Editorial: Superpanel’s failure risks area military and economy
There’s a hostage situation in the United States, and that hostage is the Pentagon.
So inconceivable was a potential $500 billion cut in Defense Department spending, so the thinking went last summer, the congressional supercommittee could not fail to negotiate $1.2 trillion in budget reductions over the next decade. But fail the committee did.
The defense cuts are back in play, which is not a good thing for Washington, a state with several major defense installations that contribute to the economy, the public safety, and the pride that comes from a close association with the men and women of the U.S. military.
Certainly, that has been the case in Spokane. Fairchild Air Force Base employs more than 5,000 people, and upgrades of the installation have generated millions of dollars in construction contracts in the decades since World War II. Now, the base and local government and business leaders await deployment of a new generation of air-refueling tankers that will necessitate more construction and extend the base’s mission well into the future.
That will take money, and the Defense Department is already looking for $450 billion in savings over the next decade. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a preliminary list of cuts that includes slowdowns in the purchase of new planes, the removal of some U.S. forces in Europe, even gradual reductions in retiree medical benefits: The Pentagon’s health bill has doubled to $50 billion over the last decade.
Perhaps the most discomforting item in the mix; another round of base closures. His vision of a lighter, more high-tech military at least suggests a lesser need for an air-refueling tanker fleet with a potential replacement cost of $100 billion.
Panetta’s vision does not allow for another $500 billion in cuts, sugar-coated as “sequestration,” and he was among the most vociferous officials calling for a supercommittee deal.
Now, the reductions are again in play, even if they would not take hold until 2013. That gives the Congress and President Barack Obama much opportunity to position the other side as fiscally irresponsible, or soft on defending the United States from all possible enemies, among the most damaging charges in American politics.
The president said Monday he will veto an effort to restore the defense cuts if they are not part of the $1.2 trillion package mandated in the budget agreement passed in August. Republicans are already pushing back, trying to reclaim pre-eminence on defense issues despite the president’s success against al-Qaida and other terrorist elements that are presently the biggest threat to the United States.
The Pentagon budget has doubled to $700 billion a year over the last decade, a sum vastly bigger than that of any U.S. foe or friend. It’s a stretch to call such a behemoth a “hostage.” But with money and power at stake, and fate in the hands of others, there is, in fact, a situation.
Washington and Spokane have a significant stake in the outcome.