Tony Perkins Washington Update
For the last few weeks our military has been navigating a different kind of minefield--the maze of spending cuts set to hit the Pentagon March 1. Wednesday the Defense Department notified the first wave of targets: the agencys 791000 civilian employees who started making plans for
periods of unpaid leave. To help meet the $46 billion in first year cuts non-military workers can expect one day of furlough every week for five months to start paying down the cuts scheduled to kick in next Friday.
In the seven days between now and the deadline most Americans are trying to make sense of the sequester and what it really means for our troops. There are some people including the Defense Departments own Secretary who argue that the cuts will hollow out our military. And then there are others like Mark Levin and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) who believe that there are plenty of ways to streamline an agency spending $2 to $3 billion every business day.
Turns out both groups are right. While the sequester might push the DOD to rein in spending it does so in a less than prudent way. Instead of approaching these spending cuts with the same precision the military is known for the bill hits all programs with a 10 across-the-board cut--regardless of how essential they are to national security. And the DOD isnt alone in its forced frugality. Non-defense discretionary spending--like infrastructure and education--will also take an 8 across-the-board punch.
Of course everyone agrees that this isnt the best way to cut spending but the sequester was the Presidents idea. And despite two attempts he still refuses to consider House bills that would curtail federal spending more carefully. For now the decision of what to eliminate is still in the hands of out-of-touch bureaucrats--not in the hands of Congress or military leaders who best know what Americas priorities are. If the goal is $487 billion in savings over the next 10 years the DOD should have the discretion they need to make smart targeted choices. The administration doesnt have to use a meat cleaver on the budget when a scalpel would be more effective--and leave fewer scars.
Its also important to point out that the $487 billion in Defense sequester cuts may not be as painful as some suggest. Most people dont realize that Defense spending increases every year almost automatically. And while this plan does carve away $46 billion in real Pentagon spending this year the remaining amount isnt really a cut
Forbes explains but a modest growth rate reduction that slows the rise of projected spending over the next nine years.
Conservatives are right to protect our troops but that shouldnt mean the Pentagon has a blank check to
study flying dinosaurs or
run a microbrewery. Unlike every other federal agency the DOD has never undergone a complete audit of its spending--which is the main reason taxpayers are
producing military cooking shows and
debating naked space travel. Our ignorance of how we spend Defense dollars undermines our national security Sen. Coburn
explains.
Mark Levin
agrees. The President is not wrong to raise the question of Pentagon bloat... Why shouldnt the Pentagon get a top-to-toe overhaul--or at least a cost-benefit analysis? Although we all agree that the Defense Department has already been scaled back under President Obama ($407 billion) and was unfairly targeted in the sequester (half of the $1.2 trillion cuts hit the DOD) there are plenty of ways for the military to operate more efficiently. House Republicans passed two bills to give the military the tools it needs to pare back sensibly. The Presidents party refused to even consider them. Why? Because liberals would rather cut Defense and raise taxes--again.
