A Tale of Two Wish Lists

The Pentagon and Congress will have to compete over limited cash.

A U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules delivers supplies by parachute to members of the Zabul Agribusiness Development Team, near Combat Outpost Mizan, in Zabul province, Afghanistan, Dec. 19, 2011. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
March 20, 2014, 1 a.m.

Nobody in Wash­ing­ton is happy with the de­fense budget cuts com­ing next year. But the Pentagon and mem­bers of Con­gress each have their own ideas about how to spend any ex­tra cash.

The Pentagon is hop­ing to min­im­ize the full im­pact of the budget cuts with some ex­tra fin­an­cial pad­ding. It has re­ques­ted a budget of $496 bil­lion for next year — which meets the budget caps Con­gress im­posed — but the Pentagon has also sub­mit­ted a hefty wish list of pro­grams it wants if Con­gress can find an ex­tra $26 bil­lion.

However, not all of law­makers’ pet pro­jects are in the Pentagon’s base budget or even its wish list. Mem­bers of Con­gress are de­cry­ing the Pentagon’s pro­posed cuts to de­fense pro­grams that could cause them polit­ic­al pain in their dis­tricts — and they des­per­ately want to get them fun­ded.

Na­tion­al Journ­al has out­lined some of the key pri­or­it­ies the Pentagon and Con­gress have in their du­el­ing wish lists — and what they would cost.

Of course, this ex­tra cash is fic­tion­al, at least for now. There’s no room in the budget, and Con­gress may not change the law to give the Pentagon more money to spend. If mem­bers in­sist the Pentagon must fund their pri­or­it­ies any­way, the Pentagon would have to in­stead slash oth­er pro­grams in the main budget it con­siders cru­cial.

What’s in Con­gress’s Wish List?

Re­lated story: In De­fense Budget Hun­ger Games, Fights Ahead on Cap­it­ol Hill

Law­makers want to …

Keep the A-10

The Pentagon wants to re­tire the A-10 air­craft fleet to make room in its budget for oth­er air­craft, such as the F-35 fight­er jet. This would save $3.7 bil­lion over five years. (The De­fense De­part­ment could po­ten­tially save an­oth­er $500 mil­lion if a wing-re­place­ment pro­gram is also can­celed.) Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hamp­shire Re­pub­lic­an whose hus­band was an A-10 pi­lot, and sen­at­ors whose states are home to the A-10s, such as Re­pub­lic­ans Saxby Cham­b­liss and Johnny Isak­son of Geor­gia and John Mc­Cain of Ari­zona, have all raised ob­jec­tions. They ar­gue the re­place­ment won’t be ready im­me­di­ately and that the air­craft, which ex­cels at close air-sup­port mis­sions, have been im­port­ant for sav­ing lives in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan.

Re­verse cuts to mil­it­ary pay and be­ne­fits

The Pentagon has been try­ing to rein in its grow­ing per­son­nel costs for a dec­ade, but it has made little pro­gress with a res­ist­ant Con­gress, which views cuts to mil­it­ary troops’ pay and be­ne­fits polit­ic­ally un­pal­at­able. The Pentagon is pro­pos­ing a slew of re­forms that would slash its health care be­ne­fits, cap or freeze pay raises, and re­duce the hous­ing al­low­ance and com­mis­sary be­ne­fits — for a net sav­ings of $11.9 bil­lion over five years. But law­makers led by House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Buck McK­eon are again drag­ging their heels, ar­guing Con­gress should await the res­ults of a com­mis­sion it set up, which is slated to come out with com­pre­hens­ive re­com­mend­a­tions next year to over­haul the mil­it­ary re­tire­ment and com­pens­a­tion sys­tem.

Avoid base clos­ures

The Pentagon is call­ing for an­oth­er round of base clos­ures to be­gin in 2017. The U.S. is re­du­cing the size of its mil­it­ary force as it ends an era of war in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan, and the Pentagon wants to get rid of in­fra­struc­ture it no longer wants or needs. The move is ex­pec­ted to cost $6 bil­lion ini­tially but then save $2 bil­lion each year af­ter­ward. But no law­makers want to see a base close in their dis­tricts. Among those scream­ing bloody murder about how the clos­ures would af­fect jobs and the loc­al eco­nomy are Ayotte and fel­low Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hamp­shire, along with Sens. Richard Blu­menth­al and Chris Murphy and Rep. Joe Court­ney, all Con­necti­c­ut Demo­crats.

Keep the LCS pur­chases in­tact

The Pentagon is scal­ing back its planned buy of Lit­tor­al Com­bat Ships from 52 ships down to 32. The con­tro­ver­sial ves­sel is no­tori­ous for its his­tor­ic delays and cost over­runs, and the Pentagon has com­mis­sioned a force to de­term­ine wheth­er it should build any more, modi­fy them, or sub­sti­tute an­oth­er small sur­face com­batant ship that might be bet­ter. Law­makers like Reps. Brad­ley Byrne, R-Ala., and Re­id Ribble, R-Wis., who rep­res­ent re­gions where jobs are tied to the ships’ build­ing and con­tracts, are lob­by­ing the White House dir­ectly not to cut the or­ders

What’s in the Pentagon’s Wish List?

Re­lated story: The Pentagon’s Up­hill Budget Battles

The Pentagon wants …


The Army wants an ex­tra $1.8 bil­lion to ramp up train­ing in or­der to make sure troops are as pre­pared as pos­sible for mil­it­ary op­er­a­tions.

Apache heli­copters

The Army wants to buy 26 ad­di­tion­al Apache heli­copters, which have been used in the Afgh­anistan and Ir­aq con­flicts. The cost to buy them would be $600 mil­lion.

Po­s­eidon planes

The Pentagon is ask­ing for $1.1 bil­lion to buy eight P-8A Po­s­eidon planes for the Navy. The mari­time war­fare air­craft can be used to hunt sub­mar­ines, to gath­er in­tel­li­gence, or — as they are cur­rently do­ing — to try to find a miss­ing plane.

Reap­er drones

The Air Force wants 12 MQ-9 Reap­ers. These armed, un­manned air­craft are primar­ily used for in­tel­li­gence gath­er­ing, but they are also de­signed for pre­ci­sion strikes. The ad­di­tion­al planes would cost $200 mil­lion.

C-130 air­craft

The Air Force is ask­ing for an ad­di­tion­al $1.1 bil­lion to buy 10 C-130 trans­port air­craft. The plane is fre­quently used for drop­ping troops and sup­plies in­to en­emy ter­rit­ory.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
18 hours ago

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
19 hours ago

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
19 hours ago

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
23 hours ago

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."