Defense industry and the federal debt.

• Author: Conant
• Position: READERS'FORUM - Letter to the editor

Defense Industry and the Federal Debt

* I applaud Larry Farrell's prescient "President's Perspective" column in February, "Predicted Fiscal Train Wreck Fast Becoming a Grim Reality." He starkly laid out the expected decline in future budgets. The statement by Adm. Michael Mullen [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] that we have an "unsustainable rate of defense spending" is the hard reality for the defense industry. The unchecked federal debt is the cause for this dire prediction.

It is hard to imagine the bad news to come when today we have a record 2011 defense budget and an administration and Congress currently outdoing each other to protect Defense Department funding. But the reality is that as the wars in Iraq and, arguably in Afghanistan, wind down, defense funding will no longer be sacrosanct. As the public eventually clamors for action on the crushing federal debt, politicians will quickly change their views. Current plans for procurement, force levels, and budgets will become historical footnotes. Recall the Niall Ferguson quote from Newsweek included in Farrell's column: "This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force."

The question for the defense industry is, "What can we do to keep our customer fiscally sound?" The answer is we need to help the country develop a timely and orderly debt solution process. And to do that, we need to help calm the intense political rhetoric that prevents any type of viable solution. The media, public and body politic need to be educated on the impact of the debt, and the necessary difficult steps to restore financial sanity.

A review of budget math leads to the inescapable conclusion that federal spending must be cut and revenues increased. One or the other is not enough. We can't grow our way out of the debt with an improving economy because the hole is too deep. But much of the electorate has been convinced that there really is a free lunch, and someone else's sacrifice will fix the federal debt. Ultimately, the rhetoric needs to change so that a politician can say, "We need to cut Social Security and increase taxes," and not be vilified. As opposed to philosophical and cultural issues, the debt is straightforward and hard to argue. It is math, and is very predictable.

Defense companies can help shift the terms of the public discourse through education. We can convincingly argue...