PPAI 2020-CASE 2–1Strategies in Defense of the Defense Budget

CASE 2–1Strategies in Defense of the Defense Budget
Once the budget justifications and numbers have been prepared, agencies face
the task of marketing the package to the legislature. Conditions vary from year
to year; the tactics applicable in one session may not be at all appropriate in the
next. The changing approaches are described in the following review of
strategies used by Sec­ retary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in selling the
budget for fiscal years 1982 through 1986. Recall that these years were the
ones immediately before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the defense build
up may have been instrumental in ending the Cold War.
Consider These Questions
1.

Identify the budget strategies Weinberger used. Is there a common logic
running through them, or is each independent of the others?

2.

Would the strategies he used be applicable to the post–Cold War
environment? Would the current secretary of defense be able to learn
anything by reviewing Wein­ berger’s script? How has the war on
terrorism changed the budget environment?

3.

To what extent would these strategies be transferable outside the national
defense budget?

4.

Use the historical statistics section of the most recent federal budget to
trace the pattern of defense outlays and budget authority from 1980
through 1989. What pattern do you identify? Compare the patterns there
with comparable data for 2000 to the present. Weinberger Finds His Well­
Worn Strategies Always Succeed in Blunting Defense Budget By Tim
CarringtonWashington—Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger has
privately referred to his campaign for a bigger defense budget as Kabuki,
a highly ritualized Japanese art form in which all movements are tightly
choreographed in advance. Despite the furor surrounding the Reagan
administration’s push to add $29 billion to the mil­ itary budget for the

next fiscal year, many aspects of the contest seem to follow a set script.
And after four years in the fray, the tireless Mr. Weinberger is noth­ ing if
not well­rehearsed. Since President Reagan launched his military buildup,
Congress has provided the Pentagon with about 95 percent of the spending
SOURCE: Reprinted by permission of Wall Street Journal, Copyright © 1985 Dow Jones &
Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

Chapter 2: The Logic of the Budget Process 91

92 Part One: Budgeting, Budget Structures, and Budget Reform
authority it has sought. A look at the defense budget debate over the past four
years bears out Mr. Weinberger’s observations that it’s less a political brawl
than one of Washington’s most stylized dramas. And the past could well
foreshadow what happens this year.
1982
In March 1981, Congress granted the Pentagon a startling 20 percent increase,
bringing its budget for fiscal 1982 to $216.5 billion, just below the $222 billion
the administration sought. However, five months later, Mr. Weinberger faced
dissent from within the Reagan administration. David Stockman, director of the
Office of Management and Budget, proposed rescinding part of that increase
and scaling back the projected military expansion for future years. The budget
chief had just learned that the fiscal 1982 federal budget deficit was likely to
rise to $62.6 billion, small in relation to today’s deficits of more than $200
billion, but for that time a record. Mr. Stockman recognized that Mr. Reagan’s
goal of showing a balanced budget by 1984 was in jeopardy, and he considered
the defense buildup part of the program. In staving off Mr. Stockman’s assault
on the planned buildup, Mr. Wein­ berger turned to a tactic for which he has
since become famous, the chart and easel. The defense secretary’s charts,
presented in a meeting with the president, showed large soldiers bearing large

weapons, which were labeled “Reagan budget.” They towered above small
soldiers with small weapons labeled “OMB budget.” President Reagan went
along with the “Reagan budget.”
1983
In preparing the fiscal 1983 plan, Mr. Weinberger was again confronted with
the budget­slashing demands of Mr. Stockman. The defense chief had many
allies within the administration but by now government officials began to refer
to the hegemony of the “majority of two,” Mr. Weinberger and President
Reagan. With unwavering White House support, the defense secretary shot
down an OMB attempt to chop $20 billion from the proposed defense budget,
then offered an unusual set of cuts himself. In what became a recurring feature
of the budget process, the Pentagon stripped billions from its budget simply by
adjusting the inflation assumptions. Weapons programs remained intact.
In defending the budget on Capitol Hill, Mr. Weinberger emphasized “the
Soviet threat” and insisted that economic and fiscal concerns shouldn’t
influence the Pentagon’s spending. But deficit concerns were mounting
nonetheless and world financial markets were unusually jittery. When the
administration sought $257 billion for defense in fiscal 1983, Rep. Joseph
Addabbo (D­N.Y.), chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee,
declared that defense is not sacro­ sanct in the deficit­cutting effort. In the
Senate, Chairman Pete Domenici (R­N.M.) opened Budget Committee hearings
with the declaration that “the hemorrhage of the budget deficit must be
alleviated.” The committee pressed Secretary Weinberger to suggest modest
cuts from the proposed Pentagon budget, but the secretary refused. He said he
hoped Congress wouldn’t be “unwise enough” to reduce the budget request at
all. Congress, while hammering
away at the Pentagon to offer up cuts was loath to impose its own set of reduc­
tions. When the face­off ended, Congress gave the Pentagon budget authority

