Pentagon Gets Attention, but Planned Spending Cuts Range Far and Wide

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

Published: June 21, 2012

WASHINGTON — It is no secret here that come January, barring Congressional action, huge spending cuts will hit the Pentagon. Congressional Republicans, President Obama’s secretary of defense and military contractors have taken pains to denounce the planned reductions, which were scheduled as part of the resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis of last year.

Jonathan Ernst for The New York Times

Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat, said the nonmilitary cuts “would be devastating for New York.”

Related

• Some Lawmakers Look for Way Out as Defense Cuts Near (June 4, 2012)

• Military Will Remain Strong With Cuts, Obama Tells Cadets (May 24, 2012)

John W. Adkisson for The New York Times

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has criticized all the cuts.

But other government programs are facing equally large cuts, though they have received a scintilla of the attention and outrage that the planned Pentagon cuts have attracted.

From cancer research to farm inspectors to grants to cities and states and law enforcement agencies, nearly every sector of government would be affected by the planned $1.2 trillion in cuts, especially in the first year of the nine-year reductions.

While many mandatory programs, like Medicare, Social Security and others, are exempt or virtually untouched under the scheduled cuts, known as sequestration, roughly $321 billion would be cut from the “nondefense discretionary” category, which represents scores of government spending areas outside of the military.

“There has been a great deal of attention to the defense side,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington. “I think a lot of people simply aren’t aware” of the other cuts, she added.

Ms. Murray worked with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to pass an amendment to the farm bill that would compel the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense to deliver a report on the impact of all of the planned reductions. The fact that Congress might have to force the Obama administration to detail where budgets would be sliced underscores one of the main reasons that so little attention has been turned to the impending cuts to nonmilitary programs.

The White House — along with some top Democrats — has concluded that Republicans care so deeply about the roughly $492 billion in planned Pentagon cuts that the military budget will become a bargaining chip that Democrats can use at the end of the year to pursue new revenues and leverage in the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts.

While Democrats are no more fond of the cuts than Republicans are — especially the roughly 8 percent cuts to various programs they cherish in the first year — many believe the reductions are less painful than any agreement they could reach with Republicans toward deficit reduction in the current political climate.

“Congress should do its job and pass a balanced plan for deficit reduction,” Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the administration budget office, said in an e-mail. He added: “There is time for Congress to act, and we hope that it will. Should it get to a point where it appears that Congress will not do its job and the sequester may take effect, we will be prepared.”

The Pentagon and those who service it — largely military contractors — have been a loud, unified voice, pressuring members of Congress about the cuts and their potential impact on local economies.

This month, for example, a group of executives from the Northrop Grumman Corporation met with members of the Connecticut delegation to announce that they were closing a plant in Norwalk and laying off 315 workers in part because of the impending sequester, said a person who attended the meeting but could not be identified speaking publicly about it. (A spokeswoman for the company declined to comment on the meeting.)

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has come to Capitol Hill more than once to complain about the cuts, and Republicans have offered several bills, including one that has passed the House, to undo sequestration. Members hammer the issue daily; the House Armed Services Committee has devoted its entire Web home page to the issue.

In contrast, the cuts to nonmilitary programs would be spread across scores of industries and groups, few of which have coalesced in a similar manner. While some administration officials have testified that the cuts would be harmful to government programs, few lawmakers have seized on their remarks and run with them.

There is an effort under way to write a letter to members of Congress from leaders of various groups, and the Coalition for Health Funding is trying to build awareness of the cuts through town hall meetings and other gatherings. “This is really a ‘Hey, what about us?’ effort,” said Emily J. Holubowich, the group’s executive director.

Further, because certain programs like Social Security and Veterans Affairs have been exempt from the cuts, there is a feeling among some Democrats that they have less at risk than Republicans defending Pentagon cuts. Republicans find that view baffling.

“I guess they think it’s O.K.,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who said he believed cuts to both types of spending would be devastating.

“There is political pain and substantive pain” in the cuts to nonmilitary spending, said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group, who noted that roughly a quarter of those cuts would affect Americans at or below the poverty line.

“When people start saying, ‘This means you’re going to cut the National Cancer Institute or air traffic control or the F.B.I. or Border Patrol by 8.4 percent, those little phrases can ring bells with the American public.”

According to the groups’ research, a portion of nonmilitary discretionary monies are in grants to states and local governments, including education programs, law enforcement and fire departments.

“I voted against the deal for those reasons,” said Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York. “I think those cuts would be devastating for New York.”

A recent report prepared by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that the sequester cuts in total could reduce the gross domestic product in the United States by roughly half a percentage point in 2013.

The end game for Democrats, according to half a dozen aides, is to wait for Republicans to become excessively nervous about large Pentagon cuts and start their bargaining to undo the entire package from there.

For example, Democrats would like to end the Bush-era tax cuts for high earners, close tax loopholes for some companies and other revenue measures.

“I imagine you will hear more about all of these things as we get closer,” Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania.