system.  The Congress can assert it is exercising "budget restraint" by imposing a modest $100 million cut on the procurement budget proposed by the president. But few procurement programs are actually cut (many are just moved to the "emergency" account), and the members get to add a several hundred million dollars in spending for their home states and districts.

The Mega Gimmicks

Typically, members of Congress are far from satisfied with just several hundred million dollars in "pork" for 50 states and 435 congressional districts.  In recent years, the pork ad-ons to the peacetime portions of the defense bills have been on the order of magnitude of $8-12 billion.  And yet, the peacetime portions of these bills rarely exceed the amount requested by the president, and they often are a few billion lower, such as the $4.4 billion reduction advertised for 2006.[4]

How can you add as much as $12 billion while simultaneously reducing the bill by a $4.4 billion?

Here are a few of the major gimmicks.

"Unobligated Balances."   In the Military Personnel and O&M accounts, Congress cuts $872 million and $333 million, respectively, for "unobligated balances."  What on Earth are those?  "Unobligated balances" are simply funds that have not been spent -- yet.  The money coming out of the Military Personnel account could have been intended for payroll costs, but for some reason the expense either will not occur at all or will not occur on the planned schedule.  It could be that the expense is no longer required, or it could be that it is still needed, but the payment will be due later than anticipated.  It will remain a mystery; nowhere do either of the Appropriations Committees explain why the money is being cut or even where in these huge accounts it should be cut. 

The Military Personnel and O&M accounts are strange places to cut money during a war, when personnel and operating expenses, such as manning and training, should increase, not slow down.  It's entirely possible that the Appropriations Committee staff who crafted this reduction know that and fully intend for the money to shift to wartime costs in Title IX of the bill, the "emergency" fund for war costs.  However, there is no evidence that these unobligated balances are restored in Title IX in any notations in the conference report.  Indeed, nothing in the conference report sheds light on the matter, other than that the appropriators are extracting that amount of money out of the regular bill because it is deemed to be "unobligated balances."  Thus, when $1.2 billion disappears from the peacetime bill, its fate is left unaccounted to the public.

"Cost Avoidance."  Basically, the same thing is occurring in the portions of the Military Personnel account for the Reserves and the National Guard.  There, virtually every component is tapped for unexplained "cost avoidance" for a total of $318 million.  Are Reserves and National Guard personnel costs going down in a time of war?  That's hard to conceive, and again in Title IX there is no sign whether the money is moved there.  Fate unknown.

These actions, and their being unexplained as either spending to be eliminated altogether or simply transferred to Title IX, are just the tip of the iceberg.  The peacetime O&M account is crammed with other examples. 

Congress reduced "Peacetime Training" and "Operations Support" by a whopping $1.3 billion.  There is no identifiable addition of the money back into Title IX.  It is unclear whether this funding for training is to be eliminated altogether or just transferred to the "emergency" account.[5]

Depot maintenance (of weapon systems) for various military services is reduced by $631 million.  Almost $2 billion is added in Title IX for Depot Maintenance; it appears that Congress is funding both peacetime and wartime depot maintenance costs in Title IX. 

Funding for converting civilian jobs filled by military personnel back to jobs filled by civilians is being reduced by $282 million.  This program was intended to make more military personnel available for war related tasks.  There is no apparent add-back-in Title IX.  It is not possible to discern if the money is cut altogether or simply transferred. 

Financial Management is cut by $103 million in the peacetime bill.  There is no apparent add-back-in Title IX.  It appears to be a genuine reduction.  However, for more than 20 years DOD has flunked audits by GAO and the DOD Inspector General.  Given the Pentagon's persistent incompetence in this basic peacetime management skill, it is a strange place to cut costs and activity.[6]

And so on.  Other arbitrary reductions in the all-important O&M budget (the budget that enables our forces at home to be properly trained and deployed with working weapons) amount to $1.6 billion.  Added to the O&M reductions noted above, the total (so far) comes to $4.2 billion.

The Mayhem in General Provisions

Reading Legislation is never fun; at best, it's dry, obtuse, and legalistic.  However, if there is such a thing as entertaining reading in defense appropriations bills, it occurs in "General Provisions."  These titles are typically a menagerie.  In this year's bill, the provisions go on for 129 different sections in over 35 pages.  Strangely, the "explanatory materials," which one would expect to be even longer, are only four pages.  For good reason.  There's much in the General Provisions that members of Congress would probably prefer no one to understand.  There's funding for military museums, youth organizations, new roads, the Alaskan natural gas pipeline, the Civil Air Patrol, Indian lands, the Boy Scouts, retirement homes, Israeli "anti-missile" missiles, and the Red Cross, among other things.

Several other provisions take yet another whack at the O&M budget. 

Another $265 million is extracted from O&M as "savings" due to "efficiencies and management improvements."

$100 million is taken from O&M to "limit excessive growth in ... advisory and assistance services."

$195 million is extracted to reflect "revised economic assumptions."

$92 is taken out to reduce travel.

$250 million is cut "to reflect cash balance and rate stabilization."

Many, if not most, of these "savings" are quite phony.  The Office of Management and the Budget frequently complains that these reductions are arbitrary and really only mean that DOD's important readiness programs will be cut.  For example, on June 16, 2005, OMB complained to the House Appropriations Committee that the Committee's "reductions in the General Provisions .... could damage the readiness of U.S. forces and their preparedness."[7]  What OMB is, in effect, saying is that DOD is unable, or unwilling, to effect real savings (i.e. eliminate inefficiencies), and these provisions actually amount to cuts in O&M programs, potentially including training, base repairs, depot maintenance and other readiness-related activities.[8] 

In some cases, the amount "saved" is derived from specious calculations.  For example, the "savings" in "rate stabilization" can assume changes in foreign currency fluctuations in favor of the dollar many months in advance, a prediction that any prudent financial adviser would be very reluctant to make.  In some past cases, these reductions and across the board cuts are reverse-engineered: in other words, the Appropriations Committee leadership decides...