The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Key NDAA Amendments, National Security Edition: Bureaucracy, Bombers, and Flying Boondoggles

A B-2 Spirit bomber

By BEN FREEMEN, Ph.D. and MIA STEINLE

Yesterday, POGO called for congressional support of nine amendments to the gargantuan defense budget bill, the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year (FY) 2013. These amendments would result in savings without compromising security and / or would lead to more accountability for the government and its contractors. Here’s a look at the amendments that touch on national security generally—stay tuned for a look at those oriented towards government contracting and those that relate to the nuclear weapons complex.

Deferring Development of a Super High-Tech Bomber for Which There is No Urgent Need

If you owned three cars, all of which had many miles to go before the end of their lives, would you buy a fourth, top-of-the-line car? What if you were in debt? By, say, $15 trillion?

This is exactly the nonsensical spending plan the U.S. government is implementing, as the Air Force plans to spend at least $6.3 billion over the next five years developing a new long-range penetrating bomber aircraft. The thing is, the Air Force’s existing fleet of B-52, B-1B, and B-2 planes is undergoing upgrades and is expected to be operational for decades to come.

Nine Amendments for More Savings, Security, and Accountability in the Defense Budget

By BRYAN RAHIJA

Just yesterday, POGO sent a letter to the House of Representatives calling for support of nine amendments to the House's National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2013 that would lead to more savings, security, and accountability. These amendments reflect many of the recommendations POGO made in its updated Spending Less, Spending Smarter report. 

In a nutshell, these amendments would:

• Prevent U.S. taxpayer-financed human trafficking
• Bring the amount that defense contractors can bill taxpayers for their employees' compensation down to a more reasonable level 
• Reduce funding for a billion-dollar nuclear boondoggle
• Defer development of a super high-tech bomber for which there is no urgent need
• Stop the rollback of oversight of nuclear weapons laboratories
• Replace the most expensive variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with affordable jets that we already have
• Shed light on the true cost of service contractors
• Close a contracting loophole that allows contractors to NOT disclose costs that went into certain goods and services
• Trim the fat in the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy

Good stuff, right?

We'll be taking a closer look at each amendment on the blog throughout the week. In the meantime—big ups to the following Reps. for their hard work and support on these amendments:

• Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 
• Mike Coffman (R-CO) 
• Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
• John Conyers (D-MI) 
• Keith Ellison (D-MN) 
• Hank Johnson (D-GA)
• James Lankford (R-OK) 
• Ed Markey (D-MA)
• George Miller (D-CA)
• Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
• Jackie Speier (D-CA) 
• Paul Tonko (D-NY) 
• Peter Visclosky (D-IN) 
• Peter Welch (D-VT)

Get the full rundown on the amendments and their sponsors here, and stay tuned for more.

Bryan Rahija is POGO's blog editor.

The Hidden Costs of Star Creep: Generals Making More in Retirement Than In Service

By BEN FREEMAN

The cost of our nation's top-heavy military--which now features a historically large proportion of generals and admirals, a trend called Star Creep--doesn't end when these top officers retire. Indeed, top generals and admirals can make even more in retirement than they do on active duty, as USA Today’s Tom Vanden Brook revealed last week.

After the Pentagon lobbied for changing the pension rules at least as early as 2003, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which increased retirement pay for general and flag officers. These changes allow retirees with more than 40 years of service to receive pensions greater than their basic pay at the time of retirement. Specifically, 2.5 percent greater per year they serve beyond 40. Previously, generals and admirals’ pensions were capped at 75 percent of their pay.

The cost of these changes is not trivial.

New Video: A Top-Heavy Military is Costing You Money and Hurting Defense

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

The U.S. military is more top-heavy today than it has ever been. As the Department of Defense adds more and more generals and admirals to its ranks--a process known as "star creep"--the military becomes more expensive and less agile. POGO National Security Fellow Ben Freeman tells you what you need to know about star creep in one minute. If you want more info, check out our previous posts on star creep.

If you like what you see, consider subscribing to POGO's Youtube channel to get easy updates on all our new videos.

Andre Francisco is POGO's Communications Associate. Ben Freeman is POGO's National Security Fellow.

Follow @andrefrancisco

Follow @BenFreemanDC

Today's Military: The Most Top-Heavy Force in U.S. History

By BEN FREEMAN

After Thanksgiving, waistlines aren't the only things that are bloated--the Pentagon's top ranks are fattening at an alarming rate.

Despite a plan set forth by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to rein in the Department of Defense's (DoD) increasingly top-heavy force and assurances from Pentagon personnel that these plans were being enacted, the U.S. military is still adding top brass faster than you can say tryptophan.

In September, I testified before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel about the military becoming increasingly top-heavy as a result of growth in the proportion of general and flag officers at the Pentagon. This trend, which we at POGO dubbed Star Creep, is costly to taxpayers who have to foot the large bill for every new general and admiral. It also hinders military effectiveness by leading to what Gates referred to as a “bureaucracy which has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur.”

My fellow witnesses at the hearing—several generals and admirals as well as former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley—assured the concerned Committee that they had everything under control. They cited Gates’ Efficiency Initiatives, which purportedly eliminate 102 general and flag officer positions, as evidence of the DoD’s commitment to combating Star Creep. Stanley confirmed to Chairman Jim Webb (D-VA) that Gates’ successor—Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta—supported these efforts and, “has accepted the policies and the things put in place by his predecessor.” (Stanley tendered his notice of resignation in late October.)

What Senator Webb and I did not know at the time—and perhaps Stanley did—was that Gates’ initiative to cut general and flag officers had already come to a screeching halt. Data that were released recently on the DoD personnel office's website tell the tale.

'Star Creep' Creating a Top-Heavy Military, POGO Tells Senate Panel

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

The U.S. military's top-heavy command structure is the result of "star creep," the trend over the last 20 years of adding more and more generals and admirals to do work that could easily be performed by lower ranking officers, POGO National Security Fellow Ben Freeman told a Senate panel today.

The military has more generals and admirals now than at any time since the end of the Cold War -- the average general and admiral has nearly 500 fewer personnel under their command than in 1991. Freeman told the panel about the problems this creates,

This progression towards a more top-heavy force is a burden for taxpayers and military commanders. The cost of officers increases markedly with their rank, so taxpayers are overpaying whenever a general or flag officer is in a position that could be filled by a lower ranking officer. Additionally, some military personnel experts say unnecessarily top-heavy organizations hinder military effectiveness as they slow decision cycles.

Brass Creep and the Pentagon: Air Force Leads the Way As Top Offender

By Nick Schwellenbach

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) asked for a rare moment of audience participation at a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support hearing on March 29.

“Let me ask how many people in the room work for the Defense Department or one of the branches of the military­­—if you'd raise your hands,” requested McCaskill, chairwoman of the Subcommittee.

A peek at the archived webcast (at the 86:43 mark) shows that several individuals in the front row of the audience raised their hands. Based on my experience attending hearings with Defense Department witnesses, I’d bet that many others in the audience raised their hands as well.

“That's a lot,” she responded.