Industry counts on Democrats to support Defense spending

The defense industry is banking on expectations that Democrats want to avoid looking like softies on military matters -- a notion they hope will translate into continued increases to the Pentagon's budget and a warding off of dramatic cuts in expensive weapons systems.

Maybe it's the wishful thinking of defense lobbyists and analysts, many of whom languished through what some called the "procurement holiday" of the Clinton administration. After all, congressional Democrats are lining up a team of sleuths to uncover contracting waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon.

But many in and around the defense industry are betting that Democrats, wary of the 2008 elections, would never dare cut defense spending while the military is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It's a fine line between providing appropriate oversight and looking weak on defense," said Page Hoeper, the Army's former acquisition chief. "No Democrat is going to want to look weak on defense. They want to look fiscally responsible."

And, perhaps even more pertinent than current conflicts over the Defense Department's futuristic air, land and sea programs, Iran and North Korea continue to loom large as more traditional threats. China, too, is flexing its military muscles, building an increasingly sophisticated arsenal of equipment -- a concern to the Navy in particular.

"It doesn't matter what label anybody has. I think they all want national security for our country," a defense lobbyist said. "That, I think, will be the primary mover. As long as there's a threat, funding will be available to meet that threat."

John Douglass, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, likewise stressed that future threats indicate the military needs to continue its technology transformation efforts. Fortified, "up-armored" Humvees and body armor, a staple for operations in Iraq, aren't the only equipment the military will need in the future.

"It turns out we actually need all of this stuff," said Douglass.

Indeed, Douglass said he has few concerns about short-term pressures on the defense budget, with the military's accounts expected to continue to swell over the next several years. His funding concerns are focused primarily on longer-term programs, such as the Air Force's next-generation bomber, which would not be in the force until at least 2018.

That bodes well for programs like the Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, both already in the works. "I think both of those programs are so far along that the cheapest thing to do is finish them," Douglass said.

Meanwhile, weapons systems often boil down to parochial -- rather than political -- issues. Multibillion-dollar weapons platforms are massive jobs programs in many districts, and members vie to protect them regardless of party affiliation or ideology.

For instance, House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., is one of the Pentagon's most vocal critics. But he represents the Northrop Grumman Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula and will likely go to the mat to protect shipbuilding dollars.

The same is true for Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who defeated three-term GOP Rep. Rob Simmons during a tough election fight in November. Simmons was an ardent advocate for the General Dynamics' Electric Boat business in his district, and Courtney, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, will likely pick up that mantle.

In the same vein, Rep. Joe Sestak, who unseated former Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., based somewhat on the district's mounting concerns about the Iraq war, will continue to push for funding for a sprawling Boeing plant just outside his district that produces the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Army's CH-47 Chinook helicopter.

But the one thing that might put a strain on defense spending -- or, at least, the military's procurement accounts -- is the White House's plan to boost the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years, bringing the Marines to an "end strength" of 202,000 and the Army to 547,000 soldiers.

The plan has widespread congressional support, but increasing end-strength levels comes with a hefty price tag -- one that might surpass $10 billion.

Another defense industry lobbyist, who is not as optimistic about a procurement boon, said he expects the Pentagon to pay for about half of that new personnel bill through increases in the department's budgetary so-called topline. The other half, the lobbyist said, might get paid for out of procurement accounts, often considered the low-hanging fruit in the Pentagon budget.

"I think it's a little bit shortsighted just to come to the conclusion that even if the topline holds or even goes up, that any particular program will ... be supported across the board," the lobbyist said.

Perhaps the biggest unknown is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has been on the job less than a month. Unlike former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, Gates does not have strong ties to -- or even much knowledge of -- the services' technology transformation efforts. Indeed, his focus is Iraq -- not future programs.

"He's the boss and right now his center of focus is solely Iraq," the lobbyist said. "They haven't gotten to the point of being able to look into the future and look at these programs, I don't think."