Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Editorial

A Pentagon the Country Can Afford

If you listen to defense industry lobbyists, hawks in Congress and the Pentagon, the sky is falling and with it, American security. It isn’t.

The failure of the “supercommittee” to reach a deficit agreement is supposed to trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts in federal spending over the next decade, nearly $500 billion of that from the basic Pentagon budget. Many Republicans, and some Democrats, are already talking about getting the Pentagon off the hook. Representative Howard McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has promised legislation to prevent the cuts from taking effect. We are no fans of the supercommittee process, but if the Pentagon’s spending is wrestled back into rationality, it will be progress. Walking away would be a blow to Washington’s financial credibility. There is room to cut, if it is done with prudence and innovation.

The Pentagon has had a blank check for most of the last 10 years. Last year’s basic budget of $530 billion (not counting the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan) was about $140 billion higher, in inflation-adjusted terms, than in 2001. This year’s base budget is expected to be about $526 billion, which is still excessive.

Besides the nearly $500 billion in cuts that are supposed to start in January 2013, the budget act that created the supercommittee mandated an initial cut of roughly $450 billion in defense spending, spread over the next decade. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, that would put basic defense spending for 2013 around $472 billion — about the same, in inflation-adjusted terms, as what was spent in 2007.

There is also a misperception that the Pentagon cannot handle cuts right now because a decade of war supposedly decimated the arsenal. A new study by the Henry L. Stimson Center calculated that the Pentagon spent $1 trillion on procurement during that time — a 97 percent increase from 2000 to 2010 — and was able to “modernize and improve our equipment inventory across the board.”

Of course, the cuts must be made wisely. There is a serious problem with the law’s requirement that all programs — vital or not — be cut by the same percentage to reach the “sequester” number. The budget control act does allow an exemption for pay and benefits for military personnel, but if that option is exercised, other accounts have to be cut by even more.

If the cuts do go forward, Congress and the administration need to find a way to give the Pentagon some flexibility to choose between high-value programs and those that can be ended, scaled back or delayed. Lawmakers should consider phasing in the cuts somewhat more gradually, so the choices can be smarter and disruption minimized.

The Pentagon will have to be pushed. Indeed, officials say they are making no contingency plans for the 2013 cuts. Instead of waiting for rescue, they should be figuring out what reductions make sense and how to carry them out.

Making cuts of this size will not be easy. Logical places to look include reducing the cost of personnel and benefits. Because the wars are winding down, the Army can come down in troops, to 520,000 from roughly 569,000; to a lesser extent, so can the Navy and the Air Force. The premium for Tricare, the military health insurance program, could be raised by $50 a month for employed, working-age military retirees, and other reforms could be applied to pay and benefits. Altogether this could save $20 billion annually.

Cutting the Pentagon civilian work force by 10 percent, or 74,000 people, and retiring old fighter planes and bombers could save $13 billion a year from operations. Closing some bases in the United States and overseas, and curbing construction, including suspending plans to locate families with troops deployed in South Korea, could save at least $5 billion more over the next decade. Tens of billions are spent annually on cold-war systems ill-suited to 21st-century needs — aircraft carriers, nuclear attack submarines, stealth destroyers and manned aerial combat fighters. Some $15 billion could be saved annually by pruning the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter order to 1,000 and ending the V-22 Osprey program and the Joint Tactical Radio System. Another sound target: bloated nuclear-related programs, which could cost upward of $600 billion over the next decade across the government.

To do any of this effectively, the Pentagon will also need a major change in culture and procedure. President Obama and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates began enforcing more spending discipline two years ago, but much more is needed. Weak oversight of contractors, and the Pentagon’s passion for excessive bells and whistles, have raised costs on almost every major weapons system. Military commitments must be scaled back. One expert says the Navy can shrink its fleet and save $15 billion annually if it keeps ships abroad longer while rotating crews in and out.

Even after the sequester cuts, the United States would still be investing about as much in defense as China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan and Germany combined, and could still protect vital national security interests.

Defense lobbyists are in overdrive, warning about an enormous loss of jobs if the cuts take effect. We agree this is the worst time to increase unemployment, of any kind. That is why Congress should be working to stimulate the economy now, so the country can get its fiscal house in order once the economy recovers. When it is time to cut, there is nothing sacrosanct about defense industry jobs.

Congress needs to compromise soon on a rational deficit plan with both tax increases and spending cuts. Whatever happens, the Pentagon needs to learn to live within the country’s means.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section SR, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: A Pentagon the Country Can Afford. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT