Pentagon Spending, Strategy and Sequester

TOPLINE Dont put millionaires over the military or fat cats over our economic future. Congress should find the balanced approach they promised to make all of us stronger by making us sounder. 1. THE BLAME GAME: Politicians in Congressincluding many of the loudest critics of sequester-- lit a match when they forced and voted for last years bipartisan budget control law and now theyre blaming others for the fire instead of finding the extinguisher. When other efforts at compromise failed, sequester was supposed to force Congress to make the hard choices for Americas economic future instead of kicking the can down the road. 2. SOLUTIONS: Military and national security leaders support a comprehensive solution to avoid the sequester that includes new revenues, and stand behind the strategy-based reductions the Administration has proposed in its budget. The White House-Pentagon request set an example with its 2013 budget, which avoids the sequesters automatic cuts by meeting the laws deficit reduction requirements. 3. BALANCE: Common sense, military leadership, public sentiment and American history recommend strategybased cuts to Pentagon spending be part of an approach that protects economic security and the middle class the foundations of national security. o Throughout history, America does well incorporating revenues and smart spending cuts, including post-war Pentagon reductions: Weve reduced our deficit before with a balanced approach that included revenues and created jobs (e.g. 1993); and 4 of the last 6 GOP presidents including Reagan and Eisenhower--reduced Pentagon spending and continued to deploy the best military in the world. o The American people, including residents of defense industry-heavy districts and half of independent voters, support significant Pentagon reductions, according to public polling. 4. JOBS: Lobbyists and corporate interests are trying to play politics with pink slips, threatening mass layoffs while defense CEOs get $25million salaries and taxpayer dollars go to their Washington lobbyists and the same politicians threatening up to twice as many teachers and construction workers with job losses to recover the same amount of money. Defense experts say even sequester-level cuts would mean less than 10% cuts to contractors and this would not affect money to troops in the field. With two wars ending and an economy squeezing everyone, it is time to focus on managing the downturn protecting worker training and programs, and not multimillion dollar CEO payouts-- instead of running a horror show in the middle of an election. 5. STRATEGY: Reducing Pentagon spending in a thoughtful way can reinforce American security: As Chairman Dempsey, Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates have pointed out, we can only be leaders abroad if we have a strong economic foundation at home, including investments in future American competitiveness. Waste, lobbyists excess, overpriced contractors, and ineffective Pentagon programs do not strengthen America.

National Security Network

www.nsnetwork.org

(202) 289-5999

KEY FACTS
Senator McCain and half of his GOP colleagues in the Senate and Reps. McKeon and Boehner and 72% of their GOP colleagues in the House voted FOR the law that explicitly set up these automatic defense cuts, which theyre now trying to blame on the President. [Roll call votes via Progress Report, 7/27/12] Presidents Reagan, HW Bush and Clinton resolved budget crises with a balanced approach that included spending reductions and new revenue. In the five years following the 1993 law, the U.S. economy created over 15 million new jobs and we were on course to eliminate the national debt within a decade. And it was the post1993 military that performed so brilliantly in 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq. [Tom Harkin, 7/25/12] Were sequestration to be implemented, 17 million meals would NOT be served to needy seniors, 48,000 women would NOT receive cancer screenings, 51,000 veterans would NOT receive employment assistance. [Tom Harkin, 7/25/12] An independent, non-industry study concluded that the same amount of cuts in key domestic programs would produce greater job losses by a factor of 50 to 140 percent, not to mention the effect on indirect jobs in the service industry around these communities. [Robert Pollin et al, 12/11. Gordon Adams, 10/30/11] Raytheon CEO William Swanson, one of the few whos overseen previous defense drawdowns, suggests that scaremongering on defense jobs is problematic and overblown panicking. [Defense News, 7/22/11] In real terms, the Administrations defense budget actually grows slightly over the next decade. Only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth a cut. Previous presidents have overseen reductions in Pentagon spending some much greater than what is being discussed: Eisenhower oversaw a 53% reduction after the Korean War, Nixon 26% as he wound down the Vietnam War, Reagan and Bush (and Cheney) combined oversaw a 21% cut as part of debt reduction.. The military Clinton (and Powell) cut 18% after the Cold War was the one that performed so well in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002. [Glen Kessler, 2/14/12. Larry Korb, 1/9/12] Currently, total defense spending in real terms is higher than at any time since the end of World War II, and even 10 percent higher than the peak of the Reagan defense buildup. [Larry Korb et al, 9/10] Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen Dempsey has said, it makes no sense for us as a nation to have an extraordinarily capable military instrument of power if we are economically disadvantaged around the world. So weve got to rebalance ourselves. Former chairman Admiral Mullen has said defense spending has to be on the table. [Martin Dempsey, 1/12/12. Michael Mullen, 7/10/11] Recent polls show that Americans support strategic cuts in Pentagon spending, as much as 20 times the Presidents proposed 0.7 percent reduction, including 48% of independent voters and voters in districts with the most Pentagon projects who were no less willing to see reductions as part of deficit management. [Stimson Center via Suzy Khimm, 7/16/12. Gallup via William Saletan, 8/1/12] In the past decade, defense industry inefficiencies have cost the Department of Defense $50 billion on weapons that were canceled and in excess of $300 billion on completed weapons systems. Just last month it was announced that Refurbishing the nations B61 nuclear bombs, a major project at New Mexicos nuclear weapons labs, will cost $8 billion, double the federal governments estimate two years ago. [Larry Korb, 11/16/11. Dianne Feinstein via John Fleck, 7/27/12] We can save money by revisiting the sometimes exorbitant costs of outsourcing Pentagon jobs reports by the non-partisan Project on Government Oversight (POGO) found a 177,000 percent mark-up on a 4 cent metal pin and propose a 15% cut in outside service contracting that has tripled since 2001. [POGO, 6/28/11. POGO, 5/8/12] Military bases cannot be closed through a single-year budget process. [Lou Ortiz, 7/26/12]
National Security Network www.nsnetwork.org (202) 289-5999 2