Budget Cuts Should Not Compromise National Security

With our skyrocketing national debt fast approaching levels that will cripple our entire economy, it's vital that the federal government cut excess spending from every part of the budget . Both political parties must be willing to examine their traditional policy priorities and make tough choices.

The Defense Department budget is certainly not immune from wasteful spending and should not be exempt from review. However, any military spending reductions must be undertaken very strategically to avoid jeopardizing our national security and endangering our men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, the spending cut recommendations recently announced by the Obama administration are so broad that they would significantly weaken our defense capabilities. The president's plan to slash $500 billion over 10 years relies on cutting 100,000 Soldiers and Marines from the force, calling off the construction of needed new ships and aircraft, and delaying or canceling the modernization of aging assets. Despite President Obama's stated intention of focusing resources in the Pacific, his budget would retire nine ships and cancel construction plans for 16 more. The budget will force the retirement of 27 C-5A and 65 C-130 aircraft, divest the military of 38 C-27 aircraft, and slow procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Then there is the request for another two rounds of military base closures. This proposal is problematic on several levels. Most importantly, it would be short-sighted and dangerous to cut our infrastructure so deeply that our ability to respond to future, unknown threats is compromised. Furthermore, it is far from certain that additional base closures would even save money. The most recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process was carried out in 2005 at a cost of $37 billion. Despite the recommendation to close or realign over 180 military activities nationwide, we will not realize net savings from that tumultuous process until 2018 -- at the earliest. There is every reason to expect that any additional rounds of BRAC would also cost more than they would save in the short-term.

I recently joined with dozens of colleagues to voice serious concerns about the negative impact of another round of BRAC. In a letter to President Obama, members of Congress asked:
"With threats around the globe and during a time when every defense dollar is scarce, what is the justification for spending on additional base closures? How does this approach make our country safer? Where is the 'reversibility' in such extreme measures?" We also reminded the president that "not all government spending is created equal, and the Constitution is clear that one of Congress' primary duties is to provide for the common defense."

Numerous active and retired military leaders, as well as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, have warned that the consequences of excessive cuts to military spending could be devastating to our defense capabilities. Our men and women in uniform should not have to pay the price for decades of reckless Washington spending. It is possible -- and imperative -- that we reduce the deficit without weakening the world's greatest military force.