Another Congress, another debt limit showdown. It might seem there is nothing new under the sun.

But something is different this time: In my conversations with members of Congress in recent weeks, conservatives repeatedly mentioned their willingness to tackle the thorny challenge of military spending reforms, in addition to the out-of-control non-defense spending conservatives typically confront. This boldness is a refreshing change from the Washington status quo.

For too long, Republicans considered it a victory to increase defense and non-defense spending by equal dollar amounts, without cutting a dime from the deficit. Congress accepted the D.C. canard that a bigger budget alone equals a stronger military. But now, facing down a record debt to the tune of $242,000 per household, conservatives are ready to tackle an entrenched problem and confront the political establishment, unaccountable federal bureaucrats, and well-connected defense contractors all at once in order to keep the nation both solvent and secure.

Our national debt stands at over 120 percent of GDP, the largest sum since World War II. Most of this debt is the result of a bloated federal bureaucracy, of domestic programs that Congress allows to run at a deficit, and of bipartisan spending sprees like the “emergency” Covid-19 packages. Republicans owe it to their constituents to use the debt limit as an opportunity to reduce spending and shrink the administrative state.

Most Republicans generally give lip service to the idea of cutting spending, but blink when it comes down to the wire. In the end, Democrats hold defense spending hostage from Republican hawks and Washington plays along, with bigger defense and discretionary spending as the deficit balloons. As lawmakers face an impending debt limit deadline yet again, they can’t behave as they’ve done in the past. Defense and non-defense spending must both be on the table.

Today’s Pentagon is approaching a 13-figure annual budget. Congress needs to put away its kid gloves and put the Department of Defense and other agencies alike under the knife to excise wasteful spending. It is a top priority to save our nation, particularly the next generation, from the yoke of debt and an unaccountable, over-funded federal bureaucracy.

Of course, paramount to the goal of fiscal sanity is the goal of a strong national defense. A robust military deters any would-be attackers and protects American interests around the globe. On our military readiness, however, the sirens are blaring: Heritage’s 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength rated the state of our nation’s military as “weak” for the first time. Our military is too outdated to fully protect American interests at home and abroad. We need a stronger military overall, and especially a force able to deter the rising threat of communist China and 21st-century threats.

The task at hand today is to achieve both goals: restore fiscal sanity and ensure our military protects our citizens from today’s threats. Republicans must defund unnecessary programs and unneeded bureaucrats, while also ensuring our military is ready to confront the nation’s threats. It will not be easy, but with enough political will, it can be done.

To get into the right mindset, Congress should refamiliarize itself with Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane, who was handed a team in 2002 with the third-lowest payroll in the MLB, one-third as much as the Yankees. By defying the prevailing practices of MLB old-timers, who valued the looks of their players ahead of on-base percentage, Beane took a more efficient, data-driven approach and squeezed the most out of every dollar. He took his band of misfits to a 103-59 season and a postseason berth—the same number of wins as the well-funded Yankees.

Congress needs to take a Moneyball approach to our national defense, a much larger contest with life and death consequences if we get it wrong. Instead of engaging in a debate over topline spending numbers and throwing money at old programs and systems, Congress should insist that every dollar is used to advance military lethality and readiness while saving taxpayers as much as possible.

My colleagues at the Heritage Foundation are committed to helping our lawmakers find more savings. In February, we’ll convene top experts in national security and defense to scrutinize the Pentagon’s budget, line by line. Already, we’ve identified some top ways in which Congress can help our military give the taxpayer a square deal. Here’s a sample:

First, Congress and the Pentagon should ruthlessly target wokeness and waste. In the middle of a recruiting crisis, Secretary Lloyd Austin and the Pentagon prioritized onerous vaccine requirements and anti-American “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs. And at a time when the military is increasingly weak, appropriators have jammed about $1.4 billion in non-defense research into the defense budget. Appropriators should immediately slash any program that doesn’t contribute to improved warfighting capabilities.

Second, Congress should go after inefficient and outdated weapons systems and other programs. Individual members of Congress have often insisted on funding programs that serve the wants of their home districts or of defense contractors, putting special interests ahead of overall readiness. For instance, the Army asked to terminate the CH-47 Chinook helicopter for three years running, but Congress keeps adding money back in.

The Pentagon has been telling Congress it has too many bases and facilities for years now. In 2016 the Pentagon estimated they were carrying 22 percent excess infrastructure: unnecessary bases, buildings, and facilities. But since 2005, Congress has been unwilling to consider closing any infrastructure, despite estimated savings of over $2 billion a year. A frustrated Pentagon has now given up on asking for authorization to consider a closure process. It is time for Congress to authorize a new round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), which overcomes parochial interests to close down unneeded bases in a fair and strategic manner, and to apply the same philosophy to the rest of the budget, regardless of how much defense contractors protest.

Third, the United States must insist that its allies do their part, particularly in Europe. Our friends across the Atlantic have for decades enjoyed the protection of the American military and were content to spend less than the NATO goal of 2 percent of their GDP on defense while Uncle Sam protected their backyard, even while countries such as Germany enjoyed budget surpluses. It is time for them to end their free riding, pick up the tab, and meet their NATO obligations. We should use our considerable leverage to insist on it. This doesn’t mean abandoning Europe—far from it. But pushing our allies to take a greater role in defending their own continent will allow the United States to repurpose funds, troops, and programs to counter the larger global threat of communist China.

