Last year President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called on Congress to support reform of the cost and development of the Defense Department's procurement programs. Congress answered that call by passing the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. Aimed at curbing the ballooning defense spending, saving taxpayer dollars, and ensuring America's troops have access to the best tools and technology, the law and its impacts have recently come to the attention of the Government Accountability Office.
While the GAO's recent appraisals have found that competition during the procurement process can lead to significant long-term savings, it also identified continued significant opportunities to defense procurement programs-- specifically regarding the Defense Department's inability to substantially curb cost overruns and delivery delays. With a greater focus on competition, many of the flaws found in the GAO's evaluations on procurement programs could likely be corrected.
Leveraging competition during the Pentagon's procurement process works -- it works for military troops who depend on contractors to provide the most effective products, it works for taxpayers who have asked the federal government to spend wisely during tough economic times. Most importantly, competition results in better contractor performance. When companies are forced to vie for Defense Department dollars, they are more likely to lower prices, produce better commodities, and act more responsively to military and government needs.
Congress has an opportunity to support the benefits competition once again, much as it did when it passed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. Today Congress will vote whether, as part of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft program, to give a $100 billion sole-source monopoly to an underperforming project that is $2.5 billion over budget. This will be one of the largest purchases ever made by the Pentagon. The right decision is clear: competition must be preserved to help guarantee the best possible engine at the best possible price for the JSF aircraft fleet.
At GE, we know that competition leads to efficiency and innovation - in everything from jet engines to wind turbines to ultrasounds. That's why in a letter yesterday to the House of Representatives, GE CEO Jeff Immelt asked Members to preserve funding for competition. Neither our troops nor taxpayers can afford Congress supporting a monopoly of this size. Head-to-head competition is the right way to control costs and improve quality, not just for the JSF program, but for all major Pentagon procurement spending.
Europe's bankrupt Social Democracies for instance, can provide their own damn defense.
Everyone marvels at what the Europeans can spend their money on, and forgets what they don't have to spend their money on. In a way it's sad for us Americans- they got to spend the prolonged post-war credit binge on health care and education, while we had to spend ours on tanks and aircraft carriers. Oh well, the binge is ending now anyway.
I have been hearing this same thing on the Radio for the last week here in St. Louis. How I should call my Congressmen because competition is good and we don't want to see poor little GE get shoved out of this business. Because GE is such a mom and pop company that can't possibly fend for itself and I am sure that GE has never, ever been on the opposite side of this military contract.
And I really hadn't heard that there was any real problems with out current stable of aircraft other than they are getting a little older.
Very few Pentagon defense systems come in on time and on budget. Cost overruns with cost-plus contracts are the norm.
The Pentagon's accounting systems are so dysfunctional that it cannot pass a proper audit.
There is a revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contracts.
The military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address is now so powerful that we are engaged in perpetual war on a battlefield that encompasses the entire planet.
Forced to choose between guns and butter, the President and the Congress chose guns. It is better to fund an un-winnable war in Afghanistan, look for other wars in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, than it is to fund teachers, fire fighters, police, or extend unemployment benefits and medical benefits.
The private contracts from the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security should put on the chopping block and we should cut the fraud, waste and abuse in the system.
When your contracts and gravy train are going to be cut, then we'll see competition for the best systems at the best price.
Competition is good, but when the price of programs rises to be comparable to the available budget, it ceases to be possible to compete everything.
Take your own company's view on being sole engine provider on heavier 777s.