In order to make a deal to avert the fiscal cliff and put the country on a more sustainable fiscal path, political leaders from both sides of the aisle agree that some cuts to discretionary spending must be part of the package. The defense budget, which accounts for about half of all discretionary spending, should bear a significant percentage of these reductions.
Over the past two years, the Pentagon has largely escaped real cuts to its budget while the domestic programs that fund our national investments in infrastructure, education and research have seen their funding slashed repeatedly. As a result, the Defense Department, with its $600 billion budget, is much better positioned to endure cuts than its domestic counterparts, and targeted defense cuts will not undermine our national security or economic recovery.
This fact has not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill: just last week, a bipartisan group of 22 lawmakers —11 Democrats and 11 Republicans — sent a letter to President Obama and Congressional leaders calling for substantial cuts in defense spending over the next decade as part of a budget deal to avoid sequestration.
Implementing the following four politically feasible reforms to the defense budget would save $100 billion over the next decade. First, reduce the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile to 1,100 weapons. Second, cancel the Navy variant of the F-35 and instead purchase the more affordable and effective F/A-18 E/F. Third, reduce the size of the U.S. ground forces to their pre-9/11 levels as we wind down the war in Afghanistan. And finally, implement sensible provisions to reduce the over-utilization of services in the military’s Tricare for Life health care program.
A modest $100 billion reduction will not be sufficiently to reverse the explosive, irresponsible growth in defense spending that has occurred since 9/11. In fact, the bipartisan group of 22 and the president’s own deficit reduction committee (Simpson-Bowles) both suggest much larger draw-downs. But these reductions present a politically achievable down payment to avert the fiscal cliff and buy the Obama administration and Congress more time to deal with the larger fiscal challenges facing the Department of Defense.
A few details on each proposal:
Nuclear weapons: The Pentagon spends at least $12 billion a year (an extremely conservative estimate) to maintain 1722 deployed nuclear warheads. The Pentagon’s own strategic guidance document explicitly notes that it may be possible to achieve deterrence with a smaller nuclear force. In fact, analysts at the Air War College and School of Advanced Air and Space Studies have argued that 311 nuclear weapons are all that is necessary to achieve an effective deterrent.
The New START agreement mandates that that the U.S. nuclear stockpile drop to 1550 deployed warhead by 2018. But the Obama administration is reportedly weighing a number of options to reduce the size of the U.S. stockpile, including a cut to between 1000 and 1100 deployed weapons. Cutting to this level by 2022 could save as much as $28 billion over the next decade.
Read more:
www.politico.com/story/2012/12/how-to-cu...8.html#ixzz2FT9UAgQo
