On February 11, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing with four think tanks to explore possible alternatives for the fiscal year (FY) 2016 congressional budget. Although different views abounded, all agreed on one thing: The sequestered discretionary caps instituted by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) severely damage national security.
As Congress crafts its budget for FY 2016, it should properly prioritize national defense, one of the federal government’s core constitutional functions. Balancing the budget by short-changing defense capabilities would be short-sighted and dangerous. It is also impossible, as growing entitlement spending and interest on the debt are responsible for almost all of the increase in spending and the debt.
Congress should realize that if it does not raise the budget caps on discretionary defense spending, the U.S. military will be unable to meet its current mission requirements. Congress should increase FY 2016 defense spending to $584 billion.
Cuts to defense spending over the past six years have weakened the U.S. military, while having a negligible impact on overall fiscal health. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, noted that the President’s Budget Request for FY 2016, which asks for $534 billion for the base budget, would allow the U.S. military to “remain at the lower ragged edge of manageable risk” while executing its defense requirements, and that a return to BCA levels would be unmanageable under the present strategy. That strategy is derived from the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, which the armed services use to set their requirements and objectives.
Previous cuts have limited modernization efforts and caused capacity cuts in Army and Marine Corps end strength. BCA-level spending would cause additional harm to the capabilities and capacity of the armed services. Even more platforms and programs could be placed on the chopping block, decreasing capabilities for the present and the future. Furthermore, under BCA funding levels, the active Army and Marine Corps components would fall to 420,000 and 175,000, respectively, and even the President’s request would significantly cut the Army’s end strength. With a smaller force structure, the services would have great difficulty meeting the defense strategy requirements.
Shortfalls in readiness also pose substantial risks to the services. In FY 2013, the sequestration imposed by the BCA substantially damaged military readiness, causing “sharp cuts to training, maintenance, and support.” According to the Department of Defense (DOD), even the revised cap levels of FY 2014 and FY 2015 were insufficient to “accelerate readiness improvements” and completely undo the effects of sequestration. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in late January, the Air Force Chief, General Mark Welsh III, emphasized that at sequestered funding levels the “impacts on readiness and modernization” would cause his forces to be unable to “successfully execute” all of the defense strategy requirements. If the military is unready, having an adequate force size and the “right capabilities” is not enough. As a result, the defense budget for FY 2016 must ensure that capabilities, capacity, and readiness are sufficiently maintained.
Defense should be funded at levels that meet national security requirements, but under the BCA caps, the military will be unable to meet those requirements. High-priority programs and key modernization efforts will be delayed, and the services will become smaller and less ready for employment. Unless Congress acts to raise the budget caps on discretionary defense spending, the armed services will have great difficulty meeting the nation’s national security requirements and could become a hollow force.
Although the President’s defense request is an improvement over BCA levels, it continues to cut force size, fails to sufficiently address readiness shortfalls, and still follows a budget-driven strategy. Moreover, the request does not support much-needed military compensation reforms that would free up resources within the DOD budget for critical capability investments. Crafting a budget that has “no more room” for risk is problematic in a time of burgeoning threats to American security. As a result, The Heritage Foundation proposed that Congress should responsibly increase the defense discretionary caps and appropriate $584 billion for the FY 2016 defense budget, offsetting higher defense spending with long overdue cuts in domestic programs. The only way Congress will get control over growing spending and debt is by reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other entitlement programs. Congress cannot balance the budget by further undermining America’s national defense. Restoring DOD’s budget to responsible levels is essential to strengthening the U.S. military.
Mark Febrizio is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.
