Comparing Defense Savings Plans Across the Political Spectrum - By Brendan Lin

Cato CNAS (7D) CNAS (HC) NCFRR NSN NTU/R Street SDTF Stimson (Ma) Stimson (SA) Coburn

Procurement and R&D:

Revise or cancel procurement plans for programs not requested by DoD ����

Revise or cancel procurement plans for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Revise or cancel procurement plans for V-22 Osprey ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Revise or cancel procurement plans for Ground Combat Vehicle ���� ���� ���� ����

Revise or cancel procurement plans for Littoral Combat Ship ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce R&D spending ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce "Other Procurement" ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce procurement for other programs ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Force Structure:

Reduce size of Navy fleet by retiring active platforms ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce size of Navy fleet by limiting new procurement ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce number of Air Force aircraft by retiring active platforms ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce number of Air Force aircraft by limiting new procurement (except F-35) ���� ���� ����

Reduce nuclear force by shrinking current force structure ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce nuclear force by limiting new procurement, infrastructure or research ���� ���� ����

Efficiency Reforms:

Extricate uniformed personnel from non-military tasks ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce command, support, and infrastructure spending ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Adopt more efficient business practices ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce size of DoD agencies ����

Initiate new BRAC round ���� ����

Adopt Department of Defense's efficiency recommendations ���� ����

Other efficiency reforms ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Benefits and Compensation:

Reform TRICARE ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reform military retirement ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reform compensation ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Personnel Levels:

Reduce Army personnel ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce Marine Corps personnel ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce troop levels in Europe and Asia ���� ���� ����

Reduce number of generals and admirals ����

Reduce civilian DoD workforce ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce contractor staff augumentees ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Other Savings:

Curtail missile defense and space spending ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

Reduce or hold constant intelligence spending ���� ���� ����

Audit the Pentagon/improve financial management ���� ����

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency ReformsBenefits and

CompensationPersonnel Levels Other Savings

Cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - $11b

saved

Reduce the number of Marine Corps expeditionary strike groups from 10 to 6 - $7b saved over 10 years

Reform DoD maintenance and supply systems - $13b saved

over 10 years

Include more components of military compensation in pay

raise calculations that are pegged to changes in the

civilian sector - $55b saved over 10 years

Cut the active-duty Army to 360,000 personnel - $222b

saved over 10 years

Make national missile defense a research program - $60b

saved over 10 years

Terminate Marine Corps V-22 Osprey - $15b saved

over 10 years

Keep a nuclear weapons arsenal of 500 deployed

warheads - Savings Estimate Below*

Cut military construction and family gousing spending by 20% - $30b saved over 10

years

Reform TRICARE - $60b saved over 10 years

Cut the size of the Marine Corps from 202,000 to 145,000 - $67b

saved over 10 years

Reduce intelligence spending by 15% - $112b saved over

10 years

Cancel Littoral Combat Ship and develop a less

expensive alternative - $14b saved over 10 years

50% cut in delivery platforms, including elimination of the bomber leg of the nuclear triad - Savings Estimate

Below*

Cut the Pentagon civilian workforce by 30% over a 10-

year period - $105b saved over 10 years

Forgo procurement of 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and

reduce associated personnel - $22b saved

Consolidation of nuclear laboratory and testing facilities - *All three

reforms: $87b saved over 10 years

Reduce RDT&E by 10% annually - $73b saved over

10 years

Air Force should eliminate six strike wing equvalents;

accelerate the retirement of aging airframes - $89b saved over 10 years

Retain six SSBNs, which would allow for at least four to be deployed at any one time - $3b saved over 10

years

Forgo the purchase of Trident II missiles for SSBNs

and upgrades to nuclear cruise missiles; shelve plans to deploy nuclear weapons

on F-35 - No Savings

Decommission the Nimitz, Eisenhower, and Vinson - $5b saved over 10 years

Reduce number of DDGs - $34b saved saved over 10

years

Reduce the number of Navy aircraft carriers to eight -

$40b saved saved over 10 years

Cancel procurement of CVN 79 and all future Ford Class

CVNs - $16b saved over 10 years

Reach 40 SSNs in 2020, decommission SSGNs -

$32b saved over 10 years

"The United States needs a defense budget worthy of its name, one that protects Americans rather than wasting vast sums embroiling us in controversies remote from our interests. This paper outlines such a defense strategyand the substantial cuts in military spending that it allows. That strategy discourages the occupation of failing states and indefinite commitments to defend healthy ones. With fewer missions, the military can shrink its force structure—reducing personnel, the weapons and vehicles procured for them, and operational costs. The resulting force would be more elite, less strained, and far less expensive. By avoiding needless military conflict and protecting our prosperity, these changes would make Americans more secure."

Friedman, Benjamin H., and Christopher Preble. Budgetary Savings From Military Restraint. The Cato Institute. Cato.org. September 23, 2010. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA667.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency Reforms Benefits and Compensation Personnel Levels Other Savings

Fold AFRICOM back into EUCOM - $1.4b saved over 10

years

Prevent 5% of waste in acquisitions funding over 10 years - $98b saved

over 10 years

Bring basic pay back in line with civilian pay increases - $14b

saved over 10 years

Reduce the DoD civilian workforce by 75,000 people - $37.4b saved

over 10 years

Merge NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM - Unknown

Savings

Avoid repeating weapons systems failures of the past decade - $46b

saved over 10 years

Curb recent increases in allowance pay - $11b saved over

10 years

Roll back contractor spending to 2001 levels - Unknown Savings

Streamline the process for generating requirements and make

real trade-offs on systems up-front - Unknown Savings

Shift to a defined contribution system for all new recruits - $38b

saved over 10 years

Continue to develop the acquisitions workforce - Unknown Savings

Adjust TRICARE free to reflect growth in health care costs - $30b

saved over 10 years

Foster a productive two-way dialogue with industry - Unknown

Savings

Increase cost sharing for TRICARE for Life - $6.7b saved

over 10 years

Keep the rapid acquisitions process for fast-changing capabilities while

fixing the "normal" process - Unknown Savings

Increase pharmaceutical cost sharing - $27b saved over 10

years

Pursue strategic sourcing options - $20b saved over 10 years

Use reverse auctioning for contracts - $26b saved over 10 years

Reduce redundancy of IT management system - Unknown

Savings

Improve business alignment and auditability - Unknown Savings

Authorize and conduct a new BRAC round - $10b saved over 10 years, significant savings over 20 years

