Air Force Undersecretary Warns of Risks in Budget Cuts

Turbulent times: Fanning fears budget cuts will impact Air Force readiness.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Jan. 13, 2014, 5:35 p.m.

While Con­gress races to re­verse cuts to vet­er­ans’ be­ne­fits, Eric Fan­ning is fret­ting over where the ax will fall next.

A bi­par­tis­an budget deal brokered by Demo­crat­ic Sen. Patty Mur­ray and Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Paul Ry­an gave the Pentagon some res­pite from its loom­ing budget woes. But the $6 bil­lion cut to mil­it­ary pen­sions has proved polit­ic­ally un­pal­at­able — al­though re­l­at­ively small com­pared with the nearly half-tril­lion-dol­lar re­duc­tion fa­cing the de­part­ment over the dec­ade — leav­ing Fan­ning, the un­der­sec­ret­ary of the Air Force, wor­ried the mil­it­ary will have to hack in­to oth­er im­port­ant pri­or­it­ies, such as train­ing for com­bat op­er­a­tions.

Fan­ning, fresh off a six-month stint as act­ing Air Force sec­ret­ary that ended in Decem­ber, dis­cussed with Na­tion­al Journ­al his budget fears, the situ­ation in Syr­ia, and more. Ed­ited ex­cerpts of the con­ver­sa­tion fol­low.

What’s at stake if Con­gress con­tin­ues to throw up obstacles to re­duc­tions in per­son­nel ac­counts?

The budget is com­ing down, no mat­ter what the budget deal is, from what it was at the height of the two wars. It’s not cut­ting in­di­vidu­al or ag­greg­ate be­ne­fits so much as re­du­cing the growth of them. We laid down a lot of be­ne­fits, and a lot of in­creases, over the last dec­ade, well-de­served by people who were de­ploy­ing. But the tra­ject­ory for that part of the de­fense budget is un­sus­tain­able. It’s in­creas­ingly eat­ing in­to in­vest­ment ac­counts and op­er­a­tion ac­counts. It’s grow­ing faster than in­fla­tion, and it’s go­ing in the op­pos­ite dir­ec­tion of the over­all de­fense budget, so we have to do something to bring that ramp down and slow the growth of those be­ne­fits.

What was the Pentagon’s re­sponse to the budget deal, which re­lieved $31.5 bil­lion in po­ten­tial de­fense se­quester cuts over two years?

It was re­mark­able to me that a bi­par­tis­an group was able to pull that deal to­geth­er. It provided us much needed re­lief. The im­me­di­acy of se­quest­ra­tion was just as dif­fi­cult as the size of the cut. Be­ing able to put some stakes in the ground and start plan­ning around that was great for us. That par­tic­u­lar com­pens­a­tion plan came as a sur­prise to most of us, that they were go­ing to go that way. But I think [there was] re­cog­ni­tion that everything has to be on the table.

What hap­pens if Con­gress con­tin­ues to balk at polit­ic­ally sens­it­ive cuts?

Everything that you try to cut has a con­stitu­ency on the Hill. Not just be­ne­fits. For ex­ample, the Air Force has a tre­mend­ous ex­cess ca­pa­city in bases right now that we have to carry as our budget goes down. Nobody wants to lose a base in his or her dis­trict. Cer­tainly, nobody likes to cut be­ne­fits, or to be seen as cut­ting be­ne­fits. And then the de­fense in­dustry, which is also eco­nom­ic growth and jobs in states and dis­tricts across the coun­try, those have strong con­stitu­en­cies.

If you can’t go after in­fra­struc­ture, your bases, and you can’t go after force struc­ture, the cost of your people, what that leaves is in­vest­ment and op­er­a­tions. So, either you’re not mod­ern­iz­ing, buy­ing the next gen­er­a­tion of weapons, and/or not us­ing them, not train­ing. For the Air Force, that means a lot of your pi­lots are not fly­ing to the level of pro­fi­ciency that you want when you send them in­to harm’s way. The oth­er ser­vices have the same prob­lem.

What tends to suf­fer are those op­er­a­tions ac­counts, the read­i­ness ac­counts. If you have the plans, you have the people, and you have the places to put them in the bases, that checks a lot of boxes in people’s minds. But if we don’t have the money avail­able, and we don’t pro­tect that part of the budget for train­ing, we take on an in­creased risk whenev­er we send our people in any of the ser­vices in harm’s way. But that does have the least act­ive, the least vo­cal, con­stitu­ency. We joke that there’s not a caucus for read­i­ness.

Why do you think that is?

It’s harder to un­der­stand. When people look over the fence line, they see planes, and they see people, and they think the Air Force is fine. For our pi­lots, in this case, to have the high-level pro­fi­ciency that no oth­er coun­try brings to the fight, they have to be train­ing all the time. It’s dif­fer­ent than just know­ing they can take off and land daily. But to have co­ordin­ated cam­paigns in weath­er, at night, in­teg­rat­ing oth­er forces, re­quires con­stant train­ing, [or else] that pro­fi­ciency de­clines rap­idly. But that is the least vis­ible part of the budget un­til we need it.

Can you see tan­gible ef­fects on read­i­ness already?

We saw it this year. We had the rolling ground­ings of a lot of our com­bat Air Forces. When we were talk­ing about con­tin­gen­cies in Syr­ia, the pi­lots we would’ve sent were not fly­ing any­where near the num­ber of hours we need them to fly. We had the money to pro­tect people in the fight, the next ones go­ing in­to the fight in Afgh­anistan, Korean Pen­in­sula, and the nuc­le­ar mis­sion. Oth­er­wise, any­thing for a con­tin­gency, for those people their skill sets were de­teri­or­at­ing rap­idly.

What’s an­oth­er spe­cif­ic con­sequence of se­quest­ra­tion?

Here’s what I don’t think people un­der­stand, that I worry about the most: The im­pact on our people. Se­quest­ra­tion took them away from the mis­sion. Fur­loughs took ci­vil­ians away. A lot of ci­vil­ians talked to me about the im­pact of fur­loughs on their pock­et­book. Far more said to me, “I can’t do what I need to do for the Air Force, what I want to do for the Air Force, in just 32 hours a week.” Same for people in uni­form who wer­en’t train­ing, wer­en’t do­ing what they signed up to do. We don’t know what the long-term ef­fect of that is go­ing to be.

The people in the Air Force are our crown jew­el. We’re lucky to re­cruit them. We’re lucky to re­tain them. And we’ve done everything pos­sible to chase them away in the last year.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×