Shows & Panels
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- The Big Data Dilemma
- Carrying On with Continuity of Operations
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Cyber Imperative
- Cyber Solutions for 2013 and Beyond
- Expert Voices
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal IT Challenge
- Federal Tech Talk
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- The Real Deal on Digital Government
- The Reality of Continuous Monitoring... Is Your Agency Secure?
- Veterans in Private Sector: Making the Transition
Shows & Panels
Sequestration effects becoming clear for DoD
Monday - 1/28/2013, 5:31am EST
A Pentagon memo earlier this month gave defense components the go-ahead to terminate temporary hires and stop renewing term employees. Ashton Carter, the author of that memo, told Pentagon reporters on Friday that has largely happened. Forty-six thousand temporary workers have already been let go in anticipation of sequestration, a prospect that's been hanging over the government's head for a year and a half, but one that DoD's leadership apparently believes is increasingly likely.
Carter said furlough notices had not yet been issued to the department's 790,000 full-time civil servants, but DoD would have no other option if the department continues for the balance of the year without an approved budget and if sequestration takes effect. The pre-programmed cuts would reduce every program and project's approved spending by roughly 9 percent.
Operation and maintenance next worry for Pentagon
DoD's operation and maintenance accounts are what worry planners most right now. Unlike its procurement and R&D activities, which can continue to function on funds obligated in prior years, O&M dollars generally get spent right away. So to comply with the across the board cuts, DoD has to make cuts right away.
Ashton Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics
Greenert said if sequestration kicks in on top of a full-year continuing resolution, the Navy would face an additional 4 percent shortfall in its O&M accounts.
In the Army, the impacts to O&M would be even more severe, partially because DoD has vowed to shield the overseas contingency operations (OCO) accounts that fund the war in Afghanistan and shift the budget-cutting burden elsewhere. The service acted earlier this month to freeze civilian hiring, fire temporary workers and draw up plans to cancel depot maintenance in the second half of the fiscal year.
"My numbers say the Army's going to have to take 30 percent of base budget O&M out in order to protect their share of OCO, and that 30 percent is going to have to come out essentially in the last four months of the fiscal year," said David Berteau, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Because by the time you lay out furlough notices and defer contracts, you really don't see any fiscal impact until about May or so."
Gordon Adams, a distinguished fellow in the Stimson Center's budgeting for foreign affairs program, said the cuts DoD is making are not surprising, but they are on-target, given the O&M cuts the department's facing.
But Adams told a CSIS forum focused on future DoD strategy and budgets that cutting civilian workforce costs and getting rid of service contractors are emergency responses and easy answers. Chipping away at the size of DoD's O&M spending beyond the immediate fiscal crisis, he said, is going to take a secretary of defense and a deputy secretary who are fiercely committed to finding efficiencies in those broad buckets of spending, which fund everything from fuel to civilian pay to military healthcare to military base landscaping, and much, much more.
Gordon Adams, distinguished fellow, Stimson Center
Under sequestration, military personnel accounts are completely exempt from cuts, and according to Todd Harrison, the senior defense budget fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, that's where DoD faces the biggest budget heartburn, at least over the long-term.
Military services' personnel budgets continue to grow
While O&M spending in DoD has been rising in recent years, it's nothing like the cost growth in the military services' personnel budget. Over the last 10 years, the cost of providing pay and benefits to uniformed service members has outstripped inflation by an average of 4.2 percent each year, Harrison said.
"If we continued allowing our personnel costs to grow at that same rate, by the year 2039, those costs would consume the entire defense budget," he said. "That obviously won't happen, so you've only got a couple other options. One is you reduce your end-strength. If you hold the military personnel share of the budget at 34 percent, where it is now, you have to reduce your end strength by another 82,000 beyond what the military already has planned. The other option is you can reduce the rate of growth in your costs. You only have to reduce the rate of growth to 1.9 percent, and all the reforms that were in the last budget request would have reduced the rate much lower than this. So this can be done."
But it wasn't done by the last Congress, which rejected almost all of DoD's proposals to rein in personnel spending in the final version of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
While thinking about the DoD budget is rather bleak across the defense think tank world given the budget uncertainty this year, problems remain to be faced even if DoD gets its wish and Congress manages to pass a budget and completely cancel sequestration.
Given the natural tendency of cost growth in the Pentagon, DoD is almost certain to exceed the spending caps political leaders agreed to in 2011's budget control act, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"Right now, we're going to need additional programmatic cuts just to comply with the $487 billion in reductions that have happened so far, because we still have a plan, a program and a force structure that's too expensive for the Budget Control Act's spending levels," he said. "We always do. It's nothing the Pentagon's doing wrong, we always have a mismatch between what's in our program and what we can afford based on our projections. Stuff always costs more than we think."