Close DoD schools in the United States - $1.1b saved in 2015

Consolidate the base and post exchange systems - $2.5b saved

over 10 years

Reduce spending on base support and facilities maintenance - $3.6b

saved through FY 2015, with increased potential for further

savings through FY 2020

Consolidate the military service medical commands- $292-478m per

year

Reduce duplication and overall funding for counter-IED initiatives -

$1.2b saved over 10 years

Reduce redundancy in military service intelligence organizations -

Unknown Savings

Reduce all overhead spending by 5% - $100b saved over 10 years

Reduce all overhead spending by 10% - $200b saved over 10 years

"The Department of Defense (DOD) faces a stark choice. With reductions in defense spending looming, decisions made during the next year will chart one of two paths: one that avoids tough choices about cutting excess and inefficiencies, or one that embraces painful but necessary reforms to the structural underpinnings of the department. The first path will inevitably follow the precedent of past defense budget drawdowns and lead to deep cuts in force structure, readiness and modernization, and produce a much-diminished U.S.military. The other, more difficult, path preserves these capabilities by fundamentally reforming the underlying causes of DOD cost growth. With the right choices for reform, the U.S. defense establishment can consume fewer resources and still meet America’s global strategy requirements for many decades to come – but bold and resolute action is required now."

Barno, David, Nora Bensahel, Jacob Stokes, Joel Smith, and Katherine Kidder. The Seven Deadly Sins of Defense Spending. The Center for a New American Security. Cnas.org. June 2013. http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_SevenDeadlySIns.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency ReformsBenefits and

CompensationPersonnel Levels Other Savings

From FY12 to FY21, hold

spending for Research

and Development 12.5%

below FY11 level plus

inflation - $93.7b saved over 10 years

Permanently reduce CVN

fleet from 11 to 10, active-

duty air wings from 10 to

9, and 5,600 sailors by

retiring the USS George

Washington in 2016 -

$7.0b saved over 10 years

From FY13 to FY21, hold

spending on base support

and facilities mainenance at

12.5% below FY11 level plus

inflation - $32.5b saved over 10 years

Starting in FY15, reduce Army

active duty to 460,000,

Marine Corps active duty to

162,500, and reduce 12,000

reservists - $63.8b saved over 10 years

From FY12 to FY21, hold

spending on atomic energy

defense activities at 12.5%

below FY11 level plus

inflation - $21.0b saved over 10 years

Cancel V-22 Osprey in

FY16, stopping total

procurement at 363

aircraft (314 MV-22s, 49

CV-22s) - $7.9b saved over 10 years

Reduce strategic airlift

requirement from 316 to

301 aircraft, and retire 15

C-5As - $2.4b saved over 10 years

Depots: Alter pricing

structure for repairs, and

ease restrictions on

contracting for maintenance -

$6.4b saved over 10 years

Reduce the workforce of

784,000 DoD civilian

employees by 75,000 over 10

years by not replacing some

retirees - $36.7b saved over 10 years

From FY12 to FY21, hold

spending on other defense-

related activities at 12.5%

below FY11 level plus

inflation - $7.7b saved over 10 years

End Littoral Combat Ship

program in FY17 after 27

total ships have been

procured - $7.0b saved over 10 years

Cancel MQ-4C Broad Area

Maritime Surviellance

(BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft

System (UAS) - $10.0b saved over 10 years

Consolidate DoD's

commissary and exchange

systems over five years -

$67b saved over 10 years

Increase by 20% the

previously announced 30%

reduction in spending on

contractor augmentees for

headquarters staff - $20.4b saved over 10 years

From FY13 to FY21, hold

intelligence spending 12.5%

below FY11 level plus

inflation - $88.5b saved over 10 years

From FY13 to FY21,

holding spending for

"Other Procurement"

12.5% below FY11 level

plus inflation - $39.4b saved over 10 years

Hold procurement to one

Virginia-class SSN (attack

submarine) per year,

reducing planned buy from

19 to 10 ships during FY12-

21 - $25.0b saved over 10 years

Shut down Joint Improvised

Explosive Device Defeat

Organization in FY17 -

$1.2b saved over 10 years

Cancel the Precision

Tracking Space System

(PTSS) program and reduce

spending on experimental

national missile defense

programs - $37.5b saved over 10 years

Delay fielding Ground

Combat Vehicle (GCV)

until after FY21 and

reinvest some savings into

upgrading Bradley

Fighting Vehicles - $7.0b saved over 10 years

Cancel two LHA-6s and

three LSD(X)s scheduled

for procurement during

FY16-21 - $13.0b saved over 10 years

From FY13 to FY21, hold

overhead spending for

commercial activities 12.5%

below FY11 level plus

inflation - $67.4b saved over 10 years

Cancel Joint Light Tactical

Vehicle (JLTV) - $10.9b saved over 10 years

Retire six Ticonderoga-

class cruisers - $3.3b saved over 10 years

Uphold the decision to cut

the buy of the Joint

Tactical Radio System

(JTRS) Ground Mobile

Radio (GMR) from 86,956

to 11,030 - $15.0b saved over 10 years

Cut F-35A from 1,763 to

850, F-35B from 311 to

150, and F-35C from 369

to 300, and do not buy

substitutes - $25.0b saved over 10 years

From FY13 to FY21,

holding spending for

"Other Procurement"

12.5% below FY11 level

plus inflation - $39.4b saved over 10 years

This report – the first in the Center for a New American Security’s Responsible Defense series – outlines the ends, ways and means of U.S. defense strategy under a range of budgetary constraints. We acknowledge that these constraints are driving strategy, not the other way around, but accept this as an unavoidable reality in today’s political environment. Therefore, the report seeks to highlight the strategic consequences of these constraints, so that political leaders grasp the risks and trade-offs the cuts portend. We offer four scenarios for defense budget reductions, and identify what we think are the best possible ways to cut military force structure, end strength, procurement and overhead to reach the required levels of savings. We also consider the modified roles and missions, operational approaches and vulnerabilities that might result.

