It’s been a rough spring and summer for the Air Force: Its planned cuts to the Air National Guard have been met with wholesale rejection, and lawmakers and state officials alike have rapped the service for its lack of transparency in the budget process.
In several hearings — the latest one Thursday — and letters, their message has been simple: Do better next time.
“We just don’t feel that we got the response we should have, and from the beginning, we didn’t have the consultation that’s supposed to be required,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, co-chairman of the bipartisan Council of Governors panel, while testifying at the hearing before the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee.
“This last year was a disaster,” he said.
In February, the Air Force released its planned fiscal 2013 budget request, which called for cutting 9,900 active-duty, Reserve and Guard airmen, and more than 200 aircraft. The majority of the cuts — 5,100 guardsmen — targeted mobility, primarily a Guard mission.
Following the request, the council put forth a plan to cut fewer guardsmen, which was rejected by the Air Force almost immediately. After rejecting a compromise suggested by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, state leaders decided to push Congress to block all cuts to the Air National Guard, and that move has succeeded.
“I think we all feel now we really had to go to the Hill on this issue,” Branstad said. “We were not able to make the progress we hoped to with the Pentagon and with the Air Force.”
Lack of communication
The state leaders’ issues with the budget began almost immediately, as governors and state adjutants general said they had to read about the proposed cutbacks in the newspaper.
The Air Force “did not comply with any of the statutory requirements, presidential executive order directives or policy commitments to communicate with governors and consult with the Council of Governors,” said Maj. Gen. Timothy Lowenberg, Washington state adjutant general, in his testimony at the House hearing.
Speaking for the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs, said budget planners in the Air Force and Defense Department faced “additional constraints” in sharing information on the budget cuts, because of additional budget pressures such as the Budget Control Act.
“There was certainly more control over information as most years, but not absolute,” Miller said.
But that direction amounted to a “gag order,” leaving state leaders in the dark and unprepared for the proposed cuts, lawmakers have said repeatedly.
“These gag orders have just got to stop coming out of the Pentagon, because it serves no purpose not to be transparent and get this information out,” said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee. “We don’t do transparency because it is easy; we do it because it is right for the American people. This is a pattern.”
The budget was “developed, debated and validated” and would build an Air Force to ensure success in any challenge, even though it will create the smallest Air Force ever, Miller said.
But proposing to cut Guard units at what lawmakers regarded as an unfair ratio compared with the active force stirred up a predictable hornet’s nest from politicians looking to save jobs in home districts.
A plan to move the 18th Aggressor Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson prompted that state’s Democratic Sen. Mark Begich to place a hold on Air Force promotions, even after the Air Force crafted a report on the proposed move. The Eielson move is now on hold for at least a year and Begich lifted his hold.
Similar examples abound throughout the budget. The proposed closure of the 911th Airlift Wing in Pittsburgh was targeted by lawmakers, including Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., who said the wing was “low-hanging fruit” and the Air Force lacked adequate research on closing the base. That, too, has been put on hold.
The Air Force proposed cutting all 17 of the Air National Guard explosive ordnance disposal teams, a decision reached because of the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan and more manpower positions were needed for new missions, such as new National Guard MC-12 Liberty and remotely piloted aircraft squadrons. However, in some states, such as Vermont, the Air National Guard EOD team is the only military-rated bomb squad available.
“It looks to me like what they did was just hand you a bill to pay, and then you had to make state and local cuts, including bomb squad cuts, to meet those targets,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., in a May hearing.
The EOD cuts are also under review.
Moving forward, lawmakers and state leaders say they are willing to accept some cuts, just as long as they are involved in the process.
“This needs to be really carefully thought out,” Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, said. “You better pull those governors in and let them be a part of it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment