Nov 21, 2011 1:54pm

‘Supercommittee’ Failure Prompts Fear of ‘Devastating’ Pentagon Cuts

gty pentagon leon panetta ll 111121 wblog Supercommittee Failure Prompts Fear of Devastating Pentagon Cuts

Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that possible budget cuts triggered by the breakdown of the congresssional “supercommittee“ would have devastating consequences, but many skeptics question whether such dire predictions are an exaggeration.

If members of Congress cannot implement a contingency plan, the Pentagon would have to bear half of the $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. The cuts would begin in 2013, when the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Defense Department would have to slash 10 percent, or about $550 billion, from its budget. Combined with the $450 billion worth of cuts already planned, that would amount to $1 trillion in the next decade.

After 10 years, the cuts would leave the United States with the smallest ground forces since 1940, a Navy fleet that would be the smallest since 1915 and the lowest number of fighters in the Air Force’s history, Panetta warned. The Pentagon would have to cancel acquisition programs such as the Army’s helicopter and ground vehicle modernization programs and the new Air Force bomber program, delay others, and reduce the fleet. Wartime funding would not be affected.

“The impacts of these cuts would be devastating for the department,” Panetta said in a letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., last week. It “would render most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable,” and “seriously damage other modernization efforts.”

The cuts would be a double-edged sword, experts say. On the one hand, they would force the Pentagon to look more closely at its budget, which has ballooned in recent years, and make much-needed changes in how it allocates taxpayer dollars. On the other hand, it could make the Defense Department less efficient in the short term.

“The cuts are not as draconian as you might expect, given the rhetoric, but they are serious nevertheless,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “It’s not the depth of the cuts. It’s the abruptness with which they will occur.”

Instead of making “smart cuts,” such as reducing the number of bases and the number of military and civilian personnel, the Pentagon would be forced to make “quick cuts” right away, Harrison added. That would likely entail terminating or delaying acquisition programs, a move that could end up costing more money in the future.

The cuts would put the Defense Department’s budget at $472 billion, the same level as in 2007, a spending high for the Pentagon. If it remains at 2007 levels, U.S. military spending would be almost three times that of China, and $38 billion above average annual spending during the Cold War, points out Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project and the Center for Defense Information.

Citing these numbers, supporters of defense budget cuts say Panetta’s warnings are overblown and that sequestration would be beneficial because it will force a change in the Pentagon’s culture of unquestioned funding by Congress.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the department has added $1.3 trillion in its budget for the wars and $1 trillion for its base budget. But all the while, the Navy and Air Force fleets have gotten smaller, the forces are less trained and the equipment is, on average, older than what it was a decade ago, Wheeler said.

“It’s a very flush-with-money budget,” Wheeler said. “To call such a level of spending a ‘catastrophe,’ or ‘doomsday,’ is a failure of management and intellect every bit as complete as the political failure of the hapless Democrats and Republicans on the so-called supercommittee.”

“The party’s over,” Wheeler added. “The Department of Defense needs to start making informed, hard decisions and those managers who cannot operate in that environment need to be replaced.”

Despite the supercommittee’s failure, members of Congress have the power to enact changes that would lessen the impact on the Pentagon. They can delay implementation of sequestration or change the terms so that the Defense Department has to bear less of the budget cuts, but then that money would need to come from social programs.

Members of Congress are hesitant to implement Pentagon budget cuts, but given the stalemate and bipartisan wrangling, it remains unclear whether there will be an alternative. If history is a guide, the automatic budget cuts likely won’t go into effect. The two times sequestration has occurred, first in 1988 and then in 1990, the budget cuts were either reduced or ended by legislation.

Top Pentagon officials have “ratcheted up the rhetoric about what the defense cuts would mean to a level where they’re fairly confident that Congress won’t actually let it go into effect in 2013,” Harrison said. “They are not doing anything to plan for the contingency. … They are hoping there is a silver bullet that’s going solve everything for them. There’s no guarantee that that will happen.”

SHOWS:

User Comments

Cut defense of our nation but don’t reform entitlements? A liberal’s dream scenario. They are all probably enjoying a post you-know-what cigarette in the halls of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: ss | November 21, 2011, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm

Oh heaven forbid that the military budget be automatically cut back as a result of the supercommittee stalement. Cutting social security and medicare services is less ‘dangerous’ than cutting back bloated miliary spending? Please! Both parties are to blame for this stalemate mess; with the Republicans taking the lion’s share for this budget problem. The stalement will catch the Republicans in their own web, as military costs will not remain status quo without tax increases on the wealthy.

