Voice

26 Days Later

On March 27, the sequester will rise from the dead.

Just one more day of garment-rending, teeth-gnashing, and hair-tearing at the Pentagon, and then...well, then the Department of Defense has to get cracking before the roof really caves in on March 27.

Oh, you thought the fight was about March 1 and sequester? Not half likely, as the Brits would say. The real game has always been about March 27, when the continuing resolution, which has funded the government for the last five months, expires. That's when the government shuts down or, if it doesn't, when we find out how much money the Pentagon really has to spend this year.

Sequester is happening. While the White House continues its theater and the president goes on the road, realism has set in about this show -- even among congressional Republicans. When House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon is ready to fold his cards after nearly two years of non-stop campaigning to "save defense," you know the fat lady has sung on the March 1 deadline: "Republicans aren't cookie cutters, but we do agree on the basic premise of where we're trying to go. And if we don't get our fiscal house in order, it's very hard to provide for the defense of the nation."

Now it's time to get on with the business of managing the defense drawdown, starting with the walk over the next hurdle. The real deadline has always been March 27. Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter effectively conceded this point on January 10, when he instructed the military services to start planning for cuts not only because of the impending sequester, but also because of the continuing resolution, which kept FY 2013 discretionary spending (including defense) at the FY 2012 level, pending passage of an actual appropriations bill.

Planning was particularly critical for what is called the operations and maintenance, or O&M, account. The O&M budget -- which makes up over 40 percent of the Pentagon's total budget -- covers everything from the costs of sailing ships, to driving tanks, to flying planes, to maintaining bases, fixing equipment, training and educating the force, to, especially, the salaries of the 800,000 civilians who work for DOD. It is particularly vulnerable to sequester because other large Pentagon expenses will not be cut through sequestration. Military personnel and their benefits (including retirees) are exempt under the law, and dollars already obligated to contracts shield contractors from the near-term impact of sequester.

What's more, DOD had actually wanted to grow the O&M account, asking for a 6 percent increase when it submitted its FY 2013 budget request. And, adding insult to injury, during the first quarter of this fiscal year, the Pentagon actually spent its operations and maintenance funding at the higher rate it had requested -- not the FY 2012 level funded in the continuing resolution. "Silly us," Deputy Secretary Carter said of that mistake. That's why March 27 represents a real reckoning point for the Pentagon.

So the questions are: Will Congress negotiate a final appropriation for FY 2013, or just extend the continuing resolution through the rest of the fiscal year, leaving the Pentagon (and other agencies) at the FY 2012 level of funding (and still subject to sequester)? Or will there be an actual appropriation for the military, setting a final level above the continuing resolution (also still subject to sequester)?

Whatever the new level for the defense budget after March 27 (it is likely to be less than what the administration asked for), it sets a new baseline for the sequester itself. Then the question is, will Congress use the occasion of passing a new CR or an appropriations bill to "fix" the sequester? Will the bill be used to give the Pentagon greater flexibility to implement the sequester or change the allocation of dollars inside the defense budget to make the implementation of the sequester "easier" in some way? Will it change the caps set out in the Budget Control Act, so the sequester is reduced, or not needed altogether?

If this sounds complicated, it is because it is complicated -- very complicated. Congress cannot just appropriate more money to Defense and "fix" the sequester that way. Doing so would just set a new baseline from which sequester would take place. So to "fix" the sequester, they have to do something about the caps set in the Budget Control Act, which put the whole train wreck in motion.

And trying to fix it in an appropriations act is even more complicated. I was talking this through with Richard Kogan at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the best informed people in Washington on this issue. It seems that if Congress tries to add money to Defense but doesn't want those funds to create a new target for the sequester, they would have to ask, specifically, that those additional funds not be "scored" against the sequester target -- a fancy way of saying, these monies just don't count. If they try to cancel part of the sequestration, they would have to say the cancellation doesn't count.

Either way -- in fact, almost any way the Congress tries to use the appropriations act to fix sequester or make it easier, including greater flexibility -- would encounter the reality that they are messing with the basic congressional budget statute and process. Meaning that the jurisdiction for these changes belongs not to the appropriators, but to the budget committees.

And if the budget committees do not sign off on the changes, they are subject to what is called a "point of order" in the House and the Senate. Meaning that the House might not be able to consider them, and one member of the Senate can stop the process. Imagine Senator Rand Paul or Tom Coburn saying, this will not stand; I prefer sequester. Then the Senate would need 60 votes for the changes in order to overcome the sequester.

I told you it was complicated. It makes it sound like a deal at the end of March is going to be almost impossible, given the current atmosphere. If sequester doesn't kill you, the appropriations and budget process will. And if you don't get agreement in the maze of requirements and provisions I just described, you could get a continuing resolution that goes through September, plus a sequester, or maybe even the cherry on top -- a government shut-down.

It's going to take a lot of good will to climb this mountain, something that is in noticeably short supply in Washington right now. Just take flexibility about how to enact the cuts: The administration says it doesn't want it and it won't help, because everything gets hit anyway, particularly operations at DOD. And if the administration has it, they have to make choices, choices that could get them in trouble with members of Congress whose oxen are gored. Congress is uneasy about it for the same reason -- it gives the administration too much freedom of action. Members of Congress hate that, especially appropriators. Furthermore, flexibility will only be politically possible if every agency gets it; otherwise, a defense-only flexibility bill is unlikely to make it through the Senate.

