Pundits are fixated right now on the November election, but taxpayers are warily eyeing something closer: This final week of the Senate’s “short session” and behind-the-scenes work on Pentagon budget issues. Whatever else happens, lawmakers must ensure every day, and every dollar counts.
Given the longstanding warnings from previous defense chiefs that our escalating federal debt – up by one-third since the pandemic officially began — is indeed a national security issue, just a few items that deserve scrutiny include:
Missile Defense. Last year the House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) put guardrails on the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI) program, calling for a “fly before you buy” demonstration of the system – a principle that the Biden administration’s budget wisely affirmed. Unfortunately, the Senate’s NDAA passed last year prematurely proposed boosting the total interceptor force from 44 to 64. This year, the Senate NDAA is instructing the Pentagon to prepare a 2024 budget for a “uniform” force of 64 new NGIs rather than a mix with usable interceptors already in silos, thus potentially adding billions to the taxpayers’ tab.
“Wish Lists.” The services have long created Unfunded Priorities lists to illustrate programs that could be funded above the official Department of Defense budget request. Lately, however, hawkish lawmakers have demanded that these lists (amounting to more than $24 billion this year) be submitted during budget season. This wink-and-a-nod scheme is one way Pentagon spending balloons.
Ill-Targeted Inflation Responses. Even as they justifiably criticize President Joe Biden’s excessive domestic budget, some in Congress apparently don’t see the contradiction when they state that anything less than a military budget increase of five percent above the general inflation rate would be “inadequate.” Certainly, the Pentagon is not immune to inflation – jet fuel, military families’ groceries, and construction materials for facilities have all been hit. That does not mean they have risen in price equally, or that others (e.g., digital services) have risen much more slowly.
These and numerous other areas are ripe for better oversight, but there is another standout example: throwing good money after bad on the (often barely-flying) boondoggle known as the F-35 Lightning II.
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall announced plans in July for a $4.9 billion contract to five companies for the ongoing Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) to power the next-generation fighter. Citing an urgent need for innovative technologies beyond the 30-year-old baseline knowledge informing current military aircraft powerplants, the Air Force understandably is interested in leaping ahead of rival nations. The competitive nature of the process is also not objectionable.
Worrying to taxpayers, however, was speculation that this latest AETP move might be a way to retrofit new engines into the Air Force’s existing F-35 fighter inventory, or into new production models of the F-35. (The Marines are not interested, correctly citing compatibility problems with their F-35 model.)
This move could prove to be a major fiscal mistake, compounding errors that have already put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions.
Recently, nine organizations across the political spectrum concurred with this assessment, noting in an open letter to policymakers that “the F-35 is riddled with examples of wasteful spending” even though “strategies that began with high hopes for better fiscal discipline and capability [proved] underwhelming to taxpayers.” The signatories urged leaders to “study any and all options for the F-35 engine – and compare and contrast the costs and benefits of each option – before proceeding.”
This is sound advice. As Kendall himself noted last month, AETP could prompt a “hard tradeoff” decision: “It takes a lot just to do the development – several billion dollars. [That] is, in rough terms, 70 F-35s. So are you prepared to have 70 fewer F-35s in order to have that engine in the ones that you do have?”
All the issues described above can be addressed before NDAA and defense appropriation bills become law. This means holding off the NGI retrofit while the competition plays out, eliminating “wish lists,” as a widely-backed bipartisan Senate proposal would do, cutting lower priority programs to fund other inflation-affected budget items, and ensuring that the latest $4.9 billion AETP venture does not grow out of control. If Congress won’t instruct the Air Force to wait on this phase until it can be explored in-depth, then lawmakers should stipulate that the funding will not be directed toward more engines for the troubled F-35 program.
National security is job #1 for the federal government, and the price tag for doing it right can be steep. But because national security is so important, lawmakers have a special responsibility to maximize the value of our money. Taxpayers, in uniform or not, deserve no less.
