Left presses Obama to cut defense

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who wrapped his party’s presidential nomination just this week, is already besieged by liberal constituencies demanding that he cut military spending to boost  social programs.

Two influential liberal groups have sent the presumptive Democratic nominee a letter pressing him to support cuts to defense programs to pay for universal preschool, relief for Americans facing foreclosure on their homes and expanded benefits for military veterans.

{mosads}The demands carry weight because the groups, the Black Leadership Forum and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), represent two constituencies that are important to Obama’s political strategy: blacks and Hispanics.

Their calls for defense cuts have drawn the support of leading House liberals, many of whom gave Obama crucial support early in his contest against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

The groups have also called on presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) to support the cuts. There is less pressure on McCain, however, because fellow Republicans have kept quiet on the issue. McCain also expects little support from black voters.

But McCain could feel some discomfort because his campaign views Hispanics as a crucial voting bloc. His support for shifting emphasis from defense to social programs could help him appeal to that group. The calls of liberal groups and lawmakers come at a particularly awkward time for Obama.

Since clinching the party’s nomination on Tuesday, Obama has already tacked to the right on security issues in preparation for the general election. During a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Wednesday, Obama proposed sanctions on Iran that analysts viewed as far tougher than what he suggested before.

Now Obama must balance tough talk on national security with the desires of many Democrats to slim American military power.

Liberal groups and lawmakers have targeted the Department of Defense’s largest acquisition program: the Joint Strike Fighter program, which will provide more than 2,000 aircraft to the Navy, Marines and Air Force.

The Black Leadership Forum and LULAC wrote that cutting the program “would free up $1 trillion in the federal budget.”

“America could fund years of universal healthcare at $120 [billion] a year; we could fund universal preschool with $35 billion.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the rapid growth of defense spending compared to domestic spending in recent years is “outrageous.” She wants to slim defense programs and boost education and healthcare funding.

Lee and other House liberals would like to see about $60 billion in defense spending cuts. Specifically, they want to steer money away from what they call “Cold War-era” weapons systems, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Liberals have also called for cuts to the ballistic missile defense program, the F/A-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer.

“This is one of many issues the caucus will be talking about to him,” Lee said of plans to press Obama on defense budget cuts. “I’m definitely going to present this.”

Obama’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

{mospagebreak}House liberals have talked about cuts to defense programs for years, said Lee. But Republicans controlled Congress for most of the Bush administration and complaints about defense spending have gone largely unheard.

The rise of Obama, who surged to victory with the support of the Democratic Party’s most liberal voters and his criticism of the Iraq war, gives House progressives new hope.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the other co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has endorsed the Black Leadership Forum’s and LULAC’s calls for defense program cuts.

{mosads}“Yes, I will support that call,” said Woolsey.

“There are cuts to [weapons] systems that would be more valuable on the domestic front,” she said.

Woolsey said having a strong national defense was important but that the next president of the United States should recognize the difference between what is needed for defense and for acting like a “bully” abroad.

From 2000 to 2008 the budget from the Department of Defense has soared from $290 billion to $481 billion, according to Steven Kosiak, vice president for budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan group.

This growth does not include supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total U.S. military spending in 2008 is expected to approach $700 billion.

Meanwhile, discretionary spending for domestic programs has barely grown, according to the estimate of a prominent left-leaning think tank.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that domestic discretionary spending per American increased only 0.3 percent from 2001 to 2008 when adjusted for inflation. That means that spending on a variety of welfare, education, and healthcare programs funded through the annual appropriations process has remained flat.

By contrast, defense and security spending per American has gone up more than 8 percent between 2001 and 2008.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Hispanic Democrat from Arizona, said he would support a review of defense programs that he considers outdated. Many House liberals believe some of the Defense Department’s biggest weapons programs are no longer needed at a time when adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousands of Americans with relatively simple weaponry.

“I think we should re-evaluate programs to see if savings can be used for domestic priorities,” said Grijalva.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said he would advise the next president to reassess spending on programs “created to fight an enemy that no longer exists.”

“If I were advising the administration, it would be at the top of my list,” he said.