Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
PDA Update - January 2014
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
New PDA report outlines a “Reasonable Defense” – Seeks to slim armed forces by 18% and Save $68 billion yearly
Washington, D.C., November 14, 2012 – The Project on Defense
Alternatives released a study today outlining a new global strategy for
addressing security threats that also promises to free hundreds of
billions over ten years for debt reduction and economic revitalization.
Entitled Reasonable Defense: A Sustainable Approach to Securing the Nation, the report sees the principal challenge to the United States as being economic in nature rather than military.
Click here to download a copy of Reasonable Defense
Reasonable Defense
proposes focusing the US military on those missions and
responsibilities for which it is best suited – traditional defense,
deterrence, and crisis response – while jettisoning large
national-building efforts and counter-insurgency campaigns. It
advocates more and better-balanced security cooperation with other
nations, but sees “preventive security” initiatives to be largely the
job of the State Department. “Our military is a fabulously expensive
tool,” said the report’s principal author, Carl Conetta, “and we can no
longer afford to misuse it.”
With a Reasonable Defense posture
in place, the United States could adopt a national security budget
similar in size to that which would result under the sequester
provisions of the Budget Control Act, according to PDA co-director
Charles Knight. However, unlike that budgeting device, the proposed
reductions will be introduced gradually over a period of five years.
The PDA plan sees the defense budget stabilizing at about $462 billion
in today’s dollars. Compared with President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013
budget, this would save $550 billion over ten years.
Under the Reasonable Defense plan:
- The active component military would comprise 1.15 million personnel – a 19 percent reduction from the 2012 active-component military of about 1.42 million.
- The Navy will have a battle fleet of 230 vessels: 9 aircraft carriers, at least 23 amphibious warfare ships, and 160 other surface and subsurface combatants. This would allow annual shipbuilding to fall from the current level of 9 ships per year down to 5-6 ships.
- The United States would field 2,780 combat fighter aircraft – down from the previously planned level of 3,150. The Navy and Marine Corps variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be cancelled in favor of additional procurement of F-16 and F/A-18s.
Congressman Barney Frank joined Mr. Conetta for a press briefing
today. Congressman Frank reviewed the prospects for future reductions
in US defense spending and commented, “This latest report makes the case
very persuasively that we will save even more and with less stress in
some ways, if we rethink our strategic posture and essentially scale
back what has been a multi-decade assertion that America needs to be
everywhere. And this says, you know, the Cold War is over, and things
have gotten a lot better in terms of not having a major enemy. Let’s
revise our strategic objectives to a realistic point. And then we can
save a great deal of money.”
Click here to listen to a recording of the press briefing
As Congress returns to Washington this week, it faces a myriad of issues none more alarming than the “fiscal cliff.” A Reasonable Defense offers a clear and credible alternative to the sequestration of defense
funds and provides important guidance to those who must manage the
forthcoming defense builddown. The report also shows how to best
balance the competing requirements of national security with those of
national strength.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
A 250 Ship Obama Navy?
A number of Republican leaders and naval experts have recently been
suggesting that the Obama administration is leading the nation toward a
battle fleet of just 250 ships. Immediately following the last
presidential debate, Rep. Randy Forbes (R –VA) and Gov. Bob McDonnell
(R-VA) held a press briefing in Virginia and stated that the Obama Navy
is on a path to reduce the number of ships in the battle fleet from the
current 284 to below 250. This was reported by The Hill and the Daily Press of Hampton Roads, VA.
We were unfamiliar with the 250 number associated with any current Navy planning, so we wondered where did this 250 number come from?
First, we can report that it is not an official number. The Navy’s official fleet plan is found on pg. 4 Table ES-2 “FY2013-2042 Naval Battle Force Inventory” of Naval Operations’ “Annual Report to Congress on Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2013.” The table shows a low of 276 ships in FY15 and a ten year high of 300 ships in FY19.
So, if the notion of a 250 ship Navy is not official, where did it come from?
Its origin appears to be verbal testimony provided by Eric Labs, CBO Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons, before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces on 9 March 2011. Mr. Forbes serves on the Subcommittee.
