SALON

Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 3:00 PM UTC

Military cuts vastly overstated

How the politicians and the press overshot budget cuts by more than $100 billion

By

Topics: ProPublica, U.S. Military, Lindsey Graham, Buck McKeon,

Military cuts vastly overstated(AP/Mike Blake)
This originally appeared on ProPublica.

Anxiety is rising in Washington about the big cuts to military spending slated to go into effect in January unless Congress takes action.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (Benjamin J. Myers/WDCPIX.COM)

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (Benjamin J. Myers/WDCPIX.COM)

Republicans, defense industry executives, and some Democrats are arguing hard against the automatic cuts, which were the result of last summer’s deal to raise the debt ceiling and would also cut nondefense spending equally. Multiple members of Congress have warned that slashing defense spending by $600 billion would devastate the military, with Sen. Lindsey Graham this month predicting the cuts would deal “a death blow to our ability to defend ourselves.”

There’s just one problem: The number they cite is wrong.

The law triggering the cuts does not slash the military budget by $600 billion. That figure — which has also been widely cited in the media — overstates the amount of military cuts by more than $100 billion.

Signed by President Obama last August after the debt ceiling drama, the law actually requires $492 billion in military budget cuts. (The cuts are slated to take place over nine years.)

The oft-repeated higher figure of $600 billion is actually the total in projected deficit reduction that the government would get by cutting $492 billion from the military. The extra $108 billion in projected savings would come via interest payments the government wouldn’t have to make. Since the government would be spending less, it could borrow less and thus save on interest.

“It is downright misleading to say that sequestration will cut defense by $600 billion,” said David Berteau, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Defense Department official. (Sequestration is the term often used in Washington to refer to the cuts.)

“This entire exercise against sequestration is tainted by the intense desire of several parties — from the members of Congress who voted for the bill to the Pentagon that wants to avoid the cuts — to make sequestration seem untenable,” Berteau added.

Both a Congressional Budget Office report and the head of the Office of Management and Budget concur that the proper figure for the cuts is $492 billion, or about $55 billion annually over nine years.

In arguing against the cuts, the $600 billion figure has been cited recently by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., House Aerospace Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney cited the figure last year, and it is also included in a July press release on his website.

Asked about the figure, spokespeople for the politicians offered a range of responses, none offering backing for the higher number.

A spokesperson for Rep. Olson, Melissa Kelly, said that the congressman “just misspoke” and that he was not trying to inflate the figure. “It was an honest mistake,” she said.

The Romney campaign declined to comment. Sen. Graham didn’t respond. A spokesperson for Rep. Gingrey said the figure includes other cuts but declined to offer details.

As for Gov. McDonnell, a close ally of Romney, a spokesperson said “the governor is using widely quoted numbers” from the media and legislators.

Indeed, the inflated figure has been cited as fact in the New York Times, Washington Post, National Journal, Politico, Roll Call, and on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, among others.

Sometimes outlets have also offered conflicting numbers. For example, a June 3 articlein the Times reported that if Congress fails to act to prevent the triggered cuts, a “$600 billion, across-the-board spending cut is to hit the Pentagon.” On June 22, another Times article got it right, referring to “the roughly $492 billion in planned Pentagon cuts” that will start next year, barring congressional action.

To understand the law requiring the cuts and how much money it really cuts from the military budget, let’s turn to the text of the bill, called the Budget Control Act of 2011. Here is the section that governs the cuts — half from defense and half fromnon-defense — that will start in 2013 barring action by Congress.

(OMB stands for Office of Management and Budget.)

The law requires deficit reduction of $984 billion – half from defense and half from nondefense.

Here’s the formula in the bill that gets to that number. It starts with a baseline of $1.2 trillion. That’s the minimum amount in deficit reduction that last year’s so-called congressional supercommittee had to achieve to avoid the triggered cuts. (They did not achieve any deficit reduction.) This is the figure that the incorrect references seem to be based on. But the formula doesn’t end there.

The formula then reduces the $1.2 trillion by 18 percent to account for projected savings because of interest payments the government would avoid. $1.2 trillion minus 18 percent is $984 billion. Half of $984 billion — the military portion of the cuts — is $492 billion.

As it turns out, the inflated $600 billion figure may not be correct even as the amount that the government would save. That’s because those projected savings on interest payments from the defense cut could be a bit smaller than originally estimated.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report in January, several months after the Budget Control Act passed, projecting that the savings from debt service would be just $142 billion. Add that to the $984 billion in required cuts, and the law would save the government $1.13 trillion, not the much-touted $1.2 trillion figure. Since half of the cuts come from the military, the total savings attributed to defense cuts would be about $560 billion. None of this would affect the amount of required military budget cuts.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif. (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif. (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

There’s one other wrinkle here. (Sorry.) House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., a fierce opponent of the impending cuts, has referred to “$500 billion to $600 billion” in cuts. When we asked committee spokesman Claude Chafin where McKeon’s figures came from, Chafin offered an argument separate from the debt service issue.“[T]o achieve that [$492 billon in] savings, cuts will need to be much deeper to accommodate a variety of additional costs,” Chafin said in an email. “These include, but certainly are not limited to the costs of contract renegotiation, contract cancellation penalties, terminating civilian positions and involuntarily separating members of the military.”

In other words, this argument goes, by cutting the military budget the government will incur extra costs that will require still further cuts to achieve the required $492 billion in deficit reduction. Another House Armed Services Committee aide said that there are no specific calculations that led to McKeon’s claim of “$500 billion to $600 billion” in cuts because it’s not yet clear which programs will be cut.

