii] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/opinion/08wed1.html
[xxxviii] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/opinion/08wed1.html