Why Pentagon budget cuts might not be as impressive as they sound
| Washington
As the Department of Defense rolled out its 2012 budget Monday, analysts were of one mind on this point: that the defense budget has been a public relations coup for the Pentagon and for Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Much of the media coverage has emphasized that the Pentagon is grappling with tough defense budget cuts in the wake of America鈥檚 growing debt. Mr. Gates, too, has portrayed himself as embracer of a prudent middle course.
鈥淵ou鈥檝e got two ends to this debate,鈥� Gates said during a January budget briefing with reporters. 鈥淭hose who feel we鈥檝e already gone too far, and those who feel like we haven鈥檛 gone nearly far enough. My view is that we鈥檝e got it about right.鈥�
But this fiscal narrative obscures important realities, according to analysts 鈥� including the reality that the defense budget is still growing. At $553 billion, the budget is some $13 billion less than the Pentagon expected for 2012, but still represents 3 percent growth over fiscal year 2011, and the Pentagon remains the largest single spender of federal dollars.
What鈥檚 more, Mr. Gates has announced that the Pentagon was going to cut its future expenditures over the next five years by $78 billion. Yet this represents only about 3 percent of the overall defense budget.
While the announced cuts will reduce planned future expenditures, they will not cut actual future spending, says Travis Sharp, a research associate at the Center for a New American Security. Indeed, cuts are not necessarily apt to produce future savings, since they rely on future economic assumptions that 鈥渢end to underestimate future costs.鈥�
Plans are also subject to change based on perceived future threats. One of the major cuts touted by the Pentagon 鈥� and derided by defense hawks 鈥� has been planned cuts to the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 2015, when the US military is slated to be out of Afghanistan. But such reductions 鈥渁re easier said than done,鈥� says Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. By 2015, 鈥渨e don鈥檛 know who the defense secretary or the president is going to be, and what they鈥檙e going to have to say about it.鈥�
Robert Hale, the Pentagon鈥檚 chief financial officer, confirmed this point during a briefing with reporters Monday. 鈥淚 recognize that when you get out beyond fiscal 鈥�12, the plans aren鈥檛 as detailed,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檓 pretty confident we鈥檒l meet [the budget goals] in fiscal 鈥�12. I think there鈥檒l be more of a struggle as they get larger and we have less definite plans in the years beyond."
This is likewise true of the cuts predicated on the drawdown of US troops in Iraq. If the Iraqi government under President Hamid Karzai requests US troops to stay beyond December 2011, when they are slated to pull out, that could change spending priorities. 鈥淲e would have to look at how to meet those resource needs,鈥� Mr. Hale said.
The Pentagon recognizes, too, that the best defense of this budget may be a good offense. For example, he has decried as wasteful plans to build a second engine for the Pentagon鈥檚 Joint Strike Fighter jet. Some congressmen, whose districts have a financial interest in developing the engine manufactured by defense giant Lockheed Martin, are lobbying hard to keep it.
鈥淲e consider it an unnecessary and extravagant expense, particularly during this period of fiscal contraction,鈥� Gates said. He estimated it would cost taxpayers 鈥渘early $3 billion in a time of economic distress.鈥�
He will face more questions when he travels to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to testify later this week. In the meantime, he issued a challenge to fiscal conservatives on the Hill, particularly tea party-affiliated freshman. 鈥淢y hope is that particularly the new members who are interested in fiscal responsibility will see this as an opportunity to save $3 billion for the taxpayers,鈥� he said, 鈥渢hat can be put to better use.鈥�
