The Pentagon’s budget for next year proposed that there will be a significant cut in the Armed Forces. The Army branch of the military would be reduced by nearly a half million Soldiers. In addition to service members, cuts would occur to a variety of bases and resources and weaponry. Whether or not these cuts are necessary is up for debate especially with recent events between Russia and Ukraine.
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance Robert Godby argued in favor of the majority of the cuts saying that in the big picture and from an economic perspective, the pros outweigh the cons. Godby suggests that the cuts could offer multiple benefits such as putting creativity and valuable skillsets into the work force, reducing the deficit and allowing for fund to be re-allocated to more modern and pertinent locations.
“The reason the government is cutting is to reduce expenditure –reducing debt and the deficit,” said Godby, “which means it will in the end reduce the liability the rest of the economy has to pay for.”
Godby explained that 30 percent of the total budget is discretionary spending which means it can be cut in the annual budget, whereas 64 percent is mandatory and requires a law to curtail. The remaining 6 percent is spent on interest on federal debt. Of the discretionary spending portion, which comes under examination, 57 percent is military. Although this percentage encompasses the entirety of the Armed Forces and supporting elements, Godby pointed out that the amount of the budget the Military comprises is insanely large compared to science or transportation at 3 percent each. The economist used a butcher analogy to put his outlook into perspective.
“We like to say you want to take a scalpel to the situation rather than an axe,” said Godby. “You want to cut the fat from the budget without cutting any muscle and when you look at the discretionary spending, the military has the most fat.”
Marty Martinez, Veterens Services Center project coordinator at UW, expressed some concerns when considering the proposed cuts but also pointed out that this is not a new concept.
“Reductions have to take place, but entering a time of peace those reductions always happen,” said Martinez. “Soon as incidents happen in the world where we do need more troops we will see the mass swelling of the forces again.”
Martinez and Godby both agreed that the loss of troops has its drawbacks but that with the changing of the way war is conducted today, there is not a need for as many foot soldiers, as was the primary fighting force during the Cold War.
“What we have seen develop since 9/11 is a different way of posturing and engaging in war,” said the 29-year veteran. “I never feel that you can truly replace the Soldier in the foxhole with an M16, but we are obviously finding a different way to conduct battle so we don’t have to place so many Soldiers on the ground.”
Godby suggested if the proposed cuts –$12 billion over the course of five years— could be taken from maintaining virtually non-beneficial positions and bases overseas and obsolete weapons systems and be put to better use.
“So if you [take] a ground attack fighter plane like the A10 was, it was built to blow up Soviet tanks in Europe and be a very lethal ground support fighter,” Godby said. “This is not the war that is being fought today.”
Godby advocated that the weapon is amazing but does not serve a purpose. The technology used in WWII was built for a different mission.
“We have already found out that the wars we have been involved in recently have not called for close support,” Godby said. “The fighters we do have can do the role reasonably well, so what we have is a waste of resources.”
By freeing up the funding that goes into the maintaining of positions and weapons that are no longer needed, Godby surmised then that money can be put into programs that have the ability to produce a substantially larger amount of profits.
“[Cutting the fat] frees up those financial resources to do more investment in the economy,” proposed Godby. “What we used to call the double dividend in the cold war is when you have the dividend of releasing all of this spending that was potentially wasteful and now that money can be used elsewhere. “
Even if the proposal goes through and the chunk cut from the military budget does end up being beneficial for the United States, Godby speculated that there would be a transition period where the veterans and the system would have to adapt. Martinez brought to light that although cuts are a common occurrence –especially in the drawn down of troops overseas— that this amount of experienced soldiers lost is something that could potentially be hurtful to the military, especially if there is an incident which does call for troops on ground. Whatever the turnout, Martinez was sure the Army and the military would adapt. As for his department, the Martinez said that if the Troops are cut significantly we may see an influx of veterans coming back to college and that his staff and faculty are preparing for that possibility.
“We are working to bolster our programs to receive those new veterans,” said Martinez. “It becomes a big waiting game.”
