White House Vows to Audit the Pentagon, Which Would Be a First
The goal is audacious enough, but promises of a record spending increase makes it even
more complicated.
The Pentagon will spend the next several months gearing up for a mission so complicated that
many officials doubt it can be pulled off, an undertaking so immense that the military
hasn�t once dared to try it before.
No, this isn�t a story about deploying a fancy new weapon, or unveiling a new aircraft,
or launching a military operation of any kind: The Department of Defense is preparing for
its first-ever audit.
That the nation�s most sprawling and expensive bureaucracy�and the world�s largest employer�has
yet to undergo a formal, legally mandated review of its finances is a source of embarrassment
among budget watchdogs, and it has become a preoccupation for members of Congress intent
on demonstrating their fiscal prudence even as they appropriate more than $600 billion
annually to the Pentagon. �Like Waiting for Godot,� one Democratic senator, Jack
Reed of Rhode Island, quipped about the absent audit at a recent hearing. The lack of formal
accountability has left unanswered basic questions about how the military spends taxpayer money,
like the precise number of employees and contractors its various branches have hired. Cost overruns
have become legendary, none more so than the F-35 fighter-jet program that has drawn the
ire of President Trump. And partial reports suggest that the department has misspent or
not accounted for anywhere from hundreds of billions to several trillion dollars.
After years of missed deadlines, the mounting political pressure and a renewed commitment
from the Trump administration might finally result in an audit. For the first time last
year, both major political parties called for auditing the Pentagon in their campaign
platforms. That unites everyone from Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren to Ted Cruz and
the House Freedom Caucus. And last week, Trump�s nominee to serve as comptroller for the Pentagon,
David Norquist, testified at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would insist on one whether
the department could pass it or not. �It is time to audit the Pentagon,� Norquist
told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in his opening statement.
As comptroller for the Homeland Security Department a decade ago, Norquist, the brother of the
anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist, undertook the first successful audits of that much younger
federal agency. The Defense Department is unlikely to meet a statutory deadline to be
�audit-ready� by the end of September. But Norquist said he would begin the process
even if the Pentagon�s financial statements were not fully in order, and he committed
to having the report completed by March 2019.
What has prevented the Pentagon from being examined this way before? The answer lies
somewhere �between lethargy and complexity,� said Gordon Adams, a distinguished fellow
at the Stimson Center who was the top budget official for national security in the Clinton
White House. �It hasn�t been done ever,� he told me, �partly because it�s incredibly
complicated to do and also because there�s not a great, powerful will in the building
to do it.�
The complexity of the project dates back to the Civil War, Adams said, when the Army and
the Navy set up their own separate accounting systems. The Air Force also went its own way
after its creation following World War II, and the military build-ups of the last four
decades scrambled the department�s financial records many times over. The explosion of
military contractors since 9/11 has made scrubbing the books harder still. Adams estimated that
an audit would have to account for 15 million to 20 million contracting transactions each
year. The Pentagon has spent several billion dollars over the last seven years just trying
to consolidate its accounting systems in preparation for a potential audit.
Despite the ramp-up costs, the project has never risen to be a top priority; the Pentagon
has simply been too busy fighting wars. �The military has repeatedly argued that they need
to focus on the war effort and accountability can come later,� said Kori Schake, a fellow
at the Hoover Institution who previously served in a variety of national-security positions
in the government. That excuse carried more weight with lawmakers in the years when the
United States had hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, top Republicans like Senator John McCain of Arizona, chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, are pressing for an audit with more urgency. �This has been a very public
continuing failure for the Department of Defense, in large part due to the failure of senior
management to make this a priority for the department and invest the necessary time and
will to get it done,� McCain said at the outset of Norquist�s hearing. �This must
end with you,� he told the president�s nominee
Yet those fiscal hawks hoping that the long-awaited report will spur substantial reforms to defense
spending are just as likely to be disappointed. An audit by itself won�t dismantle the �military
industrial complex� that former President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about, nor
will it lead members of Congress to stop fighting to protect the bases and weapons systems that
are manufactured in their districts�and the jobs that come with them. Several times
in recent years, it has been congressional lobbying that has kept up production of weapons
and equipment that the military no longer considers necessary.
�An audit does not raise the big issues,� Adams said. �It doesn�t tell you that
we�re not getting the right bang for the buck. It doesn�t tell you anything about
whether we�re getting the right forces for the threat. It doesn�t tell you how well
the forces perform. It doesn�t tell you where we are wasting capability that we don�t
need.�
�What it allows a member of Congress to do,� he continued, �is to look tough on
defense and spend a lot on defense at the same time.�
Spending a lot on defense is what the Trump administration wants to do, even as it pledges
its support for a Pentagon audit. The White House has asked Congress for a $54 billion
increase in the military budget over the next year and secured about $15 billion of that
in the recent spending deal. �It�s harder when there�s a big inflow of cash to focus
on something like the audit,� said William Hartung, director of the arms and security
project at the Center for International Policy. �There�s still that incentive to just
push the money out the door.�
There�s some hope among audit advocates that the administration�s demand for more
money will give congressional spending hawks leverage to insist on progress toward the
accounting milestone in exchange for a budget increase. But they also don�t believe leverage
should be necessary to demand that a department with a workforce pegged at more than 3 million
people commit, at long last, to some basic bookkeeping. �We would never accept the
argument that the Department of Education is too big and too complicated to be accountable,�
Schake argued. �Why do we accept that for Defense?�
No comments:
Post a Comment