tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (05/12/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
While I was looking at the summary of weapons program budget items in
the Navy, some questions come to mind.
If I understand this correctly, there is a budget request followed by
an authorization. Then some amount is actually bought or delivered.
1. Are the items basically specified in dollar amounts or in number of
items to be purchased?
2. When the amount bought/delivered does not match the authorization,
what happens?
3. What happens to left over money?
4. What happens if things go a little bit over?
5. How easily can money be moved around between these accounts?
6. On a few items, it looks like the Navy recieved more than it
requested. How can this happen?
On the Tomahawk line, there were different variants listed:
TASM (Tomahawk anti-ship missile)
TLAM-N (Tomahawk land attack missile, nuclear)
TLAM-C (Tomahawk land attack missile, conventional)
TLAM-D (Tomahawk land attack missile, ?)
Does anyone know what is the "D" version of the TLAM?
Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696
Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.boardsmb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (05/13/89)
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) In article <6506@cbnews.ATT.COM>, tek@CS.UCLA.EDU writes: > > > From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU > > While I was looking at the summary of weapons program budget items in > the Navy, some questions come to mind. > > If I understand this correctly, there is a budget request followed by > an authorization. Then some amount is actually bought or delivered. > 1. Are the items basically specified in dollar amounts or in number of > items to be purchased? > 2. When the amount bought/delivered does not match the authorization, > what happens? > 3. What happens to left over money? > 4. What happens if things go a little bit over? > 5. How easily can money be moved around between these accounts? > 6. On a few items, it looks like the Navy recieved more than it > requested. How can this happen? Ted Kim asks a number of questions about the budget and appropriations process. It's complex, and more than a bit political, but I'll do my best. First, there are three stages. There's a request -- a wish list, actually -- that finally gets submitted to Congress after much negotiation within the executive branch. Congress then passes an authorization bill granting permission to do things, but *not* providing any money. It's only later that a separate appropriations bill is passed; the amounts here are often much less than was authorized. "Can I buy a toy?" "Certainly." "Can I have some money for the toy?" "No, of course not." Congress appropriates money for specific categories, but there's a cap on the total amount of money; you're not allowed to spend more than that because legally, you don't have that money. If there's a cost overrun, you have to find the extra money in some other pocket (assuming that the budget law permits), or you have to ask Congress for some more. Unexpended money generally reverts, within limits; in fact, the Constitution prohibits military appropriations from spanning more than two years (Article I, Section 8). Just how easily money can be moved around depends on the exact law; some funds are tightly earmarked, others are more flexible. In general, though, moving stuff around too much is a Bad Idea because the Congresscritters get upset. And that's especially true if you try to find more money than they gave you after they explicitly rejected your earlier request. How the services can get more than they asked for is purely political. Often, the extra money will be spent in the district of a powerful senator or representative. A military need is therefore found. Just the other day, in a N.Y. Times article on cutbacks in F-14 procurement, someone remarked that Grumman had major subcontractors in 48 states. Of course, the politics can work both ways; the services have been known to tailor their own requests to make powerful politicians happy. Witness the debate a few years ago on Air Force jet trainers -- Kansas (Sen. Dole) had more clout than New York (Sen. D'Amato), so Cessna (I think) got the contract, and Fairchild got the axe.