Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Front and Center / The Debt Deal and Defense Spending

August 2, 2011

The Debt Deal and Defense Spending

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the debt deal and what it means for defense.  Things have gotten so complicated with the defense/non-defense security/non-security debate, that even the experts are uncertain.  

To be clear on at least the definitions, “security,” as defined in the deal, is defense and non-defense security, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Intelligence, International Affairs and the National Nuclear Security Administration.  This definition applies to the first two years of the budget deal, and its relevant spending caps, only.

For the first two years, the bill is clear on this category of spending.  For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the bill sets a $684 billion ceiling for “security.”  This number is a $4.5 billion overall decrease in security spending from the FY 2011 level of $688.5 billion.  The FY 2013 security cap is $686 billion, still tracking below FY 2011 levels.  

While the cut is not large, it is significant, since previous cuts have taken reductions from the amount of increases, rather actually reducing the item from the previous year.

However, what we do not know is how these reductions would be allocated between the Pentagon and, say, foreign aid or the nuclear weapons complex.  Exact funding levels will be left up to Congress.

Then things get even more confusing.  If a longer-term deal is not reached, security spending is redefined as the traditional “050” budget category, meaning the Department of Defense and some defense-related funding within the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and FBI.

The category does not include foreign aid, homeland security, veterans and other categories of spending.

Of course, even with these definitions, we still do not actually know the extent of future defense cuts.  The White House claims that the deal will result in $350 billion in cuts from the 050 account over the next 10 years, but the claim is only an estimate.  The bill itself contains no language detailing the cuts over 10 years.  

The number proposed by the administration, $350 billion, tracks closely with the $400 billion reduction goal already set out by the President.  It does not add to the $400 billion number, but rather replaces it, with the assumption that the final two years, totaling 12, will see more savings.  

There is one possibility, however, that could result in large savings, specifically from defense (050).  The second part of the bill calls for a joint committee of House and Senate members to fashion a longer-term plan.  If the committee fails to come to an agreement or Congress rejects it, sequestration, or automatic cuts, kicks in.  In the case of sequestration, everything changes.  The plan requires that half of the cuts come from defense (050) and half from non-defense.

Proposed sequestration cuts are based on a formula that would reduce both discretionary and mandatory 050 spending by half of the needed $1.2 trillion in savings.  The cuts would be spread over nine years.  The administration estimates that a total $534 billion cut from the 050 account would result from sequestration over ten years.

The joint committee will have until Thanksgiving to come up with a deal.

So, what does this ambiguity add up to?

Defense hawks can complain that the cuts in defense are too deep.

Defense doves can complain that the cuts are insufficient.

The rest of the world will remain in the dark.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

Tweets by Nukes of Hazard

Recent Posts

  • Growing number of high-security pathogen labs around world raises concerns March 17, 2023
  • Global Biosafety Fears Grow Amid Rise in Labs Handling Dangerous Pathogens March 17, 2023
  • Evolving Threats, Un-evolving Solutions: Geo-Politicization of Export Control Policy March 17, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: The Australia Group March 16, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones March 14, 2023
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2023 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency