GovernmentExecutive.com

Top Army officers are clamoring for a larger share of the overall Defense budget in a move that could upset the delicate balance in annual spending allocations to the military services. They want to put their heavily deployed branch on par financially with the larger annual Air Force and Navy spending accounts for the first time since the creation of the Air Force almost 60 years ago.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said Wednesday the service needs $138.8 billion in its base fiscal 2008 budget -- $25 billion more than Pentagon leaders outlined for the Army in budget guidance sent to the services and defense agencies earlier this year.

Army accounts typically comprise 24 percent of the Defense budget, with the technology-heavy Air Force and Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, each receiving about 30 percent. The Bush administration's last budget request bumped up the Army's share only slightly, seeking a 25.5 percent share of fiscal 2007 Defense funds for the service.

For years, Army leaders have shied away from advocating sharp spending increases, fearing that they would spark a budget war among the services. But the hefty price tag on Army modernization and transformation -- coupled with the costs of base closures and relocating troops from Europe to the United States -- have swelled the Army's budget needs, Schoomaker said during a roundtable interview at the Pentagon.

Army spending needs have been further exacerbated by skyrocketing personnel costs and the so-called procurement holiday of the 1990s, which depleted the force and left its equipment stocks $56 billion short by the time war began in Iraq in 2003.

"We're trying to overcome a Cinderella story since the end of the Cold War," Schoomaker said.

Schoomaker cautioned, however, that he does not want to fund the Army at the expense of the other services. The Army is "not interested in getting into other pieces of the budget," he said, adding that the budget process is not like a "competition at a poker table."

But boosting Army accounts -- while keeping other defense spending at the same levels prescribed in the budget guidance -- would require the White House to increase the Defense Department's fiscal 2008 projected top-line figure. The administration already has projected slower rates of growth in annual defense budgets -- an average of 2 percent to 4 percent -- beginning in 2008 through 2011.

Defense sources told CongressDaily this week that the Army is talking directly with Office of Management and Budget officials instead of negotiating its fiscal 2008 budget request with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But Schoomaker would not comment on any discussions with the White House, stating he remains in a "dialogue" with Rumsfeld's office.

Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody likewise said at the Association of the United States Army convention Wednesday that Army officials have had "very, very professional meetings" with Rumsfeld's office and have "laid out what we think the Army costs."

Both Schoomaker and Cody cautioned that the Army cannot pay for current operations at the expense of its technology transformation efforts -- namely the $160 billion Future Combat Systems. But Schoomaker acknowledged that budget constraints might force the Army to slow development on some of the dozens of technologies that comprise the expansive FCS program, the most expensive and ambitious technological endeavor in the Army's history.

COMMENTS

• The other comments hit the nail on the head. During peacetime there would probably be a good case for shutting down bases, but during a time of massive worldwide deployments the Army could use the billions needed to "transform" the infrastructure to better equip and train the current force. It is another example of the administration not being nimble enough to change directions when current situations dictate. The 2005 BRAC could have been delayed, at least until the services (e.g. the Army) had a better idea what the cost of the Global War on Terror would entail. Isn't it strange that the Defense secretary is now allowing the Army to plead its case for more funds directly to Congress when before the 2005 BRAC they were held in check and could only request funding through OSD. Art S. Posted October 12, 2006 2:43 PM
• Robert has a point but I do not think there is enough waste to cover the needs to any significant degree. The problem is that the Defense Department budget process has no capital budgeting process or capital budget. Capital budgets for research and development and weapons development and weapons acquisition should be performed in a separate budget process that covers a long period of time. This is missing across the entire government, not just at the Defense Department. Congress should create a separate organization staffed by competent people with experience in capital budgeting (that excludes almost all existing government employees). The separate organization should build the capital budget for the government with input from the Army and all other government offices and agencies to prepare a capital budget for the entire federal government and Congress should pass an appropriations bill that covers the capital budget at least five years at a time. Projects should be considered by group and not subdivided into small projects. As the president would say - this is really hard - but it absolutely has to be done if we ever are to get a meaningful program of capital investment for this country! Until then we should continue to expect capital budgets to be buried in annual appropriation bills that favor work where congressmen need to get re-elected. Taxpayer Posted October 13, 2006 7:15 AM
• Instead of begging for more funding, maybe the Army should cut out even more waste and un-needed programs. The base closure process was a joke. Instead of using it as an opportunity to cut out the fat, they played politics. A lot more could have be done and they don't need a BRAC to do it. A lot of people need more money for important things like food and medicine, not for building new officers’ clubs. We could always combine the Army and the Air Force and the Marines into a single, more efficient unit. The services seem to have overlapping programs anyway. Quit whining and do something productive. Robert M. Posted October 12, 2006 11:18 AM