John Ferrari explains how a federal budget deal on a continuing resolution could help the American military.
[L]ast year, when Congress actually delivered a full-year CR, the sky did not fall. In fact, something remarkable happened: the Department of Defense gained more budgetary freedom than it has seen in decades.
Why? Because the full-year CR cuts appropriators out of their favorite pastime, line-item micromanagement. Instead of Congress dictating thousands of budget line items in exquisite detail, the department received several large lump-sums, akin to the structure of this year’s authorizer-written reconciliation bill. That gave the Pentagon far more flexibility to shift money within accounts to meet real-world demands and some of the findings in the PPBE Commission. The only thing missing was the Pentagon’s readiness to exploit it.
Let’s be clear: Last year’s year-long CR compromise was no disaster. Troops got paid, operations continued, and modernization didn’t collapse.
But appropriators weren’t ready to let go. They dutifully handed DoD the detailed line-item instructions they would have passed if a normal bill had cleared. And here’s the disappointment: DoD, it appears, mostly honored them. Instead of seizing the chance to realign money with strategy, the Pentagon treated the appropriators’ “wish list” as binding law.
In other words, Congressional appropriators clung to micromanagement through new means and DoD voluntarily obliged itself. The flexibility of a full-year CR was wasted.
There’s no excuse for a repeat. Everyone knows another full-year CR is a live possibility. This time, DoD must plan ahead. Instead of defaulting to appropriators’ shadow line items, the department should build a disciplined strategy for reallocating funds in line with the needs of the warfighter, akin to what it now has to do with the reconciliation bill.
The real advantage of a full-year CR is not the anomaly process; it’s liberation from congressional earmarks and parochial dictates.
