Tag Archives: Sequestration

Center releases 2011-2012 Congressional National Security Scorecard

The Center for Security Policy released today its 2011-2012 Congressional National Security Scorecard for the 112th Congress.  The scorecard– which scores all Representatives and Senators on key national security votes in their respective chambers over the past two years– is available both as a single document [PDF] and as a series of individual online reports focusing on each legislator’s national security votes, grouped by state.

The Center scored a total of 22 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 8 votes in the U.S. Senate.  Topics covered included defense sequestration, nuclear deterrence, terrorist detainee policy, the USA PATRIOT Act, North Korea, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The Center has identified 227 Champions of National Security in the House, and 38 in the Senate, each of whom scored 85% or higher.  Additionally, the Center has identified 149 Lowest Scoring Legislators in the House, and 44 in the Senate, each of whom scored 25% or lower.

The Center’s President and CEO, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., commented:

At a time when threats to the United States are multiplying by the day, this election is enormously consequential for our national security.  It is imperative that the American public be able to assess how our legislators have voted on a range of defense, foreign policy and homeland security matters.    By definition, scorecards look only at issues that were brought to a vote.  While they do not, therefore, reflect other initiatives – on and off Capitol Hill – that also contribute to the totality of a legislator’s views and record, this product is a valuable starting point for understanding and evaluating the role your elected representatives are playing at this critical moment for our national security.

 

DOWNLOAD the Center for Security Policy National Security Scorecard for the 112th Congress (2011-2012) (PDF: 55 pages; size: 870K)

2012 Scorecard

 

 

CHAMPIONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY—U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)* Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Alabama)
Rep. Martha Roby (R-Alabama) Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama)
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas)
Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Arkansas) Rep. Steve Womack (R-Arkansas)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona)* Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona)
Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Arizona) Rep. Dave Schweikert (R-Arizona)
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona)* Rep. Wally Herger (R-California)*
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-California) Rep. Jeff Denham (R-California)
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-California)
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-California) Rep. “Buck” McKeon (R-California)
Rep. David Dreier (R-California) Rep. Jane Harman (D-California)*
Rep. Ed Royce (R-California) Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-California)*
Rep. Gary Miller (R-California) Rep. Ken Calvert (R-California)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-California) Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California)*
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-California) Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colorado) Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colorado)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado) Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Florida) Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Florida)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Florida) Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Florida)
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida) Rep. John Mica (R-Florida)
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Florida) Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida)*
Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Florida) Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Florida) Rep. Connie Mack (R-Florida)
Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida) Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Florida)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida)
Rep. Allen West (R-Florida) Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Florida)
Rep. David Rivera (R-Florida) Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Georgia)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia) Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia)
Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Georgia) Rep. Austin Scott (R-Georgia)
Rep. Tom Graves (R-Georgia) Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia)*
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia)* Rep. John Barrow (D-Georgia)
Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)*
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois)
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) Rep. Bob Dold (R-Illinois)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Illinois)*
Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Illinois) Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois)
Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-Illinois)* Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Illinois)*
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana)
Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana)* Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana)*
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana)* Rep. Larry Buchson (R-Indiana)
Rep. Todd Young (R-Indiana) Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky) Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky)*
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Kentucky) Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Jeff Landry (R-Louisiana)* Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-Louisiana) Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana)
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana)* Rep. Andy Harris (R-Maryland)
Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Michigan) Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan) Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan)
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan)*
Rep. Candice Miller (R-Michigan) Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)*
Rep. John Kline (R-Minnesota) Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minnesota)
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)* Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri)
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Missouri) Rep. Billy Long (R-Missouri)*
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri)
Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Mississippi)* Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Mississippi)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Mississippi) Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Montana)
Rep. Renee Elmers (R-North Carolina) Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) Rep. Sue Myrick (R-North Carolina)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Rep. Rick Berg (R-North Dakota)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Nebraska) Rep. Lee Terry (R-Nebraska)
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Nebraska) Rep. Frank Guinta (R-New Hampshire)
Rep. Charlie Bass (R-New Hampshire) Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Jon Runyan (R-New Jersey) Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-New Jersey) Rep. Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey)
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Rep. Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico)*
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nevada)* Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nevada)
Rep. Pete King (R-New York)* Rep. Bob Turner (R-New York)*
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-New York)* Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-New York)
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-New York) Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)*
Rep. Tom Reed (R-New York) Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Rep. Robert Latta (R-Ohio)
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio)
Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio)*
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio)* Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio)
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) Rep. John Sullivan (R-Oklahoma)*
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma)
Rep. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon)
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania) Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina) Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota) Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)* Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee)
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tennessee) Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas)
Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas)
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas)* Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)*
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) Rep. Francisco Canseco (R-Texas)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) Rep. John Carter (R-Texas)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Virginia)* Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Virginia)
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) Rep. Robert Hurt (R-Virginia)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia)*
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Washington)* Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA)
Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Washington) Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)*
Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisconsin) Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisconsin)
Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia) Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV)
 Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming)*

NOTE: Legislators with an asterisk next to their name, although not present for every scored vote, voted in a manner consistent with national security on 85% or more of the scored votes for which they were present.

