marinemom
03-08-04, 05:26 AM
Spending Sparks Warnings
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 8, 2004; Page A01
A sharp jump in military spending under President Bush has lifted defense budgets to levels not seen since the height of the Reagan buildup of the early 1980s, prompting warnings by lawmakers and defense analysts that the surge may no longer be sustainable in a time of deepening deficits.
The military bills, which are approaching $500 billion a year, reflect an exceptional confluence of events, as the Pentagon attempts to cover the costs of stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan while pursuing an array of new weaponry, exploring revolutionary technologies and caring for an all-volunteer military.
In a sign of mounting pressure to constrain the Pentagon's purse, the Senate Budget Committee voted last week to trim $7 billion from Bush's defense request. Defense hawks vowed to restore the money and to block a similar cost-cutting move expected in the House.
The looming political battle bore a striking parallel with conditions 19 years ago when congressional alarm over a soaring federal deficit led to the end of President Ronald Reagan's defense buildup.
"This feels to me the way it did back in 1985," said John Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary and comptroller under President Bill Clinton and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I believe the tide has begun to turn. These deficit and defense budget numbers are so shockingly big now that, politically, they're untenable."
Indeed, the Army's decision last month to cancel its Comanche helicopter program signaled a growing recognition by military authorities that they can no longer afford all the projects they have in the works.
Among the most vulnerable projects are a few big-ticket weapons programs conceived during the Cold War and still in development, including the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor jet, the multi-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Marine Corps's V-22 tiltrotor aircraft and the Navy's Virginia-class attack submarine. Some newer, experimental projects may also be at risk -- notably, the Army's Future Combat System, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship and the Bush administration's missile defense program.
But deciding what to cut is likely to prove more problematic now than in the Reagan years, according to military officials and defense specialists, who note that Bush's spending boost has differed markedly from Reagan's.
For one thing, while Reagan's rise took place in peacetime, Bush's budgets have included a significant wartime component. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan added more than $60 billion to the 2003 and 2004 budgets. They likely will require an additional $50 billion or so in 2005 on top of the $421 billion Bush already has requested, according to a White House estimate.
"The fact that we are in some manner of war at this time may put a floor under what's done to defense, a floor that was not there in 1985," said Gordon Adams, director of the Security Policy Studies program at George Washington University.
Another substantial chunk of Bush's buildup has gone toward higher salary, health care and retirement costs associated with sustaining a fully professional, family-oriented military. This, too, contrasts with Reagan's spending increase, much of which went to buying fleets of tanks, helicopters, aircraft and other military equipment.
"A lot of the extra money that the president is giving us is being soaked up not in hardware or structure, but in compensation," said Lt. Gen. Jerry Sinn, the Army's top budget officer. "Without these budget increases, we'd be looking at force reductions."
Indeed, the high cost of troops is one reason Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has resisted calls in Congress for a permanent expansion of the armed forces to ease the strain on 1.4 million active duty troops and 1.2 million reservists.
Sinn cited figures showing that, on average, officer compensation has nearly doubled since 1990, from $68,000 to $115,000. "Grade creep" has led to higher percentages of commissioned and noncommissioned officers in the force, which in turn has escalated costs.
"In Reagan's era, we were buying lots of stuff," Hamre said. "Now, the military establishment is substantially different, with a much reduced force and fewer weapons on order. Yet, we're spending the same amount of money. It's just startling."
Bush came into office pledging to impose greater fiscal discipline on the Pentagon and stressing new, "transformational" technologies aimed at reshaping the U.S. military into a leaner, more mobile force geared to fighting regional wars and terrorist networks instead of the old Soviet Union.
But the terrorist attacks in 2001 triggered a surge in defense spending that eased pressure on the Pentagon to choose between the legacy systems still in development and the new technologies getting off the ground, including missile defenses, pilotless aircraft and laser communications satellites. Before last month's elimination of Comanche, the Pentagon under Bush had cut only two other sizable programs -- the Army's Crusader howitzer and a Navy missile defense system.
