Defense Spending
The Issue
America’s armed forces are the safeguard of our nation’s liberties and an instrument of global freedom and security. The U.S. military protects the homeland, secures America’s national interests abroad, bolsters international alliances, and even assists in disaster response. No other country has the enduring vital national interests or responsibilities of the United States; therefore, the U.S. military must have a global reach.
To protect and defend America’s vital national interests, the U.S. military must have the tools it needs to deter attacks and enhance diplomatic efforts—and, when diplomacy and deterrence fail, to fight and win. Combat victory requires a force adequately equipped to defend the U.S. and its allies against strategic attacks, to prevail in traditional and asymmetrical warfare, to defeat terrorist organizations and organized criminals, and to respond to threats that emanate from failed states.
America’s security commitments around the globe have strained every branch of the armed forces, but the root of the problem lies in decisions made in the 1990s. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton cut defense spending dramatically. The Clinton Administration reduced the entire military—its forces and equipment—by fully one-third under the utopian assumption that the end of the Cold War would lead to a “lasting peace.”
Cashing in peace dividends is an even riskier proposition now than it was after the Cold War ended. President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup in the 1980s, coupled with his successful diplomacy, created a cushion that largely allowed defense investments to be deferred in the 1990s, even though military operations were ramped up. Also, defense budget increases since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have generated little cushion. They have largely been consumed by a high pace of operations. The ongoing need to invest in and recapitalize the force (i.e., buy new planes, ships, weapon systems, and equipment) remains.
On average, major U.S. military platforms are now more than 25 years old and are wearing out much more quickly than planned. The combat vehicle fleet of Abrams tanks is largely based on technology from the 1980s and earlier. Many of today’s tanker and bomber pilots are flying in airplanes first used by their grandfathers. The U.S. Navy fleet contains the smallest number of ships since 1916. Yet the Navy is being tasked with more responsibilities than ever, such as securing vital sea-lanes of commerce around the world worth over $14 trillion annually.
Today, America is asking all of its military forces to do more. U.S. soldiers are under stress. They have been strained by 10 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 1990s “procurement holiday” has left the military with outdated and decrepit weapons and equipment. These circumstances have taken their toll on both people and equipment. The bipartisan Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Independent Panel concluded in 2010 that “the aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force means that a train wreck is coming in the areas of personnel, acquisition, and force structure.” This “train wreck” is here, and it threatens to undermine America’s ability to defend itself and protect its vital national interests at a time when threats to its security are increasing.
Both Iran and North Korea have active nuclear and ballistic missile programs and the ability to reach U.S. allies and forward-deployed troops with ballistic missiles. China is engaged in a non-transparent major military buildup with unclear intentions. A re-emergent Russia is vigorously modernizing its nuclear forces and seeks to intimidate its former Soviet neighbors, Europe, and the NATO alliance. Terrorist threats to the U.S. and its European allies emanate from Southewest Asia, the Middle East, and failed states. Cyber attacks threaten critical financial and communication networks in an already teetering economy as well as the national security assets that employ them.
Despite such threats, the Administration has lowered the defense budget baseline by some $750 billion over a 10-year period when calculating from President Obama’s second defense budget request in FY 2011. Congress has acquiesced in this budgetary sleight of hand, which permits the Obama Administration to argue that it has not cut the defense budget at all. The August 2011 debt deal now threatens to “hollow out” the military. On top of discretionary caps already legislated, the new budget act stipulated that the newly created Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction must agree on a sufficient deficit-reduction plan by December 2011 and Congress adopt it into law by January 15, 2012, or an automatic trigger would force cuts of $1.2 trillion—with half of that coming out of the defense budget. Such cuts would irreparably harm the U.S. military and endanger vital U.S. interests.
The debt deal also did not fully address the cause of the debt crisis: runaway domestic spending and the burgeoning growth of Social Security and the other big social entitlements. Indeed, the projected growth of entitlement programs will soon make it impossible for Congress to provide a robust defense budget and take care of those in uniform.
Recommendations
Providing for the common defense is the first constitutionally mandated responsibility of the United States government. To do so most effectively and cost-efficiently, the U.S. military’s missions should be driven by America’s vital national security interests and the threats we face. Establishing the right combination of capabilities will therefore be the military’s greatest challenge in the years ahead. Accordingly, Congress and the Administration should:
- Rethink the debt ceiling deal. If triggered, the automatic cuts in the debt deal will go into effect on January 2, 2013. If that happens, they will undercut every defense program, from the Pentagon’s already meager weapon modernization plans to the number of people in uniform, readiness and training, overseas base facilities, and infrastructure. The cost to national security will be irreparable without greater investment in defense. In 2012, Congress should go back to the drawing board before accepting forced defense cuts. Defense spending should be commensurate with the nation’s external threats.