 

 

CHAMPIONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY—U.S. SENATE
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
Sen. John Boozman (R-Arkansas) Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) Sen. Michael Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana) Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) Sen. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina)
Sen. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota) Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)* Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)* Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming)*

 

NOTE: Legislators with an asterisk next to their name, although not present for every scored vote, voted in a manner consistent with national security on 85% or more of the scored votes for which they were present.

The Post-Constitutional President

Team Obama insists that next month’s presidential election is “a choice, not a referendum.”  It sure seems to be with respect to the two candidates very different views on the Constitution.  Mitt Romney makes plain at every turn his commitment to that document, while Barack Obama’s conduct in office has marked him as the post-constitutional president.

Consider just a few examples of Mr. Obama’s systematic disregard of, contempt for and/or deviation from a national charter he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend:

  • President Obama has simply refused to uphold federal laws with which he disagrees, including the Defense of Marriage Act and immigration statutes.
  • After confirming that, in the absence of congressional authorization, he lacked the authority to give what amounts to an amnesty to young illegal aliens, President Obama went ahead and declared it by executive fiat.
  • Despite repeated congressional objections to federal purchase of a state prison in Thomson, Illinois to which the Obama administration has sought to relocate jhadists currently held as detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Obama last week authorized its acquisition for $165 million.
  • Ever since it came to office, the Obama administration has sought to accommodate Islamist demands that freedom of expression be curbed, lest it offend Muslims and stoke violence.  For example, in 2009, it co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution along those lines.  In 2011, it launched the so-called “Istanbul Process” to find common ground with proponents of shariah blasphemy laws who seek to strip us of our First Amendment freedoms.
  • And in September 2012, President Obama announced at the United Nations: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” – a stance indistinguishable from that of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and al Qaeda.
  • A particularly ominous example of Mr. Obama’s post-constitutional presidency involves his abdication of his first duty as Commander-in-Chief: to secure the common defense.  Having successfully engineered two rounds of deep defense budget reductions totaling some $800 billion over the next ten years, the President is intent on inflicting a further, devastating half-a-trillion dollar, across-the-board cut pursuant to a process known on Capitol Hill as sequestration.

There is no getting around it:  Cuts of this magnitude are going to result in tremendous disruptions of defense programs and attendant job losses in the associated industries.  A federal law known as the WARN Act requires companies with more than 100 employees to give them notice of potential lay-offs sixty days in advance.  With sequestration due to kick in on January 2, 2013, that means the mandatory warning of potential pink slips to come would arrive just before the November 6th election.

To avoid such a particularly untimely reminder of the president’s dismal stewardship of his economic as well as national security portfolios, in July the Obama Labor Department issued guidance to defense contractors saying that the WARN Act’s requirements would not be enforced.  The pretext given was that, since sequestration’s potential effects on particular contracts had not been specified, there was insufficient basis to know the extent of the impact on employment and, therefore, the statute would not apply.

Of course, one reason the potential effects of sequestration are not known with precision less than three months before they are statutorily required to go into effect is that the Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon not to make any plans for implementing that next round of cuts.  This directive was reaffirmed on September 27th.

Then, Team Obama advised contractors the next day that, as The Hill reported: “They would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration – but only if the contractors follow the Labor [Department] guidance.”  In other words, the administration now wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for violations of the law by those it has induced to engage in them.

Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, respectively of Arizona, South Carolina and New Hampshire, have been among those tirelessly warning for months of the catastrophe sequestration will inflict on the U.S. military.  They issued a joint statement in response to the president’s latest post-constitutional action which said, in part, “The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”  (Detailed estimates of the magnitude of that crisis as it is likely to manifest itself in states, counties, cities and congressional districts across the country can be obtained at www.FortheCommonDefense.org/reports.)

In an important essay published on September 24th in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on legislators to put Mr. Obama on notice: If, as widely expected, he proceeds after the election to yield to Islamist demands that he transfer (presumably to Egypt) or release the lead conspirator in the first World Trade Center attack, Omar Abdul Rahman, it “could be considered the kind of gross betrayal of public trust that would justify removal from high office.”  The same should apply to Mr. Obama’s palpable contempt for the Constitution – something sure to be even more in evidence if he secures reelection and, as he says, “more flexibility” in a second term.

2012 Keeper of the Flame Award: Peter King

KOF2012-PeteKingWashington, D.C.: Amidst a continuing lack of clarity about the nature of the enemy we face in the “War on Terror” and the character of the attacks against us, Representative Peter King of New York provided a characteristically frank, coherent and accurate depiction upon receiving the Center for Security Policy’s 2012 “Keeper of the Flame” award.  During a black tie dinner at Washington’s historic Union Station, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said of the murderous assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012:

For the [executive branch] not to know this was a terrorist attack shows they have no idea what’s going on in the world – or they’re willing to sacrifice American security for the sake of getting through this election so the president can say that he defeated al-Qaeda: ‘There is no al-Qaeda. It was just some pornographic film that set off a massive riot-demonstration-attack which killed four Americans.’ In either event, it’s inexcusable. It’s disgraceful. And the American people should reject it out of hand. And the ambassador to the United Nations should resign for going on television shows spreading those lies and misrepresentations about what happened in Libya.

On the eve of a visit to New York by the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, Rep. King took him to task for his role in the sacking of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo:

What we saw in the last week – when we saw the president of Egypt, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who receives $1.6 billion in aid from the United States of America, refuse to defend the American embassy against mobs; when we saw mobs in Egypt overtake the American embassy, burn our flag, take the flag down, and fly an al Qaeda flag over the American embassy – and that Muslim Brotherhood president continues to get 1.6 billion dollars. And the next day, when the president of the United States goes out to talk about what happened the day before and never even mentions what happened in Egypt, never even mentions that the person he has authorized to receive this aid, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and also the president of Egypt has refused to carry out the most basic obligations of a head of state and a head of government – and that’s to protect foreign embassies in his country.  It’s an absolute disgrace what president Morsi did.  It’s also a disgrace the president of the United States refused to publicly call him on it. That is wrong. It should not be tolerated by the American people.

Chairman King concluded his forceful remarks with an urgent appeal to his countrymen:

We have to stay focused. We have to stay focused on who the enemy is. The enemy is not an amorphous group called ‘terrorists’ or ‘extremists’ or ‘violent extremists.’ The enemy is Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism which is dedicated to destroying our way of life and our civilization. If we don’t identify the enemy, if we don’t know who the enemy is, that enemy is going to end up defeating us. You cannot defeat an enemy unless you know who the enemy is and the enemy is Islamic terrorism.

 

The Center’s Keeper of the Flame Award recognizes those who have, like Congressman King, exhibited an outstanding commitment to freedom for their unstinting efforts to ensure that the instruments of national power are effectively brought to bear to safeguard it.  Past recipients include: President Ronald Reagan, Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, James Schlesinger, and Caspar Weinberger, Senators Jim Inhofe and Joe Lieberman and Generals Richard Myers, Peter Pace, James Jones and James Conway.  (For more on the Keeper of the Flame, see the Center for Security Policy’s events page at www.SecureFreedom.org.)

Rep. King was introduced on this occasion by his colleague, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee’s Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee.  All present were welcomed by Dr. J.P. “Jack” London, Executive Chairman of CACI International and a member of the Center’s Board of Directors. And a “benediction” was provided by one of the Americans most heroically engaged in the counter-terrorism and homeland security challenges of our time: Debra Burlingame, the sister of Captain “Chic” Burlingame, whose plane was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Other highlights of the evening were tributes to and remarks by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona.  The approaching end of his extraordinary service on Capitol Hill was marked by two of those to whom he will be passing the torch – Senators Jeff Session of Alabama and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire – and by the presentation of a second-degree Keeper of the Flame (which he received originally in 1994), dubbed the Oak Leaf Cluster decoration, after the military practice.  The three Senators spoke of the urgent need to address today’s and tomorrow’s national security shortfalls and threats by, among other things, staving off the devastating “sequestration” round of cuts to Pentagon budgets now in the offing.  Sen. Kyl charged his colleagues and the rest of us to make a redoubled effort to assure “peace through strength” in such areas as assuring our nuclear arsenal in the face of the increasing challenge to its deterrent effectiveness posed by Communist China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said of the evening:

It was an extraordinary moment of celebration of and with several of America’s most consequential national security-minded public servants.  We are honored to recognize the innumerable contributions Rep. King and Sen. Kyl have made to the common defense and look forward to working with them in that connection in the future.

