One of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ go-to arguments for defense spending is that the U.S. can afford survival. But that argument is about to be tested as Democrats take over the House majority next month.
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Wednesday that the country can do more than just survive and do it for less than the massive $750 billion defense budget top line reportedly proposed by President Trump.
The current Armed Services ranking member, who has long warned big Pentagon budgets may not be needed or sustainable, laid out what his strategy as chairman will be for the coming fight over spending, during a breakfast with reporters.
“What do we mean by we can afford survival? Are the Russians really planning on launching an all-out war against us, or the Chinese? If they are, it would be news to everybody at this table,” Smith said. “We’ve got to move past that sort of rhetoric and get down to an actual number. So, when I saw the $750 billion, to be perfectly honest with you, my reaction was they’re just pulling a number out of the air. I want to see the justification for it.”
Trump and Republican hawks in Congress have backed two annual defense hikes. But the president had ordered the Pentagon in October to slash its planned 2019 budget from $733 billion to $700 billion.
The current two GOP armed services chairmen, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, met with Trump at the White House to urge against the cut. Trump relented and in a surprising turn proposed a $750 billion budget.
Smith is now set to take a lead role in the debate as chairman and after years leading the minority is in a position to act on his concerns about balancing the budget, deficit spending, and the expanding missions of the U.S. military in recent years.
“There is a mountain of evidence that we can more than survive for less than $750 billion,” he said.
Winning the budget debate comes down to convincing the public that too much is being spent on defense and the U.S. can afford to trim back, Smith said, despite a recent warning by the general nominated to lead military forces in the Mideast and Afghanistan that anything less than $733 billion increases risk to the country.
The Pentagon is likely to repeat that message, as well as cite its earlier “crisis of readiness” along with deadly aviation mishaps, as the military brass testifies on its budget needs in the coming weeks and the White House submits its formal spending request in February.
“I’ve got the Army telling me when they decided to take a look at where they’ve been spending their money they found $31 billion they didn’t need to be spending, OK? I’ve got a notion that is widely accepted that the Pentagon does not necessarily spend its money wisely and efficiently,” Smith said. “I’ve got the idea that the military-industrial complex has the incentive to try to tell you that you need to spend more money on defense, but that incentive does not necessarily translate into national security needs, it simply translates into money.”
