Defense Cuts We Can't Afford

Halfway through the 2011 fiscal year, our military is continuing to fight a ramped-up war in Afghanistan, preparing to redeploy 50,000 forces out of Iraq, conducting numerous humanitarian missions, and maintaining all other operations abroad. And it’s doing all this without a shred of fiscal security.

Were Congress to fund defense through a year-long Continuing Resolution, elected officials would be freezing defense significantly below levels that are needed to meet current national security requirements. A defense spending freeze is essentially a double hit on the defense budget, given that the military would be able to buy even less defense in the out years than it plans on the books today due to a readjusted lower baseline from which future spending is calculated.

The implications of a spending freeze for defense go beyond losing the planned growth that $18 billion-plus would purchase. This amount doesn’t include potential losses associated with contract and procurement delays that place the defense industrial base on indefinite standby. As Secretary Gates has noted, today’s defense spending is “as low a percentage of federal outlays as it’s been since before War II.” The harm Congress would impose on the military under a long-term CR is both unsustainable and unconscionable.

Gates is rightfully calling on Congress to stop playing games with military spending. Congress must take a longer view. Members would be wise to listen carefully to what the civilian in charge of the Defense Department recently told the press about a CR:

“It’s the worst of all possible kinds of reductions, in significant measure because it comes halfway through the fiscal year. But beyond that, we can’t make up all of that through changes in contracts and programs and so on. And, in fact, most likely it would come out of operations and maintenance, even in war — operations and maintenance, through stretching out programs, which is what makes them very expensive; cuts in training and readiness.

“And frankly, that’s how you hollow out a military even in wartime. It means lower flying — fewer flying hours, fewer steaming days, cuts in training for … home-stationed ground forces, cuts in maintenance and so on.

“So, again, if we ended up with this yearlong continuing resolution, this new Congress would be responsible for a cut that’s nearly twice the size of our FY12 proposal and much, much more damaging.

“So my question is about the seriousness of those who are worried about reductions to the defense budget, and I think they can demonstrate that seriousness by passing a defense appropriations bill, which still would be $10 billion less than the president has asked for.

“So in short, talk about not cutting defense in FY12, as far as I’m concerned, is simply rhetoric without action on the FY11 defense budget that’s already in front of the Congress.”

A yearlong CR would hamper the Navy’s ability to grow the fleet and affect more than 20 Air Force acquisition programs that require immediate funding. For example, the Navy and Congress have long sought to increase production of Virginia-class submarines from one to two per year: these plans would be further delayed by a continued freeze on defense spending. This would then increase the cost of these submarines in 2012 as a result of significant program and planning disruption.

Funding defense through a long-term CR could also cut the number of the Navy’s P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft from seven to six and significantly slow the in-service date of these aircraft into an operational squadron. Further, Congress would essentially be increasing the cost of all major defense programs in 2012 if defense remains frozen at ’10 levels. Why? Because programs that are stalled or slowed due to inadequate funds in 2011 will then be too immature to execute next year. This then increases the cost of the program, which then virtually guarantees a cut in what the military can buy.

Congress should either separate FY 2011 defense spending from the CR and pass it as a stand-alone bill, or find an additional $18 billion within their reductions package to adequately fund defense this year. Doing any less could start the military down a familiar and dangerous path of possibly becoming a hollow force.

By adequately funding defense at the president’s requested and legitimately needed level, Congress would be saving itself from creating unnecessary longer-term costs. Forcing the military to postpone plans to buy needed items for those in uniform won’t really save money. When schedules slip, costs grow. When costs grow, the overall buy is cut. This destructive cycle costs more over time — and it will be ended only if Congress demands savings, efficiency, and the smart use of taxpayer dollars.