The Will and the Wallet
Budget Insights for Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy from the Stimson Center
The parameters of defense spending discipline are no longer in doubt. Between the President’s Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Rivlin-Domenici Debt Reduction Panel, the Sustainable Defense Task Force sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), and the six alternatives recently sponsored by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, defense clearly is on the table and certain programs are ripe for attention.
Last week Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Project on Defense Alternatives co-sponsored an event to begin moving the conversation toward how to implement these recommendations. Panelists represented each of the commissions above, including Stimson’s Matt Leatherman, an advisor to Rivlin-Domenici, the Congressional Research Service’s Amy Belasco, lead defense staffer for Simpson-Bowles, and four members of the Sustainable Defense Task Force – Ben Friedman from Cato, Winslow Wheeler from the Center for Defense Information, Laura Peterson from Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Carl Conetta from the Project on Defense Alternatives.
Their topic was defense savings that could be achieved as part of the FY2012 budget process. Several ideas came to the fore, each worthy of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s attention as it marks up the national defense authorization act this week.
- Strike the Next Generation Bomber (program element 0604015F in the RDTE title) for a savings of $197 million in FY12, $3.7 billion between FY12-16, and an estimated $55 billion in longer-term procurement. OMB just terminated a bomber program in FY10 for strategy and affordability reasons, and despite Gates’ comments to the contrary, nothing has changed in the interim to challenge the US deterrent, encourage US to consider nuclear exchange, or enable a more cost-disciplined procurement of a long-range bomber.
- Strike the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund (Title XIV – Other Authorizations, Sections 1433 and 4501) for a savings of $1 billion in FY12. The House authorized the Secretary of Defense to “transfer amounts from the fund to another account of the DOD.” This appears to be a way for members to maneuver around the earmarks ban by drawing down the fund rather than having to add money.
- Strike $150 million addition to the LHA-7 amphibious assault ship (Section 1604). This amendment offered by Rep Palazzo (R-MS) operates as an earmark. As Palazzo stated: “The committee’s decision to fund LHA-7 at appropriate levels makes certain that Ingalls [Shipyard] will be able to deliver the finished ship on schedule and at cost while keeping our shipbuilders at work.” The administration objects because “large-deck amphibious ships are already funded over two years.”
- Strike amendment by Rep Forbes (R-VA) (Section 955), which amends Title 188(b) of Title 10 so that the recommendations made in QDR are not being budget-informed, and are “fully independent of the President’s budget request in order to allow Congress to determine the level of acceptable risk to execute the missions associated with the national defense strategy.”
As the FY2012 NDAA moves through Congress and the defense appropriations bill takes shape, The Will and the Wallet encourages our readers to further develop this list by posting amendments in the comment box.
NDAA Amendment Options: A Preliminary Proposal for Defense Savings (The Stimson Center)
Discussion
Weekly Email
