Defending Defense: Defense Spending and the Super Committee

Defending Defense: Defense Spending and the Super Committee

Thursday, September 8th

Jump to Audio  |  Jump to Photos  |  Jump to Key Quotes    

Jump to Summary   | Jump to Trancript  | Jump to Videos

Videos:

For video of individual speakers, click below:

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator Jon Kyl 

Representative Randy Forbes

Representative Duncan Hunter

Representative Allen West

Summary:

The Defending Defense project, a joint initiative of AEI, the Foreign Policy Initiative and The Heritage Foundation, brought together Senators Kelly Ayotte, Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl as well as Representatives Randy Forbes, Duncan Hunter and Allen West in the Rayburn House Office Building on Thursday, September 9th, to discuss defense spending in light of the Super Committee deliberations. Tom Donnelly from the American Enterprise Institute, Bill Kristol from The Weekly Standard and the Foreign Policy Initiative, and Mackenzie Eaglen from The Heritage Foundation participated as well, with Kristol delivering opening remarks and moderating, and Donnelly and Eaglen providing commentary after the event.

Senator Kyl, a member of the Super Committee, argued that defense spending was not the cause of America’s budget woes and “should not be the answer” to righting our budget deficit. “When we had our first meeting, the Chairman asked, ‘Well, what do we think about defense spending?’ And I said, ‘I’m off the committee if we’re going to talk about further defense spending,’” the senator said of Thursday morning’s first Super Committee meeting. “First we did discretionary spending in the budget act, second, defense was half of that, even though it’s not isn’t half the budget, obviously.  And, third, we can’t afford any more and that’s what your defense secretary, past and current, and others have said. So we’re not going there.”

After Senator Kyl delivered his remarks, Representative West reflected on his experience as an army officer, and discussed the strategic, operational and tactical implications for lower defense budgets, pointing specifically to the imperative for strategy to drive budget-setting, not vice-versa. Senator Graham gave a broad-ranging address on American strategy, invoking Ronald Reagan’s vision of “peace through strength” and discussing the progress made in securing America since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Graham went on to say, with regard to the treatment of defense spending in the budget deal, “This pisses me off beyond belief that our party would subject the Department of Defense not just to more cuts, but to the end of the finest force ever created in the history of the world… This budget deal is a philosophical shift that I will have no part of."

Representative Forbes spoke of the need for sound and thorough assessment of risks and necessary resources, and of the relationship between America’s economic and military strengths. Senator Ayotte reminded listeners of the constitutional obligation of Congress to keep America safe, as well as the consequences for our men and women in uniform of cutting defense spending more deeply. Representative Hunter, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who enlisted following the September 11 attacks, called for America to take stock of its role in the world, the risks to which it is exposed, and the vast interests tied to having a strong military when shaping its defense budget.

Photos:

Key Quotes:

“Defense is not the cause of the problem and therefore it cannot be seen as the solution to deficit reduction.” –Senator Kyl

“You set a defense budget based on your needs and requirements for national security, not based on some artificial percentage or number because of deficit reduction." –Senator Kyl

“Not just so much from a strategic level, but also from a tactical level, through the operational level, back up to the strategic level, we have to go back and start developing a strategy first and foremost before we start looking to the military and basing the military upon the budget, or basing the military upon the numbers.” –Congressman West

“My view of this debt ceiling debate is that the Republican party agreed to a $600 billion defense cut as part of a trigger if we couldn’t control domestic spending, which is a philosophical shift from the Reagan party that we need to push back against.” –Senator Graham

“I’m willing to do things that will be controversial to make the Department of Defense budget sustainable and more business-like. But what I’m not willing to do, as a Ronald Reagan Republican, is put on the table cuts in defense that would say to the country and the world at large, ‘defense is a secondary concern when it comes to Washington spending.’” –Senator Graham

"And the final [myth] is this, that we can make these kind of drastic cuts without a substantial risk to our future." –Congressman Forbes

“We cannot thoughtlessly slash defense and create a national security crisis on top of the economic crisis that we face.” –Senator Ayotte

“We cannot allow our national security to be subjugated to our failure to make the hard political choices in other areas.” –Senator Ayotte

"We're talking about securing America's future–as we pull back from that, you're going to see other countries take our place. And as other countries take our place, you're going to see our economic role diminish as well as our military role." –Congressman Hunter

Audio: Click Here

Uncorrected transcript of remarks:

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ): I'm gonna dive right into the subject, we’ve got some real challenges in protecting the national security of the United States, starting with the budget issues that are implicated because of the need to reduce our federal budget deficit.

Now, I tend to be optimistic by nature, but I recall the difference between the optimist and the pessimist. Remember, the pessimist is the guy that says, "things are so bad they can't get any worse," and the optimist says, "sure they can!" This could get worse, but it's bad enough already.

I want to make three quick points. First of all, defense spending is not the cause of the budget deficits, and it's not going to have to be… it should not be the answer. The reason I'm going to try to make these three points is, each one of you, in your own environment, among your constituency, or those with whom you have influence and conversations, need to be making these same points I think, and the charts that Bill mentioned at heritage.org, which I think are going to be emailed to you, help to make the arguments that I'm making. But first, defense is not the cause of the problem, and therefore it cannot be seen as the solution to deficit reduction.

Second, defense has already taken huge hits—especially in the last three years, but really over the last several years—but particularly in the budget control act of 2011.

And third, a point that I won't even expand on—because, for most of us, it's intuitively obvious—that you set a defense budget based upon your needs and requirements for national security, not based on some artificial percentage or number because of deficit reduction. And I think we all agree with that.

Just three quick quotations that establish the first point:

Former Secretary Gates: "I've long believed, and still do, that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country's fiscal woes."

Current Secretary of Defense Panetta: "The defense budget is by no means the cause of the deficits, the huge deficits that we are incurring today."

And, nominated joint chairman of the chiefs of staff, General Dempsey: "National security didn't cause the debt crisis, nor will it solve it." And those charts that I referred to certainly demonstrate that further.

Secondly, defense spending—as a percentage of GDP, percent of the budget compared to entitlements—no matter how you cut it, defense has been declining over the years, it is, there's a huge chunk now taken out of defense as a result of the budget act that we just passed, and that is bad enough. That's the things are bad enough already they can't get any worse and, of course, "yes they can" is the potential for sequester if the recommendations of the joint select committee are not adequate or not approved by the Congress. And that's the last thing that I'll mention.

But just a couple of statistics to make the point. Defense spending has shrunk from 7.4% of GDP in 1965 to about 5% of GDP today. Contrast that with social security, Medicare and Medicaid; it’s grown from 2.5% to over 10% of GDP. If you compare this as part of the federal budget, spending on Medicare and Medicaid and social security was only 14% back in ’62; it's now 43%, and on its way up to over 50%.

Defense spending by contrast has shrunk from 49% to less than 20% of the budget.

If you… you know our debt is roughly $15 trillion dollars as you know. If you totally eliminated all of the security spending, not just the 050 account for the Defense Department, it would amount to $684 billion dollars, which wouldn't make a dent in this $15 trillion dollars.

We've already taken our share of cuts. Beginning in 2009 we faced substantial cuts. In that year, Gates' budget terminated 30 procurement programs totaling about $330 billion dollars. I won't go into the details of each of those, but in 2010, again reduced the President’s defense budget request. In 2011, the Defense Department ordered the White House to… ordered by the White House to cut another $78 billion in the five years (inaudible). But the final action on the 2011 budget, and therefore appropriations bills—Congress trimmed the Department of Defense spending by $24 billion compared to the administration's request. We just got the latest numbers on the allocation for defense, and it's about 26 billion dollars.

The (Department of Defense) can absorb those kinds of reductions… be absorbed in 2012-2013. Remember we set this, and defense again at best is going to be basically level in those two budget years; it depends upon how the money is allocated. But the fact is, while Panetta and others are talking about the ability to somehow or other make do with substantial reductions in various programs and a re-adjustment of some of the missions, because we won’t be able to perform missions that currently exist… while they talk about that, they uniformly warn against what they call the devastating impacts of anything further; for example, that which would happen if the sequestration called for under the budget act actually had to take effect. Secretary Gates just in today’s--this is just one of the reports--said Wednesday that “The $400 billion in cuts that the Pentagon may face over the next 10 years can be handled,” but he warned that, “further reductions would have a catastrophic effect on national security.” He made those remarks at the University of Texas. And there are many other defense experts who put it in at least as dire terms.