In late 2001, Bush approved a military budget plan that provided for increases of about $10 billion a year, plus the cost of inflation, through the rest of his term and beyond. The actual increases have been much greater.
Total defense budget authority, which covers not only the Pentagon's needs but also the nuclear weapons programs run by the Energy Department, rose by $19 billion in 2002 to $385 billion. It soared $89 billion the next year to $474 billion and has remained at about the same level in fiscal 2004.
By comparison, Reagan's buildup, in today's dollars, peaked at $494 billion in 1985.
Under Bush, said Adams of GWU, the Pentagon has "dodged a bullet" and avoided hard choices it would have faced under tighter fiscal conditions. "It has been able to have its cake and eat it, too."
Defense hawks in Congress remain determined to prevent the cake from being sliced up. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and 33 other House Republicans sent a letter Feb. 25 to Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), chairman of the Budget Committee, warning they would oppose a budget resolution cutting Bush's request.
At a hearing of his committee last week, Hunter said reductions now "would be a mistake in the middle of a war, while our service personnel are engaged with the enemy." He and opponents of defense cuts also have pointed to aging fleets of military aircraft and vehicles, arguing that investment in new equipment must be sustained to make up for the "procurement holiday" of the 1990s that followed the Soviet Union's collapse.
Even with the recent rise in defense spending, they note, the military's share of the nation's gross domestic product amounts to only 4 percent, compared with an average 6 percent in the 1980s. The military's share of the federal budget is down as well, from an average 28 percent in the 1980s to slightly less than 20 percent in 2004.
Still, say proponents of defense cuts, the Pentagon consumes about half of all federal discretionary spending. As military spending has shot up under Bush, most other discretionary categories have remained flat or declined.
"There are many people in the other Appropriations subcommittees -- including the leaders of those subcommittees -- who believe their flat funding puts them in a very difficult position, and they'll be taking a hard look at our defense bill to try to tap into that pool," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee's panel on defense.
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 8, 2004; Page A01
A sharp jump in military spending under President Bush has lifted defense budgets to levels not seen since the height of the Reagan buildup of the early 1980s, prompting warnings by lawmakers and defense analysts that the surge may no longer be sustainable in a time of deepening deficits.
The military bills, which are approaching $500 billion a year, reflect an exceptional confluence of events, as the Pentagon attempts to cover the costs of stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan while pursuing an array of new weaponry, exploring revolutionary technologies and caring for an all-volunteer military.
In a sign of mounting pressure to constrain the Pentagon's purse, the Senate Budget Committee voted last week to trim $7 billion from Bush's defense request. Defense hawks vowed to restore the money and to block a similar cost-cutting move expected in the House.
The looming political battle bore a striking parallel with conditions 19 years ago when congressional alarm over a soaring federal deficit led to the end of President Ronald Reagan's defense buildup.
"This feels to me the way it did back in 1985," said John Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary and comptroller under President Bill Clinton and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I believe the tide has begun to turn. These deficit and defense budget numbers are so shockingly big now that, politically, they're untenable."
Indeed, the Army's decision last month to cancel its Comanche helicopter program signaled a growing recognition by military authorities that they can no longer afford all the projects they have in the works.
Among the most vulnerable projects are a few big-ticket weapons programs conceived during the Cold War and still in development, including the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor jet, the multi-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Marine Corps's V-22 tiltrotor aircraft and the Navy's Virginia-class attack submarine. Some newer, experimental projects may also be at risk -- notably, the Army's Future Combat System, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship and the Bush administration's missile defense program.
But deciding what to cut is likely to prove more problematic now than in the Reagan years, according to military officials and defense specialists, who note that Bush's spending boost has differed markedly from Reagan's.
For one thing, while Reagan's rise took place in peacetime, Bush's budgets have included a significant wartime component. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan added more than $60 billion to the 2003 and 2004 budgets. They likely will require an additional $50 billion or so in 2005 on top of the $421 billion Bush already has requested, according to a White House estimate.
