Whenever the defense budget is under attack to produce major cuts, most people think of eliminating expensive advanced weapons programs such as the B-2 bomber, submarines, or even eliminating thousands of troops. Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, in the August 15 issue of The Weekly Standard, do mention the possibility of saving a “few billion” dollars annually by better management of such programs as the military’s health care plan, TRI-CARE for LIFE, but they greatly underestimate the magnitude of what is possible.
The US Defense Budget of nearly$700 billion in FY2011, which does not include the roughly $35 billion to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, does include $25 billion for the F-35 Strike Fighter Plane, Ballistic Missile Defense and the Virginia Class Submarine, the three largest US weapons programs today. These are juicy targets for desperate budgeteers.
A second priority is to reduce overseas troops and to reduce the number of troops on active duty in each of the services, especially in the largest (in terms of manpower), the US Army.
The trouble is, we may actually need these capabilities, and by the time we find out, it will be too late to recover such massive programs in any reasonable time. That’s not to say that the requirements justifying each of these assets is without fault; these are deservedly contentious areas worthy of discussion. Furthermore, almost all weapons systems experience huge cost overruns, thus diluting the original returns expected.
The administration, in 2009, already cut $400 billion from defense over the ensuing ten years; now it’s looking for another $500 - $600 billion over the next ten years.
It seems to me the administration wants to reduce our war-making capability. There is other low-hanging fruit to be examined, however, as is the case throughout all state, local and federal budgets: entitlements, retirement ages, and even health care.
The TRI-CARE for LIFE program is $50 billion of the US defense budget, about 12%, and applies only to military personnel and families in their peace-time capacity (medical care of wounded soldiers is not in this budget, and is quite small by comparison). It has been demonstrated that with proper incentives for patients and doctors alike, the claims paid by an insurer like TRI-CARE for LIFE could be cut in half, or more. In other words, the key to maintaining our military readiness, might be in encouraging military people, just like all other US citizens, to take better care if themselves. If this was done, and it has been done in test sites around the country, the total cost of medical insurance for the military could decrease from $50 billion to $25 billion, a savings of $25 billion a year, or $250 billion over ten years (to be sure, wellness programs require some time to build up savings, but this does not negate the argument).
Given the choice, I would rather see the relatively disciplined members of our armed services and their families keep themselves in better shape eat better, take their meds, feel better, and see fewer emergency rooms and surgeons, and at the same time, hang onto our F-35 fighter planes.
