Top HASC Democrat: Don’t Bet on Sequestration Going Away

But the Pentagon budget starting in fiscal 2016 breaks the congressional spending caps.

<p>The Air Force's A-10 fleet is being retired under the fiscal year 2015 budget request.</p>
National Journal
Jordain Carney
March 3, 2014, 9:57 a.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is sub­mit­ting a five-year budget that largely ig­nores se­quester budget caps, but the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber said the lower spend­ing levels are likely here to stay.

“I think if you had to bet, you would bet that se­quest­ra­tion is go­ing to stick around,” said Wash­ing­ton Demo­crat Adam Smith, adding that lead­er­ship doesn’t have the votes to undo the budget caps.

Smith and Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Randy For­bes of Vir­gin­ia, a con­tender for the HASC chair, ap­peared on De­fense News, which aired Sunday.

The Pentagon’s fisc­al 2015 budget and five-year budget plan are be­ing re­leased Tues­day. The five-year plan is ex­pec­ted to break con­gres­sion­al budget caps by $115 bil­lion. And though De­fense De­part­ment of­fi­cials said they cre­ated a five-year plan that sticks to se­quester-level spend­ing re­quire­ments, the full plan isn’t ex­pec­ted to be re­leased to Con­gress.

And For­bes, who voted against the 2011 Budget Con­trol Act, shif­ted the blame for the cuts away from Con­gress, say­ing, “It’s the fifth year in a row they’ve rolled out cuts from this ad­min­is­tra­tion.”

“This ad­min­is­tra­tion, when they first star­ted down this cut road “¦ when Sec­ret­ary Gates came out with these ef­fi­cien­cies, Con­gress wasn’t man­dat­ing that,” For­bes said.

In 2010, Gates out­lined ap­prox­im­ately $100 bil­lion in Pentagon sav­ings over five years. In the same year, the Sus­tain­able De­fense Task Force, which was called for by then-Rep. Barney Frank, iden­ti­fied ap­prox­im­ately $960 bil­lion in sav­ings that could be made over 10 years.

For­bes ad­ded that he be­lieves the cur­rent cuts are the “wrong dir­ec­tion” and mem­bers should “be very care­ful” when mak­ing de­cisions about the fisc­al 2015 budget.

But the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s budget for the up­com­ing fisc­al year sticks to the spend­ing caps Con­gress passed after the Decem­ber budget agree­ment. And Smith said Con­gress won’t raise the ap­prox­im­ately $496 bil­lion baseline spend­ing cap.

To stay with­in the caps, De­fense of­fi­cials are pro­pos­ing a wide ar­ray of cuts, many of which will face an up­hill fight on the Hill.

“At this point, you’ve seen op­pos­i­tion to just about every cut”¦. The bet­ter ques­tion is which of these cuts is go­ing to get con­gres­sion­al sup­port,” Smith said, adding that he is in fa­vor of many of the cuts — in­clud­ing BRAC, which most op­pose.

De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel pre­viewed the Pentagon’s soon-to-be-re­leased budget re­quest last week, with top of­fi­cials ap­pear­ing across Wash­ing­ton to try to get out ahead of Con­gress and shape the nar­rat­ive of what will likely be a con­ten­tious budget battle over a re­quest that in­cludes base clos­ures, a push to get rid of the A-10, and re­ques­ted changes to pay and health care.

For­bes and Smith agreed that the per­son­nel cuts face an al­most im­possible con­gres­sion­al cli­mate, with Smith not­ing that mem­bers went “bal­list­ic” over a re­cent 1 per­cent de­crease in the cost-of-liv­ing ad­just­ment for work­ing-age mil­it­ary re­tir­ees.

For­bes com­pared try­ing to make changes to the grow­ing mil­it­ary per­son­nel costs be­fore the Mil­it­ary Com­pens­a­tion and Re­tire­ment Mod­ern­iz­a­tion Com­mis­sion re­leases its re­port, to a “sur­geon say­ing we’re go­ing to op­er­ate be­fore we get all your tests back.” But the com­mis­sion’s re­port isn’t sched­uled to be giv­en to Con­gress un­til 2015, well after the Oct. 1 start date of the 2015 fisc­al year.

But the Pentagon could get a budget boost, with of­fi­cials bring­ing back the “wish list” of un­fun­ded pri­or­it­ies. For­bes blamed the ad­min­is­tra­tion for shut­ting down the list un­der Gates.

“I think it’s im­port­ant we have that. We need to know what they need and what we didn’t fund,” For­bes said.

What We're Following See More »
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
2 days ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
1 days ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
IT’S ALL ABOUT SECOND PLACE
CNN Calls the Primary for Sanders and Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

Well that didn’t take long. CNN has already declared Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the winners of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the rest of the candidates to fight for the scraps. Five minutes later, the Associated Press echoed CNN’s call.

Source:
×