February 28, 2011
By Mackenzie Eaglen
As fiscal pressures mount, members of Congress face tough choices about federal spending priorities. Both sides agree that Congress must evaluate federal spending on its merits and decide whether it is both constitutional and necessary. This examination will not occur in a vacuum, given that America's military is extending its mission in Afghanistan while facing new challenges around the globe.
Fiscal responsibility and national security are not mutually exclusive. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen recently noted, our rising national debt is a national security threat. Interest on the debt is projected to roughly equal our defense budget by next year. However, drastic or hasty cuts in defense spending will likely undermine the physical security upon which our nation's financial security rests.
Policymakers have been demanding that defense spending be "on the table" for cuts without acknowledging that defense is being cut and has been cut substantially over the past few years. Given the sweeping cuts Congress approved as part of the fiscal year 2010 and now 2011 military budgets, and the large number of process and efficiency reforms under way in the Defense Department, arbitrary cuts could seriously damage the foundation of America's military strength.
Yes, Congress should scrutinize every penny and continue to pursue greater efficiency. But members should also identify responsible reforms that are realistic and achievable and reforms that pose minimal risk to the military's capabilities and readiness.
Our research shows that savings amounting to more than $70 billion — and possibly up to $90 billion — can be achieved from a reform package that balances reduced costs with enduring military strength. The package includes some of the efficiencies initiatives that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed, including senior personnel freezes among both civilian and military employees and closing redundant offices.
Our reform package also includes suggestions the co-chairmen of the president's deficit commission proposed. We agree, for example, with proposals to freeze salaries and bonuses of Defense Department civilian staffers for three years, and to replace military personnel performing commercial services — such as trash collection and fire prevention — with lower-paid civilian personnel. A 2006 study by the Center for Naval Analyses indicated that the Navy could save $750 million annually and reduce the number of sailors in uniform by about 21,700 by shifting some military functions to civilians, such as basic supply, food service and ships' services on all surface combatants. The Navy could save $390 million annually by applying the same model to aircraft carriers.
However, we disagree with the co-chairmen's proposals to reduce overall procurement by 15 percent, including suggestions to cancel the V-22 Osprey, terminate the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, kill the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, cut Air Force and Navy F-35 JSF procurement by half, and reduce the number of military personnel in Europe and Asia by one-third. These cuts would damage U.S. military strength.
We propose three additional reforms. One is to expand the use of private-public partnerships for performance-based logistics, which include equipment repair, supply transport, storage, goods delivery and information technology. These partnerships can improve military supply and distribution systems while saving up to $30 billion annually.
The second is to modernize base operations and defense supply and maintenance systems. The Pentagon operates four retail systems on bases; these may be consolidated into one. In addition, changing the depot pricing structure for repairs, and allowing more private contractors to maintain depots, will achieve significant savings.
Finally, we suggest reducing wear and tear on military hardware by adopting measures to prevent corrosion and to change how some equipment is used. We also advocate increasing the use of multiyear contracts and block upgrades for new equipment, which allow the military to take advantage of more efficient production and cost-effective improvements to existing platforms.
Recently, Congress smartly approved a multiyear contract to purchase 124 F/A-18s and E/A-18s from 2011 to 2013. According to Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter, this contract will yield more than $600 million in savings, a savings of about 7 percent.
Mackenzie Eaglen is a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
First moved on The McClatchy News Wire service
Protect America Initiative of the Leadership for America Campaign
Research Fellow for National Security Studies, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam(R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973