America’s military-service members will disproportionately bear the consequences of any budget deal or lack thereof.
America’s military-service members will disproportionately bear the consequences of any budget deal or lack thereof.
H ouse Republicans scored a victory last week. With the passage of the “Limit, Save, and Grow” Act, Republicans unified their razor-thin majority around a plan to raise the debt ceiling and cut federal spending, gaining support from some members who had never before voted for a debt-ceiling increase. They asserted fiscal discipline through necessary scrutiny of domestic-spending programs, including $50 billion to $70 billion of unspent Covid funds. And they took a big step toward forcing negotiations to raise the debt limit and avoid a national default — negotiations that are essential in a divided government but in which the Biden administration has to date refused to take part.
With the debt limit estimated to be reached by June 1, President Biden won’t even negotiate with congressional leaders at a White House meeting set for May 9. House Republicans should continue to hold the line on fiscal discipline while recognizing a deal that can become law will require compromise from both parties. But as they do, they also need to use negotiations to press for protections for national defense amid intensifying threats to American security and prosperity.
The Limit, Save, and Grow Act did not explicitly target defense spending. But it did not protect the military’s budget, either. The bill caps all discretionary spending — defense and nondefense — at fiscal year 2022 levels with meager and sub-inflation increases of 1 percent each year for nine years. Because defense makes up slightly less than half of discretionary spending, the military would become a primary target for cuts in future years.
The Pentagon’s budget request for fiscal year 2024 is $842 billion. To implement the Limit, Save, and Grow Act, lawmakers would face a choice between the unacceptable and the unrealistic.
To meet the discretionary-spending cap, either the military would be cut by $100 billion to reach its budget enacted in 2022 — a dangerous and irresponsible measure given threats from China, Russia, and more. Or the military and veterans would be spared, forcing nondefense discretionary spending to be suddenly cut by 22 percent — a nonstarter for Democrats and many Republicans.
Even if spared initial deep cuts, the military would feel the impact of discretionary-spending caps in future years. Tiny 1 percent increases in defense spending allowed under Limit, Save, and Grow would result in net reductions to the defense budget as inflation, defense depreciation, and rising personnel costs cut into the bone of American military might.
Call it the Budget Control Act 2.0, a replay of deferred modernization, curtailed training, low readiness, and sinking morale.
House Republicans do not want this outcome. Top House defense appropriator Representative Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) was quick to state that “defense spending is going to . . . increase.” Nor, apparently, do their colleagues of either party in the Senate. Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Senator Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) has declared: “There’s no appetite among Democrats or Republicans, there is no majority appetite for trimming the overall numbers,” on the defense budget. Even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed (D., R.I.) said earlier this year that the pressure remains to continue the committee’s work of the past two years and increase the defense top line above the White House’s request.
Lawmakers need to act on their expressed desire to protect national defense. A good outcome would be a vote to raise the debt ceiling along with a two-year budget deal that sets discretionary spending, provides certainty, and funds defense to stay above inflation and ahead of our adversaries. Behind-the-scenes negotiations in the Senate appear to offer the best chance of crafting such a deal, one that would presumably open the gates for all twelve appropriations bills to move mostly on time.
House Republicans are right to insist on increased fiscal discipline. But lawmakers of both parties should recall the lessons of the Budget Control Act, which demonstrated that forsaking national defense in budget deals is penny-wise, pound-foolish.
The BCA was meant to rein in federal spending. It failed, and the national debt doubled in ten years. Many lawmakers hoped that the Budget Control Act would force the Pentagon to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. But the uncertainty and chaos induced by the BCA caused even less efficient Pentagon spending. The BCA’s across-the-board cuts produced initial savings, but their thoughtless design eventually required more spending to repair the damage. Skimping on training and maintenance helped produced a readiness crisis that cost tens of billions to redress later. Worst of all, it put the lives of American service members in utterly preventable jeopardy.
With America’s creditworthiness and fiscal stability on the line, the stakes could not be higher in negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and pass appropriations. But lawmakers must not forget that America’s security is on the line, too, and that America’s military-service members will disproportionately bear the consequences of any budget deal or lack thereof. May they act accordingly and worthy of the service of those in uniform.
Mackenzie Eaglen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She is a former staff member in Congress and a former fellow with the Defense Department. Dustin Walker is a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he advised Senator John McCain.