During this hearing Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) asked Mr. Labs, “…if the Navy remains at its currently planned levels of funding, how many ships do you believe the Navy will be short of its 313-ship planned procurement?” Mr. Labs response was, “…if the Navy is stuck with the historical average of $15 billion, in other words they must cut substantial numbers of ships out of their program, would depend very much on the composition of those cuts. If they choose to cut very expensive ships, you could end up having a force not of 313 or 322, but maybe somewhere around the force we have today of 280. If you cut more of a mix of less expensive ships, it could range anywhere from 200 to 250 ships in the fleet. It would depend very much on what whoever would be the deciding authority, whether it would be the Congress or the Navy, what they decide to remove from the shipbuilding plan in order to bring that overall budgetary level over the next 30 years into sort of an historical average line.”
The idea of the Navy shrinking to 250 ships next surfaced in an op-ed by Robert Kaplan appearing in the Financial Times on 29 November 2011. In it, he wrote: “The US navy’s current strength is 284 warships. In the short term that number may rise to 313 because of the introduction of littoral combat ships. Over time, however, it may fall to about 250, owing to cost overruns, the need to address domestic debt and the decommissioning of aging warships in the 2020s.”
Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security joined Robert Kaplan in a January 2012 report called “Cooperation from Strength: The United States, China and the South China Sea”
(Chapter 1, p.6) writing: “The United States should strengthen its
naval presence over the long term by building toward a 346-ship fleet
rather than retreating to the 250-ship mark that the United States faces
due to budget cuts and the decommissioning of aging warships in the
next decade.” They go on to say (p.8) that: “Whereas the Reagan-era U.S.
Navy boasted almost 600 warships, the number presently stands at 284.
Although the Navy’s goal is to expand to 313 warships, current defense
budgets, coupled with production delays and cost overruns, do not
support that goal. Furthermore, with budget cuts in the offing, as well
as the mass decommissioning of warships in the next decade because of
age, the United States faces the prospect of a Navy with 250 ships or
fewer.” Cronin and Kaplan don’t source their “250 ships or fewer”, but
it seems quite likely they picked this up from Labs’ testimony.
John Lehman, Gov. Romney’s naval adviser and champion of a 350 ship Navy, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April 2012 that “…It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”
Eric Labs makes some cogent points about the choices the Navy and Congress have for living within a constrained shipbuilding budget. These insights have been ignored by advocates for a 346-350 ship Navy in their eager use of his “250 ships” phrase.
If the Navy retires and does not replace some high-end ships during the next twenty years it can manage its shipbuilding money so as to buy more ships that cost less. Obvious candidates for cuts are aircraft carriers and strategic missile subs. Cutting a couple carriers and reducing the strategic missile submarine fleet to seven will save tens of billions which can help pay for less expensive destroyers and attack subs. In the middle range of cost the LCS is steadily edging its way toward being a failed system (especially in terms of cost-effectiveness) and is more than twice as expensive as the retiring frigates it replaces. There are modern frigate designs that can built for a fraction of the cost of an LCS. These are just a few of the economical choices that the Navy and Congress can and will need to make to sustain the battle fleet.
Eric Labs also said that the size of the future fleet depended on choices of the “deciding authority… the Congress or the Navy.” In this regard it is notable that the Congress has denied the Navy’s request this year to retire three (expensive to operate) cruisers that the Navy wanted to decommission in order to, in part, free up resources for new shipbuilding.
[The Project on Defense Alternatives is an independent defense analysis ‘think tank’. In this campaign season it seems important to state that we prize our nonpartisan stance. We are skeptical of statements made by ‘experts’ aligned with both Democratic and Republican parties. We are proud to contribute quality information providing citizens with the wherewithal to make independent judgments.]
We were unfamiliar with the 250 number associated with any current Navy planning, so we wondered where did this 250 number come from?
First, we can report that it is not an official number. The Navy’s official fleet plan is found on pg. 4 Table ES-2 “FY2013-2042 Naval Battle Force Inventory” of Naval Operations’ “Annual Report to Congress on Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2013.” The table shows a low of 276 ships in FY15 and a ten year high of 300 ships in FY19.
So, if the notion of a 250 ship Navy is not official, where did it come from?
Its origin appears to be verbal testimony provided by Eric Labs, CBO Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons, before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces on 9 March 2011. Mr. Forbes serves on the Subcommittee.