It's going to take some very heavy lifting to fix sequester, and even more lifting to get an appropriation. Even thinking about it gives Members of Congress (and analysts) a headache. The bottom line is that the defense bottom line is coming down, and the only question is how fast and how far.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

National Security

War by PowerPoint

Is the White House using the Pentagon to fight the GOP?

Fourteen years ago, George Wilson, a long-time defense journalist, wrote a great book on defense politics called This War Really Matters. Wilson was not talking about the Balkans, or Rwanda, or Iraq. He was talking about the war the services really care about: the one over their budgets.

He must be enjoying himself today. Although that war went quiet for the last three months, it has been renewed in earnest in the last two weeks as President Obama appears to have given the military permission to bombard Congress with the worst set of horror stories we have heard about our national security since the Soviets got the bomb, in the hopes of scaring them into making a deal on sequestration.

On Wednesday, Secretary Panetta kicked his rhetoric up a notch, warning of dire consequences for military readiness if sequestration were to happen on March 1. More importantly, for the last 10 days or so, the military services have been allowed to fire their briefing charts at will (like this one, for example). A blizzard of terrifying data is now raining down on an unsuspecting Congress, like an artillery barrage of PowerPoint, to force the GOP to retreat to the negotiating table.

If you don't think that's what this battle is about, consider that the White House, I am told, is giving no close scrutiny, no wire-brush scrub, to the services' readiness briefing charts that are being so enthusiastically spread around the Hill and the media. Check out the silence in non-defense agencies, all of which are either allowing or being asked to allow, DOD to take on point in the budget wars. They haven't got the firepower the Pentagon has.

Nobody has time to give each of its shells the close and critical scrutiny they deserve. But as scary as they may be, their connection to reality -- and to math -- remains tenuous.

One says that readiness in Afghanistan is at stake if the Army doesn't get an additional $6 billion for operational funding. How did the Army discover a new $6 billion requirement when congressional appropriators have found an equivalent amount of under-spending in the same war during each of the last two years -- money to which the Army has helped itself in order to fund other pet projects?

Another puts military pay on the block next year because there is budget uncertainty this year. How can it be that military personnel next year will get a raise lower than the rate of inflation because we have to conserve resources, but we don't talk about the growth in warriors' allowances (housing and subsistence), which make up nearly half a soldier's income and will increase beyond the rate of inflation? That latter increase will make up for the smaller-than-usual pay raise, but we didn't hear about it -- presumably to prompt the ground forces into the budget battle.

Some of the shelling is coming ahead of schedule. How is it that the military services envision dire options of every imaginable kind, but provide no analysis of what they decided to protect, especially the Army's sizable bureaucracy. What budget numbers are being protected by these draconian cuts? Why have the services' briefing charts been distributed and leaked all over Washington when the sequester options reports weren't due to the secretary until Friday?

And some of the firing is indiscriminate, even "friendly fire." How did it happen, as the secretary himself said at Georgetown, that the Pentagon has been merrily spending on operations for the past four months "on the hope that the 2013 appropriations bill will be passed" at the higher level the administration had requested? On the hope? Didn't they notice that the defense budget has already gone down 10 percent in real dollars since fiscal year 2010? Defense just happens to have been a big item in the larger conflict over the federal budget for a couple of years. Has Panetta been living under a rock? "Silly us," the secretary said. Yes, indeed.

It has been blindingly clear for a year that sequester, if it happens -- it probably will and it will probably be fixed retroactively with deeper cuts to defense than the current budget projects -- will impact the operational accounts more than anything else. Not hardware contracts, not military personnel (whose pay and benefits are exempt). And it is clear that operations is where the "bloat" that Chuck Hagel has famously spoken about is located. It's time to manage that problem, sequester or not.

Remember, we spend more on defense than any other nation on Earth and more than most all other nations combined. Each service's budget is bigger than the entire military budgets of any other country. Even the smallish Marines and Special Operations Forces are bigger, each, than the militaries of most countries. We are overwhelmingly superior in every aspect of the military arts. And we overspend on defense because we do not control hardware costs, because we have the biggest (proportionally) "back office" of any major military, and because our military benefits continue to expand.

We have been fighting this Pentagon budget war, battle by repetitive battle, for more than two years now, with the same shots fired over and over. For more than a year, Secretary Panetta has been saying he had to cut $487 billion out of the defense budget, without ever noting that this was a reduction in the projected growth in the defense budget -- not a budget cut.

Every month, a Pentagon spokesperson says, "We get it wrong every time we do a defense drawdown and hollow out the force" when it is untrue. Only the drawdown of the 1970s caused severe readiness problems. The one Secretary Panetta (and I) participated in -- the 1990s drawdown -- left behind a dominant, global military force that performed just fine in 2003 in Iraq. And it cost half as much as the current force.

But repetition overwhelms the facts, and a barrage of data bewilders the adversary.

Now we are at sequester Gettysburg, and the Obama administration has rolled out the big guns. Only the Department of Overwhelming Force can run a domestic budget campaign. And it is aimed at the real enemy: the Republicans in the House and Senate. Most of Panetta's speech targeted Congress: Whose fault will it be if the United States suddenly has to withdraw its forces from the world because the GOP won't negotiate?

The endgame is to get the Republicans to the table -- a Republican Party that is divided on the defense issue and clearly motivated to get domestic spending down. The services are doing their best to terrify the Republicans into cutting a deal, and the administration is giving them free rein to make their case by any argument necessary, no matter how exaggerated. Like the bard said, "our revels now are over"; we have come to the crunch point. It is not about readiness abroad, it is about the readiness to deal at home.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images