Proposal by Co-Chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Cites R&D Funding, NASA Commercial Spaceflight Program, and Defense RDT&E Funding

Yesterday the Co-Chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released two documents as a starting point for what will be an undoubtedly contentious discussion about the steps the federal government could take to reduce the growing federal budget deficit. The bipartisan Commission, co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff for President Clinton, and former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), is to report to President Obama by December

1.

The fifty-page Co-Chairs’ draft Proposal and a supplementary document discuss R&D, a NASA program, and Defense RDT&E. Predicting the federal government “could spend $1 trillion a year in interest alone by 2020”, the co-chairs set forth their ten “Guiding Principles and Values.” Of note, the sixth principle states:

“Cut and Invest to Promote Economic Growth and Keep America Competitive

• Cut red tape and inefficient spending that puts a drag on the economy and job creation.
• Invest in education, infrastructure, and high value R&D.”

Later in the proposal, under a section entitled “Discretionary Spending Caps” it provides “recommendations on how to apply the caps,” including:

“Establish bipartisan Cut-and-Invest Committee to de-authorize outdated, low-priority and inefficient programs and recommend high priority long-term investments.”

On the following page is a list of three priorities. It is notable that the third priority states:

“Protect key investments in infrastructure, education, R&D”

More specificity is provided in a second draft document entitled “$200 Billion In Illustrative Savings” that is almost evenly divided between domestic and defense savings. Among the 58 items, under a heading entitled “Secure A Better Return on Taxpayer Investment” is:

“Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to spur the development of American commercial spaceflight. This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights. Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015.”

Under another heading, “Creating a Leaner, More Efficient Defense Department” is:

“Reduce spending on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation by 10 percent. This option would reduce the Defense Department’s Research, Development, Test and Evaluation budget by 10 percent, saving $7 billion in 2015. The currently high level of RDT&E does not appear to be consistent with proposals by Secretary Gates to re-orient DOD modernization to counter-insurgency warfare with, for example, an emphasis on sensing devices and intelligence gathering to counter home-made improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which would be expected to be less expensive than developing follow-on systems for major weapon systems. This would still leave DOD with a level above the peak of the Reagan years in real systems (adjusted for inflation). RDT&E spending could be reduced by slowing ongoing projects and cancelling particular projects such as those associated with marginal procurement programs identified above such as the Marine Corps version of the F-35 ($135 million in FY2015, $1.6 billion for FY2012-FY2015), the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle ($128 million in FY2015, $1.1 billion from FY2012-FY2015), Joint Tactical Radio ($177 million in FY2015, $1.7 billion from FY2012-FY2015), as well as cancelling funding for upgrades of newly-deployed systems such as the F-22 fighter aircraft ($106 million in FY2015 and $828 million for FY2012-FY2015), and the Air Force F-35 ($54 million in FY2012 and $354 million in FY2012-FY2015).”

(The Department of Defense’s science and technology programs are funded through this category. Total FY 2010 RDT&E funding was $80,915.7 million. 6.1 Basic Research totaled $2,165.2 million; 6.2 Applied Research, $5,038.3 million; and 6.3 Advanced Technology Development, $6,544.2 million.)

A change in discretionary spending is one of five steps the Commission’s co-chairs recommend to reduce the deficit. The plan that will be sent to President Obama on December 1 must have the approval of fourteen of the eighteen Commission members. Initial reaction from these members to the co-chairs’ proposal was very mixed, and assembling the required fourteen votes is viewed by many as unlikely. Commenting on this proposal, a White House spokesperson said: “The President will wait until the bipartisan fiscal commission finishes its work before commenting. He respects the challenging task that the Co-Chairs and the Commissioners are undertaking and wants to give them space to work on it. These ideas, however, are only a step in the process towards coming up with a set of recommendations and the President looks forward to reviewing their final product early next month.”

In October, the Task Force on American Innovation sent a letter to the Commission regarding funding for science and technology. The American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society are among the 42 members of the Task Force. This letter states: