AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey previewed the fiscal 2015 budget — the first to reflect a shift in military spending after 13 years of war — at a news conference Monday. The briefing comes a week before the White House will officially submit a budget to Congress on March 4 that will propose cuts to the size of the army, changes in military pay and elimination of certain weapons, aircrafts and bases.
The Pentagon plans to request $496 billion as its base budget for 2015 — the same amount called for in the December House-Senate budget deal that provided the Department of Defense with relief from budget spending cuts that took effect last year. Hagel said this was $45 billion less than the amount projected in President Barack Obama’s budget request last year.
The president’s budget plan also will call for a $26 billion “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative” that would go toward defense readiness on top of the Pentagon’s request for $496 billion.
“It is clear that under these limits the military will still face significant readiness and modernization challenges next year,” Hagel said.
Under Hagel’s proposal, cuts would be made across military forces. The Pentagon said the country needs a smaller, more high-tech military as it faces changing threats and pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to the proposed budget, the Army would drop in upcoming years to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops. This would be a decrease from a post-9/11 high of 570,000 during the Iraq War.
Hagel again asked for base closures that would start in 2017. He said although base closures have not been approved by Congress in the past, this time around could be different because this is the first time a budget has been proposed in 13 years that did not have to factor in Iraq or Afghanistan war costs.
Hagel acknowledged the department’s proposal to eliminate the Air Force’s A-10 Warthog attack jets and reduce the National Guard would also likely be met with controversy in Congress, especially in a midterm election year. According to a Pew Research Center study released Monday, almost half of Americans said military spending levels should be kept the same, with only 28 percent of the public supporting cuts in defense spending.
He also proposed only a 1 percent pay increase in military compensation, calling for control of spiraling pay and benefits. Dempsey supported this proposal and said troops should receive the packages they expected when they enlisted and said the DOD needs to work with Congress to reform health care benefits.
Although last year’s budget deal provided the DOD with relief for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years, Congress has yet to pass legislation that would limit the automatic spending cuts resulting from the 2011 Budget Control Act, commonly known as sequestration, in 2016 and beyond. Hagel said the proposed defense spending over the next five years calls for spending $115 billion above sequestration levels because such cuts would result in “a hollow force.”
“The president and I would never recommend a budget that compromises our national security,” he said. “Continued sequestration cuts would compromise our national security both for the short and long term. Sequestration requires cuts so deep, so abruptly that we cannot shrink the size of our military fast enough.”
Hagel said a “series of difficult choices” had to be made to maintain the U.S. military’s technological edge and continue modernizing its programs in light of tightening budgets.
Critics of the cuts to the defense budget harped on reforming other types of government spending, such as Medicare or Social Security.
“It is vital that we maintain a strong U.S. military that serves as a capable deterrent, ensures freedom of the seas, and provides security for ourselves and our allies,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., in a statement Monday. “I am concerned that the budget announced today will put all of these goals at risk.”
Even with the proposed cuts, Hagel maintained that the U.S. military is the most capable in the world.
However, he said sequestration would mean even further cuts, particularly to Air Force tankers and drones as well as more Navy ships. He said risks would grow significantly if sequestration takes effect in 2016.
“As I have made clear, the scale and timeline of continued sequestration level cuts would require greater reductions in the military’s size, reach and margin of technological superiority,” Hagel said. “Under sequestration spending levels, we would be gambling that our military will not be required to respond to multiple major contingencies at the same time.”