 

Remarks by Rep. King

Remarks by Sen. Kyl

Upcoming U.S. Defense Strategy: Weakness, Trembling and Passing the Buck

By Kalen Taylor

Official Washington has begun to focus on the implications of the planned sequestration of funds in January that will result in record cuts in defense spending.  But while the financial impact is grave, attention should be paid as well to the administration’s philosophical approach to defending our national interests, laid out in a January DOD paper entitled “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”

Noting that America must put its “fiscal house” in order, President Obama introduces the paper as America’s solution to a scarcity of resources and growing complexity of challenges.  Written with the budget cuts of FY 2013 in mind (though not sequestration), the guide lays out a framework for a leaner and more nimble military.  The goal, according to the president, is to keep America’s “… Armed Forces the best-trained, best-led, and best-equipped fighting force in history.”  Does the guide produce a better military for less money?  To answer the question, examine the underlying premises of the administration’s strategy.

The basic, pre-sequestration premises are:

  • The U.S. will not be engaged in large-scale ground operations;
  • Smaller, more flexible forces can cover counter-terrorism operations;
  • The U.S. nuclear arsenal can safely be reduced, and nuclear modernization is not an immediate issue;
  • European allies have adequate defense resources to complement those of the U.S.;
  • The U.S. has the resources to “pivot to Asia” without abandoning its responsibilities in the Middle East; and
  • Regardless of the size of the defense budget, the U.S. retains the intellectual and productive capacity to “gin up” whatever is required for unforeseen contingencies.

As the military withdraws from its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the guide postulates a smaller footprint in counter-terrorism, but with a wider reach.  Hostile entities such as al-Qaeda have migrated from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Mali, and elsewhere, escalating what was once a regional conflict to a global level.  Maintaining long-term operations in the areas in which non-state actors such as the Taliban operate will remain troublesome as they shift.  The administration proposes a “recalibration” of American capabilities in pursuit of a more adaptable strategy with a smaller budget.  The U.S. military will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.  This “adaptable” military will in essence, according to the guide, expand the United States’ stabilizing presence by moving smaller and lighter forces from place to place, enabling its allies to better combat these hostile entities.  It’s a sort of macabre game of whack-a-mole.

Anthony Cordesman, a pioneer in defense spending analysis, calls this wishful thinking and “fortune cookie prose.”  What the Pentagon has available to spend to further these goals and the costs associated with operations “providing a stabilizing presence” do not line up.  For instance, the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan may save American resources, but how can anyone maintain that the United States places a “premium” on an American presence in the region while it abandons its allies?  “Abandon” may seem like a strong term, but the U.S. has already canceled the police training program in Iraq that was to have been the centerpiece of continued security.  There are complaints even now in Afghanistan that the Americans are pulling out too quickly for Afghan forces to fill the gaps.  Furthermore, governments in the region rely on American money and equipment as well as training missions as the centerpiece of long-term security.  When budget cuts enter the picture, failures in the very forces that allow America to maintain an indirect “stabilizing” presence could result in doubts about America’s commitment to the region.  The document’s pledge to cut spending and provide stability simultaneously rings hollow in this respect.

With regard to nuclear strategy, the administration postulates, “It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.”  The guide does not elaborate on what constitutes a credible nuclear deterrent.  Where the guide fails to provide details, however, the administration’s actions regarding America’s nuclear arsenal emphasize reductions rather than maintaining a strong deterrent.  Currently, it is estimated that the administration will reduce the arsenal to 1,000 to 1,100 warheads.  (The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START] limits America’s arsenal to 1,550 by 2018.)  Furthermore, the arsenal is outdated, with the newest additions being over twenty years old.  Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation noted that the United States is the only nuclear power without a substantial modernization program.  The Russians and the Chinese take modernization seriously, while the administration has focused its attention on reduction.  If, as the guide posits, one U.S. goal is to lessen the pressure on America’s conventional armed forces and deter aggression, modernization and minimal cuts to the arsenal would make more sense.

Recognizing the difficulties inherent in the budget shortfall, the strategy relies on America’s allies in Europe to aid in the defense of common interests.  The report sees Europe as a “producer” of security rather than a consumer, meaning it can help the U.S. rather than relying on the U.S. for security assistance.  Europe can be, if not equal to America’s military might, a valuable partner in America’s quest to maintain stability in the world, according to the paper.  In light of Europe’s continuing and growing economic difficulties, such assessment would seem an overstatement, to put it mildly.  Defense spending in Europe has been reduced to where contractors located on the continent are desperate to find consumers abroad to unload backlogs.  England’s military, one of America’s staunchest allies in Afghanistan and Iraq, is facing dramatic cutbacks.  Many of America’s allies are unwilling to spend the necessary resources on their own defense, much less help the U.S.  Despite the economic reality, the paper maintains that Europe is filled with some of America’s most “stalwart” and capable allies.  Politically, perhaps, although after coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are wary of new commitments.  As a fighting force, European countries will prove a brittle cane on which to lean in operations abroad.

Renewed focus on Asia also figures prominently in the paper, as it has in the president’s speeches.  Pentagon plans to increase America’s presence in the Pacific would indicate that America is taking potential adversaries such as China seriously.  However, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said defense cuts increase the risk of fielding a smaller force.  This leaves the impression that America will be relying on a strong qualitative edge over its enemies, requiring a significant investment in R&D.  But cuts in the military threaten toundermine R&D programs. Meanwhile, nations such as China increased their defense spending in the past year; in China’s case, it was over 11%.  This year, Asia is expected tosurpass Europe in military spending.  Furthermore, despite the “pivot to Asia,” the United States boosted its naval presence in the Persian Gulf due to the Iranian threat to the Straits of Hormuz.  The reinforcements include two aircraft carriers and their strike groups.  Simultaneously, Iran’s navy grows stronger by the day as it acquires more fast attack boats and anti-ship missiles.  How does the Pentagon plan to boost its presence in Asia while reinforcing its fleet in the Persian Gulf with a smaller budget?

Wishful thinking is not in short supply when it comes to this document, but what stands out in particular is the idea of America’s “regenerative capabilities.”  Found on page six, “DoD will manage the force in ways that protect its ability to regenerate capabilities that might be needed to meet future, unforeseen demands, maintaining intellectual capital and rank structure that could be called upon to expand key elements of the force.”  This amounts to an admission that American capabilities will suffer from budget cuts, but the risk is acceptable because America can regenerate or recreate them.  The defense industrial base — including factory lines, skilled workers, and strategic metals and minerals; a ready supply of soldiers in an all-volunteer force; a cadre of seasoned officers; and basing rights, prepositioning, and alliances will be difficult to “regenerate” in an emergency.

The impression left by the defense guidance is that the administration believes that it can provide a credible defense at home and abroad while spending less, failing to modernize the nuclear arsenal, and reducing our international footprint.  It outsources a variety of foreign responsibilities to overburdened, less capable, or disinterested allies.  It makes no effort to resolve vague and contradictory goals, and it expects that the American people will pull a rabbit out of its hat when the next big crisis comes.

The next big crisis is sequestration.
Originally published at the American Thinker

Center Releases New Reports Detailing Defense Spending By Congressional District

Washington DC August 21, 2012:  The Center for Security Policy has posted new Congressional District Reports on the local economic impacts of the ten-year $500 billion in cuts to the nation’s defense budget under Sequestration.  The reports are free and available online to the public at http://forthecommondefense.org/districts.The Congressional District Reports are a tool to help local officials and businesses prepare for the possible impact of job losses and harm to local communities from the sequestration budget cuts.  The Congressional District Reports provide a 2011 baseline to see how congressional districts may be affected by the planned across-the-board sequestration cuts in the 2013 defense budget.  These sequestration defense budget cuts will be an estimated total of 18% or more when combined with earlier budget cuts.

These Congressional District Reports show 2011 defense contracts for businesses in each congressional district (and bordering zip codes), including the contract dollar amount, contractor business name,  address and phone number, the contractor industry classification, and whether the business is a small or disadvantaged business, woman-owned, minority-owned or veteran-owned.  The Congressional District Reports are provided as a spreadsheet file for each congressional district.  They include contractor businesses in zip codes that are exclusively within the congressional district, as well as businesses in zip codes shared with bordering congressional districts.To build each Congressional District Report, contract information was derived from public data at the Federal Procurement Data System ( https://www.fpds.gov) based on queries from http://www.governmentcontractswon.com, and combined with public zip code data linked to congressional districts.  To view additional reports with 2011 data showing the 18% cuts for all U.S. states and territories, counties and cities, for both the contractor’s primary location and the “place of performance” of the contract work, go tohttp://forthecommondefense.org/reports .

The “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are a project of the Center for Security Policy for the Coalition for the Common Defense, intended to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.

About the Coalition for the Common Defense

The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.

A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online atwww.forthecommondefense.org.

About the Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

Like Shooting Ourselves in the Head The Potential Economic and National Security Implications of Sequestration

Wednesday, June 6th at 2:00pm
 
at
 
 The Reserve Officers Association, Symposium Room
One Constitution Avenue, NE Washington D.C. 20002
 
Speakers
Steven Bucci, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow for Defense and Homeland Security, Heritage Foundation

 

Mackenzie Eaglen
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President and CEO, Center for Security Policy
Captain Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret.)
Director, Legislative and Military Policy, Reserve Officers Association
Robert Zarate
Policy Director, Foreign Policy Initiative


 
This event will also be livestreamed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvsYIHy-2zU
 
In September 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta compared mandated Sequestration defense budget cuts to “shooting ourselves in the head.” On Wednesday, the Center for Security Policy will roll out the new 2011 data for their widely used resource, the “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports.” The reports demonstrate the threat to national security and the economy through summary projections for all states, and online reports that show the potential effects of the 18% Sequestration defense cuts on states, counties, cities, business types (ethnic/minority/women/veteran), congressional districts, and industries.
 
