Spending Dud

Taxpayers for Common Sense offered the comments below and while we may not agree with everything, it's always important to hear all perspectives.....

Spending Dud
Volume XVIII No. 13: March 29, 2013

It's clear by now that the United States' financial situation will force everyone, from your mother up to the President, to cut down on "wants" so we can pay for "needs." But if we can't pay for wants here at home, why are American taxpayers being asked to pay for those of European militaries?

That's what we asked when we saw the latest cost estimate for a program that would rebuild warheads on nuclear weapons stationed in Europe. The B61 is the warhead that sits atop 400 U.S. missiles stationed throughout that continent. America is no longer in the business of making nukes, but we do make sure the ones we built still work via "life extension programs," and the B61 is next in line for sprucing up.

The program's official cost estimate according to the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), which oversees the B61 program, is about $8 billion, assuming a 2019 start date. But a July 2012 Pentagon review estimated the cost at more than $10 billion and moved the start date back three years. That puts the price at roughly $25 million per bomb. Considering NNSA's history of program cost and schedule overruns, that estimate is probably conservative.

Since the missiles were placed in Europe to defend our allies in the North Altantic Treaty Organization (NATO), you might think that NATO would pick up some of those costs. But no-the United State has borne the lion's share of NATO's military costs since its inception, and U.S. taxpayers are due to pick up the full tab for the program in addition to the costs of securing the weapons.

Even more galling is the fact that many of the warheads might not even stay at their bases in Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Italy, and the Netherlands much longer. German politicians have said they want the nukes out, and there's a strong chance that the arms reductions President Obama wants will remove many of them before the life extension program is even completed.

The "weapons activities" portion of the NNSA budget that covers the B61 program received its full 2013 budget request of $7.5 billion in the bill passed by Congress last week to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. That amount already represents a 5 percent increase over 2012, and NNSA asked for $363 million for the B61 program, a whopping 65 percent increase. Whether the program receives that much money remains to be seen: NNSA officials have said that sequestration would force delays. Now that sequestration is in place, NNSA should use the time constructively and reevaluate the program with an independent panel that makes its conclusions transparent to the public.

In our May 2012 report Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter, we recommended that NNSA only move forward with extending the life of the B61 if our NATO partners shared the cost. Since then, the waning justification and increasing price tag has further convinced us that this program needs to take a breather. Holding off on funding won't jeopardize our nuclear deterrent, since an independent panel certified the B61's parts as good to go. In the meantime, we have plenty of needs to take care of here at home.

Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week

Interior punts decision to determine royalty rate on risky oil shale speculation

Joint Letter to the Senate: Support Crop Insurance Transparency

Fiscal Year 2013 Continuing Resolution/Spending bills

Joint Letter to the Senate: Support Crop Insurance Transparency

Political Footprint of the Corn Ethanol Lobby

$15 Billion in Taxpayer-Backed Loan Guarantees Likely to Go Out the Door from Flawed DOE Program

TCS Earmark Databases

TCS Earmark Analysis for FY 2011

Earmark Frequently Asked Questions

Taxpayers for Common Sense appeared throughout the media this past week. Check them all out in the In the News section of our website.