NYT: Pentagon Expects Cuts in Military Spending

[OUSOONER]

Hasn't the FY'09 budgets already been set? Also, I think this a bit Chicken Little-ish, Obama =/= Clinton or Carter. The world is very different to the mid-late 1970s and 90s. 9-11 has ensured the need for a strong military. So has Iran, China, and a re emerging Russia.

 

[statesman]

I found [the] part interesting [that referred to Joint Strike Fighter as belonging to the Air Force]:

Not only because almost by definition the JOINT strike fighter doesn't only belong to the Air Force, but because if it does work out that way what are we going to do with our C and A+ Hornets? Not to mention the USMC Harriers?

Im wondering if Boeing will get their wish after all?

 

[HeyJoe]

Hasn't the FY'09 budgets already been set?

The president signed the FY09 Defense Bills into law so DoD has Total Obligational Authority (TOA), but that does not mean they won't hold back on executing as planned. OSD puts a percentage of funding or certain items on withhold all the time and so does Dept of the Navy. Priorities and direction change all the time. What began as the President's Budget submit of FY09 was submitted to Congress in Feb 08 and sent to OSD from Navy in summer of 07. That's the last chance Navy had any options to manipulate it. Likewise, POM 10 budget data from the Navy is already at OSD and all hands are getting ready to have to rewicker that as well as PR 11 once direction is received. In a "normal" year (if there is such a thing), adjustments are made via an Omnibus reprogramming request mid Fiscal year to adjust for changes in service/OSD desires. In other words, OSD and the services can spend appropriated dollars for what was signed into law and released by Comptrollers at OSD and service level, but not for anything other than what was in the Congressional "Language" (except for certain "Below Threshold Reprogramming (BTR)" actions submitted to Comptrollers. OSD and services can also "not spend" appropriated dollars and either ask for reprogramming action from Congress (so they can spend it something else) or a rescission of funding (these are requests to not spend funds at all, usually when earmarks or "pork" items are included in a Defense Bill that the service does not want to execute typically because of the "tail" they bring with them*; Congress can respond to agree or direct funds be spent anyway).

So, yes, services or OSD can direct them to not spend according to the "budget". The next six months at very least will not be fun times to be in jobs associated with programming or budgeting (as if they are ever fun).

*Good example is "gift" of extra aircraft to a service that sometimes is written into language thanks to lobbying by a prime contractor wanting to keep a production line open. A new type/model/series or extra airframes necessitating new manning or facilities and logisitics has a large new "tail" and services will usually ask for rescission of the "gift". However, a gift of say, new C-103Js to USMC would be welcomed if they can replace older airframes with existing manning, facilities and logistics.

The Budget was signed into law, but there are processes to both increase the budget and decrease it.

I talked to how it can be manipulated to adjust priorities or reduced at request of services through OSD. I know of no "process" to increase the budget other than instances of Congressional Supplements that have been used in case of meeting unexpected war bills or other emergencies. I suppose you can categorize that as a "process" since it's been a regular occurence since GWOT began.

 

[stalk]

The president signed the FY09 Defense Bills into law so DoD has Total Obligational Authority (TOA), but that does not mean they won't hold back on executing as planned. OSD puts a percentage of funding or certain items on withhold all the time and so does Dept of the Navy. Priorities and direction change all the time. What began as the President's Budget submit of FY09 was submitted to Congress in Feb 08 and sent to OSD from Navy in summer of 07. That's the last chance Navy had any options to manipulate it. Likewise, POM 10 budget data from the Navy is already at OSD and all hands are getting ready to have to rewicker that as well as PR 11 once direction is received. In a "normal" year (if there is such a thing), adjustments are made via an Omnibus reprogramming request mid Fiscal year to adjust for changes in service/OSD desires. In other words, OSD and the services can spend appropriated dollars for anything other than what they were signed into law for, but they can "not spend" appropriated dollars and either ask for reprogramming action from Congress (so they can spend it something else) or a rescission of funding (these are requests to not spend funds at all, usually when earmarks or "pork" items are included in a Defense Bill that the service does not want to execute; Congress can agree or direct funds be spent anyway).

So, yes, services or OSD can direct them to not spend according to the "budget". The next six months at very least will not be fun times to be in jobs associated with programming or budgeting (as if they are ever fun).

....so the professor says, "summarize the military budget process in one page or less" and the students respond with, "impossible!"...

Great job HJ, though after reading I did have flash backs and won't sleep well tonight

 

[The Chief]

.... I know of no "process" to increase the budget other than instances of Congressional Supplements ...