At a recent press conference, Senator Kyl urged Americans “to get a copy of this report to see how it affects the economy and jobs in the country.”  Since the first release with 2010 data in February 2012, the reports have been used by numerous Governors’ offices, over a hundred offices in the House and Senate, major national veterans’ organizations and grassroots organizations, and political campaigns – all concerned about the impact of the mandated 18% Sequestration defense budget cuts on their local economies. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) refusal to pass a budget, and a White House pledge to “veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts,” make the need to assess economic impacts of Sequestration defense cuts greater than ever before.
 
The Center’s “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are part of a broader 2012 initiative, the Coalition for the Common Defense, intended to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.
 
About the Coalition for the Common Defense
 
The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.
 
A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.
 
About the Center for Security Policy
 
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

It Ain’t Necessarily So

Last week, President Obama told the latest graduates of the Air Force Academy that, despite massive cuts in defense spending being made by his administration, “We will maintain our military superiority in all areas – air, land, sea, space and cyber.”

This fits the meme being pushed by Team Obama as the campaign heats up.  It is of a piece with the contention that the President has been so extraordinarily successful a Commander-in-Chief as to be unassailable politically with regard to his stewardship of national security and foreign policy. 

As with his commitment to the newly minted Air Force officers, in the immortalwords of Ira Gershwin, this narrative “ain’t necessarily so.”

Let’s start with the promise of military superiority.  Only someone completely oblivious – or indifferent – to what it takes to achieve and maintain superiority could make such a statement under present, and foreseeable, circumstances.  The fact of the matter is that the nearly $800 billion already excised from the Pentagon budgets over the next ten years have already translated into the evisceration of virtually every military modernization program previously on the books.  Research and development accounts crucial to the next generation of weapons are being similarly savaged.

As a result, we will be lucky to be competitive with future adversaries who are busily upgrading their forces, often in ways specifically designed to counter such  advantages as we do have.  “Superiority” will, in important respects, likely be out of the question.

That is especially true if the defense budget is beset with yet the next $500 billion in cuts ordered by existing statute to start in January 2013.  You might not know this trainwreck is upon us from the lack of disclosure about the impact of such reductions in Defense Department planning documents. [(You can get a sense of the effects, however, from the Center for Security Policy’s “Defense Breakdown Reports” at www.FortheCommonDefense.org).]  The Pentagon understandably worries about disclosing in advance ways in which this magnitude of harm would be accommodated lest a blueprint for making it so be provided.

As of this writing, unless some deus ex machina materializes like in a Greek drama too complicated to be resolved by mere mortals, the armed forces will not be spared from what the Joint Chiefs Chairman has called “catastrophe.”

Sadly, it seems increasingly unlikely that a consensus will be found during a contentious lame-duck session to negate the effects on our national security of the “sequestration” mechanism – a legislative device Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has called a “doomsday machine” since it failed to compel Congress to find other ways of reducing the deficit.  To be sure, leading Republicans, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, have developed means of staving off this debacle for our armed forces.  But neither President Obama nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want any part of them.

Some would have us take comfort in the fact that, even at these reduced spending levels, the United States will expend more on defense than do our potential adversaries combined. Set aside uncertainties about exactly how much the Chinese and Russians are actually investing in amassing new weapons designed to kill Americans.  (For example, does anyone really know what China has spent to build covertly 3,000 miles of hardened underground tunnels in which are concealed heavens only knows how many nuclear missiles?)

As with domestic law enforcement, the outlays involved in preserving the peace always vastly exceed the sums spent by those intent ondisturbing it.  Typically, the more decisively the former is resourced relative to the latter, the more likely it is that hostile parties will be dissuaded from threatening us or our interests.  President Reagan dubbed this axiom “peace through strength.”

The danger is that history teaches that the alternative – the deliberate, systematic and sustained diminishing of our defense capabilities – only invites adversaries, who might otherwise be deterred, to act aggressively.  Unfortunately, the present crop of such adversaries don’t need any encouragement. 

Consider just one example: Russia under Vladimir Putin.  The Kremlin claims it will spend on the order of $700 billion to modernize its nuclear and conventional forces.  At the same time, President Obama is actively considering eliminating up to 80% of our deterrent and ensuring that little, if anything, is done to ensure that the remaining force remains viable, let alone superior, to new generations of Russian nuclear arms. 

