Sessions Warns on DoD Spending

Sessions Warns on DoD Spending

By Colin Clark Friday, January 28th, 2011 1:20 pm
Posted in Policy

The GOP split between Tea Party members and defense stalwarts is something we’ve covered inch by inch since the November elections. So far, no senior Republicans who are members of either the House or Senate armed service committees had spoken out in favor of cutting the defense budget.

Now the dam has broken with Sen. Jeff Sessions, veteran member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, speaking out.

But my colleague Jen DiMascio at Politico got Sessions to go on the record supporting defense cuts.


“Following calls by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to put the defense budget ‘on the table’ for cuts, Sessions, a veteran member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is burnishing his credentials as ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, and even he says it’s time for the Pentagon to trim its sails.

“‘Nothing is immune,’ Sessions told POLITICO. ‘Defense will take some reductions.’” Sessions views carry weight. He is  a senior member of the strategic forces subcommittee, hails from the would-be airborne tanker state  and is a member of the Judiciary Committee’s terrorism and homeland security panel. And, of most immediate interest, he was named yesterday as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, meaning he is the Republican in charge of trying to set the congressional budget ceiling for the federal government. While his post is not nearly as powerful as is his colleague Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, Sessions will wield significant moral and political authority on defense issues given his long service on the SASC and his post as the top GOP budget member.

Join the Conversation

CharlesHouston January 28th, 2011 at 1:32 pm

What we should worry about is that they might decide to not identify bad programs, and so might try to cut across the board. The good programs should not be cut alongside of the bad ones, identify programs that we can’t afford or do not really need — and delete those entirely. Gates seems to be trying to do that — whether you concur with his identification of “unaffordable” programs or not. I would point out that stealth technology is a solution in search of a problem, etc. I would suggest that a new long range stealth bomber is not needed today — as old and creaky as our current fleet (B-52, B-1) is. A new bomber will be tough to design and buy as it is, without adding expense of stealth to it.

Dfens January 28th, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Good programs? A good program is the one that pays your salary. Hell, I wouldn’t care if they cut the military budget in half, if they’d change the procurement rules so the government no longer paid contractors a profit to drag out development we’d still have a more capable defense overall. Things are so bad in this business that if they decided to make every weapons development contract a competitive development between two or more companies, we’d still be able to reduce the cost and time of development by a factor of 10, even though we’d obviously be paying twice or more the cost we need to pay! You can’t give a contractor a financial incentive to screw you and then wonder why they screwed you. Who the hell thought that was a good idea?

CharlesHouston January 28th, 2011 at 5:17 pm

Spoken like a person who never heard of the Future Imagery Architecture — where Boeing underbid Lockheed to develop new photo satellites. They did not have the expertise to do it, in spite of being a large and well run company, and the project flopped. There are bodies of knowledge and some contracts must go to those who can successfully complete them. Not all contracts are for hammers. And don’t just answer that Boeing is a corrupt company — all companies have their expertise.

Dfens January 28th, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Some of us can rise above only being concerned about our own rice bowl. Some cannot.

bobbymike January 28th, 2011 at 11:06 pm

It is time to decrease overseas commitments in places like Germany as well as close unneeded US bases without the political crap of “not my congressional district”.

Half of those savings should go to cuts with the other half for R&D and weapons development/procurement. We must maintain the industrial base or we risk losing key technologies which is not good with Chinese development of important military systems accelerating.

William C. January 29th, 2011 at 12:05 am

Not a good idea. That defeats the whole flexibility of the bomber over a missile, especially when it comes to the nuclear role.

William C. January 29th, 2011 at 12:07 am

Exactly. People complain about Lockheed, Northrop, and others supposedly dragging out development to make more cash. Yet forcing the industry to merge into even fewer companies isn’t going to improve anything.

CharlesHouston January 29th, 2011 at 10:14 am

Some of us think about our statements, some just randomly say stuff. “A good program is one that pays your salary” that sure sounds like only being concerned about our own rice bowl. Consistency is a beautiful thing.

NoMoreCostOverruns January 29th, 2011 at 10:47 am

A friend of mine once made an excellent point that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended for one Senator to be more powerful than another Senator. Could we all agree that they would be appalled at the current structure of committees, pecking orders, and seniority?? I have two proposed solutions: Solution #1: Term limits for Congress. Senators get 1 six year term.. or how about no more than one consecutive term. Then if they are such brilliant leaders and care so much about Defense, they could move into a political appointee position. Solution #2: Let the AMERICAN PEOPLE vote on Committee memberships & Chairs!!! Each Congress member would have to make their case as to why they would do such a good job at any position. I just checked Jeff Sessions bio — guess what — no military service. I, for one, am not comforted that he holds seniority in making strategic national defense decisions.

joan January 29th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

Interesting how DOD give a pass to leftist like Levin who never saw a military program he did not want to GUT. People like Levin and Barry obama are the problem not this false Tea Party/ Republican dynamic

TMB January 30th, 2011 at 1:27 pm

The heads of Congressional committees have enormous power to decide what gets into our out of the budget. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure most committee chairs have a vested interest in the budget they oversee. That puts them in place to aim enormous amounts of pork to their home districts at everyone else’s expense. I got into an argument with a Congressional aide years ago who told me those committees need someone like that because of “expertise” or some such. For the Senators who keep talking about the refueling tankers and just happen to come from those states where they’ll be built, what “expertise” do they have to declare that one aircraft is better than the other? I don’t believe there’s much in the way of checks and balances when it comes to committee leadership.

BOOMER January 31st, 2011 at 1:04 pm

If anyone on any of these commities or acquisition guru Ash Carter had any ideal of what goes on out there numerous savings could be made immediately. New construction R&D programs are one thing but I cant tell you how many times I have tried to get the upper brass to not sepect contractors with no prior experiance in building common items. I have sat selections boards where the contractor describes the equipment they intend to buy if they get the contract and where they think they may be performing the operations. Problem is they have obviously never manufactured this item before or the location or gear to do it that you know they will pad the contract for because they wont fund 20 mil worth of gear for a 36mil a yr 4 yr contract out of thier (CONTINUED BELOW)

BOOMER January 31st, 2011 at 1:07 pm

(CONTINUED) own pocket, then when you go to the post award at thier facility your taken to an old building with no pwer yet where they have bought surplas gear with numerous missing parts standing in a puddle of water and are trying to figure out how to make work and the brass gives them an extension of time and cost modification instead of revoking the contract because they dont want to have to go back and tell thier boss they might have made a bad decision. That is where a lot of our waste is on govt contracts. IF THEY HAVE NO PROVEN TRACK RECORD THEN DONT ALLOW THEM TO BID ON A CONTRACT PERIOD. You would be supprised how many millions per contract could be saved on common currently used items like ammo — rifles — mortar and artillery rds — clothing and so on just by using common sense

Unuajohwofia Onoriode February 26th, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Dear sir,
Sir please i am requesting for international money transfer into my account no,02030680050895 wiyh united bank for africa plc sir please help and support me with money?

Unuajohwofia Onoriode February 26th, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Sir please i am requesting for international money transfer into my account no,02030680050895 with united bank for africa plc sir please help and support me with money?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement