Senators Still Buying Votes with Nation's Defense Budget

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Christopher A. Preble, director of foreign policy studiescpreble@cato.org:

By funding a number of programs and weapon systems that the Pentagon does not want, and the troops do not need, members of Congress have elevated parochial interests above U.S. security. The approval of a $626 billion FY 2010 defense appropriation bill shows the Senate has shirked its responsibility to rein in the nation's bloated military budget. The FY 2010 defense authorization conference report will not look much better.

The appropriations bill includes an extra $2.5 billion for the C-17 cargo plane and $1.7 billion for a destroyer that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Pentagon do not want. The Senate did omit funding for the alternate F-35 engine, but it appears conferees on the authorization bill will approve $560 million for the project, making it likely funding will slip into the final appropriations bill when the House and Senate work out the differences in each version. Unfortunately, these decisions come at the expense of the troops in the field: $2.4 billion has been cut from the Pentagon's requested operations and maintenance budget.

On the upside, Senators should be congratulated for turning back repeated attempts to provide additional funding for the F-22. They properly nixed a new presidential helicopter. The president and Secretary Gates deserve credit for opposing these wasteful and unnecessary programs, and members of Congress appropriately followed their lead.

Beyond the F-22 and C-17, beyond individual engines or ships, we need a renewed emphasis on cost containment in military procurement. A 2008 GAO report found that 95 major systems had exceeded their original cost estimates by a total $295 billion during the period between 2001 and 2007. Congress effectively paved the way for a continuation of this wasteful status quo by overruling Secretary Gates on several important decisions.

Gates continues to push for sensible procurement reforms, but genuine cost containment is likely only within an environment of shrinking defense budgets. Under that alternate scenario, defense contractors who are best able to meet stringent cost and quality standards will win the privilege of providing our military with the necessary tools, but at far less expense to the taxpayers. And those who cannot will have to find other business.

Upcoming Studies