Paul Ryan on Defense budget: Generals aren't giving us their "true advice"

CBS

Military leaders have told Congress that their proposed 2013 budget strikes the right balance between reining in costs and sufficiently supporting defense efforts, but a leading House Republican said Thursday he's skeptical Pentagon officials are being sincere.

"We don't think the generals are giving us their true advice," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said at an event in Washington. He blamed the cuts in President Obama's 2013 budget for compelling the Pentagon to create "a budget-driven strategy, not a strategy-driven budget."

Ryan's remarks came on the same day the House was set to pass a bill that would challenge the president's Pentagon budget -- and as other Republicans decried further Pentagon cuts looming on the horizon.

The Defense Department's proposed 2013 budget is $525 billion -- 2.5 percent less than this year's budget. The budget proposal is smaller next year since the Pentagon is expected to make $487 billion in cuts over the next five years because of the debt deal Mr. Obama made with Congress last summer. That change is reflected in Mr. Obama's budget, but Ryan's proposed 2013 budget -- poised to pass in the GOP-led House today -- would replace $214 billion of that.

"Let's not forget we're at war, we're stretching our Guard and reserves," Ryan said. "We have a dangerous planet. We don't want to have a budget-driven strategy which hollows out defense."

He added that his budget does apply "enough pressure on the Pentagon to get rid of waste and inefficiencies."

Mr. Obama and Pentagon officials unveiled their new defense strategy in January -- before the budget was released -- but Ryan maintained that Pentagon officials will have to downsize their goals under the current budget.

"They think they need a 313-ship Navy. They're not going to come anywhere close to that in this budget," Ryan said. "The equipment that is atrophying -- the replacement they're pushing out another five years."

Ryan's budget would also reverse the nearly $600 billion in Pentagon cuts coming down the pike as a result of the failure of the so-called "congressional supercommittee." Since that bipartisan committee failed last year to find $1.2 trillion in cuts, Congress is obligated under the debt deal to make $600 billion in automatic cuts from the Pentagon budget and $600 billion in cuts elsewhere.

While Pentagon officials say they're on board with the 2013 cuts, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last year that the additional $600 billion in cuts would be devastating and would "tear a seam in the nation's defense."

Ryan's budget would roll back those cuts and call on congressional committees to come up with other spending cuts to make up for the lost government revenue. A group of Republican senators today emphatically called for the reversal of the $600 billion in cuts and commended Ryan's bill. They noted Panetta's remarks about the negative impacts the cuts could have, as well as the impact it could have on the job market.

"We're talking about thousands of jobs" at stake, said New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, "in my home state of New Hampshire the impact would be 3,300 jobs."

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl said the aerospace industry is "larger than the entire U.S. auto industry" -- an industry that Mr. Obama was willing to invest tens of billions into in order to save it.

At the same Washington event that Ryan attended, senior policy analyst Laura Peterson, with the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that she expects the cuts to come out of the Defense budget "one way or another." Still, she said she expects "lots of choreography to make it look like the Pentagon is in control."

It's not uncommon for military officials and defense industry lobbyists to pressure congressmen to think of the jobs at stake, Peterson said. However, she said, "National security is not a jobs program. Its function is not to put a chicken in every pot."

"The Pentagon is an enormous bureaucracy," she said, noting that it's hard for the public to understand what expenses are necessary for national security and what expenses could be cut. "It's bigger than most governments in the world. It employs more people than Walmart, the largest corporation."

[canabe100]

OH MY GOSH the USN with only 285 ships in lieu of 313 plus "The equipment that is atrophying -- the replacement they're pushing out another five years." is not sufficient for our defense. USN is more powerful than any 20 navies combined. I recently retired from shipyard work & USN atrophying is laughable. USN has been mothballing ships for 20 years due to the world & monitory situation. REPLACEMENT PUSHED OUT 5 YEARS??? Our Gas Turbine DD's, CG's & are state of the art. SSBN needs no replacement @ this time. SSN Virginia Class has been in production for quite a while. CVN Gerald Ford Class is still in the shipyard but not for long.

[TimeIsNowfor99]

Ryan has found an argument mo he can,t lose. Even when the experts are as,Ed, if he does not like thir answer, he says they are lying. What baloney. If anyone falls for that, please ask them to forfeit their right to vote.

[Lionhart40]

It would be shocking I'm sure if ACCOUNTANTS & ECONOMISTS and not politicians and the military gave the taxpayers the real numbers and advised on how much and where to cut and streamline paperwork.

[Lionhart40]

The numbers are staggering, as is the size of our forces and equipment. Our Navy is 7 times larger than the next 10 countries below us combined. We have 750 bases worldwide, mostly left over from the cold war I suspect. I can't imagine we shouldn't loose/stop using/cut the number of bases and equipment used. This is what happens when congressmen and senators fight to keep bases open in their own backyard and the military wants to keep or increase it's funding. Yes we are fighting "wars" but this is not the cold war era and we should be focusing on what we need today. Just how much we actually pay for our protection isn't even on the public books but hidden in miles of paperwork none of us see. It has been a long held that accountability is a joke for the military. While I have no doubt that all our ramblings here won't change a thing, it's nice to vent!

[wildemanne]

THANKS TO THOSE FREAK RETHUGLICANS/COMMIEPUBLICANS we couldn't afford to borrow that much money,313 ships? only if they're TOY SHIPS! that's all bush left us to afford thanks to the fearless leader hiding in Dallas gwb who single handed broke the economy of an entire planet in less than 8 yrs. and concerning paul ryan, how they followed his plan is cause for impeachment of an entire party

[marychgo]

Pentagon spending will be down in fiscal 2013 (starting 10/12) because the fiscal 2012 budget included significant Iraq spending. It SHOULD be down, and boondoggle spending programs and ridiculous levels of contract-employee expense SHOULD be zeroed out.

Yes, there will be some job losses...but most of them will be jobs that never should have existed in the first place. But you won't hear that from the Republicans. They'll insist that every cut for Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed, Halliburton, Xe, etc. is making us "less secure" (hah!). Because the GOP has been forced to pretend to be noble about earmarks, the defense budget has taken their place!

[TJphoto]

You will never see waste of money like you see in the military. Ask any vet.

[mountainstates1]

Ryan if you continually hate and bad-mouth our country so much why don't you GET THE HELL OUT???!!

[naimiles]

Maybe I should stop being surprised when a high-ranking Republican acts like a petulant little child.

[liberalmike]

I predict ryan's political career will be lost come next election.