Aaron Bresnahan posted on July 01, 2010 00:12
July 2010 Navy
by Aaron Bresnahan
How can we get what we need when budgets are tight and threats to national security are still lurking about? Naturally, we need to take the good with the bad, tighten the belt a bit, and stick to the plan.
In my house, I keep a close eye on my fixed spending as well as my discretionary spending. Whether I pay the mortgage, make a car payment or go to the movies, I have to balance what I need to survive versus what I need to enjoy my life day-to-day. Sometimes, I have to take care of an unforeseen emergency. At other times, I will have a surplus. Yet, once a major item like my car is paid off, I don’t necessarily run out and buy another car or find an equivalent level of spending to support my short-term needs. Instead, I might save for a rainy day, invest for my future retirement, or give a bit to charity. My short-term priorities shift, but the overall life mission remains the same.
The federal budgeting process is a complicated beast with lots of compromises and trade-offs made along the way. Normally, it involves a balancing act between preparing for long-term perceived threats and reacting to short-term and immediate crises. It involves spending for the operations of today as well as investing for the future. This delicate dance has played out for hundreds of years during our nation’s history, and it hasn’t failed us yet. Yet, in light of the recent financial crisis, we have to ask ourselves whether it is time for a change or not. The key question, then, is how do we maximize our return, both now and for the future? How do we promote a culture of thriftiness while still maintaining our strength?
I would suggest that we should reward cost reduction, or cost savings in general, while staying focused on the mission. We need to encourage various departments, commands, and individuals to spend only what they “really” need to support day-to-day operations while keeping an eye on the longer-term national security mission as identified in the QDR process. Most budgets are made years in advance, but short-term priorities can change. We often assume that these changing priorities have to lead to budget increases. However, they could lead to cost reductions.
Most people have heard the “unwritten rule” in government, which is “if you don’t spend all the money budgeted within a given fiscal year, then the following year, you get less.” This “rule” plays itself out regularly and can probably be confirmed by viewing spikes in contract placements during the fourth quarter of each year. Why does this have to happen? If priorities change within a given fiscal year due to changing threats, but the longterm requirements still exist, then why can’t the following year’s budget more easily allow for increases or decreases based on those shifts? When leaders stay within their budgets, or possibly spend less in any given year, then why not recognize them for their responsible oversight? Wise decision-making should be rewarded, and the budgeting process should reflect more than just a simple year-on-year increase. Maybe, changes to some of the laws are needed; but a change in culture is probably needed, too.