Great synopsis. We also have "no year monies" and multi-year contract obligations. My pea-brain has forgotten so much of it. I also remember we (Navy) would get "pots" of monies from NSA through a process for which I have long since lost the bubble. We also received a pot of $16 billion Nunn-Lugar act, "no year" funding, WMD non-proliferation directed, that we were under constant pressures to spend. In both cases the $$$'s were off budget expenditures. There were others.

When ever I think budget, arcane comes to mind.

 

[HeyJoe]

Great synopsis. We also have "no year monies" and multi-year contract obligations. My pea-brain has forgotten so much of it. I also remember we (Navy) would get "pots" of monies from NSA through a process for which I have long since lost the bubble. We also received a pot of $16 billion Nunn-Lugar act, "no year" funding, WMD non-proliferation directed, that we were under constant pressures to spend. In both cases the $$$'s were off budget expenditures. There were others.

When ever I think budget, arcane comes to mind.

Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) was a wet dream for services (for those hoping, not for others), but it took years to get Congressional Buy-in as it limits ability of Congress to move money. However, it results in substantial savings by allowing contractor to preorder long-lead items and negotiate lower prices knowing it is guaranteed a larger quantity of orders across term of MYP. Naval aviation has reaped enormous savings thanks to MYP. It's a good thing as Martha likes to say.

 

[knobbzy]

FWIW, I run and own a fed contracting shoppe -- ain't no slowing down the fed teat of monies. Some projects die, others get picked up. Was briefing a 3-star on one of his pet projects, said no, and told us to start on something else. Just like that. Have seen my fair share of really stupid stuff get picked up as well as "creative" money movement to pay for things somebody wants but does not have a line in their budget to do so. Such is the world of the selling to the gov't.

 

[FlyinSpy]

Just so you don't think I'm making this crap up.... The article is a good read about some of the hard choices ahead.

Pentagon board says cuts essential
Tells Obama to slash large weapons programs

"The Pentagon, one document states, "cannot reset the current force, modernize and transform in all portfolios at the same time. Choices must be made across capabilities and within systems to deliver capability at known prices within a specific period of time."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/10/pentagon_board_says_cuts_essential/

 

[red_ryder]

Serves you dirty leftist commies right for electing that pentagon in the first place! :icon_rage

 

[nugget61]

The economics are above my head and I know that I'm asking for speculation, but should this affect the rate of pro-recs? I think I'm going to have to reapply and I'm worried about getting another slot.

 

[HeyJoe]

FWIW, I run and own a fed contracting shoppe -- ain't no slowing down the fed teat of monies. Some projects die, others get picked up. Was briefing a 3-star on one of his pet projects, said no, and told us to start on something else. Just like that. Have seen my fair share of really stupid stuff get picked up as well as "creative" money movement to pay for things somebody wants but does not have a line in their budget to do so. Such is the world of the selling to the gov't.

Odd, that seems at variance with website pronouncement that said shoppe is "is a woman-owned, small business" thereby providing advantage in federal contracting. Might want to update that and your on-line bio.....to align with your claim above.

 

[hscs]

hate to say it, but what is more important in this war (GWOT) -- really expensive toys like lots of fighter jets and carriers, or a fair number helos, transports, UAVs, 12-16 man teams and a short intel to shooter kill chain?????

And don't anyone try and justify with China...China is a card that the contractors throw down to justify their existence.....

 

[NozeMan]

hate to say it, but what is more important in this war (GWOT) -- really expensive toys like lots of fighter jets and carriers, or a fair number helos, transports, UAVs, 12-16 man teams and a short intel to shooter kill chain?????

And don't anyone try and justify with China...China is a card that the contractors throw down to justify their existence.....

I'd be crazy to not agree about the helo part! The Boston Globe article that was posted starts to name the major places where the military can trim the fat on the budget. I love the idea of techinically advanced toys, but the cuts need to happen. The amount of time it is taking to procure new defense projects is unreal. What does the Navy risk losing? JSF, LCS, P-8....I'd say we have our share of projects to be worried about.

Obviously I know the Navy well enough (at least NavAir) to know that F/A-18C need to be replaced as do the aging P-3 fleet. Someone might have to "make do" in the near future, it'll be interesting to see who it is.

 

[MasterBates]

I'll put $$ on it won't be TACAIR that "makes do" when push comes to shove.

Like it or not, they are the "most visible" part, and have more power players than the support communities.

 

[hscs]

Concur -- just saying that we have some fvcked up priorities in the budgetary process...what was it that President Eisenhower said?