GovernmentExecutive.com

Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed concerns Wednesday that he is leaving the next administration with projected decreases in defense spending after years of historic growth in the Pentagon's budget.

On Monday, President Bush requested $515.4 billion for the Defense Department for fiscal 2009, marking a 5.5 percent increase over fiscal 2008 and nearly a 74 percent increase in defense spending during the course of his administration.

"There is no question it is a huge amount of money," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday afternoon.

On top of the base budget, the administration wants $70 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a figure that could grow to $170 billion, Gates estimated earlier in the day. Gates also said he had "no confidence" in that figure. Combined with the war funding, the fiscal 2009 budget could become the largest defense budget, in real terms, since the end of World War II.

Gates, widely perceived on Capitol Hill to be more upfront and candid than his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, warned that real growth in the Defense Department's base budget would soon plateau.

"I think we need to leave [the next administration] a budget that we have put together that sets some markers in terms of what needs to be done," Gates said. "Going forward, we should not leave the next administration a budget that has negative growth in the Defense Department and I think we're going to have to address some of those issues."

Several analysts and lawmakers have criticized the fiscal 2009 budget request for putting off difficult decisions on military spending until a new administration takes over next year. Questions abound about the affordability and the future of the military's bulging arsenal of current and planned weapons systems, such as the Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems, amid rising domestic costs and a growing budget deficit.

Indeed, the Pentagon's latest long-term funding plans cut defense spending by about 1.5 percent between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2013, according to an analysis released this week by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

"Whether the current buildup will, in fact, soon end will depend on the decisions of the next administration and Congress," the analysis states. "Given the need to address the long-term problem of increasing federal deficits -- driven largely by the retirement of the baby boomer generation and, especially, continued growth in healthcare costs -- there is good reason to believe that a future administration and Congress will, indeed, move in this direction." House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and other committee Republicans had called for significantly larger annual defense budgets to ensure the military has the training and equipment it needs to combat a wide range of potential threats.

Hunter has long warned about China's growing military investment, argued that the Air Force and Navy each need an additional $20 billion annually.

Shortly before the hearing, Hunter told reporters that he was concerned that because of the current focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, "the rise of China as a military power is not taken into consideration."

Hunter said he would like to see more funding to address the threat of China's rapid growth in submarines, in modern fighters and in space capabilities. "I would like to see a response to that challenge," he said.

He said, for example, that he was more interested in increased capability for long-range strike, such as a new bomber, than in more F-22 Raptor fighter jets being fielded by the Air Force.

COMMENTS

• In an era where unconventional warfare is seen on the current front and well into the future and the prospects of a major confrontation in the conventional sense small, the expansion of the air wing and large conventional pieces seems short sighted. When the current tanks, ships, and planes are the best in theater now and into the future to any forseeable foe, retiring a superior $60 million plane for a futuristic $200 million dollar plane is rediculous! When the US spends more on defense than the next several dozen contries combined and our budget deficit is getting out of control, a sanity check needs to be done to grow the force with special forces and boots on the ground while replacing the current worn out inventory and skip a generation of weapons systems while we catch our breath. China has become the new scare tactic. We need to remember President Eisenhower's warning on the military industrial complex shouldn't be directing our requirements. I'm the biggest hawk you will find anywhere, but when you look at incremental improvements to planes like the Super Hornet or other mature weapons systems and wonder who in the world can beat what we have only to be told we have to have this other newer widget at triple the cost but only marginally better performance, I question who should believe these 'snake oil salesmen'. I'm not suggesting we keep systems like the B-52 for 50 years, but as much as we rebuild air frames and fighting vehicles back to original specifications, I don't consider retiring something with the claim that it is "30-years old" when the air rework facilities put out virtually a new aircraft. Remember the Air Force wanted to retire the A-10 before the first Gulf War. Makes you wonder if their focus isn't really on newer toys and how to justify them as opposed to giving a truthful answer that what they have is already the "best in the world"! Heck, if it were me, I would put the battleships back in service with new GE gas turbine propulsion systems and sleeve the 16-inch guns down to 12-inch modern ammo and give the Marines something that can actually support a landing larger than a 5-inch gun and a cruise missle and get some use out of them. Russ Posted February 8, 2008 12:44 PM
• This is unfortunately the norm, during Carter the budget was reduced to the point traing was left unfunded and the military was a hollow shell, then we had Clinton and again the same result. The military needs dependable sustained funding dan ketter Posted February 8, 2008 12:07 PM
• Why should we believe this latest reassurance from the Secretary of Defense? Time after time, Congress has been given a much lower budget request by Defense, only to have it balloon into a much higher dollar amount. Our tax dollars are being being thrown into the "black hole" of increased Defense Department spending, mostly for two unwinnable "wars," which, by the way, were NOT declared by Congress, as stated in our Constitution. Our only hope is that the next Administration won't have its "head in the sand" like the current one, and will unite with Congress to get a lot more real work done. Some of the most important work to be done: both sides of the aisle in Congress need to work effectively and efficiently getting our precious troops out of harm's way and back home to their families, balancing the budget in a responsible way, and making sure all our citizens have access to affordable medical care, even those who can't pay for it. Right now, it seems that the well-being and economic security of the American people are taking a back seat to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and so-called U.S. security. Is this what we envisioned when we voted in the last 2 Presidential elections? Kate Posted February 8, 2008 8:41 AM