Mr. Obama is clearly proceeding under the influence of his favorite general, former Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman James “Hoss” Cartwright, who in a paper released on May 16th proclaimed that he believes we can safely eliminate one leg of our strategic triad and “de-alert” or shelve the weapons that would be left.  Such notions are being promoted in the name of achieving “global zero” – a world without nuclear weapons.  In practice, it will result in a world with many more such arms, including in all the wrong places, as friends and allies alike adjust to a denuclearizing America and the folding of its deterrent “umbrella.”

Last week, one of our nation’s most storied warriors, nonagenarian Major General John Singlaub addressed a Center for Security Policy event in New York City.  He spoke forcefully of the need for leadership and urged all of us to settle for nothing less.  We require the real deal, now more than ever, with respect to our national security.  We literally can accept no substitutes.

How will the 2013 Defense Budget Cuts Affect Americas Economy?

Washington DC February 23, 2012:  Last week, the Obama administration presented its 2013 budget to Congress, with projected defense budget cuts, described by Rep. Howard P “Buck” McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee as “over $45 billion less than the President’s request for last year.”

To assist community leaders and citizens in understanding how these defense budget cuts may affect their local businesses and jobs, the Center for Security Policy launched detailed reports for estimated economic impacts of the defense budget cuts on cities, counties, congressional districts and states at forthecommondefense.org.  These Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will be updated monthly with new data and specific program cut impacts, as Congress debates the proposed 2013 budget.

The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact reports have received media coverage in industry and national publications, as well as local stories in radio, television and print  in Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington DC and many other states.  To view local and national press coverage about the Defense Breakdown reports, click here.

A Summary Report (2 pages) for your state can be downloaded here. Highlights for that report are below.  A non-technical FAQ explaining data sources, methodology and future plans for the Defense Breakdown can be read here.  To compare the national average estimate for your community to the proposed 2013 budget, see the Department of Defense Office of the Comptroller.

The Defense Breakdown Detailed Reports are estimates that show the potential state-wide economic impact of defense budget cuts on cities, counties, congressional districts, minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and other small business categories, organized with over 2,700 “Contractor location” reports.  The additional set of over 26,000 reports released today shows estimated defense spending cut impacts at the “Place of Performance” – a closer measure for potential job losses – for cities, counties and states, with three separate reports for each location: spending by weapon system, by government contracting office, and by products and services.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center, stated:

A weaker national defense threatens the security of the United States and its allies.  Furthermore, to the extent that those in favor of cutting the defense budget argue that such cuts are necessary to strengthen the economy, this report shows the opposite to be true.  Drastic cuts to defense of 9% – and under the “Sequestration” cuts required for 2013, at least 18% – will cause irreversible damage to America’s industrial base and R&D capabilities.

Local employers, citizens and communities will bear the brunt of these cuts.  The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will allow them to prepare for this impact and to enlist their elected officials in mitigating it.

 

Highlights from the National Summary Report

National businesses will not escape the 9% and 18% cuts

  • Public data for 2010 shows American businesses earned over $344 billion supporting America’s defense.
  • But under these 10-year defense cuts of at least 9%, American annual business losses could be greater than $30 billion. American businesses may have to fire workers.
  • And at the “Sequestration” level of at least 18% in defense cuts, American annual business losses could be greater than $61 billion.  Some American businesses may have to shut down.

American Businesses Projected Revenue Reductions Based On National Average

 

The Center’s “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are part of a broader 2012 initiative, the Coalition for the Common Defense, to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.

 

About the Coalition for the Common Defense

The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security. A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at forthecommondefense.org.

 

About the Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

 

 

###

 

 

How will the 2013 Defense Budget Cuts Affect Americas Economy?

Washington DC February 23, 2012:  Last week, the Obama administration presented its 2013 budget to Congress, with projected defense budget cuts, described by Rep. Howard P “Buck” McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee as “over $45 billion less than the President’s request for last year.”

To assist community leaders and citizens in understanding how these defense budget cuts may affect their local businesses and jobs, the Center for Security Policy launched detailed reports for estimated economic impacts of the defense budget cuts on cities, counties, congressional districts and states at forthecommondefense.org.  These Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will be updated monthly with new data and specific program cut impacts, as Congress debates the proposed 2013 budget.

The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact reports have received media coverage in industry and national publications, as well as local stories in radio, television and print  in Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado, Washington DC and many other states.  To view local and national press coverage about the Defense Breakdown reports, click here.

 

A Summary Report (2 pages) for your state can be downloaded here. Highlights for that report are below.  A non-technical FAQ explaining data sources, methodology and future plans for the Defense Breakdown can be read here.  To compare the national average estimate for your community to the proposed 2013 budget, see the Department of Defense Office of the Comptroller.