During this hearing Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) asked Mr. Labs, “…if the Navy remains at its currently planned levels of funding, how many ships do you believe the Navy will be short of its 313-ship planned procurement?” Mr. Labs response was, “…if the Navy is stuck with the historical average of $15 billion, in other words they must cut substantial numbers of ships out of their program, would depend very much on the composition of those cuts. If they choose to cut very expensive ships, you could end up having a force not of 313 or 322, but maybe somewhere around the force we have today of 280. If you cut more of a mix of less expensive ships, it could range anywhere from 200 to 250 ships in the fleet. It would depend very much on what whoever would be the deciding authority, whether it would be the Congress or the Navy, what they decide to remove from the shipbuilding plan in order to bring that overall budgetary level over the next 30 years into sort of an historical average line.”
The idea of the Navy shrinking to 250 ships next surfaced in an op-ed by Robert Kaplan appearing in the Financial Times on 29 November 2011. In it, he wrote: “The US navy’s current strength is 284 warships. In the short term that number may rise to 313 because of the introduction of littoral combat ships. Over time, however, it may fall to about 250, owing to cost overruns, the need to address domestic debt and the decommissioning of aging warships in the 2020s.”
John Lehman, Gov. Romney’s naval adviser and champion of a 350 ship Navy, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April 2012 that “…It is anything but certain that the administration’s budgets will sustain even that rate of only eight ships per year, but even if they do, the United States is headed for a Navy of 240-250 ships at best.”
Eric Labs makes some cogent points about the choices the Navy and Congress have for living within a constrained shipbuilding budget. These insights have been ignored by advocates for a 346-350 ship Navy in their eager use of his “250 ships” phrase.
If the Navy retires and does not replace some high-end ships during the next twenty years it can manage its shipbuilding money so as to buy more ships that cost less. Obvious candidates for cuts are aircraft carriers and strategic missile subs. Cutting a couple carriers and reducing the strategic missile submarine fleet to seven will save tens of billions which can help pay for less expensive destroyers and attack subs. In the middle range of cost the LCS is steadily edging its way toward being a failed system (especially in terms of cost-effectiveness) and is more than twice as expensive as the retiring frigates it replaces. There are modern frigate designs that can built for a fraction of the cost of an LCS. These are just a few of the economical choices that the Navy and Congress can and will need to make to sustain the battle fleet.
Eric Labs also said that the size of the future fleet depended on choices of the “deciding authority… the Congress or the Navy.” In this regard it is notable that the Congress has denied the Navy’s request this year to retire three (expensive to operate) cruisers that the Navy wanted to decommission in order to, in part, free up resources for new shipbuilding.
[The Project on Defense Alternatives is an independent defense analysis ‘think tank’. In this campaign season it seems important to state that we prize our nonpartisan stance. We are skeptical of statements made by ‘experts’ aligned with both Democratic and Republican parties. We are proud to contribute quality information providing citizens with the wherewithal to make independent judgments.]
Friday, September 21, 2012
PDA Update - August 15, 2012
How should the U.S. defense posture and budget change as the war in
Afghanistan winds down? This is a critical question for the nation,
especially considering the growing fiscal pressures on the Federal
government.
Unfortunately, the current panic about the pending "sequester" prevents
clear thinking about the options before us. The January 2013 sequester
of $55 billion in security spending will result in a precipitous
reduction for the Pentagon. The Budget Control Act will trim the
Pentagon in one stroke to a level close to its budget of 2007. This cut
has been called "draconian" and "devastating" for the armed forces. A
consensus has been growing in Washington that the Budget Control Act
(BCA) must be amended or suspended in order to prevent sequestration.
This is not a choice between sequestration and no further cuts for DoD,
however. There are ways to apply additional cuts to the Pentagon base
budget that avoid both institutional disruption and most of the economic
pain associated with deep cuts to government spending – a matter of
some concern while the economy remains weak and struggling to recover.
An illustrative option is the “Reasonable Defense” plan formulated by
the Project on Defense Alternatives. It would ratchet back the base
budget to the level of 2006 (corrected for inflation), but do so
gradually in stages that the Pentagon and armed services could readily
accommodate.
