Federal government needs to control debt and protect America at the same time

By Sean Sullivan 
Real Clear Wire

Since 2001, our nation has added about $1 trillion a year to the national debt. It currently stands at $31.4 trillion and is at our maximum amount of debt the federal government can incur, or our debt ceiling. While we continue to incur debt, we are simultaneously sending billions of dollars of military hardware abroad. Politicians need to balance the dual national security concerns of a debilitating crushing debt and providing enough resources to protect America. Our government can do both.

The debt crisis is scary. There isn’t a business on earth that could survive operating at such an incredible loss year to year. If I ran my family budget like this, I would be living on the streets or a van down by the river. If families and businesses are expected to, and do operate more efficiently, why cant our government?

Congress and the White House are now in negotiations about raising the borrowing authority of the federal government as a trade for some spending cuts. The outcome of these negotiations is still to be determined, but the actions and consequences could significantly impact our national security. The two options are really to raise the ceiling or cut spending (or a thousand combinations in between). I fully support cutting spending; however, we need to continue to fully fund our defense programs and projects to ensure we protect our country.

Anytime we as a nation are looking for places to “cut spending” and help decrease our national debt - our defense budget is always a “shiny penny” which immediately garners a lot of attention. Some are quick to look at it because of the amount of money dedicated to defense. Others look to it because they think we have been at peace for so long (even though we truly haven't been). Either way, our defense budget is usually the first place many legislators want to start cutting - to either fund other projects or just reduce our debt. However, our defense budget cannot sustain continued cuts. In 2013, our military took a huge hit with sequestration. Projects were stopped, training was reduced, troop numbers were cut - all putting our overall readiness in a severe situation. We are still recovering from 2013, ten years later, as we try to catch up on the lost training, recruiting, and acquisitions.

While we are still building our own military back to standard levels of readiness, we have sent $400 million in military equipment to Ukraine and, as reported by CNN, plan to send another $1.2 billion in aid. The issue is not whether we should or should not send aid to Ukraine; it is before we restock other militaries, we need to ensure our own military has the money, equipment, and overall resources to meet current and future threats.

In 2019, strategic level guidance from the National Security Strategy stated “the United States must reverse recent decisions to reduce the size of the Joint force and grow the force while modernizing and ensuring readiness.”

Ensuring readiness is an overly broad statement, but also very important. The decision to cut the number of F-22s purchased in the 2000s has hurt our readiness in Air Superiority ever since. F-15C squadrons are experiencing more problems each year, running out of parts, and doing everything they can to stay mission capable. The same could happen in the tanker community if we don’t continue to modernize their fleet. The average age of a KC-135 is 40 years, and the KC-10 is 20 years. Neither is too old or obsolete, yet, but we need to move forward before they are obsolete, and before our readiness is affected.

The acquisition process in the DoD is slow to the point it has a significant impact on readiness when we change courses. The contract for the KC-X was awarded in 2011 and 12 years later, we are still waiting to have a fully functional fleet of tankers (KC-46) that fills that role. I’ll be the first to admit, this project was anything but smooth. With bid protests, going over budget, the inability to refuel A-10s, and the troubled Remote Vision System (RVS), we have waited too long for the KC-46 to be declared operational. However, to divest from the KC-46 at this point would be devastating to our abilities around the world, as soon KC-135 and KC-10 units will be in the same boat as the F-15Cs are flying outdated, aged airframes, which are difficult to keep mission ready. There are lessons to be learned from the KC-46 bid and acquisition (probably should have learned them with the F-22 and F-35 as well), but moving on to the KC-Y, or bridge tanker, might not have an impact right now, but we will see a gap in tanker ability as we wait even longer for the next generation refueling aircraft.

Now is the time to find the right balance between savings and defense needs. There are plenty of other places to find savings, but our current and future military programs and budgets need to be fully funded. Other large militaries around the world are funding theirs - we need to do the same.

Sean “Brick” Sullivan commissioned in 1997 from Oregon State University ROTC, 22 years in USAF/ANG, 3300 total hours, 2100 hours in F-15C.  Former Ops Group Commander, F-15C Squadron Commander and Instructor Pilot.