• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama Cuts Defense Programs, Claims They “Weren’t Working Very Well”

    During last week’s debate, President Obama made an intriguing statement while explaining his deficit hawk credentials. In referencing the programs he cut, he mentioned “aircrafts that the Air Force had ordered but weren’t working very well.” This is a rather vague reference, leaving up for speculation just what aircraft he had in mind.

    A quick rundown of some of the aircraft programs terminated in the last four years: the F-22A Raptor stealth fighter, the Combat Search and Rescue helicopter, the C-17 transport aircraft, the C-27J Spartan transport aircraft, and the Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned aerial surveillance aircraft. All programs eliminated under President Obama, none of them due to performance issues.

    The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has not been left unscathed, either. After singing the praises of the JSF and affirming that “this supportable, state-of-the-art aircraft commands and maintains global air superiority,” the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request then cuts 13 aircraft for that year and 179 aircraft between 2013 and 2017.

    The termination of so many aircraft programs indicates the Administration’s wider approach to the defense budget. The President goes on to say:

    I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars out of our discretionary domestic budget. That’s the largest cut in the discretionary domestic budget since Dwight Eisenhower.

    Obama’s reference to Eisenhower implies that defense spending is becoming problematic and that in addressing the issue he is being fiscally responsible while at the same time mindful of national security needs. As Baker Spring of The Heritage Foundation wrote:

    He is not a national security hawk precisely because he intends to impose the low defense spending caps. He is not a deficit hawk because he plans to use the savings from the defense cuts to increase spending on domestic programs.

    Air Force chief of staff General Norton Schwartz referred to the defense cuts when talking about the tough choice he made to eliminate the C-27 transport aircraft. He had an agreement with the Army chief of staff to keep the program in the Air Force, “but that was $487 billion ago.”

    These cuts come before accounting for sequestration. Designed to force Congress to compromise on a reduction in discretionary spending, sequestration stipulates $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts. Defense programs absorb nearly half this amount.

    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said of sequestration, “It was designed as a meat ax. … It would be a disaster.”

    Since the President has already stated that he will exempt personnel accounts, sequestration will fall heavier on research and development, procurement, and operations and maintenance budgets. Which programs will future Pentagon officials refer to while explaining “that was $1 trillion ago”?

    The defense budget should not be the scapegoat for the problems of runaway entitlement spending. The President should instead focus on providing for robust national security forces.

    Adam Yosef is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Obama Cuts Defense Programs, Claims They “Weren’t Working Very Well”

    1. KJinAZ says:

      Why should a man who has proven he knows nothing about security be able to control our military spending. This is not only dangerous, but naive.

    2. Jerry says:

      I totally agree! What better way to insure the Defense of our Country but with a Strong Military with State of the Art Weapons, Planes and Ships! And to turn around and use it on Domestic hand outs is ludicrus! I am surprised he hasn't signed this as an "Executive Order"!!! Of which he has signed at least….150 Exec Orders, some which have not gone into effect YET!!!! Just to by-pass Congress!!! This is also VERY DANGEROUS!!!!!! You can Google his Executive Order List!!!! I dare you!

    3. @undefined says:

      As for the C-27J: Half the engines, half the weight, about 1/3 the operating costs, and if the USAF were to embrace the airframe in Reserve and Active duty squadrons for TS/MC cargo deliver to the tune of 78 aircraft as originally estimated between the USAF/US Army agreement, regional maintenance facilities would necessarily have to be established, changing the entire cost equation, regardless of basing methodology. The USAF is focused on tons/miles/$ in 96 hours and have been from the beginning. That explains their position of not understanding the TS/MC mission set, and what kind of aircraft is required to meet that mission set, on a rapidly changing battle field. The US Army has to live there and should have retained purview over the program all along.

    4. jonathan says:

      Give us (USCG) the C-27. The HC-144 is a disaster!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×