The table and chart that follow illustrate the first five years of the Reasonable Defense plan,
comparing it with the Budget Control Act "sequester" budget,
Administration's 2013 plan, and the actual 2012 spending level carried
forward with increases for inflation. The first three years of Reasonable Defense cuts
would be considerably smaller than what the BCA sequester entails. Then
in 2017, when the post-recession economic recovery should be complete,
the cuts would exceed those dictated by the BCA, eventually plateauing
at a level about equal to the 2006 budget, which is somewhat lower than
the sequestration level.
Alternative DoD Discretionary Spending Paths (billions nominal dollars)
Alternative DoD Discretionary Spending Paths (billions nominal dollars)
Total for five years 2013-2017
2012 level + inflation 2,792
2013 DoD request 2,728
Sequestration Level 2,452
Reasonable Defense plan 2,528
The proposed reduction from today’s level would be quite modest by historical standards – about 14% in real terms compared to the 35% reduction that followed the end of the Cold War. And, because the reduction would occur gradually over four years, the annual steps down would be comparable to those successfully absorbed by the Defense Department during previous periods of adjustment.
What does this proposed level of funding mean? In inflation-adjusted terms, the 2012 Pentagon base budget is 38% higher than the 2001 budget, which was enacted before today’s wars had begun. While the Reasonable Defense plan would roll the base budget back to its 2006 level (adjusted for inflation), a fair portion of the spending increase would remain. The 2006 budget was 20% above the level of 2001, in real terms.
The Ten Year Perspective
The Reasonable Defense budget for ten years would cost $560 billion less than the 2013 plan submitted by the White House.
Over the course of ten years the White House plan is to provide the Pentagon with $5.76 trillion.The Reasonable Defense budget would provide the Pentagon with $5.2 trillion over ten years. The Budget Control Act would cap defense at about $5.18 trillion.
The full details of the Reasonable Defense national security posture are forthcoming from the Project on Defense Alternatives in September of 2012. The addendum that follows gives some details of the plan.
Addendum: Prospectus for a Reasonable Defense
The PDA “Reasonable Defense” plan would reset America’s defense posture
in light of new strategic challenges and circumstances. Based on a more
realistic and cost-effective defense strategy, the new posture would
enable a sustainable balance between military power and other elements
of national strength. The new strategy would:
- Refocus America’s armed forces on those missions and tasks for which they are best suited: crisis response, defense, and deterrence.
- Prioritize those threats that pose the greatest danger of harm to ourselves and our allies: terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons.
- Assume a more cooperative approach to achieving security goals – one in which responsibilities, burdens, and authorities are proportionately shared among allies and the broader community of nations.
- Tailor conventional war capabilities and modernization efforts to a realistic assessment of current and emerging conventional military challenges.
- Hedge against an uncertain future by renewing economic strength, maintaining a strong foundation for force reconstitution as well as a proportionately larger Reserve component, and continuing support for research, development, and the prototyping of new military technologies.
- Reduce by 40% our routine peacetime military presence overseas and put greater emphasis on surging military power forward when and as needed.
- Refrain from protracted counter-insurgency operations and armed “nation building” efforts.
- Take a significant step toward a “minimal deterrent” nuclear posture, redouble efforts at strategic arms control, and adopt a no-first-use nuclear policy.
Following from these strategic precepts, the Reasonable Defense plan
would reduce the size of the active-component military from more than
1.4 million troops today to 1.15 million by the end of 2016 – 19%
reduction in military personnel over four years. Combat troops and units
would be reduced by only 17%, however – more for the ground forces,
less for the air forces. The reduction in National Guard and Reserve
personnel would also be less: only 11%.
Once the drawdown to a Reasonable Defense level is complete,
the annual Defense Department base budget would stabilize at
approximately $455 billion (2012 dollars), which is 14% below the Fiscal
Year 2012 budget.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/140812bm56-Defense-Sequester.pdf
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/140812bm56-Defense-Sequester.pdf
PDA Update - August 1, 2012
50+ Congressional Staff Briefed on
Defense Savings Options
Defense Savings Options
Yesterday, July 31, 2012, Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, Ben Friedman of the Cato Institute, and Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress, presented options and arguments for defense savings to a standing-room-only meeting of more than fifty Congressional staff in the Rayburn House Office Building. The meeting was moderated by Laura Peterson of Taxpayer for Common Sense and sponsored by the offices of Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and John Campbell (R-CA).
A central concern of participants was options for Fiscal Year 2013 defense appropriations and the likely amendment of the Budget Control Act.
Laura Peterson reviewed the debt and deficit challenge as well as the efforts to date to achieve significant defense savings. She noted that the defense industry has mounted a strong defense of current levels of spending, but that recent bi-partisan cooperation on defense budget restraint showed hope for greater savings.
Carl Conetta proposed a goal of reducing National Defense spending for FY 2013 by $15 billion to $18 billion, which would imply a top line of about $535 billion. Drawing on recommendations outlined in the Defense Sense report, he suggested significant savings could be realized by accelerating personnel reductions, reducing strategic weapon modernization, and selectively cutting conventional weapon programs. He pointed out that, despite the nation’s fiscal woes, the national defense budget had declined by less than 5 percent in real terms since 2010.
Ben Friedman challenged the notion that defense budget reductions, even at the level implied by sequestration, would imperil the economy or hobble the armed services. The impact of reduced budget authority in any one year would be spread over several years of outlays, he said. Greater budgetary restraint would encourage the armed services to compete and find new efficiencies. And the overall economic effect of debt and deficit reduction would be positive over the long-term. Funds removed from the Pentagon account would not simply disappear, he said, but could re-enter the economy in ways more conducive to growth.
Reinforcing the point about the delayed impact of cuts, Lawrence Korb pointed out that the Defense Department now holds $80 billion in unspent authorized cash from previous years. Korb also criticized making defense policy decisions based on industrial interests, noting that the Navy does not really want the F-35, on which it will spend more than $1.8 billion in FY 2013. Korb also challenged the assertion that significant budget reductions would bring disaster to the Pentagon, recalling that much deeper cuts had been enacted between 1985 and 1994.
Looking to the future, meeting participants saw the recent victory of the Mulvaney-Frank amendment as heralding more bipartisan cooperation in achieving defense savings. And they saw the post-election period – when the sequester threat would loom – as presenting a renewed opportunity for real progress toward a more sensible level of defense expenditure.
PDA Update - July, 2012
It now appears quite likely that following this year’s election the
Budget Control Act will be either suspended (“kicked down the road”) or
amended in order to avoid the $110 billion sequester of discretionary
budget funds, half of which will come out of national security accounts,
mostly from the Department of Defense. The intensive political
negotiations on Budget Control Act amendment will begin in November with
$50+ billion in DoD budget cuts on the table under current law. Of
course, the composition of future budgets and any fiscal compromise will
depend on who is President in 2013 and the balance of power in
Congress.
Although Pentagon boosters are fond of calling the 9-10% budget cut in
the current law “draconian” and “dangerous” it does not amount to much
when put in context of what our enemies and potential opponents spend. A
new PDA summary of global military spending called USA and Allies Outspend Potential Rivals on Military by Four-to-One: America Carries Much of the Defense Burden for its Allies tells the story.
A $50 billion reduction in U.S. defense spending results in a ratio of 3.8 to 1 (between the U.S. and allies to the un-allied
set of current and potential opponents.) A 4 to 1 spending superiority
is extraordinary overmatch, and a 3.8 to 1 overmatch is also
extraordinary. We might want to return attention to this matter when
and if the overmatch is merely 2 to 1. Meanwhile we can continue to
make judicious cuts to the DoD spending for quite some time.
When an amended Budget Control program is negotiated later this year
and early next PDA believes there should be no less than $12 billion
(2.3%) in additional DoD cuts in FY13. With concern about the still
weak economy we favor phasing-in deeper cuts over the next four years.
We think the Pentagon should be trimming back to circa 2006 levels as
quickly as the services can reasonably be expected to adapt and the
economy can absorb the decline in Federally supported jobs.
The specifics of a readily available set of program cuts worth $17-20 billion in 2013 are listed in PDA's Defense Sense.
Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) has introduced an amendment to the FY13 House
Appropriations bill cutting DoD’s budget by $19.2 billion. This is an
appropriate and reasonable cut for the coming year.
