Readers' views on defense savings - survey results

Nation's Business, Feb, 1993

A strong majority of Nation's Business readers responding to a survey said savings from defense cutbacks should be applied to deficit reduction, not used in other federal programs or even for tax relief.

That view was among those expressed by respondents to the Where I Stand poll in the November issue.

That survey dealt with the contraction of the nation's defense industry as military spending slows. The change is affecting companies that supply U.S. military forces with products and services ranging from aircraft carriers to research on zero gravity.

The shrinking of the defense establishment follows the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the focus of American military preparedness since the end of World War II.

The final extent of the cutbacks remains uncertain, however. Some members of Congress say that, while the Soviet threat is gone, the world is still a long way from the point at which the U.S. would not need a strong military force. They cite Saddam Hussein's continuing provocations in Iraq, pressures for American intervention in the fighting in the regions that formerly made up Yugoslavia, and the need for U.S. military strength to back up humanitarian initiatives like the one under way in Somalia.

Whether those considerations will affect the defense-downsizing schedule is uncertain, but even if some aspects are slowed, the overall trend is expected to continue.

The defense cutbacks have raised questions about many related issues. They include such considerations as how the so-called peace dividend--savings from lowered military spending--should be spent and whether the federal government has responsibility for helping companies that have lost orders and helping workers who have lost jobs make the transition to other types of work.

As far as any peace dividend is concerned, just over three-fourths of the respondents to the Nation's Business poll said they favor its application to the deficit.

Most of the respondents do not believe the federal government should have a role in helping either former defense companies or their employees convert to nonmilitary work.

Nearly two-thirds oppose direct federal assistance to help defense firms make a switch, and nearly 60 percent said the government should not help finance the retraining of defense workers. And more than 90 percent oppose the idea of a payroll tax to pay for such retraining.

There was one area in which a federal role gained reader support: Nearly three-fourths of the respondents agree that the federal government should invest defense-research dollars in military technology that also may have commercial applications.

The strong support from readers for using defense savings to cut the deficit comes just as the new administration and the new Congress are entering a critical debate over the extent to which deficit reduction can be achieved. (See the Editorial, on Page 71.)

At least part of this debate will focus on using additional defense cuts to make inroads on the red ink.