President-elect Donald Trump has promised to build up our armed forces, reduce the deficit, and cut taxes. But how? While I’m on R & R, guest columnist Ken Gold takes a crack at that question.

During the presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump repeatedly called for a major defense buildup, while at the same time reducing the deficit (and cutting taxes). Among his initiatives he pledged to increase the end strength of the Army as well as the number of ships in the Navy, and pay for the increased spending by cutting Pentagon waste, fraud and abuse. Outside analysts have estimated the price tag for his defense increases at $55 billion to $80 billion a year over current planned spending.

Even absent the President-elect’s proposed increases, defense spending is already facing major challenges in funding current defense plans. Current Pentagon plans, which include a smaller Army and fewer ships, are already facing a “procurement gap” of major proportions, and a “bow wave” in procurement spending in the next decade as these systems reach their peak funding requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the procurement gap under current defense plans to be as much as $20 billion to $30 billion a year.

Both defense and non-defense discretionary spending is currently limited by caps set in place by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). The fact that the BCA was intended to govern discretionary spending for 10 years has not in any way eliminated ongoing spending debate in Congress.

        Learn how DLA, GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service and the State Department are modernizing their contract and acquisition processes to make procurement an all-around better experience for everyone involved.

Defense hawks, who are mostly Republican, want to raise the defense caps but not the non-defense caps. Most Democrats, including President Barack Obama, haven’t opposed raising the defense caps, but have sought equal raises for non-defense caps. Deficit hawks, who are mostly Republican, and who represent the overwhelming majority of the House Freedom Caucus, want to maintain the original caps and the sequester from the 2011 BCA, or even reduce them below those levels.

Although Congress just passed another continuing resolution (CR) that extends funding through April, differences over discretionary spending, especially over the level of defense spending, will almost certainly reemerge in the spring. We don’t yet know what the incoming President’s budget proposal will look like; nor do we know what the FY18 congressional budget resolution will look like.

A year ago these fundamental differences on discretionary spending nearly led to a government shutdown. Whether or not President-elect Trump actually includes in his first budget proposals to increase the size of the military, differences over discretionary spending priorities in Congress will remain.

Overriding the debate on defense versus non-defense spending are two larger issues. First, there doesn’t appear to be a clear answer as to how to narrow the gap between current defense plans, especially for procurement, and the dollars that are likely to be available for defense over the next decade and beyond.

Second, even if defense hawks somehow prevail in the short term, the discretionary portion of the federal budget will continue to decline as mandatory spending, including interest on the federal debt continues to increase. Over the last 15 years, discretionary spending has gone from 36 percent to 26 percent of spending. CBO projects that we are on track to add an additional $9 trillion to the $19 trillion national debt over the next decade. Without a massive influx of revenue, it seems unlikely that we will be able to increase any form of discretionary spending, including defense.

Ken Gold is the Director of the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. He can be reached at gai@georgetown.edu.

Nearly Useless Factoid

By Michael O’Connell

According to Mars Incorporated, each 7-ounce bag of M&M’s candies contains approximately 210 candies.

Source: Reference.com

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.