Barno, David W., USA (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, and Travis Sharp. Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity. The Center for a New American Security. CNAS.org. October 2011. http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_HardChoices_BarnoBensahelSharp_0.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency ReformsBenefits and

CompensationPersonnel Levels Other Savings

Reduce procurement by 15% - $20.0b saved in

2015

Cancel the Navy's Future Maritime Prepositioning

Force - $2.7b saved from FY2012-FY2015

Replace military personnel performing commercial

activities with civilians - $5.4b saved in 2015

Freeze non-combat military pay at 2011 levels for 3 years -

$9.2b saved in 2015

Double Secretary Gates' cuts to defense contracting - $5.4b

saved in 2015

End procurement of the V-22 Osprey - $1.1b saved in

2015

Apply the overhead savings Secretary Gates has promised

to deficit reduction - $28.0b saved in 2015

Modernize Tricare, DoD health - $6.0b saved in 2015

Reduce military personnel stationed at overseas bases in Europe and Asia by one-third -

$8.5b saved in 2015

Cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - $650.0m

saved in 2015

Reduce spending on base support - $2.0b saved in 2015

Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other

compensation for the civilian workforce at the DoD for three years - $28.0b saved in 2015

Substitute F-16 and F/A-18Es for half of the Air

Force and Navy's planned buys of F-35 fighter aircraft - $9.5b saved from FY2011-

FY2015

Reduce spending on facilities maintenance - $1.4b saved in

2015

Cancel the Marine Corps version of the F-35 - $17.5b

saved from FY2012-FY2015

Consolidate the DoD's retail activities - $0.8b saved in

2015

Cancel the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the Ground

Combat Vehicle, and the Joint Tactical Radio- $2.3b

saved in 2015

Integrate children of military personnel into local schools in

the U.S. - $1.1b saved in 2015

Reduce planned levels for "Other Procurement" -

$8.6b saved

Reduce spending on Research, Development,

Test & Evaluation by 10% - $7.0b saved in 2015

"President Obama created the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to address our nation's fiscal challenges. The Commission is charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run. Specifically, the Commission shall propose recommendations designed to balance the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. In addition, the Commission shall propose recommendations that meaningfully improve the long-run fiscal outlook, including changes to address the growth of entitlement spending and the gap between the projected revenues and expenditures of the Federal Government."

FiscalCommission.gov. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency ReformsBenefits and

CompensationPersonnel Levels Other Savings

Reduce planned buy of F-35s by 25-50%,

upgrade legacy aircraft - No Savings Estimate

Given

Reduce nuclear arsenal to 1,050 strategic

warheads and 1,000 launchers; retire the

bomber portion of the nuclear triad - $113.5b saved over 10 years

Adapt more efficient business practices - $95b

saved per year

TRICARE Reform: Offer incentives for not overusing care, peg fees to inflation,

higher fees on working enrollees, and encourage

retirees to use plans through other employers if available - $15b saved

per year

Reduce DoD service contracts by 15% - $372b

saved over 10 years

Retirement Reform: Institute a 401K style system in

which the Pentagon would contribute about twice the private sector average - $13b saved per year

Reduce Army end strength to 420,000 and Marine end strength to 160,000 - No Savings Estimate Given

"This paper contributes to the growing body of work on strategic reshaping by presenting a particular progressive-realist approach that has tacitly evolved in the literature but has not yet been explicitly articulated."

French, Bill. Reshaping Pentagon Spending and Capabilities: Setting Priorities for the Future. The National Security Network. NSNetwork.org. March 2013. http://nsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Reshaping-Pentagon-Spending-and-Capabilities_Future-Priorities_FINAL-0313132.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency Reforms Efficiency Reforms (cont) Benefits and Compensation Personnel Levels Other Savings

