The Impact of Sequestration on the Department of Defense - Research Paper Example

The Impact of Sequestration on the Department of Defense The Impact of Sequestration on the Department of Defense The organization that this research is based on is the Department of Defense (Department of Defense). The Department of Defense is the chief source for the provision of military forces needed to protect the United States of America and prevent war. Department of Defense includes the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marines – along with other sub-agencies that include everything from provision of arms and supplies for military units to intelligence on foreign threats. The paper will focus primarily on the impacts sequestration had on the Department of Defense. Reductions of federal funding across the boards, also known as sequestrations have had a considerable impact on the fiscal years prior to, and during 2014. It not only reduced optional operations, but also cut down on the direct spending of the federal budget (Epstein, 2013). This has led to widespread concerns about the Department of Defense’s personnel, reallocation budget, customer’s service and other such details. The federal budget cuts affected the Department of Defense Human Resources Management in several important ways. The former level of readiness, although sustained, has experienced an irrecoverable deficit due to a decade of counterinsurgency operations (Roulo, 2014). According to the Department of Defense website, the current President Budget promises to restore the equilibrium between readiness and planned force structure. The Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 encumbers this shift to the mission of Department of Defense. This is due to the fact that the reduced funding levels have decreased not only the number of trained personnel, but also hampered the maintenance of ground vehicle and aviation. Furthermore, the flying hours of Navy and Marine Corps are to be decreased, which would also result in decreasing the levels of their readiness (Estimated Impacts of Sequestration-Level Funding, 2014). Such are the impacts of sequestration that there has been a radical expected drawdown to 450,000 active soldiers, 335,000 in the Army National Guard and 202,000 reservists by the end of 2015 fiscal year. (Roulo,2014) These reductions will further lead to the Department of Defense relying more on National Guard. The Army personnel and readiness are perhaps facing the greatest drawback as almost 70 percent of the total cut-downs are facing in its direction. The Army, for instance cancelled seven combat training sessions and skilled personnel was lost due to frozen salaries (Roulo, 2014). This reiterates the Department of Defense concern about deficiency in trained personnel, paving the way for increasing concern about security. The current budget for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, although complies with Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2013, yet, it exceeds the limits by about $115 million, as per the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) (Garamone, 2014). According to Robert O. Work, if spending according to sequestration cuts remains the law, it would not only force reductions in the readiness, but would also diminish funds for maintaining the technological advantage for the U.S (Banusiewicz, 2014). However, the prolonged budget plans such as BBA 2013 and FYDP promote the relocation of deficits towards structural reforms in Department of Defense. In this regard the budget promises restoration of balance towards the Joint Forces by enhancing readiness levels (smaller, more alert military). This decrease would also allow fund to be retained for the purposes of investing in the infrastructure including new weapons and stands (Department of Defense Funding Highlights, 2014). They also serve the purpose of enhancing military by technological advancements. In light of the aforementioned reductions however, the plan needs to be implemented over a long period in order to take effect. The customer care of Department of Defense also faces several constraints, owing to sequestration. On the one hand, budgeting bears a negative impact in terms of reducing trained personnel and starts depending somewhat on National Guards instead. On the other hand, it serves to modernize the compensation and benefit system. The Military benefits have experienced a gradual growth since 2001, according to the Fiscal Year 2015 Department of Defense Budget. Current reforms work towards slowing this process of growth, to fewer than five percent rise in each basic salary, allowance for housing and basic allowance for subsistence (Department of Defense Funding Highlights, 2014). This decrease would allow fund to be retained for the purposes of investing in the infrastructure including new weapons and stands. Due to the frozen salaries, furlough, and subsequent decrease in the number of trained military personnel, the customer care may face a negative impact. Another important impact that sequestration has had is on the intergovernmental as well as the intragovernmental associations and policies. These policies serve to assist the Department of Defense in times of physical and impending crises such as hurricanes, health hazards and attacks. For this purpose, back in 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense worked in combination to battle with spinal cord injuries, blindness and amputations etcetera (Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, 1998). Moreover, beneficial activities can be undertaken by learning from other governments’ methods, a fact proved by the activity known as Yama Sakura 65 (Miles, 2013b). This included 1,500 U.S Military members and 4,500 Japanese forces. This