On Thursday, TCS wrote the House of Representatives to support an amendment offered by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jared Polis (D-CO) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was based on a patently sensible idea: money to build submarines should come from the Navy's shipbuilding budget. It was an amendment to fix some unaccountably bad accounting, and stop what could be a budgetary slippery slope.
Some background:
Last year, at the suggestion of the Navy, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees decided that instead of prioritizing investments in the branch's tight shipbuilding budget and making the hard choice to cut or postpone some things, they'd simply create a new account to purchase the replacement for the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines, also known as “SSBN(X).” Thus the “National Sea-based Deterrence Fund” was born. Policymakers thought by calling the subs “national assets” they could put them under the Pentagon's defense-wide budget. But that's not how the defense budget works. The Army buys tanks, the Air Force buys planes, and the Navy buys ships, and yes, submarines. The new fund is nothing more than a gimmick, and it sets a terrible precedent for the other branches, that if you can't afford something, just call it a “national asset” and pay for it in the Pentagon's general accounts. If anything, the National Sea-based Deterrence Fund is likely to drive up defense spending.
That's why TCS asked every Representative to support the Blumenauer/Polis amedment when the NDAA was being debated on the House floor, yesterday. The full text of our letter is available below:
|
May 14, 2015
Dear Representative, During today’s debate on H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization bill, there will be an opportunity to vote for an amendment offered by Representatives Blumenauer and Polis putting funding for the Navy’s next submarine (SSBN(X)) back in the Navy’s budget. We urge you to support this amendment.
This Sea-based Deterrence Fund was created in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act and would move the responsibility for funding this new submarine to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, because they are “national assets.” Let’s be clear, all military weapons systems are “national assets.” But the procurement of new subs should be in the Navy’s budget. Just as the purchase of new bombers belongs in the Air Force budget. The infographic at right describes this budget gimmick “shell game.” This road can only lead to the other services claiming their major procurement programs are also “national assets.” And that way lies madness in the budgeting and procurement practices of the Pentagon. Voting for the Blumenauer/Polis amendment will still allow for the procurement of a new submarine for the Navy – it will just ensure the money comes from the Navy’s budget. For more information, contact me at wendy@taxpayer.net or 202-546-8500. Very Best Regards, Wendy J. Jordan Senior Policy Analyst |
Related Posts
Most Read
Who Paid for Fireworks?: Budget Group Wants to Know Who Picked Up Tab
Sep 6, 2001 |2 min read
Weekly WastebasketU.S. Contributions to NATO Budgets
Mar 18, 2022 |7 min read
Why Can't the Pentagon Pass An Audit?
May 18, 2000 |3 min read
Get Social