End procurement of Littoral

Combat Ship - $2.0b saved in 10 years

Cut 4 submarines from next-

gen fleet - $18.0b saved in 10 years

Consolidate data centers and

embrace cloud computing-

$30.0b saved in 5 years

Unify military medical system -

$4.6b saved in 10 years

Adjust military pension benefit

multiplier from 2.5% of base

pay to 2.0% - $25b saved in 10 years

Reduce overseas military

personnel - $69.5b saved in 10 years

Require NATO to share

in costs for B61 nuclear

bombs in Europe -

$2.1b saved in 10 years

Delay refurbishment of Abrams

tank - $3.0b saved over 10 years

Cancel CMRR-Nuclear Facility

Los Alamos - $3.7b saved in 10 years

Eliminate noncompetitive and

cost-plus contracts - $2.0b saved in 10 years

Consolidate foreign language

contracts - $1.0b saved in 10 years

Adjust military pension

calculation from average of

highest three annual salaries

to average of highest five

annual salaries - $5.5b saved in 10 years

Reduce number of

civilian DoD employees

through attrition -

$3.2b saved over 5 years

Hold defense

discretionary spending

to 70% of sequester in

2013 plus inflation in out-

years - $220.0b saved per year

Restructure next generation

Aegis missile - $2.1b saved in 1 year

Reduce minimum airlift

inventory from 316 aircraft to

301 - $1.2b over 5 years

Reduce DoD advertising

budget by 50% - $2.7b saved in 10 years

Combine support services at

joint bases - $1.2b saved in 10 years

Raise retirement age to 67 -

$96.7b saved in 10 years

Shift Army and Marine

Corps troops to reserves,

return active-duty force

to pre-9/11 levels -

$52.5b saved in 10 years

Perform a full audit of

Pentagon finances -

$25.0b saved in 10 years

Delay new E model of Army

Apache helicopter - $1.3b saved in 1 year

Fund only one DDG-51 Aegis

Destroyer - $1.5b over 10 years

Consolidate DoD

grovery/retail stores - $9.1b saved in 10 years

Eliminate duplicative IT

investments - $1.2b saved in 10 years

Eliminate DoD Tuition

Assistance program - $4.9b saved in 10 years

Cut DoD civilian positions

by attrition - $36.7b saved in 10 years

Downblend and sell

excess uranium - $23b saved in 10 years

Freeze Trident D5 missile

program - $1.5b over 10 years

Buy only seven P-8A Poseidon

maritime patrol craft - $1.5b over 10 years

Close DoD elementary

schools - $10.0b saved in 10 years

Improve supply chain

management - $9.7b saved in 10 years

Reform TRICARE by increasing

cost-sharing - $205.4b saved in 10 years

Cut number of

consultants and

contractors at

headquarters - $15.0b saved in 10 years

Terminate Precision

Tracking Space System -

$1.7b saved in 1 year

Slow procurement of SSN-774

Virginia class submarine -

$2.0b over 10 years

Reduce number of aircraft

carriers, Navy Air Wings-

$18.4b over 10 years

Close DoD STEM programs -

$1.7b saved in 10 years

Reduce requirements for

Navy construction projects -

$1.5b saved in 1 year

Cap increases in military basic

pay - $17.3b saved in 10 years

Reduce active-duty

military personnel -

$8.1b saved in 10 years

Reduce or eliminate

ground-based missile

defense systems -

$6.0b over 10 years

Reduce spending for "other

procurement" - $52.0b over 10 years

Reduce nuclear weapons force

structure - $79.0b over 10 years

Reduce DoD travel budget -

$10.0b saved in 10 years

Reduce construction projeccts

throughout Air Force - $2.2b saved in 1 year

Reduce FY2014 civilian pay

raise to 1% - $2.2b saved in

1 year

Reduce planned DoD

civilian personnel -

$7.3b saved in 10

years

End Ground-Based

Midcourse Defense

Missile program - $4.7b over 10 years

Use less expensive boosters for

Air Force Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle - $1.1b over 1 year

Consolidate military health

care services - $2.8b saved in 10 years

Reduce Army military

construction projects - $0.4b

saved in 1 year

Reduce reliance on

contractors - $372.0b saved in 10 years

Cancel future satellites

of Space-Based Infrared

System - $6.0b over 10 years

Replace Army's Ground Combat

Vehicle purchase with German

Puma - $8.4b over 10 years

Adopt "sea swap" policies for

cruisers, destroyers,

amphibious ships - $100.0b saved in 10 years

End orders for obsolete spare

parts and supplies for

Defense Logistics Agency,

Army, Navy, Air Force -

$7.1b over 10 years

Reduce number of

generals and admirals -

$0.8b saved in 10

years

Replace B and C models of F-35

with F/A-18 E/F - $61.7b over 10 years

Use civilian contractors to

perform commercial activities

on bases - $53.0b saved in 10 years

Delay Ground Combat Vehicle -

$7.0b over 10 years

Standardize per troop

spending, reduce

maintenance costs - $34b saved in 10 years

Replace V-22 Osprey with MH-

60 and CH-53 helicopter -

$17.1b over 10 years

Reduce spending on military

bands - $1.8b saved in 10 years

Additional weapon, IT, other

options - $35.5b over 10 years

Cap experimental fuel

procurement - $9.0b saved in 10 years

Defer next-gen bomber -

$6.3b over 10 years

Consolidate management of

retail stores on bases -

$7.1b saved in 10 years

As conservative organizations, the R Street Institute and National Taxpayers Union (NTU) believe strongly in a robust national defense. However, our groups also believe strongly in exercising fiscal discipline in all areas of the federal budget. As by far the largest portion of discretionary spending, Pentagon expenditures must not escape scrutiny as conservatives examine methods for reducing our staggering debt.

Sepp, Pete, and Andrew Moylan. Defending America, Defending Taxpayers: How Pentagon Spending Can Better Reflect Conservative Values. National Taxpayers Union/R Street Institute. NTU.org. http://www.ntu.org/news-and-issues/defense/defending-america-defending-taxpayers.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency ReformsBenefits and

CompensationPersonnel Levels Other Savings

Cancel USAF F-35, buy replacement - $47.9b saved over 10 years

Reduce U.S. Navy fleet to 230 ships - $126.6b saved over 10 years

Require commensurate savings in command,

support, and infrastructure - $100b saved over 10

years

Phase in compensation reforms (ex. Include tax

advantages and housing/subsistence

allowances in calculating pay raises) as

recommended by theQuadrennial Review of Military Compensation

(QRMC) - $55b saved over 10 years

Cap routine U.S. military presence in Europe at

35,000 personnel and in Asia at 65,000 troops, and

then reducing force structure accordingly - $80b

saved over 10 years

Selectively curtail missile defense & space spending

- $55b saved over 10 years

Cancel USN & USMC F-35, buy replacement - $9.85b saved over 10

years

Only retire two Navy aircraft carriers and naval air wings - $50b saved

over 10 years

Improve the efficiency of military depots,

commissaries, and exchanges - $13b saved

over 10 years

Prevent military retirees who are earning fulltime salaries on top of their full military

pensions from

Roll back Army & USMC growth as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end - $147b

saved over 10 years

Cancel MV-22 Osprey, field alternatives - $10b-

$12b saved over 10 years

Retire two Air Force fighter wings, reduce F-35 buy - $40.3b saved

over 10 years

opting for TRICARE when they can get health

coverage through their employer, along the lines

suggested by the QRMC - $60b saved over 10 years

Reduce military recruiting expenditures as wars

recede - $5b saved over 10 years

Delay KC-X Tanker, interim upgrade of some KC-135s - $9.9b saved

over 10 years

Reduce nuclear weapons to a level of 1,000

warheads deployed on 7 Ohio-class submarines

and 160 Minuteman missiles. Shift to nuclear "dyad" of land- and sea-

based missiles - $113.5b saved over 10 years

Cancel Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, field alternatives - $8b-$9b saved over 10 years

Limit modernization of nuclear weapons infrastructure and

research - $26b saved over 10 years

Reduce spending on research & development -

$50b saved over 10 years

At a time of growing concern over federal deficits, it is essential that all elements of the federal budget be subjected to careful scrutiny. The Pentagon budget should be no exception. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in a recent speech, paraphrasing President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 'The United States should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not one penny more.'

Debts, Deficits and Defense: A Way Forward. The Sustainable Defense Task Force. Comw.org. June 11, 2010. http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency Reforms Benefits and Compensation Personnel Levels Other Savings

Better balancing between the active and reserve components - $35b saved over 10 years

Streamlining redundancy and duplication - $25b saved

over 10 years

Modernize military retirement - $5b-$40b saved over 10

years

Constructing Contracts - No Savings Estimate

Reducing infrastructure billets - $100b saved over

10 years

Adjust the formulas for cash compensation growth - $20b-$30b saved over 10 years

Managing the Contracting Workforce - No Savings Estimate

Concentrating service members on inherently

military functions - $50b saved over 10 years

Extricate 10% of uniformed personnel from non-military (commercial) tasks- $2.7b

saved in FY2015

Coming to Best Practices - No Savings

Estimate

Transfer non-cash compensation into cash

compensation - $10b saved over 10 years

Generating "Requirements" - No Savings Estimate

Curtail pool of health care beneficiaries - $90b-$100b

saved over 10 years

Reducing civilian manpower - $200b

saved over 10 years

Increase health care fees and cost sharing - $40b-$110b

saved over 10 years

Relying less on contractor support -

$110b saved over 10 years

"This report is a compilation of recommendations made in recent years by many boards, commissions and study groups that have proposed efficiencies in how the U.S. Department of Defense spends money. If implemented fully, the recommendations would save nearly $1 trillion over a decade, though it is virtually impossible they will all be adopted. The proposals face varying degrees of political opposition – some intense – and some recommendations are contradictory. We are not endorsing any of the specific options but, by compiling the proposals, we have created a resource that frames the many calls for efficiencies, providing context that the broader debate on defense spending is currently missing."

Leatherman, Matthew, Barry Blechman, and Russell Rumbaugh. Managing the Military More Efficiently: Potential Savings Separate from Strategy. The Henry L. Stimson Center. Stimson.org. May 2013. http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Managing_the_Military_More_Efficiently.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency Reforms Benefits and Compensation Personnel Levels Other Savings

Cancel the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and Joint Light Tactical

Vehicle (JLTV) - $1.2b saved per year

Transfer remaining operational F-16 squadrons in the active force to

the reserve component. The active force would still maintain

500 operational high-end fighters, including F-22s and F-15s, more

than 100 A-10s, some special purpose F-16s, as well as an

additional 250 F-16s in the active component for training and

development and large-scale operational contingencies that might arise - $5.4b saved per

year

20% reduction in DoD’s headquarters personnel by broadening the span of control and eliminating low-priority and duplicative tasks and reporting requirements - $4.5b saved in FY

2015

Implement a variation of the Defense Business Board’s

proposed defined-contribution military retirement plan - $1.5b

saved by FY2015

Reduce Army to end-strength to 450,000 personnel - $11.9b saved per year

Slow procurement of F-35s for two years by cutting the planned aircraft purchase each year by about 1/2.

The Navy and Marine Corps variants are already slated for purchase in small lots, 4 and 6

respectively. Trim that to 2 and 3. The Air Force plans to acquire 19 of its A variant in fiscal year 2014, and 30 in fiscal year 2015. Hold that to 9 each in the fiscal years

2014 and 2015. All three variants would return to their planned ramp-

up in fiscal year 2016 - $4.0b saved in FY 2015

Currently, the Navy operates 10 aircraft carriers. It intends to

increase that number in 2016 with the commissioning of the USS

Gerald Ford. Forgo that increase by retiring the USS George

Washington in fiscal year 2014 and maintaining a fleet of 10

carriers over the long term. This recommendation would also cut a carrier air wing in accord with the

number of carriers. - $2.3b saved per year

Reduce size of DoD agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit

Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, and Defense Logistics Agency - $1.0b saved in

FY2015

Increase means-tested beneficiary cost sharing

requirements for “TRICARE for Life,” which provides secondary coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees, and “TRICARE,” the

standard health plan for retirees and dependents, as well as

higher cost-sharing for pharmaceuticals for dependents and retirees. - $4.7b saved in

FY2015

Reduce Marine Corps end-strength to 160,000 personnel

- $2.0b saved per year

Cut the planned buy of ballistic missile submarines (SSBN-X) from 12 to 10 - $1.2b saved per year

Reduce the funding levels for the Guard and Reserves somewhat,

but not in proportion to the reduction in the active force -

$0.7b saved per year

Streamline obsolete centralized training model - $2.0b saved in

FY2015

58,000 DoD civilian positions should be cut by fiscal year

2015 - $4.7b saved in FY2015

Cut spending on programs costing less than $85 million a year by an

amount proportionate to the reductions in manpower resulting from the changes we called for in force structure and management reforms - $0.9b saved per year

