Here’s an interesting conversation about FY23 budget projections on Defense & Aerospace Report podcast. (I’ll forego the indent)
Michael Herson: We’ve seen a lot of the services’ unfunded requirements lists be circulated on the Hill. This adds more fuel to the fire — ‘see, we’re not spending enough on defense for a lot of the things the services need and want.’ These unfunded requirements lists will get a tremendous amount of attention as we come closer to marking up the [FY23] bill.
I still anticipate, talking to members of both sides, there will be an amendment with an enormous amount of money to the defense bill. It will pass again with strong bipartisan support.
Vago Muradian: And you’re still putting that in the $40 billion rage?
Michael Herson: I’m putting it in the $100 billion range.
Vago Muradian: So the topline number folks should be thinking about should not be $773 billion, it should be closer to $873 billion you think?
Michael Herson: Yes, and when you factor everything else, we’re talking well over $900 billion.
Vago Muradian: So when you add the Department of Energy piece and others, you’re talking about the watershed budget the department has been fantasizing about for decades?
Michael Herson: That is the number that was given to me by a very, very senior Republican on the committee.
Vago Muradian: Will Democrats go along with it?
Michael Herson: I think it will be enough that they will. Remember the Democratic majority is extremely slim. This is a must pass piece of legislation. I think many Democrats will vote for it.
Vago Muradian: And I think they should. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure….
Dov Zakheim: The fact that the strategic cruise missile was dropped from the budget request was (a) pretty amazing — it may be a gold watch because it’s clear the Congress will put it back in. A lot of eyebrows were raised when the thing was dropped… The whole notion of gold watches in the budget is ridiculous because you’re relying on the Congress to do your job. Congress is supposed to respond to budgets, not create them.
I love Zakheim’s point on gold watches. The real question in my mind is whether DoD is playing the game by purposefully dropping items they really do value to get it back as a Congressional add — or in how many cases is dropping a procurement or retiring some inventory really a hard tradeoff DoD is willing to make?
I don’t think it is easy or possible to tell from the outside. The Air Force dropping MQ-9 production, the Navy retiring LCSs from the inventory, the Navy dropping the second DDG-51 production back in FY22. Every case is a snowflake. And then, a “wedge” created by reducing one program is not traceable to who the “winners” were from that decision.
I suppose Congress could look at the FYDP outyears from a previous year’s budget, see which programs were new or had relative changes, and then start slicing out of that when they put “gold watches” back into the appropriation accounts. That would be a dicey game even if DoD had submitted a FYDP in FY22 (they did not).
Leave a Reply