Did Robert Gates Terminate 30 DOD Hardware Programs, Saving $300 Billion?

For months I have been reading in the press about Robert Gates cancelling more than 30 [defense hardware] programs. A May 24 Bloomberg article by Viola Gienger ("Gates Says Military Cuts May Protect F-35, Submarines") came up quick on a Google search. Other articles credit Gates with saving more than $300 billion with these -- presumably tough -- decisions.

In case you are wondering where this imagery of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as a tough task master for out-of-control DOD procurement is coming, you need look no further than Robert Gates.

At a May 24 farewell speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Gates repeated his own claim, made frequently earlier, that "All told, over the past two years, more than 30 programs were cancelled, capped, or ended that, if pursued to completion, would have cost more than $300 billion." (See the speech here.) A bit later he hammered home the point, in case any of the press present missed the legacy Gates seeks for himself: "... when it comes to our military modernization accounts, the proverbial 'low hanging fruit' -- those weapons and other programs considered most questionable -- have not only been plucked, they have been stomped on and crushed."

Robert Gates did not reduce the number of hardware programs in the Department of Defense; he increased them. A term he has repeatedly expressed distaste for ("math") proves him wrong. DOD keeps periodic records on these sorts of things; DOD's Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) track the number of major hardware programs and their acquisition costs. (Find them here.) They show the following:

In September 2008, just before Barack Obama was elected and selected Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense, there were 91 Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). They were projected to cost $1,648 billion dollars.

In April 2009, Gates announced the termination of various defense programs. The SAR that next came out, in December 2009, showed the number of MDAPs had indeed declined: to 87 programs, costing a little less ($1,616 billion).

Nine months later, after Gates took some more whacks at the defense budget -- if that's what you want to call them -- the SAR that came out in September 2010 showed the number of MDAPs had increased to 94. Their cost also increased -- to $1,679 billion.

The most recent SAR, for December 2010, shows another increase, both in programs (to 95) and money (to $1,720 billion).

So, thanks to Secretary Gates' "termination" of more than 30 programs "saving" us $300 billion, we now have an increase of four programs costing an additional $72 billion.

I have two questions:

Just what legacy should we be giving Mr. Gates?

What type of "math" will Leon Panetta use when he is made Secretary of Defense later this year?

 

Comments

[heian120]

12:19 PM on 06/06/2011

The 300 Billion included future cost of course. Duh.

For example he cancelled the F-22 and Future Combat Systems (FCS) which alone would have cost hundreds of Billions into the future.
And that%u2019s just 2 programs.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104810,00.html

[wonmean]

08:56 AM on 06/06/2011

DCtalk: More is less.

[LanceLee]

08:51 AM on 06/06/2011

Hey, come on! He didn't lie, he just forgot to mention the programs that were added that made up for the savings, and then some. How else is a guy supposed to sound like his is reducing spending when he is actually do the opposite?

[Countess]

08:36 AM on 06/06/2011

The so called defense cuts proposed by Gates and Obama are a sham much like the budget projections each party makes when it wants to sell an idea for the future. The governing elite know full well that the media is too stupid and disinterested in actual policy matters and will never do any serious investigation of the facts so they can say anything they want. The media is much more interested in the underpants of congressman Weiner.

[GHarry]

08:27 AM on 06/06/2011

Yes, and the bigger story is that the American people have almost no say in either defense spending or foreign policy. Those issues are decided by certain lawmakers heavily influenced by the weapons industry and by the federal bureaucracy that has a revolving door into high-paying corporate jobs. The only way to improve the situation would be to remove private money entirely from the elections process and make all federal elections nonpartisan to keep the Republican and Democratic parties from dominating the system. Unless those basics steps are taken nothing will improve significantly -- and it may be too late. America already is falling behind other developed nations in many areas and is well on its way to becoming another Mexico or Russia.

[heian120]

01:04 PM on 06/06/2011

they have ALL the "say". How about 300 Billion in Farm subsidies? Or 61 Billion for ethanol?

Does anyone think we could have gotten bin Laden without the advanced system we have?

[Robert Frank]

06:47 AM on 06/06/2011

he "cut" one program so he could fund another...saving zero

[researcher]

04:54 PM on 06/05/2011

war war and more wars. americans if nothing else love their wars. not so much those long wars but those quick ones where we win quick and kick some you know what.

we will manage to do the rome self destruction in 60 years not 600. see we do some things better and faster. ie self destruction. :-)

there are so many lessons to be learned about life and humans by watching america self destruct under its own wealth and power. life is about lessons, observe and learn from the best in the world on how to self destruct a nation. capitalism is part of that key. ie corp profits over people, imperialism for corp profits, cater to religious evangels for votes to support the war machine, corrupt gov for corp money, etc.

does anyone find it interesting that the evangels are the most in favor of these on going wars. see lots to learn about humans and their beliefs.