Maintain the “Triad” of delivery systems including bombers and

the current force of ballistic missile submarines, but retire one ICBM

wing and reduce the non-strategic nuclear weapons inventory -

$0.4b saved in FY2015

Extricate 10% of uniformed personnel from non-military (commercial) tasks-

$2.7b saved in FY2015

Decrease number of contractors at least 20% to be commensurate with the other personnel cuts -No separate

savings estimate

Stop funding commissaries and post exchanges in the United States -

$1.2b saved in FY2015

A new BRAC round could focus on relocating units to existing bases and

facilities and provide additional savings over the long-term. Defense

industrial facilities also need to be consolidated. All such actions should

be taken together with robust programs to aid local communities

affected by the closures - Significant long-term savings

"We continue to believe that Strategic Agility best achieves US interests. It seeks to avoid US involvement in protracted ground wars and emphasizes the importance of technologically superior assets that can quickly and decisively eliminate threats to the United States and its allies. The strategy’s value already has been demonstrated by events of the past year, including the rapid movement of air and naval assets in response to North Korean provocations, US support of the French intervention in Mali, and the US response to the Syrian conflict. The growing relevance of cyberwarfare and the remarkable advantages provided by US space-based assets underscore the need to invest in advanced technologies."

Strategic Agility: Strong National Defense for Today’s Global and Fiscal Realities. The Henry L. Stimson Center. Stimson.org. September 2013. http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/Strategic_Agility_Report.pdf.

Procurement and R&D Force Structure Efficiency ReformsBenefits and

CompensationPersonnel Levels Other Savings

Air Force: full support of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,

negotiate a multi-year procurement - $7b

saved over 10 years

Reduce aircraft carriers from 11 to 10, Navy Air

Wings from 10 to 9 - $7b saved over 10 years

Consolidate DoD administered grocery and

retail stores - $9.1b saved over 10 years

Adopt Secretary Gates' Efficiency

Recommendations - $100b saved over 10 years

Reduce military personnel overseas in Europe and

Asia- $69.5b saved over 10 years

Audit the Pentagon - $25b saved over 10 years

Navy and Marine Corps: cancel the Joint Strike

Fighter and replace with F/A-18 Super Hornet - $18b saved over 10

years

Reduce nuclear weapons force structure- $79b saved over 10 years

Close Department of Defense elementary

schools - $1.1b saved in FY2015

Freeze federal salaries for DoD employees - $15.5b

saved over 10 years

Reverse the Grow the Army Initiative - $92b saved over

10 years

Keep intelligence spending constant - $26b saved

over 10 years

Delay fielding of the Army's Ground Combat

Vehicle - $7b saved over 10 years

Close DoD-run Science, Technology, Education,

and Mathematics programs for elementary school

students - $1.7b saved over 10 years

Reduce spending on DoD Tuition Assistance Program - $4.9b saved over 10 years

Reduce the civilian workforce by 5% beginning

in 2014 - $22.5b saved over 10 years

Terminate the Medium Extended Air Defense

System (MEADS) Program - $13b saved

over 10 years

Reduce planned future purchases of the V-22 Osprey - $6b saved

over 10 years

Reduce spending at the Congressionally Directed

Medical Research Program (CDMRP) on non-military

specific diseases - $250m saved over 10 years

Consolidate military health care services - $2.8b saved over 10 years

Double Secretary Gates reductions to contracting for staff augumentees - $37.8b

saved over 10 years

Reduce spending for "Other Procurement" - $52b saved over 10

years

Reduce funding for the National Guard

Counterdrug Program - $250m saved over 10

years

Reform TRICARE Standard and Prime for military

retirees and dependents - $115b saved over 10

years

Reduce spending on other options including JLENS, VTUAV, and

PTSS - $35.5b saved over 10 years

Reduce travel expenditures at the Department of

Defense - $14b saved over 10 years

Increase cost sharing for pharmaceuticals under

TRICARE - $26b saved over 10 years

Reduce 10% of research and development

funding - $79b saved over 10 years

Replace military personnel performing commercial activities with civilians -

$53b saved over 10 years

Introduce minimum out-of-pocket requirements under TRICARE for Life - $43b

saved over 10 years

Standardize per troop spending and reduce

spending on maintenance due to base closures - $34b saved over 10

years

Adopt Secretary Gates' Efficiency

Recommendations - $100b saved over 10

years

"A thorough review of the entire federal budget is long overdue. Such an evaluation should not be seen through political or ideological lenses, but as a practical evaluation: What works and what does not? What is a priority and what is not? What is in the national interest and is a special interest? What is necessary today and what has become obsolete? And what is efficient and what is wasteful?"

Coburn, Tom. Back in Black: A Deficit Reduction Plan. United States Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK). Coburn.Senate.gov. http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bc1e2d45-ff24-4ff3-8a11-64e3dfbe94e1.