When we’ve had our first meeting—this is the only inside scoop I’ll give you about this so-called super committee—but when we met as Republicans, and obviously the chairman had to ask the question now, “what will the proper mix be between mandatory reductions and discretionary reductions?” it raised an important question. Because, Congress theoretically decided on the discretionary reductions in the agreement that resulted in the budget act that was just adopted a little while ago; that budget act that set the 2012 and 2013 numbers, as well as what we have available for this year. And that was the $900 and some billion dollars, not quite trillion dollars in reduction. Well how do you get a trillion dollars? You multiply by ten years, add interest savings, and you can set your discretionary spending today, and if you abide by the numbers that you set out over a period of ten years… if you do all of those things, then you can get $900 and some billion dollars in reduction from what we otherwise would have spent, adding in interest savings as well. So there’s some feeling that the discretionary side of the budget has already now provided its answer to deficit reduction.

And the focus on this joint-select committee was to try to find savings from the entitlement programs, which were not dealt with—and you can deal both in the non-healthcare entitlement side, and healthcare entitlement side— without totally revising the way that healthcare is provided to senior citizens or the social security is provided, and so on. You can… I’ll just put it in a very colloquial way… in a $3 and a half trillion dollar budget, two-thirds of which is entitlements, there is enough slop in the system that you can find a trillion and half in savings, without deeply cutting into benefits, or totally readjusting how these programs work… although they will require some adjustment. People kid about waste, fraud, and abuse, but it’s real. And if we have the courage to face that, we can find the savings without forcing additional discretionary cuts which of course, would implicate defense spending.

I’ll just close on this point. When we had our first meeting the chairman asked, “Well what do we think about defense spending?” and I said, “I’m off of the committee if we’re gonna talk about further defense spending.” First we did discretionary spending, in the budget act. Second, defense was half of that, even though it’s not half the budget obviously. And third, we can’t afford any more and that’s what your defense secretary, past and current, and others have said. So we’re not going there. Now, in order to make that a reality, those of you who believe that point of view need to be able to get out and make the point, convey the message. And the data is there, partially in these charts I referred to, plenty of other data you can find to substantiate the fact that defense has given enough already, and were it to take any further hit it would be inimical to our national security around the globe.

So my point of view is that defense should not have any additional cuts; but this committee has to be successful, or this sequestration could become a reality. And I guess my final, final point is this: the only reason I voted for the budget act, not withstanding this onerous, draconian, potential sequestration that would literally kill defense because it would be another $500 billion dollar reduction over 10 years, on top of another $350 to $500 that’s already baked in, is that I said I would do my best to see to it that it never took effect—in other words, that we would waive it. There was talk about we have to build something where we can’t waive it; well this is one we would have to waive, and so I would do my best to prevent that sequestration on defense. All of us are going to have to be marching in the same… in the same direction here in order to save defense, it’s critical for the security of our nation. I appreciate your interest in doing so, thank you.

About Defending Defense

Defending Defense is a coalition effort between the American Enterprise Institute, the Foreign Policy Initiative, and The Heritage Foundation to promote a sound understanding of the U.S. defense budget and the resource requirements necessary to sustain America’s preeminent military position in a dangerous world. Most recently, Defending Defense issued a primer on the prospects for – and consequences of – a hollow force in light of military spending cuts. Defending Defense has also produced a primer on China’s military build-up and its implications for U.S. defense spending. This followed the first Defending Defense joint brief, which was designed to separate myth from fact in the current defense spending debate.

About the Foreign Policy Initiative

FPI is a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. FPI seeks to promote an active U.S. foreign policy committed to robust support for democratic allies, human rights, a strong American military equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and strengthening America's global economic competitiveness. The organization was founded in 2009 and is led by Executive Director Jamie Fly. FPI’s Board of Directors consists of Eric Edelman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and Dan Senor. Visit our website at www.foreignpolicyi.org for more information.