Debts, deficits and defense

In the fight over defense spending, the first round has been fought between Congress and the Pentagon. Congress won by a knockout.

In a grudging response to calls from Republicans to bring the White House defense budget cuts to a vote, the Democrat majority allowed a House vote in early June. But it was only on a single item in the long list. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had dipped her toe in the water and allowed a vote to decide the fate of the “alternative engine” for the F-35 fighter. She assumed it was an obscure program with minimal support, and the easiest cut to pass. She was mistaken.

As of now, Pratt & Whitney has a sole source contract that gives them a monopoly on building the engine for the aircraft that will be 95 percent of our jet fighter force. The F-35 is nothing less than the basis of future American air superiority.  But, notwithstanding Pratt & Whitney’s sole source contract, General Electric and Rolls Royce were funded to develop a competitive engine the Government Accounting Office says will reduce costs by as much as 12 percent. Setting technical arguments aside, the issue came down to $485 million. The White House and Pentagon wanted to cancel the competition. When the smoke cleared, a solid majority of votes by both Democrats and Republicans insured the alternative engine program will continue. In the age of trillions, why was this vote over spending less than $500 million important?

The Obama administration intends to slash the defense budget in order to pay for its riotous spending on bailouts, “stimulus bills,” their signature healthcare program, and massive pork bribes for votes from congressmen who hopefully will not survive this November’s balloting. To continue the spending spree, the White House plans to eliminate over a trillion defense dollars in the next ten years. Details of those proposed cuts were laid out by Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) Sustainable Defense Task Force in a 56 page report titled: Debt, Deficits, & Defense – A Way Forward. None of the service arms are spared.

The Navy will be reduced to eight aircraft carriers (from twelve planned) and seven air wings. Eight ballistic missile submarines will be cut from the planned force of 14, leaving just six. Building of nuclear attack submarines will be cut in half, leaving a force of 40 by 2020. The four active guided missile submarines would be cut, too. Destroyer building would be frozen and the new DDG-1000 destroyer program cancelled. Among other huge cuts, the fleet is to be reduced to 230 combat ships, eliminating 57 vessels from a current force level of 287.

The Air Force must retire six fighter air wings equivalents, and at the same time build 301 fewer F-35 fighters. The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament—the B-1 and B-2 and B-52 and other bombers will still be able to drop bombs, but their nuclear weapon wiring and controls will simply be removed. Procurement of the new refueling tanker and the C-17 cargo aircraft will be cancelled. Directed energy beam research and other advanced missile and space warfare defense projects will also be eliminated or curtailed.

Active duty Army personnel will be slashed from 562,400 to 360,000. That includes elimination of about five active-component brigade combat teams (the report is not exactly). The Army will also suffer a myriad of other cuts, including closure of overseas bases.

The Marine Corps would be cut by 30%, from 202,000 to 145,000, and the other funding cuts planned for the Corps mean the United States will not be able to mount a major amphibious landing on any hostile shore. Marine Corps programs to be killed include the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

  • Pingback: Cold Fury » Weak on defense? You betcha

  • Pingback: TheLastBestHope » White House plans to eliminate over a trillion defense dollars in the next ten years

  • 2old4this

    Again, Chet Nagle provides solid reporting, sound analysis, and timely warning. With every war, and I was on the ground in one, the cry for cutting costs and reducing America’s global military role is heard and it comes as no surprise for me that the cut and runners are surfacing again. Nagle is quite specific in what will be reduced and where it will take place. And perhaps some of it can and should occur for there is bloat everywhere in government – and in the military, as well. But a broad overall reduction in our military to the point America has no ‘heavy stick’ in a world rife with danger and potential is not what I want to see.

    • logic

      The “heavy stick”, of which you speak, is the one we use to poke at hornets’ nests around the world. If there isn’t trouble, we can surely stir it up with our constant meddling and all-knowing arrogance and aggression. The U.S. media paints an apologetically pretty picture of U.S. foreign policy. That doesn’t make it wholly true. Yes, the world is an incredibly dangerous place and we are doing our part to keep it that way.

  • logic

    This is a silly piece. The cost of our international military presence (we’re in about 140 countries with over 700 locations) is insanely high and isn’t supposed to be subjected to cost cutting? Sure, we know Obama simply wants that money to destroy our country in any number of ways domestically, but it does not change the need to cut costs everywhere. Our national defense interests do not lie in being the world’s police, waging vague, perpetual wars, or keeping the military industrial complex going to the benefit of a select view and the detriment of all the rest.

  • Pingback: I am thinking of getting a structured settlement? | Sell Annuity