21st Century Hawks: Penny-Pinching Patriots

Or, how Rumsfeld got it wrong in his recent op-ed

By BEN FREEMAN

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was half right in an op-ed that was all wrong on Department of Defense (DoD) budget cuts. He points out several areas ripe for savings, including Tricare (the DoD's health plan), congressional earmarks, and the U.S. military presence in foreign countries.

Unfortunately, Rumsfeld takes an unexpected and inaccurate detour from these sound cost-cutting ideas in stating that "The U.S. taxpayer is also subsidizing a bloated and broken personnel system for nearly 800,000 Defense Department civilians. Since 9/11…the number of civilians has increased nearly 50%." This latter figure is simply not true. In FY 2001, the DoD reported having 709,676 civilian personnel. In December 2010 (the most recent data available), the DoD reported having 773,366 civilians on its payroll—an increase of just nine percent.

More importantly, civilian pay constitutes a very small percentage of the overall increase in the DoD’s payroll since 9/11. Based upon the latest payroll data and in constant dollars, since 9/11, the DoD’s civilian payroll increased by approximately $13 billion, while active duty pay increased by approximately $40 billion and service contracts increased by a whopping $65 billion per year. So, if any of the personnel groups is bloated it’s the contractors who, with contracts exceeding $117 billion, rake in almost as much as all DoD civilian and active duty personnel combined. If the newly appointed Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, wants to cut personnel costs he should look first to service contracts.

As inaccurate as his civilian personnel figures may be, Rumsfeld hits the budget-cutting brakes at DoD civilians, contending that “hundreds of billions cannot be cut without impairing our security.” According to Rumsfeld, the military will be “ill-prepared” if cuts in a number of programs, including the F-22, are made. In addition to the obvious irony that Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense cut F-22 production by a third (capping procurements at approximately 180 aircraft), he overstates the threat posed by defense cuts.

The simple fact is that the U.S. spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Even if we consider defense spending as a percentage of GDP, as Rumsfeld and other opponents of DoD budget cuts do, the U.S. spent more in fiscal year 2010 than in any year since 1992. The creditors who finance our bloated DoD budget are not paid in percents of GDP or federal outlays, however—they’re paid in real dollars. Thus, it’s erroneous to evaluate the DoD, or any, budget in any other terms. And, in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, we’re spending more on defense than we did during the Cold War even though we are no longer facing an existential threat.

Despite all the fear-mongering from opponents of DoD budget cuts, the greatest threat to U.S. national security is not an attack by Iran, North Korea, China, or even a terrorist network. The national debt is our greatest security threat, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest ranking military officer in the U.S. The DoD’s own 2010 Joint Operating Environment report identifies significant asymmetry in the defense spending of the U.S. and its opponents, such as the U.S. fight against improvised explosive devices: “The United States has spent literally billions to counter these crude, inexpensive, and extraordinarily effective devices. If one were to multiply this ratio against a global enemy, it becomes untenable.” Without reform, “there is the considerable prospect an opponent could incorporate technological advances more affordably, quickly, and effectively with serious implications for future joint forces.”

The longer we waste money unnecessarily projecting force, overpaying contractors, and buying overpriced and under-performing weapons, the less likely it is that we will have the money or credit to finance credible defenses against credible threats. Blindly defending the DoD budget from any cuts is no longer synonymous with defending America. Defending America is now synonymous with creating a truly leaner and meaner fighting force that is not reliant on financing from foreign creditors. Penny-pinching is patriotic.

Ben Freeman is POGO’s National Security Fellow.

Image: Gage Skidmore.

Comments

[Ben Freeman]

Thanks for the comments.

John and Linda: in order for his figure to be accurate he would have to be counting contractors. However, he explicitly says DoD civilians, and as a former SecDef he would know that these are distinct from contractors in a number of ways (not the least of which are cost to taxpayers and control through the command structure). Also, it's hard to imagine Rumsfeld would make an argument for reducing the number of contractors considering that under his tenure as SecDef they reached unprecedented levels.

Lindsey: Well put - I wholeheartedly agree. Drones and other robitic equipment can be vastly cheaper and more effective than manned equipment. More importantly, they help to keep our service men and women out of harm's way. They show that it's possible to maintain our military advantage at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers. Reducing spending on Defense does NOT mean reducing our security.

[LindaJoyAdams]

He must have been referring to the number of employees hired by the govt contractors. isn't it more than 50%. Listen carefully to this man's words; he's letting facts slip out-he's the one that said Bin ladin had doubles recently. I wish he would just tell us everything he knows, but its " top secret?" Linda Joy Adams

[John]

Does this include the mercenaries hired to replace troops in Afganistan?

[Lindsey Hitchcock]

Penny pinching is patriotic, and so is investing in innovation. The Air Force is now training more joystick (UAV/Drone) pilots than bomber/fighter pilots. UAVs can cost as much as $10 Million dollars, but thats cheap compared to $360 Million per F-22. US military power does not hinge on one specific piece of equipment (be it a plane, tank, missile); it hinges on innovation, research, modernization, and ability to break from the status quo.

Newsweek article on the topic here:http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/18/attack-of-the-drones.html