Republicans in a quandary over how to pay for national defense

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders on the House Armed Services Committee can’t say which is worse: more cuts to the defense budget, or higher taxes to prevent them.

“I think that’s a false choice,” said the panel’s chairman, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., at a news conference Thursday.

Republicans on the committee set a boundary Thursday as lawmakers continue to shower a 12-member joint House-Senate committee with demands and recommendations for further reducing the nation’s debt, a requirement of a deficit reduction deal Congress reached this summer to avoid government default. Republicans made clear that they will accept neither cuts in defense — which has already taken a $450 billion hit — nor any tax increases, whether on the wealthiest households, corporations or anyone else.

Democrats and Republicans on the committee agreed that the deep, across-the-board cuts that would result if the so-called “super committee” does not reach an agreement on deficit reduction would seriously hurt the nation’s military — a warning echoed by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta at an Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday. But Democrats, led by the panel’s ranking member, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., urged the debt panel to recommend revenue increases to stave off the deepest cuts.

Cuts under the so-called “sequestration” process if the debt panel comes up with no plan would be about double the level already approved and would have to be applied across the department rather thand targeting specific programs, officials have said.

Whether all the Republicans on the Armed Services Committee view the issue the same way as their leadership remains to be seen, especially as the prospect of the super committee failing to reach consensus by a November deadline grows stronger.

That is true, as well, of Democrats on the panel, as Democrats are not universally in favor of tax increases. Even those who do support them are somewhat split on the minimum income to which they should be applied; $1 million a year is a general benchmark but Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, a member of the committee, has supported an income threshold of $500,000, for instance.

Mr. McKeon said he would not presume to tell the debt committee how to reach its goals, other than to leave defense alone.

“However they work it out, that’s their problem,” Mr. McKeon said. But he added, “No one up here would vote for any tax increases.”

Mr. Smith, in a letter to the debt reduction panel’s leaders, warned that simply avoiding cuts to defense could result in still-deeper cuts to domestic programs that he considers part of national security.

“If federal revenue streams are not significantly enhanced, deficit reduction goals must be realized through curtailments of discretionary and non-discretionary spending,” Mr. Smith wrote. “I understand that, in this context, shielding defense dollars from further deficit reduction measures will only require other important federal spending priorities to shoulder increasingly disproportionate shares of the burden. This would be an unacceptable outcome.”

Independent panels have told Congress that revenue increases, as well as cuts to domestic entitlement programs and defense are necessary to bring the government into fiscal balance.

At Thursday’s hearing, Mr. Panetta said neither he nor President Barack Obama support cuts to defense spending beyond those Congress has already identified. Republicans on the Armed Services Committee opposed those, but Mr. Panetta said they are achievable and present an opportunity to reshape the military.

“As tough as it is, it’s manageable,” Mr. Panetta said. “But it’s going to take us to the edge.”

Any cuts beyond that risk hollowing out the force, Mr. Panetta warned. And Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said such cuts could lead to a shortage of captains, sergeants and other officers who would take years to replace through recruitment, training and experience — a situation the services faced in the late 1990s.

“We can’t grow captains and sergeants in 20 weeks,” Gen. Dempsey said.

Mr. Owens, who attended Thursday’s hearing, said later that he opposes cuts to substantive defense programs beyond those already approved but added, “I think there is always room to be more efficient.”

For one group at Thursday’s hearing — protesters with the anti-war group Code Pink — the cuts can’t go far enough. Seven protesters were arrested by U.S. Capitol Police after yelling and interrupting the hearing.