Democrats’ budget strategy is unsustainable
Speaking Security Newsletter | Note n°185 | 15 December 2022
If you find these notes useful, you can support this newsletter and SPRI, here.
*A big thank you to Shawn G. for becoming a supporter of this newsletter and SPRI on Patreon. Join Shawn and others who keep this operation going, here.
*Check out my latest articles:
Situation
Democrat and Republican negotiators are close to reaching an agreement on a federal funding bill for FY2023. To buy some more time to iron out the details (and prevent a government shutdown), the House passed a week-long continuing resolution—a temporary measure that funds federal programs without a regular appropriations act—last night.
For the spending bill to cover the rest of FY23, what’s been agreed to so far is the topline number and the two broad categories that comprise the bill’s overall amount, military and non-military spending. Specific amounts haven’t been disclosed yet. The Pentagon’s share is the only figure reported with any confidence ($858 billion, matching the amount authorized by the NDAA).
Military v. non-military spending
As usual, the holdup in negotiations for the FY23 budget bill has been over non-military spending levels. In general, both parties want to increase military spending. The difference is that Republicans want non-military funding to fall and Democrats want it to keep pace with rising military budgets.
Which direction will the FY23 omnibus spending bill lean? Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says the legislation has “wins for both sides.” That usually means a Republican win. That’s what Sen. Mitch McConnell suggested too:
"I'm glad that our Democratic colleagues finally accepted the reality and conceded to the Republican position that we need to prioritize our national security...Republicans simply were not going to lavish extra liberal spending on the commander in chief's own party as reward for adequately funding our national defense. It simply wasn't going to happen.”
A Democratic win wouldn’t really be a win for social spending
Even if Democrats secure parity between military and non-military accounts, it can’t really be considered a win. The reason? Non-military spending isn’t necessarily the same as social spending. Think of ICE funding in the Department of Homeland Security’s budget, police grants in the Justice Department’s budget, military aid in the State Department’s budget—those are all nominally non-military programs but can’t be reasonably lumped in with health, education, transportation, and climate investments.
Veterans’ programs can’t either. The benefits are too exclusive. That said, they’re not inherently problematic like the programs I listed above. Spending on veterans funds socialized medicine, for example. The reason I bring it up, though, is because veterans’ benefits and services costs are skyrocketing and the non-military discretionary budget as a whole isn’t keeping up.
As a result, spending on veterans is increasingly crowding out funding for broadly inclusive social programs. In 2002, veterans’ benefits and services made up 6 percent of non-military discretionary spending. It reached 12 percent last year and is set to swell to 19 percent—nearly one-fifth of the non-military discretionary budget—by 2027, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Democrats’ strategy of linking military and non-military spending increases is not sustainable, even when it works.
-Stephen (@stephensemler; stephen@securityreform.org)
Find this note useful? Please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks, we rely exclusively on small donations.