air-force based practice enhanced military efficiency, and served as grounds to implement better techniques where cyber-attack threats were concerned. Likewise, U.S Strategic Command – Stratcom serves to maintain the registry of numerous objects in space and shares the information with anyone who seeks it through a masterful website (Miles, 2013a). This intragovernmental association further enhances to provide security to both man-made objects in space as well as protects the United States of America from any threats posed to the nation via the mal handling of satellites. The quick response, whilst battling with Typhoon Haiyan in November 2013, Philippines is also testament to the remarkable efficacy that such alliances promise (Department of Defense Funding Highlights, 2014). The current Department of Defense budget focuses on maintaining intergovernmental ties, especially with the Asia-Pacific, where the majority of U.S Naval Forces will be employed. This will provide for a well distributed and highly supportable work force, giving increased opportunities for military-to-military interactions as well as learning from different forms of practices and exercises. These changes will perhaps bring about significant changes in the way military arrangements are perceived in Asia-Pacific, Western Pacific and Guam (Department of Defense Funding Highlights, 2014). Last, but not the least is the ethical concern to look for as sequestration settles in. In this regard, furlough continues to be the primary concern, as it directly affects the number of personnel continuing to serve the Department of Defense. As the budget cuts down, furloughs will increase, increasing the number of unpaid days off. An ugly impact of sequestration perhaps was 800,000 civilian workers being made to lose 11 paid working days forcefully (MacAskell, 2013). This may have been a necessary evil, a part of $85 billion sequestration across Department of Defense; however, it was done with the sole purpose of directing remittances towards the much harder hit and urgently requiring Pentagon. Thus, from the standpoint of the personnel and readiness, it may seem ethical. However, from the long term aspects of positivity that these furloughs promise to result in deem them the only suitable adjustment. These influences of sequestration on various aspects of the Department of Defense can be dealt with in conjunction, as means of proposing solutions to the budget cuts in the upcoming fiscal years. As far as the personnel are concerned, it is evident that the army has to bear the major brunt of sequestrations, including majority of the furloughs. One solution could be further decrement in the growth of military relief and benefits, as it would not directly impact, nor hamper Department of Defense’s function in any way. Additionally, promotions of intergovernmental alliances could lead to the influx of external volunteers and workmen, leading to the amalgamation of various types of field expertise. This would not only benefit in terms of numbers, but also bring about learning of different techniques and can thus be seen as a positive reinforcement. As far as the reallocation of budget is concerned, more prompt and selective decisions need to be made. The nature of these decisions could be decided according to the changing times – allowing better ideas to resurface. In conclusion, the negative impacts of sequestration: particularly on the armed personnel and readiness should be further inspected and dealt with. The resource distribution to modernizing the infrastructure too, serves to be only partly, not completely beneficial. Cutting costs and furloughs serve as a majorly negative effect of sequestration as well. Therefore, the current fiscal deficit shows a promising future in being unable to fulfill rising demands. The lack of fulfilment would further create hindrances in subsequent years for the budget to be planned. It may also increase the requirement of a much more competitive budget allocation for the Department of Defense. Only then, and with time, it may render a positive outcome, and serve to fulfill the long term deficits incurred by Department of Defense. References Banusiewicz, J.D. (2014, February 25). Work: Continued Fiscal Uncertainty Creates Cascading Effects. U. S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121720 Budget for Fiscal Year 2015.(2014) Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/defense.pdf Epstein, S. B., & Library of Congress. (2013). The Budget Control Act, sequestration, and the foreign affairs budget: Background and possible impacts. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42994.pdf Estimated Impacts of Sequestration-Level Funding. (2014) U. S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Estimated_Impacts_of_Sequestration-Level_Funding_April.pdf Garamone, J. (2014, March 10). Dempsey: Fiscal 2015 Request Juggles Budget, Risks.U. S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121805 MacAskell, E. (2013, May 14) Hagel announces 11-day furloughs for defence workers as sequester bites. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/14/hagel-furloughs-defense-department-workers Miles, D. (2013a, December 10). Yama Sakura Reflects New Approaches in Historic Alliance. U. S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121319 Miles, D. (2013b, April 25). Stratcom Shares Space Data to Promote Safety, Transparency. U. S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=119775 Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. (1998). VA and DoD Combine Efforts to Improve Health Care. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=65 Roulo, C. (2014, April 14). Army: Funds Fall Short to Restore Lost Readiness. U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122032 Read More