TAXPAYERS AGAINST RUNAWAY MILITARY SPENDING

American Enterprise Institute Preserving the Military Health Care Benefit: Needed Steps for Reform This report by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) focuses on the exponentially growing personnel costs in the United States military. Since 2001, the cost of military pay, allowances, and health care has increased by 90%, while the actual number of personnel has only increased by 3%. This rapid escalation in cost is projected to continue, and, additionally, many of these benefits end up going to individuals who are no longer in the armed forces. This pattern is unsustainable, and if programs like TRICARE are to be maintained, reforms will need to be made. The recommendations in this report were proposed by John L. Kokulis, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Budgets and Financial Policy. These proposals are: Recommendation 1: Enroll All Beneficiaries “Many TRICARE Standard and Extra retiree beneficiaries are not fully enrolled in the system and instead choose to use TRICARE selectively for its pharmacy benefit or to choose whichever insurance plan, private or TRICARE, is most advantageous for a particular episode of medical care. This results in poor communication between the health care professionals and the beneficiaries and ultimately results in bad medicine when beneficiaries seek care from multiple sources and care is not coordinated. Achieving 100 percent enrollment of all beneficiaries would help improve medical outcomes and reduce cost.” Recommendation 2A: Create Financial Incentives to Encourage Retiree Beneficiaries under 65 to Seek Care at MTFs to Lower Cost and Enhance Readiness “Mirroring best practices most other major public and private health care plans employ, cost shares for all retiree beneficiaries should be adjusted to more adequately reflect the actual cost of care with the goal of rationalizing the use of health care resources and improving accountability.” Recommendation 2B: Institute Pharmacy Copays that Encourage the Use of Low-Cost Generics and Promote the Use of Low-Cost Distribution Options such as TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery “In fact, in the president’s budget submission for FY 2013, DoD advanced this exact concept, proposing to raise copays for brand and nonformulary refills but keep copays for generic refills through home delivery and all refills made at the MTF [Military Treatment Facility] free. Building on the objective to strengthen the MTFs by recapturing patient care, I propose taking this a step further by lowering the generic and brand copays for prescriptions written at an MTF or by an MTF doctor via telemedicine (seeing a doctor via electronic communication) when picked up at a retail pharmacy. This will provide incentives for retirees to seek a refill prescription through an MTF. Many visits to the purchased care network are for nothing more than a simple refill for a prescription. These visits can be reduced. Better yet, coming to the MTFs to get their scripts filled may lead these retired beneficiaries to seek more of their care at that MTF.” Recommendation 3: Once These Fees and Cost Shares are Fully Phased In, Index Them to Medical Inflation “Part of the reason the MHS budget is in such crisis is that Congress has left TRICARE enrollment fees, copays, and deductibles mostly unchanged since it established the program in 1995. The FY 2012 and FY 2013 changes were a good step in this direction, but any future changes must be indexed to medical inflation - not simply a local cost-of-living adjustment.” Kokulis, John L. Preserving the Military Health Care Benefit: Needed Steps for Reform. The American Enterprise Insitute. AEI.org. October 2013.

http://www.aei.org/files/2013/10/16/-preserving-the-military-health-care-benefit_165011202359.pdf.

TAXPAYERS AGAINST RUNAWAY MILITARY SPENDING

American Enterprise Institute Shrinking Bureaucracy, Overhead, and Infrastructure: Why This Defense Drawdown

Must Be Different for the Pentagon

This report by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) examines alternate avenues for military sequestration cuts. The Obama administration has, so far, primarily targeted modernization programs for these cuts. This leads to a decline in readiness and fewer next-generation programs. Instead, Mackenzie Eaglen, Resident Fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, argues that the structural drivers of spending should be addressed instead. Some of her recommended targets for spending reductions include: • Bureaucratic Overhead in Both the Uniformed Military Services and the Federal Civilian Workforce

1) “The first step to rein in expanding military and civilian bureaucracy within DoD is for the secretary of defense to demand the collection of requirements data. Today, DoD needs more information to properly assess workforce requirements, which are critical before deciding where to downsize.”

2) “Once DoD has better information on hand, leaders can begin to target the

elimination of excess positions. In theory, judging from historical averages, if they wish to attain gradual 3 to 5 percent reductions per year, layoffs will be unnecessary. This is because DoD’s annual turnover rate (resignations, retirements, and voluntary separation) averages over 10 percent.”

3) “This kind of reduction, along with decreased reliance on contractors, could save

an estimated $310 billion over 10 years.”

• Excess Physical Infrastructure “As the US military shrinks in size, capacity, and capability, it must also reduce its inventory of physical assets. In preparation for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) round, the Pentagon found that the entire department possessed 24 percent aggregate excess capacity. The most recent base closure round, however, reduced capacity by only 3.4 percent.” • Deferred and In-Kind Compensation for Military and Civilian Personnel. “Many reports in Washington examine the rising, and ultimately unsustainable, costs of military personnel absent change. While the cost of military personnel as a percentage of the defense budget has remained relatively flat in recent years, the cost of military pay, allowances, and health care has risen over 90 percent and the size of the active duty force has grown by only less than 3 percent since 2001. This is due in large part to congressionally mandated annual pay raises half a percent higher than inflation; three rounds of pay table reform designed to improve retention of experienced personnel; and substantial increases in basic housing allowance, health care, and retirement benefits.”

Eaglen, Mackenzie. Shrinking Bureaucracy, Overhead, and Infrastructure: Why This Defense Drawdown Must Be Different for the Pentagon. The American Enterprise Institute. AEI.org. March 2013. http://www.aei.org/files/2013/03/21/-shrinking-bureaucracy-overhead-and-infrastructure-why-this-defense-drawdown-must-be-different-for-the-pentagon_083503530347.pdf.

TAXPAYERS AGAINST RUNAWAY MILITARY SPENDING

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Chaos and Uncertainty: The FY 2014 Defense Budget and Beyond

This report by Todd Harrison at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments attempts to forecast the future of the defense budget in a post-sequestration climate. He begins by closely examining every section of the President's FY 2014 budget request, including military personnel funding ($177 billion), operations and maintenance ($177 billion), modernization ($167 billion), and war funding ("Overseas Contingency Operations," $90 billion). In each section, Harrison details where the money is going and adds his own predictions as to whether the total costs will be higher or lower than the requested amount. The report also analyzes prior defense budget cycles; he derives trends and patterns in procurement funding, research & development funding, personnel costs, and many others. He then uses this data to provide adequate context for the 2014 drawdown and to suggest likely scenarios for the direction of the defense budget. Although he predicts that the United States will significantly revise its strategic posture due to the defense budget cuts, Harrison concludes "Given the current turmoil in the overall federal budget, it is impossible to predict with any certainty how or when the current defense drawdown will end." Todd Harrison is the Senior Fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A few key points (emphasis added):

• “The 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance calls for rebalancing to the Asia/Pacific region and maintaining U.S. military presence in the Middle East. This guidance, however, was issued before sequestration went into effect. If history is any indicator, the U.S. military is not likely to emerge from this drawdown with the capacity or capability to both increase its presence in the Asia/Pacific region and maintain its current level of presence in the Middle East. While U.S. forces could still be swung from one theater to another as needed in the event of a conflict, the military may not be able to address successfully two major, overlapping conflicts in different theaters. Moreover, forces engaged in forward presence missions cannot be swung as easily from one theater to another, and yet they can be a key factor in deterring a conflict from occurring in the first place.”