- Modernize the forces. The U.S. needs a fully modernized force structure that matches both America’s security commitments and the security threats that it faces. This will require a procurement spending level 1.5 times the amount spent on research and development. Key modernization programs should include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; Virginia-class submarine; next-generation bomber; long-range strike assets; next-generation cruiser; SSBN-X ballistic missile submarine; combat search and rescue helicopter; next-generation attack helicopter; and additional homeland defense, counterterrorism, and civil support brigades. To address growing concerns in Asia, the U.S. must fully fund the modernization of its surface fleet, expanding the Navy to 346 ships from the 285 ships it has today. Priority should be given to programs that will defeat anti-access and area-denial threats. Funding levels must be sufficient both to expand America’s missile defenses and to develop space-based sensors and interceptors that will enable the military to protect the homeland and our troops and allies overseas from ballistic missile attack.
- Reinvest savings back into defense. Congress must pursue efficiency and reform efforts and work to eliminate waste in the defense budget, and all savings should be reinvested in defense for the modernization of the forces, not spent on other discretionary domestic programs. Roughly $100 billion in savings can be achieved in the near term by continuing and expanding select efficiency initiatives undertaken by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; implementing and expanding select reforms recommended by the co-chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; expanding the use of public–private partnerships for performance-based logistics; modernizing base operations and the maintenance and supply systems; reducing wear and tear on military equipment; and increasing the use of multiyear contracts and block upgrades.
- Fully fund defense. To ensure that the nation’s military forces have what they need to do what we ask, the core defense budget should be funded by an average of $720 billion from fiscal years 2012–2016 (in addition to funding our ongoing contingency operations). Heritage research has determined that this level is not only reasonable; it is also affordable. This level of funding amounts to around 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), far less than the average of 7.5 percent spent on defense since World War II. This commitment would enable the U.S. to maintain stable troop levels in an all-volunteer force, provide sufficient readiness funds, and ensure adequate funding for research and development and procurement in order to modernize America’s conventional and strategic forces. Ultimately, this would allow the U.S. military to meet its security commitments, including having the capacity to secure the global commons, prevent the rise of hostile powers in key regions, and respond flexibly to unanticipated dangers.
Facts & Figures
- Under President Obama, $500 billion has been cut from the defense budget baseline that applies to the five-year period covering fiscal years 2012 through 2016, and much more has been cut since the President took office. This is a budgetary sleight of hand that permits the Administration to deny that it imposed any cuts on the defense program, since the baseline is the starting point for calculating “cuts.” As a practical matter, Congress acquiesced in letting the Obama Administration set the defense budget baseline at whatever level it wants. In reality, reductions in the baseline are cuts. In fact, the Administration has cancelled or delayed over 50 major weapons programs.
- Whether considered as a percentage of our economy or of the federal budget, the share that is spent on national security is declining. The budget for the core defense program in fiscal year 2011 was 3.8 percent of GDP, while retirement and health care entitlements accounted for a record 10.5 percent of GDP. The three largest entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and have been growing rapidly ever since. If the Administration’s current plans to cut defense succeed, or if the cuts enacted in the deficit reduction law occur, that percentage will drop to 3 percent or lower.
- Historically, America has spent far more on defense: 4.6 percent during the first Gulf War, 6 percent during the Reagan buildup, 8.9 percent during the Vietnam War, 11.7 percent during the Korean War, and 34.5 percent during World War II.
- The average age of major U.S. military platforms is 25 years or more, and many of their parts have become or are becoming obsolete.
- The U.S. Navy has the smallest number of ships since 1916. In 1945, the number of active naval ships totaled 6,768. Today, that number is 285.
- Readiness problems plague all of those who serve in uniform and most of their equipment. A few years ago, an Air Force F-15C literally broke in half during flight. Since then, two F-18s have caught fire aboard ship. The A-10C Warthogs used by the Air Force and Air National Guard and Reserves have fuselage cracks, and the UH-1N Twin Huey helicopter fleet is regularly grounded. Over half of the Navy’s deployed aircraft are not ready for combat, and as of July 2011, every single Navy cruiser hull was found to have cracks.
- The U.S. has only one fifth-generation fighter in production; China and Russia have a combined 12 fighter and bomber lines open for business. Both countries are also vigorously modernizing their nuclear arsenals.
- The U.S. military is on an almost inevitable path toward a 21st-century form of “hollowness” that will leave it less prepared for unforeseen crises and contingencies.
Selected Additional Resources
American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and The Foreign Policy Initiative, “Defending Defense: Setting the Record Straight on U.S. Military Spending Requirements,” October 14, 2010.
Mackenzie Eaglen and Julia Pollak, “How to Save Money, Reform Processes, and Increase Efficiency in the Defense Department,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2507, January 10, 2011.
The Heritage Foundation, “A Strong National Defense: The Armed Forces America Needs and What They Will Cost,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 90, April 5, 2011.
Kim R. Holmes, “A Dangerous Debt Ceiling Deal,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3331, August 1, 2011.
