AUDIO: Lindsay Koshgarian on WBUR’s On Point — Does the U.S. Really Need a $1.5 Trillion Defense Budget?
In an interview on WBUR’s On Point with host Meghna Chakrabarti, Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, breaks down what a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget would actually mean for everyday Americans — and why the case for it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
On the Pentagon’s request for a 50% budget increase, Lindsay puts the number in stark historical context: “The United States military budget for many years has been about the size of the next 10 countries combined. Pushing it up to $1.5 trillion would push it, in inflation-adjusted terms, higher than it was at the peak of World War II. And that war was also not won quickly and decisively. That’s not actually how wars are won.”
She also flags the Pentagon’s troubling track record on basic financial accountability: “Congress, way back in the early ’90s, passed a law that said agencies have to be able to pass an audit. Since then, every major federal agency has done so, except the Pentagon, which has failed now going on eight years in a row. And that’s not saying the money is spent well if you pass your audit. It’s just saying you know where the money went. I don’t think I can point to another department in the United States federal government that is receiving or asking for a 50% increase in its budget.”
On the trade-offs embedded in the budget request, Lindsay is direct: “Restoring the cuts to Medicaid would take about $90 billion a year, and restoring the cuts that were made to food stamps would take about less than $20 billion a year. These are actually quite small expenses compared to the amount of money they’re asking for the Pentagon. We could use half of this $500 billion they’re asking for and wipe out medical debt entirely.”
She also pushes back on the narrative that more military spending equals more security: “We’ve been told a story now for a long time in this country about the nature of war and how wars can be won. This idea that they can be won quickly and decisively has been disproven time and time again.” The pattern, she notes, is familiar: “It was a constant story from the 20-plus years in Iraq and Afghanistan — success is right around the corner if we just keep pushing a little bit longer. And we all know how that turned out.”
On the long-term costs of the Iran war, Lindsay agrees with Harvard’s Linda Bilmes that the true price tag will far exceed current figures: “The cost of this will continue to mount. We continue to act like we can just dip in and out of these conflicts. But it’s something that does perpetuate for decades.” She notes that estimates suggest the Iran war could ultimately cost more than a trillion dollars when veterans’ healthcare, damaged base reconstruction, and munitions replenishment are factored in.
On whether this year might be different for the defense budget, Lindsay sees real signs of a shift: “We have the outrageousness of the $1.5 trillion amount. We have the very unpopular Iran war. Members of Congress want to keep their seats, and they are expressing discomfort. The National Defense Authorization Act passed the House by one of the narrowest margins ever, and it hasn’t passed the Senate yet. I honestly don’t know how it’s going to turn out.”