PDA Update - May, 2012
Defense Sense and the Budget Control Act
After the U.S. economy slid into the Great Recession in 2008, the Federal Government’s deficit spending and the national debt grew rapidly. President Obama responded to this perceived fiscal crisis by establishing the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform which worked through most of 2010 to craft a bipartisan deficit reduction package. However, the Fiscal Commission failed to find a solution supported by the super-majority of commission members which its mandate required. What followed in 2011 was a dysfunctional seven months of partisan conflict in Congress over the budget process. Finally, in August of 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act (BCA), which requires at least $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years.
The two-pronged approach outlined in the Budget Control Act requires two steps: first, the Budget Control Act requires $1 trillion in discretionary spending reductions over ten years. Congress is currently considering how to achieve the first portion of mandated spending reductions. It is notable that the National Defense Authorization Act recently passed by the House exceeds BCA caps by $8 billion. The Senate is expected to mark its Defense Authorization to the Presidents budget which is $4 billion over the caps.
The second portion of the Budget Control Act (sometimes referred to as the “sequester” provision) goes into effect on January 2, 2013, and mandates an additional $110 billion in automatic cuts to federal spending in fiscal year 2013 and similar cuts for each of the following nine years.
Remarkably, both parties in Congress and the Administration have essentially ignored the requirements of sequestration up to this point. Because Congress refuses to address the spending reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act that will happen on January 2nd, this year’s lame duck Congress returning from recess after the November election faces an unprecedented challenge.
Many in Washington assume that the Budget Control Act will be amended to avoid sequestration. However, the major political parties are likely to remain at an impasse. Republicans have pledged not to allow tax increases while Democrats resist reforms to earned benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare and are reluctant to agree to additional cuts to domestic programs in the discretionary budget. While each party’s leadership remains loyal to their respective ideological position, neither currently acknowledge the possibility of compromise that involves further Pentagon spending reductions.
Today, the Pentagon’s “non-war” base budget comprises over 50 percent of discretionary spending. Since 2000 it has risen by 90 percent in nominal “inflated dollar” terms and 42 percent in real terms. The Pentagon base budget is currently around $550 billion annually. There is no realistic compromise on deficit reduction which does not include a substantial contribution from the Pentagon.
Reaching across ideological differences to produce a new report called Defense Sense, analysts from the Project on Defense Alternatives and the Cato Institute have identified 18 specific options that will yield up to $20 billion in additional defense savings in 2013.
These are not “draconian” cuts that threaten national security. They total about 4% of the Pentagon’s current base budget. Many involve deciding now to end troubled programs and instead use systems that are field-tested, reliable, and much less costly. Others savings involve making modest shifts in the posture of forces such as making additional reductions to troops stationed in Europe sixty-seven years after World War II and twenty-two years after the Cold War.
Examples of troubled programs to cancel are the Littoral Combat Ship and the Marine Corps variant of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, both of which are prime examples of the current problems in U.S. defense acquisition. Deciding to cancel these and to replace them with proven systems at much lower costs will save an estimated $3.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2013 alone.
There are also sensible changes to the United States’ strategic nuclear posture that involve eliminating and reducing capabilities which are excessive and redundant or designed to counter threats which no longer exist.
The options outlined in Defense Sense are modest in scope. If we are to ensure a stable fiscal future for generations to come, it is imperative that the United States responsibly balance the requirements of military power and national strength.
It is national strength in its many facets that will ultimately determine our security and our position internationally. Military power is but one part of national strength. The Pentagon’s budget, and our overall federal budget priorities, must reflect this reality.
~~~~~
Defense Sense:
Options for National Defense Savings in Fiscal Year 2013
Recommendations focus on seriously troubled weapon programs and on capabilities that significantly mismatch or exceed defense requirements. This is a practical first step. More might be saved by rethinking our national security commitments, strategy, and missions -- as we and our colleagues at Cato have suggested elsewhere.
In developing our recommendations, we drew on and adapted previous efforts to identify safe and sensible defense savings, including the President's own National Commission for Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and the Sustainable Defense Task Force (of which we were members).
Defense Sense has already played a significant role in Congressional efforts to amend the National Defense Authorization Act.
