NDAA Brings Together Criticism from All Sides of the Ideological Spectrum

Last week the House passed the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 300-119 with bipartisan support.  The compromise bill is headed to the Senate today where it is likely to pass and then will be signed by President Obama. Recently, several groups from across the political spectrum weighed in on the legislation.  What is clear is that many folks are disappointed with the Bill.  Here are some of the statements on the NDAA from several individuals representing groups across the ideological divide:

“Congress has once again failed taxpayers on both substance and process with the latest NDAA bill. Continued use of the OCO slush fund, which has spurred bipartisan concern both on and off Capitol Hill, tops the list of failed opportunities to rein in spending.  Additional funding of the Abrams Tank that even the Army itself doesn’t want or need, and additional funding for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) program, which is wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars languishing in development, are further proof that Congress needs to get serious on reforming Pentagon spending and the NDAA process.”

–David Williams, President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

“Taxpayers will be disappointed to see Congress, yet again, rushing a ‘must-pass’ NDAA to the President’s desk rather than addressing wasteful weapons programs and the Pentagon’s long-term budget challenges.”

–Nan Swift, Federal Affairs Manager, National Taxpayers Union

“This NDAA provides a late Thanksgiving feast for the Pentagon budget with more than half a trillion dollars, or about half of all discretionary spending that Congress appropriates annually, and on top of this sum, $63.7 billion is going for the “Overseas Contingency Operations” war spending slush fund. The OCO slush fund is itself the size of most other government agencies.

“And this slush fund is not the only budget gimmick at play. For example, the NDAA sets up a special National Sea-based Deterrence Fund for nuclear submarines to ensure that there’s no budget competition between these submarines and the Navy portion of the budget. Soon every other weapon system will be lining up for this special treatment too. Who knows what other creative ways the Pentagon finds to avoid and evade fiscal accountability. Unbelievably, this agency cannot even conduct an audit.

“Meanwhile as the Pentagon is engorging itself on its usual funding feast heedless of restraint, other agencies are being left to line up at the food pantry hoping for sustaining funds. This budget approach is not healthy sustenance for the nation.”

–Kathy Crandall Robinson, Senior Policy Director, Women’s Action for New Directions

“The 2015 NDAA that both Houses, the HASC and SASC have produced is good, not great; it is a “C+” effort at best. While there were agreements reached to achieve some cost-saving benefits, some (unfortunately) on the back of the troops, there is still no real long-term reform that would see consolidation of large programs and a reduction of costly military bases.

“The ‘plus’ here is the language that prohibits the Air Force brass from retiring the A-10 Thunderbolt II. The A-10 is irreplaceable and necessary for all likely combat scenarios going forward for the next five to ten years.

“The next Congress must do better. They must make the necessary, often hard choices, to bring fiscal discipline to the Pentagon and take a hard look at programs that do not hold the strategic value. They must accept the fact that the F-35 is not a panacea and that its overblown performance promise will never be fulfilled and cut all funding and move on to effective airframes whose capabilities are real and relevant.”

–Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (retired), Senior Military Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research