The Defense Breakdown Detailed Reports are estimates that show the potential state-wide economic impact of defense budget cuts on cities, counties, congressional districts, minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and other small business categories, organized with over 2,700 “Contractor location” reports.  The additional set of over 26,000 reports released today shows estimated defense spending cut impacts at the “Place of Performance” – a closer measure for potential job losses – for cities, counties and states, with three separate reports for each location: spending by weapon system, by government contracting office, and by products and services.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center, stated:

A weaker national defense threatens the security of the United States and its allies.  Furthermore, to the extent that those in favor of cutting the defense budget argue that such cuts are necessary to strengthen the economy, this report shows the opposite to be true.  Drastic cuts to defense of 9% – and under the “Sequestration” cuts required for 2013, at least 18% – will cause irreversible damage to America’s industrial base and R&D capabilities.

Local employers, citizens and communities will bear the brunt of these cuts.  The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will allow them to prepare for this impact and to enlist their elected officials in mitigating it.

 

Highlights from the National Summary Report

National businesses will not escape the 9% and 18% cuts

  • Public data for 2010 shows American businesses earned over $344 billion supporting America’s defense.
  • But under these 10-year defense cuts of at least 9%, American annual business losses could be greater than $30 billion. American businesses may have to fire workers.
  • And at the “Sequestration” level of at least 18% in defense cuts, American annual business losses could be greater than $61 billion.  Some American businesses may have to shut down.

American Businesses Projected Revenue Reductions Based On National Average

 

The Center’s “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are part of a broader 2012 initiative, the Coalition for the Common Defense, to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.

 

About the Coalition for the Common Defense

The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles.  We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security. A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at forthecommondefense.org.

 

About the Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

 

 

###

 

 

Center releases reports on potential economic impacts of proposed defense cuts

The Center for Security Policy is very proud to provide as a member of the Coalition for the Common Defense a tool for American taxpayers and communities – and their elected representatives – to anticipate not only the national security impacts, but the economic ones, arising from impending reductions in U.S. defense spending.

Our goal is to encourage and empower a more informed discussion about the economic impacts, as well as the national security impacts, of the impending defense cuts.  We want to help bring this discussion to the local employers, citizens and community and business leaders who will need to prepare for possible job losses and business failures.

To accomplish this, we have provided summary reports – two pages each – for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, and additional detailed reports for all states and territories.  All reports can be viewed at www.forthecommondefense.org/reports.

 


Center for Security Policy Releases Reports on Potential Economic Impacts of Proposed Defense Cuts
Washington, DC February 1, 2012 – The Center for Security Policy today released their “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports,” a collection of 2,750 online detailed reports and 51 Summary Reports presenting a “National Average” estimated economic impact from projected defense cuts, for cities, counties, states and territories.
The Center launched the reports in advance of the February 13, 2012 release of the Obama administration’s 2013 defense budget.  The purpose of the “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” is to help citizens, local businesses and their employees, and local governments prepare for the economic impact of these probable defense cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the sequestration mechanism.
In 2012, President Obama limited U.S. military capability to fighting one “regional conflict” and one “holding action.” Defense budgets for 2013-2021 were cut $487 billion – a 9% cut at a minimum. “Sequestration,” required by law with passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011, mandates $500 billion more in 2013-2021 defense cuts – an 18% cut, at a minimum.  President Obama has stated he will veto any attempt by Congress to reverse these cuts.
These reports shows how “National Average” defense budget reductions of at least 9% and 18% could affect cities, counties, states, congressional districts and categories of business owners (ethnic, women-owned, veteran-owned etc), using actual 2010 data for revenues received by local defense contractors.  The Defense Breakdown Reports are meant to be used as a benchmark for communities to gauge the actual local economic impact of the Obama administration’s proposed defense cuts on businesses and jobs.
The summaries and online reports are available at: www.forthecommondefense.org/reports.
The Center’s “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are part of a broader 2012 initiative, the Coalition for the Common Defense, to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.
Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy remarked:

“The Center for Security Policy is very proud to provide as a member of the Coalition for the Common Defense a tool for American taxpayers and communities – and their elected representatives – to anticipate not only the national security impacts, but the economic ones, arising from impending reductions in U.S. defense spending.” 

“In so doing, we are mindful that such spending is invested to secure the United States, its people and vital interests, and not as an employment measure.  That said, the reality is that there will be real and, as this product illustrates, in some cases draconian impacts on both jobs in and the economies of states, counties and cities across the country and on the viability of various businesses, as a result of the direct and indirect effects of such cuts.”

“It is our hope that by bringing this information to the local employers, citizens and community and business leaders who will bear the brunt of this tsunami, they will be better able to prepare for it – and, ideally, to help stave it off.”