There are far more programs and ways for Congress to right-size the Pentagon budget, but the first step is to stop running the same old Swamp playbook and start playing Moneyball. Congress has the chance to show it can walk and chew gum at the same time, keeping our homeland safe while prioritizing Americans first, if it is willing to make the hard decisions necessary to do so.

Conservatives on the Hill must step up and face the challenge head-on, or face the righteous fury of the American people if they vote for business as usual. I am optimistic they’ll make the right choice.

*****
This article was published by The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.

The state of U.S. military production should be more concerning to the American public than Ukraine’s corruption.

Earlier this week, The New York Times reported on the Ukrainian government’s recent shake-up to fight corruption. “The dismissals appeared to reflect Mr. Zelensky’s goal of reassuring Ukraine’s allies — which are sending billions of dollars in military aid — that his government would show zero tolerance for graft as it prepares for a possible new offensive by Moscow,” according to the Times. Why did it take Volodymyr Zelensky 11 months to address the corruption issue? There have been signs of the problem for many months now.

Ukrainian-born Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., who at the beginning of the invasion was very supportive of Ukraine, more recently began to question Zelensky’s administration. Spartz wanted to have greater oversight on American aid to Ukraine, for which she was criticized by many in both parties.

With the recent removal of several officials, it appears there were grounds for questioning where the funds were being spent in Ukraine. The United States has been by far the largest supporter of military aid to that country, despite the European Union having similar GDP and 100 million more in population. Military equipment is the most important aid to keeping Ukraine’s military armed and fighting, which might be why Zelensky is trying to address corruption now.

With Republicans having control of the House of Representatives, several Republicans want greater oversight of the money being sent to Ukraine. It is unfortunate that it took a change in House leadership to make sure American taxpayer money is being spent properly overseas.

U.S. Military Production at Risk

The state of U.S. military production was another news story that broke this month — and this story should be more concerning to the American public than Ukraine’s problems. The Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank released a report on the U.S. defense industry and military aid to Ukraine. The report found that the United States’ “defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists.” The United States is ranked third in casting production, which is necessary for creating weapon systems, and the lag time for the production of most weapons is more than a year.

CSIS believes the United States would run out of precision missiles and other advanced technology in less than a week in a Taiwan Strait conflict. If that were to happen, the United States would have to resort to more crude weapon types, just as Russia has resorted to in Ukraine. The 20 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) that the United States sent to Ukraine could be replaced in about three years depending on the production surge rate. HIMARS have been very effective in Ukraine, but this highlights the continued danger of the United States’ ability to produce weapon systems. If America needs many of these weapon systems in short order, it appears the capability is not there to produce them.

A Depleted Military Can’t Overcommit

This is not a debate about aid to Ukraine but rather a debate on U.S. military production capabilities. The war in Ukraine should be viewed as a sideshow for the United States by capability alone. More than $100 billion in aid has been sent to Ukraine. This is not a small amount, but with a defense budget of more than $700 billion annually, the Ukraine war should not be straining our military. If a conflict did arise that threatened the United States, it would certainly expend more munitions and weapon systems than the Ukraine-Russian war has spent.

For a historical example, the battles fought over Ukraine in World War II committed roughly a third of Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s armies on the Eastern Front. If there is a larger conflict today, the United States would have to commit many more weapons in more theaters than just Ukraine.

Without a strong production capability, the United States would have to sacrifice its commitments in several regions throughout the world. Many Americans don’t want to hear this, and many policymakers ignore this reality, but unless the industrial production gets stronger, we might see many more Afghanistan withdrawals and friendly nations subjugated by great power rivals. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wrote in December to Secretary of State Antony Blinken that there was a $18.7 billion weapons backlog for Taiwan. If the United States is falling behind in its support during peacetime, it would certainly fall further behind during a war.

For years, the United States ignored its industrial weakness and capability, and media outlets and politicians mocked the idea of shipbuilding and fleet sizes, only to find it a valid concern 10 years later. If the United States wants to compete in the coming decades on the world stage, it needs to address this clear weakness in its military. For the past 30 years, the United States has waged war on rogue nations and terrorists in distant regions. The world has changed, and those wars that were fought over the past decades should not be viewed as the standard for defense planners.

The CSIS report also mentions how high inflation is damaging U.S. production. Policymakers need to get the United States economy back on a strong footing, with a stronger dollar and a robust energy sector.

Hope in Historical Precedent

The good news is that this has been done before. In 1968, the United States was in a fairly similar situation as today. The Johnson administration had spent much on both domestic and foreign policy. The war on poverty and the Vietnam War had drained our nation’s budget, weakened its economy, and constrained its movement in the world. Throughout the 1970s the United States had high inflation, severe energy shortages, cultural divisions, and a defeated military. Due to the paralysis of the United States, the Soviet Union took advantage in the 1970s and expanded its influence in the world.

With the right reforms, the United States under President Ronald Reagan was able to challenge the Soviets by the mid-1980s and eventually win the Cold War to become the sole superpower in the 1990s. This is not that far off from where the United States is currently. The war on terror and war on Covid expended many of our nation’s resources, just as our chief rivals are becoming more aggressive.

The bad news is that the United States might not have long to right the ship. We need leaders and policymakers who can quickly make these important adjustments and have a clear and honest vision of what the future holds for the United States.

*****
This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.s