National Security

Your Tax Dollars At Play…

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | March 30, 2011 | +

The Government Accountability Office issued a report Tuesday revealing that government procurement snafus added $70 billion to weapons costs over just the past two years. Fewer than half the Pentagon’s programs are meeting cost targets. And because the lousiest-run programs tend to be the most expensive, that means 72 cents out of every dollar spent on arms by the Defense Department are being funneled into programs with what the GAO calls “significant” overruns.

Related Topics: defense spending, National Security

  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod
    Afghanistan May 16, 2012

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters
    Pacific May 16, 2012

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images
    Military Mental Health May 16, 2012

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • pintortwo

    And yet Congress won’t touch this sacred cow.
    .
    Add the money wasted on overseas construction contracts- due to “accounting errors”, no-bid chicanery, missing funds, abandoned projects, faulty work, no supervision, permanent delays- and I’d guess we could save in excess of $100 billion annually by simply managing what we already spend.

  • 53_3

    But if we did, what use would we have for Republicans?

  • 53_3

    Finally, Mark, something worth posting about. This is important…

  • bobell

    You have to read the GAO report very carefully. Yes, the cost increases are both real and horrendous, but most of them have nothing to do with “snafu”s. Pintortwo’s merry little list of procurement sins ignores all sorts of very real problems that are inherent in the system.

    If there is one single predominant vice in the system, it’s pricing the systems initially as if nothing is ever going to go wrong. There’s long been a tacit understanding between Defense and Congress that Defense will bring in the most optimistic cost projections they can think of, in order to get the programs started, then come begging to Congress for more money when the overruns cut in, as they almost invariably do. This gives Congress a chance to demagogue the process and pretend to be in control by doling out the money over the entire life of the program. It’s terribly cynical, but that’s the way everyone wants to play the game.

    And not all overruns are the result of pooir management. Sometimes things work well and the agency buys more than originally planned; GAO counts that as an overrun even if the unit price goes down. GAO also counts the cost of improvements made while the work is in progress as overruns. If you bargained for a car for a given price and then added a GPS and fancy audio system, GAO would call the resulting price increase an overrun — and probably blame the dealer..

    As for “no supervision,” consider that at the operating level, jobs in Defense jare being frozen or cut. For a couple of years there was a movement to increase the numbers and quality of people working on major Defense procurements. It’s still technically in effect, but everyone knows that it’s going to get steamrollered. More work, fewer people. There’s a recipe for success.

    Yes, yes, it’s a terrible shame that we’re throwing all that money at weapons. There’s no question that some ought to be cancelled and others trimmed back. But to attribute this to malice misses the point. Stupidity is quite sufficient. Meanwhile, lots of good people are doing their best to keep things from getting worse and maybe even to eke out some improvements. In gratitude for their efforts, their pay is frozen for the next two years.

    Welcome to reality, folks.

blog comments powered by Disqus