Survey shows public wants deep cuts in Pentagon spending. Mitt Romney would add $2.1 trillion

As noted a couple of months ago in Mitt Romney's proposal for Pentagon spending is a ridiculous joke, the all-but-crowned GOP presidential nominee has for years proposed that the Pentagon get a budget amounting to 4 percent of GDP. Last October, he spoke at the Citadel and added some specifics. CNN has finally gotten around to pointing out that the Romney plan would pile an additional $2.1 trillion onto Pentagon spending over the next decade if the extra percentage of GDP were added gradually. If his plan were in place right now, it would add $100 billion to the 2013 budget, a boost of 20 percent to core Pentagon spending, and $2.3 trillion over 10 years.

Coincidentally, that's just about how much an innovative new survey released Thursday found that Americans said they would like to see cut from the budget, 20 percent.

The survey was conducted by The Center for Public Integrity. R. Jeffrey Smith is CPI's managing editor for national security:

According to the survey, in which respondents were told about the size of the budget as well as shown expert arguments for and against spending cuts, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats supported making immediate cuts ' a position at odds with the leaderships of both political parties.

The average total cut was around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion. These amounts both exceed a threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year under so-called 'sequestration' legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon officials and lawmakers alike have claimed would be devastating.

'When Americans look at the amount of defense spending compared to spending on other programs, they see defense as the one that should take a substantial hit to reduce the deficit,' said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), and the lead developer of the survey. 'Clearly the polarization that you are seeing on the floor of the Congress is not reflective of the American people.'

While Romney's views, and those of House Republicans, are far out of sync with these results, the respondents also didn't agree with President Barack Obama's approach of maintaining something fairly close to the current level by reducing the growth in inflation-adjusted Pentagon spending over the next 10 years. His proposed spending for 2013 cuts just $7 billion from the core Pentagon budget, less than 2 percent. The survey found that about three-fourths of respondents wanted immediate cuts in spending. And even more, 85 percent, wanted deep and immediate cuts in spending for continuing U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.

While Republican respondents in the survey indicated they want smaller cuts than Democrats, they still want deep reductions in Pentagon spending.

Made clear by the survey, which ought to be no surprise: People react differently depending on how the information is presented. But one thing stood out no matter how various issues were approached:

By far the most durable finding'even after hearing strong arguments to the contrary'was that existing spending levels are simply too high. Respondents were asked twice, in highly different ways, to say what they thought the budget should be, and a majority supported roughly the same answer each time: a cut of at least 11 to 13 percent (they cut on average 18 to 22 percent).

To politicians trembling at the thought of being painted as weak on defense because they seek a reasonable budget for the Pentagon, these results ought to provide some campaign ammunition at odds with what they usually are saddled with.

Mitt Romney and other conservatives, including former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, who has supported the idea of "4% for Freedom," and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who wants to keep Pentagon spending cuts to a minimum, are far out of step with the public in this matter.

Come 2013, when Barack Obama settles in for his second term, he should do some evolving on how much the United States really needs to spend on defense compared with what the military-industrial-congressional complex keeps telling us that we should, that we must, spend. The CPI study provides evidence that he would be far from alone if he chooses to give the MICC a substantial haircut.