of $245 billion, $12 billion less than the $25 billion the administration asked
for but still 13 percent, or $29 billion, more than it got the previous year.
1984
Preparations of the defense budget for fiscal 1984 brought another
confrontation with Mr. Stockman, who demanded that Mr. Weinberger take
$11 billion out of his planned $284.7 billion budget. The Pentagon, expert at
protecting weapons programs through what observers call “cut insurance,” was
ready to meet these demands almost painlessly. Inflation assumptions were
lowered, fuel­price cal­ culations adjusted, and some military­construction
projects postponed. In addi­ tion, a planned pay increase was dropped. In
presenting a new budget request for $273.4 billion, Mr. Weinberger declared:
“We have reached the bone.” Many leg­ islators expressed outrage at Mr.
Weinberger’s refusal to consider other cuts despite mounting economic worries
over the government’s budget deficit. Sen. Don Riegle, a Democrat from badly
pressed Michigan, asserted that the United States had a defense secretary
“whose basic judgment is dangerous to our coun­ try.” Mr. Weinberger replied:
“You have accomplished your principal purpose, which is to launch a
demagogic attack on me in time for the afternoon and evening editions.” The
debate had become more rancorous, but the Pentagon’s tactics still produced
results. When the war of words ended, Congress granted the Pentagon 93
percent of the spending authority it sought—a $262.2 billion budget, up 8
percent, or $20.2 billion from the previous year.
1985
Deficit­reduction efforts in early 1984 centered on making a “down payment”
against the deficit in fiscal 1985. After another skirmish with Mr. Stockman,
Mr. Weinberger agreed to seek a 15 percent increase that would bring the Pen­
tagon’s spending authority to $305 billion.
House Democrats assailed the plan, but as in the past, they wanted Mr.
Weinberger to suggest the cuts, rather than slash on their own initiative politi­

cally popular military programs in an election year. Mr. Weinberger refused,
say­ ing: “We need it all.” Congress didn’t give him the full $305 billion he
sought but again provided 93 percent of that; it approved a fiscal 1985 military
budget of $284.7 billion, up 7 percent, or $19.5 billion, from the previous year.
1986
The contest over the fiscal 1986 budget is following the pattern of early years.
Mr. Weinberger called for a 13 percent increase in a budget he said had been
“scrubbed” down to the basics. After Mr. Stockman’s demands for cuts
gathered support from other cabinet members, Mr. Weinberger made
accounting adjustments to produce $6.2 billion in reductions. Further cuts? Mr.
Weinberger asserts that the budget he presented is the “bare minimum.” When
pushed to suggest some cuts, Mr. Wein­
Chapter 2: The Logic of the Budget Process 93

94 Part One: Budgeting, Budget Structures, and Budget Reform
berger recently resorted to what’s called “the Washington Monument
strategy”— for “cut my budget and I’ll close the Washington Monument” (or
something equally visible). During Senate hearings, the defense secretary
warned that if Congress cuts the Pentagon budget, there would be a slowdown
in the B­1 bomber project, elim­ ination of two Trident submarines, and
cancellation of a multiple­launch rocket sys­ tem—all considered high­priority
programs. Some participants say the ritual is getting tiring. “It’s the same
Kabuki dance,” says one Senate Budget Committee aide, “but Domenici is
getting extremely frustrated with it.”

Explanation & Answer

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Order Now and we will direct you to our Order Page at Litessays. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.