Several military budget experts interviewed by ProPublica were skeptical that any “additional costs” — such as a contract termination fee– could push the total figure up to $600 billion.

Russell Rumbaugh, director of the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense program at the Stimson Center and a former defense analyst on the Senate Budget Committee, says that cuts will likely be structured to avoid penalties or other costs.

“The armed services committee argument is straight spurious,” Rumbaugh said. “It assumes dumb decisions throughout.”

McKeon’s own committee also cites the correct $492 billion figure in a fact sheet on its own website.

Justin Elliott

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More Justin Elliott.

You Might Also Like

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

7 motorist-friendly camping sites

close X
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 9

Sponsored Post

  • White River National Forest via Lower Crystal Lake, Colorado
    For those OK with the mainstream, White River Forest welcomes more than 10 million visitors a year, making it the most-visited recreation forest in the nation. But don’t hate it for being beautiful; it’s got substance, too. The forest boasts 8 wilderness areas, 2,500 miles of trail, 1,900 miles of winding service system roads, and 12 ski resorts (should your snow shredders fit the trunk space). If ice isn’t your thing: take the tire-friendly Flat Tops Trail Scenic Byway — 82 miles connecting the towns of Meeker and Yampa, half of which is unpaved for you road rebels.
    fs.usda.gov/whiteriveryou


    Image credit: Getty

  • Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest via Noontootla Creek, Georgia
    Boasting 10 wildernesses, 430 miles of trail and 1,367 miles of trout-filled stream, this Georgia forest is hailed as a camper’s paradise. Try driving the Ridge and Valley Scenic Byway, which saw Civil War battles fought. If the tall peaks make your engine tremble, opt for the relatively flat Oconee National Forest, which offers smaller hills and an easy trail to the ghost town of Scull Shoals. Scaredy-cats can opt for John’s Mountain Overlook, which leads to twin waterfalls for the sensitive sightseer in you.
    fs.usda.gov/conf


    Image credit: flickr/chattoconeenf

  • Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area via Green Road, Michigan
    The only national forest in Lower Michigan, the Huron-Mainstee spans nearly 1 million acres of public land. Outside the requisite lush habitat for fish and wildlife on display, the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is among the biggest hooks for visitors: offering beach camping with shores pounded by big, cerulean surf. Splash in some rum and you just might think you were in the Caribbean.
    fs.usda.gov/hmnf


    Image credit: umich.edu

  • Canaan Mountain via Backcountry Canaan Loop Road, West Virginia
    A favorite hailed by outdoorsman and author Johnny Molloy as some of the best high-country car camping sites anywhere in the country, you don’t have to go far to get away. Travel 20 miles west of Dolly Sods (among the busiest in the East) to find the Canaan Backcountry (for more quiet and peace). Those willing to leave the car for a bit and foot it would be remiss to neglect day-hiking the White Rim Rocks, Table Rock Overlook, or the rim at Blackwater River Gorge.
    fs.usda.gov/mnf


    Image credit: Getty

  • Mt. Rogers NRA via Hurricane Creek Road, North Carolina
    Most know it as the highest country they’ll see from North Carolina to New Hampshire. What they may not know? Car campers can get the same grand experience for less hassle. Drop the 50-pound backpacks and take the highway to the high country by stopping anywhere on the twisting (hence the name) Hurricane Road for access to a 15-mile loop that boasts the best of the grassy balds. It’s the road less travelled, and the high one, at that.
    fs.usda.gov/gwj


    Image credit: wikipedia.org

  • Long Key State Park via the Overseas Highway, Florida
    Hiking can get old; sometimes you’d rather paddle. For a weekend getaway of the coastal variety and quieter version of the Florida Keys that’s no less luxe, stick your head in the sand (and ocean, if snorkeling’s your thing) at any of Long Key’s 60 sites. Canoes and kayaks are aplenty, as are the hot showers and electric power source amenities. Think of it as the getaway from the typical getaway.
    floridastateparks.org/longkey/default.cfm


    Image credit: floridastateparks.org

  • Grand Canyon National Park via Crazy Jug Point, Arizona
    You didn’t think we’d neglect one of the world’s most famous national parks, did you? Nor would we dare lead you astray with one of the busiest parts of the park. With the Colorado River still within view of this cliff-edge site, Crazy Jug is a carside camper’s refuge from the troops of tourists. Find easy access to the Bill Hall Trail less than a mile from camp, and descend to get a peek at the volcanic Mt. Trumbull. (Fear not: It’s about as active as your typical lazy Sunday in front of the tube, if not more peaceful.)
    fs.usda.gov/kaibab


    Image credit: flickr/Irish Typepad

  • As the go-to (weekend) getaway car for fiscally conscious field trips with friends, the 2013 MINI Convertible is your campground racer of choice, allowing you and up to three of your co-pilots to take in all the beauty of nature high and low. And with a fuel efficiency that won’t leave you in the latter, you won’t have to worry about being left stranded (or awkwardly asking to go halfsies on gas expenses).


    Image credit: miniusa.com

  • Recent Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • Thumbnails
  • Fullscreen
  • 1 of 9

Related Videos

Comments

 26 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>

follow salon

Most Read

Popular on Reddit

links from salon.com

From Around the Web

Presented by Scribol
listener_new_rect The Listener: "The Joker": Laughing at life's deepest sorrows