• “… the current budget impasse may not be resolved until the drawdown is

effectively over, at which point many of the critical decisions will have already been made for the Department by incremental reductions that chip away at programs and force structure year-by-year or, worse, by the blunt and indiscriminant mechanism of sequestration.”

• “The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the FY 2015 budget request

are an opportunity for the Defense Department to address the rapidly evolving budgetary and strategic situation. If the Department plans for the reduced budget caps in its FY 2015 request and uses the QDR as an opportunity to revise its strategic guidance according to these more realistic budget constraints, it will give DoD greater say in how cuts are implemented in the future. To be sure, this approach is not without risks. Proposing cuts makes it difficult to also argue against the cuts, and the specific cuts proposed are likely to meet stiff political resistance regardless of how they tie into a broader strategy.”

Harrison, Todd. Chaos and Uncertainty: The FY2014 Defense Budget and Beyond. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. CSBAOnline.org. October 2013. http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2013/10/chaos-and-uncertainty-the-fy-14-defense-budget-and-beyond/.

TAXPAYERS AGAINST RUNAWAY MILITARY SPENDING

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University Defense Spending and the Economy

This report by Robert Barro and Veronique de Rugy at the Mercatus Center attempts to forecast the economic effects of the defense budget cuts. They postulate that a reduction in defense spending would actually end up strengthening the economy. A large collection of empirical and historical evidence, some mentioned below, supports this assertion. The report’s final conclusion is that "the adverse effects on real GDP will be minor even in the short run," and that "in the longer run, when reduced public debt and taxes are factored in, real GDP should be higher than otherwise.” Robert Barro is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University and Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center. A few key points (emphasis added):

• Historically, the report argues, defense-spending drawdowns have not had as severe an effect on the economy as predicted; these claims are "grossly overblown."

• For given taxes and other federal spending, the defense spending cut lowers the

federal deficit. Hence, the public debt is lower than otherwise, and this reduction means that, in the long run, taxes will decrease correspondingly when compared to a benchmark path (if other federal spending does not change).

• "…a dollar increase in federal defense spending results in a less-than-a-dollar

increase in GDP when the spending increase is deficit-financed. Combining this with a tax multiplier that is negative and greater than one, we estimate that over five years each $1 in federal defense-spending cuts will increase private spending by roughly $1.30."

• "…the adverse effects on real GDP will be minor even in the short run…in the longer run, when reduced public debt and taxes are factored in, real GDP should be higher than otherwise."

• From 1987 to 2000, under the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration, the share of defense spending in GDP fell from 7.4 percent of GDP to 3.7 percent. The average growth rate of real GDP over this period was a respectable 3.3 percent per year, despite the 1991 recession.

Barro, Robert, and Veronique De Rugy. Defense Spending and the Economy. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Mercatus.org. May 7, 2013. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Barro_DefenseSpending_v2.pdf.

TAXPAYERS AGAINST RUNAWAY MILITARY SPENDING

Project On Government Oversight Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayers Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors

This report by POGO examines the waste that accompanies the federal use of contractors. They found that "...the government pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform comparable services." Some key reform recommendations provided by the Project On Government Oversight include the following (emphasis added):

1. Congress should pass legislation requiring:

• “All federal agencies awarding service contracts to use service coding systems that are consistent with OPM’s job classification system. These systems should be required for all Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act inventories…”

• “The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to promulgate guidance establishing a uniform set of standards and guidelines for comparing the full lifecycle costs of outsourcing federal services with the costs of having those services performed by federal employees.”

• “Federal agencies to conduct pre-award contract cost analyses to determine whether the use of contractors is less costly and provides enhanced performance over the use of federal employees...”

2. Congress should amend the FAIR Act’s service contracts reporting requirements to include:

• “The occupational classification(s) of the person(s) performing the service.” • “The actual number of all contractor and all subcontractor employees performing the

service by occupational classification.” • “The actual billing rate(s) for each occupational classification of persons performing the

service.”

3. Congress should pass legislation requiring OMB to submit to Congress and make publicly available an annual report on federal service contracts providing the following information and analysis:

• “How much money the federal government spent outsourcing services, broken down by agency and legislative program.”

• “How many contractor and subcontractor employees provided services to the federal government, broken down by agency, legislative program, and occupational category.”

4. Congress should amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. § 1127) to ensure that the maximum benchmark compensation amount applicable to contractor employees shall not exceed the compensation paid to Level I positions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5312 and the Office of Personnel Management’s rates of basic pay for the Executive Schedule.

5. Agencies should:

• “Periodically consider hiring federal employees for short-term projects—existing personnel authorities are very flexible and more than adequate for this purpose.”

• “Place much more emphasis on cost analyses in their decisions to utilize contractors. Cost analyses will provide significantly greater insight into how much contractors should charge for the work to be performed and will serve as a benchmark for project costing, whether performed by contractors or federal employees.”

Bad Business: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors. The Project On Government Oversight. POGO.org. September 13, 2011. http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/igf/bad-business-report-only-2011.pdf.