"The fact that we are in some manner of war at this time may put a floor under what's done to defense, a floor that was not there in 1985," said Gordon Adams, director of the Security Policy Studies program at George Washington University.
Another substantial chunk of Bush's buildup has gone toward higher salary, health care and retirement costs associated with sustaining a fully professional, family-oriented military. This, too, contrasts with Reagan's spending increase, much of which went to buying fleets of tanks, helicopters, aircraft and other military equipment.
"A lot of the extra money that the president is giving us is being soaked up not in hardware or structure, but in compensation," said Lt. Gen. Jerry Sinn, the Army's top budget officer. "Without these budget increases, we'd be looking at force reductions."
Indeed, the high cost of troops is one reason Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has resisted calls in Congress for a permanent expansion of the armed forces to ease the strain on 1.4 million active duty troops and 1.2 million reservists.
Sinn cited figures showing that, on average, officer compensation has nearly doubled since 1990, from $68,000 to $115,000. "Grade creep" has led to higher percentages of commissioned and noncommissioned officers in the force, which in turn has escalated costs.
"In Reagan's era, we were buying lots of stuff," Hamre said. "Now, the military establishment is substantially different, with a much reduced force and fewer weapons on order. Yet, we're spending the same amount of money. It's just startling."
Bush came into office pledging to impose greater fiscal discipline on the Pentagon and stressing new, "transformational" technologies aimed at reshaping the U.S. military into a leaner, more mobile force geared to fighting regional wars and terrorist networks instead of the old Soviet Union.
But the terrorist attacks in 2001 triggered a surge in defense spending that eased pressure on the Pentagon to choose between the legacy systems still in development and the new technologies getting off the ground, including missile defenses, pilotless aircraft and laser communications satellites. Before last month's elimination of Comanche, the Pentagon under Bush had cut only two other sizable programs -- the Army's Crusader howitzer and a Navy missile defense system.
In late 2001, Bush approved a military budget plan that provided for increases of about $10 billion a year, plus the cost of inflation, through the rest of his term and beyond. The actual increases have been much greater.
Total defense budget authority, which covers not only the Pentagon's needs but also the nuclear weapons programs run by the Energy Department, rose by $19 billion in 2002 to $385 billion. It soared $89 billion the next year to $474 billion and has remained at about the same level in fiscal 2004.
By comparison, Reagan's buildup, in today's dollars, peaked at $494 billion in 1985.
Under Bush, said Adams of GWU, the Pentagon has "dodged a bullet" and avoided hard choices it would have faced under tighter fiscal conditions. "It has been able to have its cake and eat it, too."
Defense hawks in Congress remain determined to prevent the cake from being sliced up. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and 33 other House Republicans sent a letter Feb. 25 to Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), chairman of the Budget Committee, warning they would oppose a budget resolution cutting Bush's request.
At a hearing of his committee last week, Hunter said reductions now "would be a mistake in the middle of a war, while our service personnel are engaged with the enemy." He and opponents of defense cuts also have pointed to aging fleets of military aircraft and vehicles, arguing that investment in new equipment must be sustained to make up for the "procurement holiday" of the 1990s that followed the Soviet Union's collapse.
Even with the recent rise in defense spending, they note, the military's share of the nation's gross domestic product amounts to only 4 percent, compared with an average 6 percent in the 1980s. The military's share of the federal budget is down as well, from an average 28 percent in the 1980s to slightly less than 20 percent in 2004.
Still, say proponents of defense cuts, the Pentagon consumes about half of all federal discretionary spending. As military spending has shot up under Bush, most other discretionary categories have remained flat or declined.
"There are many people in the other Appropriations subcommittees -- including the leaders of those subcommittees -- who believe their flat funding puts them in a very difficult position, and they'll be taking a hard look at our defense bill to try to tap into that pool," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee's panel on defense.