Monday, February 20, 2012
PDA Update - February, 2012
It has been a busy winter for PDA with the long anticipated release of the Pentagon's strategic guidance in January followed by the FY2013 budget release in February. PDA prepared briefing materials for circulation to journalists, analysts, advocates and grass roots activists before each of these official events and was sought after for analysis and comment by journalists as demonstrated by the press citations listed below.
Here are the briefing materials PDA produced:
Defense Strategy Review: Does Obama Run Hot or Cold on Defense? When analyzing the budget request in 2013 dollars, Carl Conetta finds that the administration’s spending request is still far above the Cold War average of $443 billion per year. (2/13/12)
The Project on Defense Alternatives: Panetta Releases DoD "Austerity" Budget; Pentagon Retains Most of Post-1998 Increase. Carl Conetta examines the administration’s FY13 budget request in historical terms and finds that DoD spending, both under current law as well as under sequestration, would still be higher than the inflation-adjusted average for the Cold War years. (1/26/12)
Recent Press Citations
San Francisco Chronicle: Defense Cuts Are a Drop in the Bucket. The Chronicle’s Carolyn Lochhead surveys BPWG members Winslow Wheeler, Christopher Preble, and Carl Conetta for their thoughts on the recently released defense budget. (2/13/12)
Wall Street Journal: White House Proposes Cap on Wartime Spending. The White House has proposed a $450 billion cap on war fundingover the next ten years, and will use a portion of the savings to fund infrastructure investments domestically. However, should OCO funding spike in future years, it is unlikely that the lost savings would come out of the DoD base budget. (2/13/12)
National Defense: 2013 Defense Budget Rollout: Just the Opening Salvo. Sandra Erwin finds that the Pentagon’s budget request keeps military spending at historically high levels despite persistently high budget deficits, with Charles Knight commenting that the budget “does not signal a new era of ‘restrained military posture for the United States.’” (2/13/12)
Wall Street Journal: Military Faces Historic Shift. The Wall Street Journal covers reaction to the strategic review, with Charles Knight pointing out that the “first strategic priority of the United States is getting its economic house in order. Doing this means spending less on the military in coming years.” (1/6/12)
Congressional Quarterly: Defense Lobbyists, Contractors Begin to Speculate Where Cuts Will Hit. Frank Oliveri surveys defense analysts’ predictions on how the defense budget will be trimmed, with Charles Knight forecasting “I don’t think we’re at the end of this.” (1/6/12)
BBC: Pentagon Cuts: What Will the New US Military Look Like? Heather Hurlburt discusses potential policy changes that may emanate from the Pentagon’s strategy review, including decreased Army troop levels, while Charles Knight points out that a smaller Army would increase pressure on the National Guard and Reserves should a large scale counter-insurgency or ground war occur. (1/5/12)
Boston Globe: Pentagon Should Do More Cutting, Less Complaining About Budget. Citing PDA’s figure that the Pentagon has spent $32 billion on cancelled weapons systems, the Boston Globe editorial board urges DoD to be smarter about procurement decisions. (1/2/12)
Key Activities
PDA prepared a draft "bottom up" Reasonable Defense posture plan which Carl Conetta presented at Congresswoman Barbara Lee's request to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Policy Summit meeting in Baltimore on January 19th. PDA is currently completing a full version of this post-Iraq/Afghanistan wars posture plan which will help progressives to have a strong and articulate position on national security looking forward. It also provides guidance to the nation on how to make deeper cuts in the military budget without the disruption built into the 'sequester' provisions of the Budget Control Act.
PDA worked with Progressive Congress and the CPC to organize a strategy and budget briefing for more than a dozen congressional offices.
PDA consulted with the office of Rep. Edward Markey on details of savings estimates for reducing the future number of strategic missile submarines as part of a comprehensive strategic nuclear force reduction legislation the congressman is introducing. Since 2010 when the Sustainable Defense Task Force proposed reducing the deployed strategic warhead force from 1550 in the New START treaty to 1000, we are gratified to have witnessed this issue open up with new attention to significant cuts.
New Resource Pages from PDA
· The Pentagon Budget and Jobs: How Does Defense Spending Rate for Job Creation?
· A Short Tour of Pentagon Financial Mismanagement, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
PDA Reset Defense Bulletin
The Project on Defense Alternatives publishes a semi-weekly newsletter, which provides readers with the latest developments and news items pertaining to the reformulation of U.S. defense policy and budgeting. To subscribe to the PDA Reset Defense Bulletin, please click here.
