TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Reducing Defense spending

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By Byron York
Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, 9:14 p.m.
 

Republicans, and many Democrats, are upset by the prospect of so-called sequestration cuts to the nation's Defense budget. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is so alarmed that the day before the Senate took up what became the “fiscal cliff” agreement, he called a key Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to express deep concern that the cuts might go into effect. As it turned out, Congress put them off for two months.

Sequestration would force the government to reduce discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Roughly half of that, or $600 billion, would come from Defense — a hugely disproportionate amount to take from the Pentagon.

That's no accident. Sequestration was designed to be so awful that Congress would find a better way to cut spending. So far, that hasn't happened.

But just because the sequestration cuts are bad doesn't mean the Defense budget should be sacrosanct.

Maintaining national security requires underwriting a lot of departments: Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and countless others. But looking just at the Defense Department, the Obama administration this year plans to spend (without sequestration) $550 billion on the basic operations of the Pentagon, plus $88 billion specifically on the war in Afghanistan — a total of $638 billion.

Back in 2007, the Pentagon's base budget was just $431 billion, with $132 billion added for the war in Iraq and $34 billion for Afghanistan — a total of $597 billion. Given that it was a peak year for war spending in Iraq, in part because of a costly troop surge, is there any reason the U.S. should be spending more on the Pentagon's base budget today, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 2007?

“If we go back to '07, we had the Army we have today, and it was surging in Iraq, with all the logistical support it needed,” says one senior GOP Senate aide. “No one in ‘07 was screaming that we didn't have enough money for the military.”

How to get back to those 2007 levels? Watchdog groups, along with Republican Tom Coburn, the Senate's leading budget hawk, have plenty of suggestions.

For example, the Pentagon is building several versions of the F-35 fighter plane. Models specific for the Navy and the Marines have been “plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays, and are now estimated to cost just under $200 million each,” according to a report by Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Project on Government Oversight. Replacing the two extra models of the basic F-35 with the F/A-18 fighter — ending up with the same total number of planes, but a combination of F-35s and F/A-18s — could save about $61 billion over the next decade.

Then there is health care. Coburn wants TRICARE, the military health care system, to require greater out-of-pocket payments from retired soldiers who were not in any way disabled by their service and are not yet eligible for Medicare. Their out-of-pocket expenses have been basically unchanged since 1995, while health care costs have risen dramatically.

In all, Coburn envisions a possible $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Others see cuts in the $600 billion range. In any event, it's big money. Whatever the figure, the bottom line is that Republicans decrying the sequestration cuts should remember the Pentagon budget still needs to be reduced — just in the right way.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. McCullers’, McLendon’s prowess in clogging trenches crucial to Steelers defense
  2. Rossi: Looking at the next great Steeler
  3. Steelers swap draft pick for Eagles cornerback
  4. After early criticism, Haley has Steelers offense poised to be even better
  5. Reds solve Cole, stave off Pirates’ 9th-inning rally
  6. Former South Park coach Loughran optimistic about Fox Chapel’s prospects
  7. Rainy summer delays paving projects in New Kensington
  8. O’Neil jumps right in to AD duties at Kiski Area
  9. Pirates notebook: New acquisition Happ more than happy to fill spot in rotation
  10. Porter’s passion for discus places him among nation’s best throwers
  11. Roman Catholic Church in midst of culture clash over gays