Military Bands Are Not Sweet Music to Taxpayers

In May, the House of Representatives passed an amendment limiting Pentagon spending on military bands. The amendment, part of the fiscal year (FY) 2013 Defense Authorization Bill, will limit the military to a $200 million budget for music bands if passed by the full Congress. The amendment was spearheaded by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who recently showed her allegiance to taxpayers by co-sponsoring an amendment that ends military sponsorship of pro-sports (read previous blog posting here).

The Pentagon has allotted $388 million for their music arsenal in FY 2013, which McCollum says is unacceptable in a time of financial crisis.  According to a May 21, 2012 Washington Post article, “The Army maintains 99 bands and intends to spend $221.1 million on them next year. That’s up $3.3 million from this year. The Navy has 14 bands that will cost an estimated $55.6 million next year, while the Marine Corps has 12 bands that will cost $53.6 million in 2013.”

In 2012, the Pentagon spent almost $400 million on military bands, but in the proposed budget for 2013, only the Air Force plans to make cuts in the music department, dropping eight of its 23 bands. The other services are actually planning to increase their budgets. The Defense Authorization Bill’s amendment, limiting this spending, is necessary when tax dollars are at work. The Pentagon, according to some analysts, could spend almost $50 billion dollars on military bands in the next 50 years.

According to McCollum, “Over the past four years, taxpayers have spent $1.55 billion for the Pentagon’s 150 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time, professional military musicians.” Everyone loves a good rendition of Taps, but McCollum has a point. The Army, for example, has done an excellent job of glorifying this melodious money trap –their website tells the history of military bands, speaking of our forefathers and even labeling the bands as a “critical part of the Army’s success.”

Ceremonial and morale-boosting music may be nice, and at times necessary, but “critical” is a bit of a sweeping statement, especially when that may not be their primary function any longer. In a September 10, 2010 interview with NPR, Washington Postwriter Walter Pinkus said, of the bands, “They provide entertainment most often for civilian audiences supposedly to help recruitment.” The Pentagon backs this up, claiming retention and recruitment as one of the primary purposes for military bands and musicians.  This is the same excuse (er, I mean reason) they use for sponsoring NASCAR. 

The NPR interview also noted that “’Gates has made a point in talking about the way the government looks at priorities,’ Pincus tells NPR’s Robert Siegel. ‘He has more military band musicians in the Defense Department than the State Department has Foreign Service officers.’”

In a time of shrinking defense dollars it is irresponsible to spend $50 billion on bands.  Those additional funds could be used for body armor or other equipment for America’s fighting men and women.  Continuing to spend this money is not music to taxpayers’ ears.