[altohone]

12:59 PM on 06/05/2011

I too would include Obama when laying blame. His admin. His growing defense budget. His failure to prioritize properly.

[Leadsled]

12:00 PM on 06/05/2011

The answer is probably quite simple. Gates probably cancelled 30 acquisition programs worth an estimated 300 billion dollars. He also then probably approved other acquisitions on entirely different programs. The correct question to ask is not what the number of acquisition programs and their cost was in December 2008 compared to today, the correct question is to ask what the number of acquisition programs and their cost would have been today had gates not canceled those programs. Instead of 95 programs in the pipeline would we have had 125? Costing $2020 billion instead of $1720 ?

[Orionov]

01:48 PM on 06/05/2011

That's an interesting concept of "saving money.". In light of your statement, you HAVE to be a supporter of raising the debt ceiling, and be ok with increasing spending as long as we play a little switcheroo with program budgets? I wouldn't want you as my retirement advisor

[Leadsled]

09:28 PM on 06/05/2011

Its a pretty straight forward understanding of it. Spending less than you were going to spend is saving money compared to that planned amount. That number can still be higher than it was a few years ago and yet still save money compared to what it was going to cost.

Of course I support raising the debt ceiling. Any knowledge of the bond markets or basic economics shows that it's an absolute necessity. Especially because the debt ceiling is entirely economically irrational and pointless. The total number of dollars that the debt is doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is debt as a percentage of GDP over time. At present, on the bond market, US debt is still available quite cheaply, indicating that our debt is well within the range of economically acceptable options. Even if it weren't, defaulting on our debts would not be the way to go to solve the problem. Instead we should try to do what was done between 1945 and 1980, have the debt grow at a rate slower than our economy grows, so that debt as a percentage of GDP declines. balancing the budget from a perspective of understanding all the economic variables doesn't mean to literally have a single year's budget balance revenues and expenditures. So long as debt is prevented from growing at a rate higher than the economy's growth the federal government's budget can be balanced over the long term without it ever being in balance in any single year.

[heian120]

12:21 PM on 06/06/2011

Bingo. The right question. For example the future cost of FCS alone would have been way over 300 Billion. He cancelled it
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104810,00.html

[dawlishgal]

10:52 AM on 06/05/2011

Then I would guess the answer to the headline question would be NO. Is there any kind of explanation forthcoming from the Obama higherups as to why he chose a Republican for his Secretary of Defense? After saying he was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Keeping track of Obama's failed campaign promises is getting to be a full time job, so I thank everybody who is providing details for the rest of us. Keep in mind, it isn't Gates, who ought to be in charge of such stuff, but Obama, the man who chose Gates over what must be thousands of better qualified people who actually wanted to reduce our troop strength.

[heian120]

03:04 PM on 06/06/2011

Yes that is interesting. The man who campaigned on and had the most interest in doing everything the opposite of Bush actually upheld and defended most National Security policies and 2 wars.

I guess he correctly concluded Bush was RIGHT.

He kept Gates because he has a brain. And frankly Gates is concerned about the cuts%u2026

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2011/05/22/gates-warns-defense-cuts-a-future-risk.html

And lets be frank the Congress is half the problem (or more). Gates/Pentagon drop the JSF second engine and the Congress makes then take it. Why? Because companies like GE own them

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/dn-house-subcommittee-resurrects-weapons-programs-050311/

[frank day]

08:15 AM on 06/05/2011

I think Mr. Panetta will shake things up.

He wouldn't have accepted the post without guarantees from the President

to back his initiatives.

[haskell]

12:55 AM on 06/05/2011

Gates is to blame? This is the Obama administration, the buck stops at the top.

[Genders]

11:16 PM on 06/04/2011

The business of the USA is WAR, haven't you figured that out? The USA spend more on war than the rest of the world combined. We are always at war. We go to war for oil and profit, we torture, and we let our people suffer at home. USA #1!

"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature." James Madison

That's why Kucinich is right to question Obama's Libyan war.

[FaceReality2]

03:57 PM on 06/05/2011

"The business of the USA is WAR"

About 30% of the entire U.S. economy is dependent on military spending.

[Genders]

09:51 PM on 06/05/2011

FF. DO you have a link for the 30%, I believe you, I just want a link when I state the same thing ;)

[heian120]

12:55 PM on 06/06/2011

i believe they call it defense - and we are free because we have one that has kept us so.

defence spending as a % of GDP is actually lower than it was in the Cold War

[Seedomang]

10:44 PM on 06/04/2011

If the contractor gets hacked no contract!

[wgpbp]

07:27 PM on 06/04/2011

So letus see - - - going forward we cut Defense Spending in half?

OK - -say let's cut half of outlays to Boeing, UDLP and GDLS- - - - How many Union jobs is that ?

Sweet !!!!!