More Ways to look at the forthcoming deficit debate
In a May 2010 speech on defense spending given as part of a celebration of the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Defense Secretary Gates argued for a more effective use of military funds. He invoked the memory of Eisenhower’s skepticism about bloated military budgets to call for the end to, among other wastes, congressional funding for unwarranted military purchases:
“For example, in this year’s budget submission the Department has asked to end funding for an unnecessary alternative engine for the new Joint Strike Fighter and for more C-17 cargo planes. Study on top of study has shown that an extra fighter engine achieves marginal potential savings but heavy upfront costs – nearly $3 billion worth. Multiple studies also show that the military has ample air-lift capacity to meet all current and feasible future needs. The leadership of the Air Force is clear: they do not need and cannot afford more C-17s. Correspondingly, the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy do not want the second F-35 engine. Yet, as we speak, a battle is underway to keep the Congress from putting both of these programs back in the budget – at an unnecessary potential cost to the taxpayers of billions of dollars over the next few years. I have strongly recommended a presidential veto if either program is included in next year’s defense budget legislation.”
What he was protesting was “congressionally directed spending” that trumps the Pentagon’s own priorities. There should be no confusion though. Gates was not arguing for cuts in the Pentagon’s overall spending that might contribute to reducing the federal budget deficits. He was complaining about congressional interference with the military’s own plans by misdirecting funds to “non-strategic” ends. Whether the Pentagon’s wish list is any more “strategic” is not the current topic. Military “earmarks”, on the other hand, is.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a memorandum (2006) cataloging earmarks in a series of appropriation bills. (Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005). It identified:
“Earmarks. Conference committee reports on defense appropriations bills allocate funds to particular programs in great detail, specifying, for example, how many weapons of what types are to be procured or how much money is available for recruiting. If earmarking is defined broadly, therefore, virtually all funds in defense bills are fully earmarked. Usually, however, in the case of defense-related legislation, the term earmark is used to mean allocating funds at a level of specificity below the normal line item level. Understood in this way, a congressional committee would not be said to earmark funds if it adds money to buy additional fighter aircraft, for example, but would be said to earmark funds if it specifies that a particular kind of radar is to be incorporated into an aircraft upgrade program. This assessment uses the more narrow definition of an earmark.”
Could this time be different?
Department of Defense (DOD) expenditures represent roughly half of discretionary federal spending. Any other government agency with DOD’s poor record of fiscal controls (its financial accounting records have been non-auditable for decades) would be high on the list for management overhaul. Under the cover of national security, defense appropriations have historically been the politically safest place to advocate for increased spending. But budget deficits have grown to the point where even military spending may be put “on the table”.
Pentagon spending is, possibly, the only budget category where eliminating earmarks would save money. It’s also the area where earmarks will probably be redefined in a way so they don’t apply - and back "off the table".
In a May 2010 speech on defense spending given as part of a celebration of the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Defense Secretary Gates argued for a more effective use of military funds. He invoked the memory of Eisenhower’s skepticism about bloated military budgets to call for the end to, among other wastes, congressional funding for unwarranted military purchases:
“For example, in this year’s budget submission the Department has asked to end funding for an unnecessary alternative engine for the new Joint Strike Fighter and for more C-17 cargo planes. Study on top of study has shown that an extra fighter engine achieves marginal potential savings but heavy upfront costs – nearly $3 billion worth. Multiple studies also show that the military has ample air-lift capacity to meet all current and feasible future needs. The leadership of the Air Force is clear: they do not need and cannot afford more C-17s. Correspondingly, the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy do not want the second F-35 engine. Yet, as we speak, a battle is underway to keep the Congress from putting both of these programs back in the budget – at an unnecessary potential cost to the taxpayers of billions of dollars over the next few years. I have strongly recommended a presidential veto if either program is included in next year’s defense budget legislation.”
What he was protesting was “congressionally directed spending” that trumps the Pentagon’s own priorities. There should be no confusion though. Gates was not arguing for cuts in the Pentagon’s overall spending that might contribute to reducing the federal budget deficits. He was complaining about congressional interference with the military’s own plans by misdirecting funds to “non-strategic” ends. Whether the Pentagon’s wish list is any more “strategic” is not the current topic. Military “earmarks”, on the other hand, is.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a memorandum (2006) cataloging earmarks in a series of appropriation bills. (Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005). It identified:
“Earmarks. Conference committee reports on defense appropriations bills allocate funds to particular programs in great detail, specifying, for example, how many weapons of what types are to be procured or how much money is available for recruiting. If earmarking is defined broadly, therefore, virtually all funds in defense bills are fully earmarked. Usually, however, in the case of defense-related legislation, the term earmark is used to mean allocating funds at a level of specificity below the normal line item level. Understood in this way, a congressional committee would not be said to earmark funds if it adds money to buy additional fighter aircraft, for example, but would be said to earmark funds if it specifies that a particular kind of radar is to be incorporated into an aircraft upgrade program. This assessment uses the more narrow definition of an earmark.”
Could this time be different?
Department of Defense (DOD) expenditures represent roughly half of discretionary federal spending. Any other government agency with DOD’s poor record of fiscal controls (its financial accounting records have been non-auditable for decades) would be high on the list for management overhaul. Under the cover of national security, defense appropriations have historically been the politically safest place to advocate for increased spending. But budget deficits have grown to the point where even military spending may be put “on the table”.
Pentagon spending is, possibly, the only budget category where eliminating earmarks would save money. It’s also the area where earmarks will probably be redefined in a way so they don’t apply - and back "off the table".
No comments:
Post a Comment