In remarks to reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out a series of details about President Obama's budget plan for defense in 2015, the first real postwar budget since the September 11 attacks led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even as he detailed the proposed changes, Hagel warned Congress that cuts could do damage to the U.S. military's ability to respond to threats around the world.
"We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted," Hagel said.
So, what's the plan all about? Here are five takeaways:
1. This is about more than shrinking the Army
Initial news reports on Monday morning about the new defense budget caused a lot of stories to focus on how the Army would be brought down to record low force levels; but the moves will reduce more than just the Army. The Marine Corps would be drawn down from 190,000 soldiers to 182,000. The Air Force would cut air squadrons, and stop flying the A-10 Warthog and the U-2 spy plane, and instead use younger flying platforms. The Navy seemed to be a winner, as no aircraft carriers will be scrapped, and Navy shipyards will continue to build two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. And the manpower will grow for Special Operations forces. We'll see what the details are when the budget is released next week, on March 4.
2. Another call for military base closures
Once again, this budget will call for a reduction in the military's infrastructure - base closings - as a way to save money. Sounds pretty logical when you think about it, because if you cut the size of the military, you don't need as much operating office space. The last time bases were closed was in 2005, when a special panel picked almost two dozen facilities to close and realign. But the decisions so angered members of both parties, that the Congress has routinely rejected the idea for more base closures since then. Why should this year's budget appeal be any different? Congress talks a big game about saving money, but when the military wants to close a base in your state or in your district, it means lost jobs and an economic hit that no one wants to take.
3. Budget plan sidesteps major benefit changes
While Defense Secretary Hagel said there is a clearly a need to look a major benefit, pay and retirement changes, none are present in this budget plan. Hagel and leaders in Congress are likely to wait for a report in 2015 from what is known as the "Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission." In this budget, most service members would get a 1 percent pay raise, though Hagel specifically said top brass would get a one year pay freeze. The plan also requires active duty soldiers and military retirees to pay more up front for medical costs, but like the idea of more military base closures, the Congress has routinely refused to go along with such plans. The budget plan will also reduce military subsidies for base commissaries and reduce subsidies for renter's insurance.
4. Hagel to Congress - end the sequester
As he presented the outline of the defense budget to reporters, Hagel went to great lengths to reinforce that these changes will have to turn into deeper cuts - unless Congress does away with sequestration. For example, if the sequester is kept in place, Hagel said the Air Force would need "far more significant cuts," that would include all KC-10 tanker planes, and reduced purchases of the new Joint Strike Fighter; the Navy would reduce its ships by 10 through 2023 and delay buying the carrier version of the JSF, while the Army would draw down even further to 420,000 soldiers in 2016. The same goes for the Army National Guard and military reserve forces, which would shrink even more without an end to the sequester. How does the sequester end? For Democrats, that answer is through tax increases and some budget cuts, while the GOP wants no budget cuts in defense and no tax increases. Not much middle ground there.
5. Defense spending to become 2014 flash point
The immediate reaction from Republicans was that this budget for the military shortchanges America's defense, and must be increased. The administration will evidently list $26 billion in extra programs - which could be funded - if the Congress comes up with the money. As mentioned above, for Republicans that means cuts in domestic programs, for many Democrats, that's a total non-starter; they have suggested tax increases instead. Look for both parties to reject some of the changes in this plan to save money from housing allowances, military health care and maybe base closings. But with large yearly budget deficits continuing, and little agreement between the parties on how to deal with them, it is difficult to imagine a breakthrough deal on defense spending. Look for Republicans to try to make this budget an election year issue, maybe pulling out one of the sure-fire GOP attack lines, that Democrats are soft on defense, and placing the country's security in jeopardy. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
About the Author