Posted by: rohnertpark1 | November 21, 2011, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm

The cuts would put the Defense Department’s budget at $472 billion, the same level as in 2007, a spending high for the Pentagon. If it remains at 2007 levels, U.S. military spending would be almost three times that of China, and $38 billion above average annual spending during the Cold War……

Posted by: Searambler | November 21, 2011, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm

The only reason the Federal government was formed was to provide protection for our country! We can’t even protect our borders but we can give billions away to big donors, unions and a lot of undeserving. Why do Democrats hate the military?

Posted by: Freedom | November 21, 2011, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

DOD will scream and cry to get waht they want. Remember that these cuts do not include auxillary funding of on-going operations in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. We need to wean our economy off of the DOD teat. We are a military, but we don’t need to be.

Posted by: Jim | November 21, 2011, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm

Oh No, Europe, Japan, Korea, Uganda, The Middle East, they will have to handle their own defense needs, that should send Europe down the tubes a little faster, Those entitlement programs are expensive, when you have to actually make an effort to defend you country.

Posted by: snewsom2997 | November 21, 2011, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

There are NO CUTS!!! All that gets “cut” are proposed INCREASES. Do nothing and military spending automatically goes UP 23% over the next ten years. Sequester the money under the failed deficit commission and it STILL GOES UP 16%.

Hey Huma, How about telling the country the truth!!!!

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!

Posted by: Andrew Bridge | November 21, 2011, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm

As a member of DOD for 23 years I welcome the cuts. DOD is wasteful and we are bloated with senior officers that refuse to retire (because life is good at the top). We have more General Officers now than we had during WW2. Ratio now is 1 x GO for every 1500 troops, during WW2 it was 1 x GO for every 6500 troops. This also means we are heavy on Colonels and LT Colonels like never before. The level of (micro) management really is ridiculous. Then we have all these wasteful purchases of equipment that certainly are connected to some congressional earmark. Please make the cuts, we need to do this for the country.

Posted by: ARMYVET | November 21, 2011, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

Hello America, Nov 21 2011, . I think this is good news, just think no more $200 Pentagon toilet Seats, and Chinese made toilet seats at that. so who should really be upaet by all this U.S. Federal budget cutting? why of course the Chinese, look at all the military parts purchased from Taiwan and Singapore. and just think with alot less U.S. dollars going to Chinese made military parts, China will have alot less money to spend pirating U.S. secrets, and just think Panetta will have to fly coach to all those military Junkets, no more First Class, and he’ll have to stay in the Motel Six, instead of the Mariott or Regency Hotel. its all for the better America. sincerely Fezzy Bear .

Posted by: Fezzy Bear | November 21, 2011, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm

This nonsense by Panetta is so INSULTING! The US spends more on defense than most of the rest of the world COMBINED. Yet with all these TRILLIONS for defense, we can’t defeat a bunch of guys riding around on DONKEYS and motorbikes in AFGHANISTAN. Why? Because there are roughtly 10 million Afghan males and only 25,000 or so active Taliban. If these 10 million can’t rise up, get angry, and throw the Taliban out themselves, then no American military can do it, no matter how many more TRILLIONS WE SPEND. The 3 trillion dollars thrown down the IRAQ TOILET (and borrowed from China, BTW) would have been enough to put 30 MILLION YOUNG AMERICANS through 4 years of college on a full scholarship. When millions of Americans can’t afford to attend college because we’re flushing the money down the military toilet instead, then THIS is a bigger threat to national security than a reduced defense budget!

Posted by: Darwin was right | November 21, 2011, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

just how many weapons do we need to fight terrorism? It is not your classic war. There are no legitimate fronts except for the ones Bush developed. How many more bombers do we need when the conventional war has become a thing of the past? . Going to war to spur the economy is not acceptable, yet that’s what has happened in the recent past. TOO MANY TIMES.
The DOD budget must be cut and yes, some members of congress will have more unemployment in their districts.. 50 years ago a famous Republican warned us to beware of the Military Industrial complex. For those of you too young to remember, that man was 5 star General Dwight David Eisenhower.. LETS GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT FOR A CHANGE.

Posted by: Grace | November 21, 2011, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

Supercommittee NOT SO SUPER.

Posted by: Jean | November 21, 2011, 7:10 pm 7:10 pm

One woman and eleven men on the Super Committee, and not a pair of testicles among them. What a joke.

Posted by: Johnnie the Shoe | November 22, 2011, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm

This can be a really interesting post! Many thanks for this! Together with all the best Luke aka couchgool.

Posted by: Solai Luke | November 30, 2011, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.