Here are the briefing materials PDA produced:
Defense Strategy Review: Does Obama Run Hot or Cold on Defense? When analyzing the budget request in 2013 dollars, Carl Conetta finds that the administration’s spending request is still far above the Cold War average of $443 billion per year. (2/13/12)
The Project on Defense Alternatives: Panetta Releases DoD "Austerity" Budget; Pentagon Retains Most of Post-1998 Increase. Carl Conetta examines the administration’s FY13 budget request in historical terms and finds that DoD spending, both under current law as well as under sequestration, would still be higher than the inflation-adjusted average for the Cold War years. (1/26/12)
Recent Press Citations
San Francisco Chronicle: Defense Cuts Are a Drop in the Bucket. The Chronicle’s Carolyn Lochhead surveys BPWG members Winslow Wheeler, Christopher Preble, and Carl Conetta for their thoughts on the recently released defense budget. (2/13/12)
Wall Street Journal: White House Proposes Cap on Wartime Spending. The White House has proposed a $450 billion cap on war fundingover the next ten years, and will use a portion of the savings to fund infrastructure investments domestically. However, should OCO funding spike in future years, it is unlikely that the lost savings would come out of the DoD base budget. (2/13/12)
National Defense: 2013 Defense Budget Rollout: Just the Opening Salvo. Sandra Erwin finds that the Pentagon’s budget request keeps military spending at historically high levels despite persistently high budget deficits, with Charles Knight commenting that the budget “does not signal a new era of ‘restrained military posture for the United States.’” (2/13/12)
Wall Street Journal: Military Faces Historic Shift. The Wall Street Journal covers reaction to the strategic review, with Charles Knight pointing out that the “first strategic priority of the United States is getting its economic house in order. Doing this means spending less on the military in coming years.” (1/6/12)
Congressional Quarterly: Defense Lobbyists, Contractors Begin to Speculate Where Cuts Will Hit. Frank Oliveri surveys defense analysts’ predictions on how the defense budget will be trimmed, with Charles Knight forecasting “I don’t think we’re at the end of this.” (1/6/12)
BBC: Pentagon Cuts: What Will the New US Military Look Like? Heather Hurlburt discusses potential policy changes that may emanate from the Pentagon’s strategy review, including decreased Army troop levels, while Charles Knight points out that a smaller Army would increase pressure on the National Guard and Reserves should a large scale counter-insurgency or ground war occur. (1/5/12)
Boston Globe: Pentagon Should Do More Cutting, Less Complaining About Budget. Citing PDA’s figure that the Pentagon has spent $32 billion on cancelled weapons systems, the Boston Globe editorial board urges DoD to be smarter about procurement decisions. (1/2/12)
Key Activities
PDA prepared a draft "bottom up" Reasonable Defense posture plan which Carl Conetta presented at Congresswoman Barbara Lee's request to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Policy Summit meeting in Baltimore on January 19th. PDA is currently completing a full version of this post-Iraq/Afghanistan wars posture plan which will help progressives to have a strong and articulate position on national security looking forward. It also provides guidance to the nation on how to make deeper cuts in the military budget without the disruption built into the 'sequester' provisions of the Budget Control Act.
PDA worked with Progressive Congress and the CPC to organize a strategy and budget briefing for more than a dozen congressional offices.
PDA consulted with the office of Rep. Edward Markey on details of savings estimates for reducing the future number of strategic missile submarines as part of a comprehensive strategic nuclear force reduction legislation the congressman is introducing. Since 2010 when the Sustainable Defense Task Force proposed reducing the deployed strategic warhead force from 1550 in the New START treaty to 1000, we are gratified to have witnessed this issue open up with new attention to significant cuts.
New Resource Pages from PDA
· The Pentagon Budget and Jobs: How Does Defense Spending Rate for Job Creation?
· A Short Tour of Pentagon Financial Mismanagement, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
PDA Reset Defense Bulletin
The Project on Defense Alternatives publishes a semi-weekly newsletter, which provides readers with the latest developments and news items pertaining to the reformulation of U.S. defense policy and budgeting. To subscribe to the PDA Reset Defense Bulletin, please click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)