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 »
STAYING RELEVANT TIL 2020?
Rubio May Run for Reelection After All
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
16 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
17 hours ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
×