The Congressional Budget Office document projects that operating, maintaining, and modernizing U.S. nuclear forces will cost $296 billion from 2014 to 2023 according to the agency's analysis of Defense and Energy Department budgets. This includes $241 billion for delivery systems, weapons, and command/control and an additional $56 billion for potential cost growth. It breaks down costs for each leg of the nuclear triad—ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and bombers—and defines categories of modernization, sustainment, and operations spending.
This document summarizes a Congressional Budget Office report projecting the costs of U.S. nuclear forces from 2015 to 2024. It estimates that nuclear forces will cost $348 billion over the 10 year period, with the Departments of Defense and Energy spending $227 billion and $121 billion respectively. The largest costs are for ballistic missile submarines at $83 billion, intercontinental ballistic missiles at $26 billion, and bombers at $40 billion. Costs are projected to grow beyond original budget estimates by $49 billion over the period.
CBO Report on Long-term Implications of FY 14 Program November 2013Tom "Blad" Lindblad
The Nov. 21, 2013, Congressional Budget Office report examines the Defense Department's future years defense program "and projects its budgetary impact roughly a decade beyond the period covered by the FYDP."
The Congressional Budget Office presentation outlines the budget challenges facing the Department of Defense over the next decade given fiscal constraints. It discusses four approaches to scaling back the DoD's budget plans to close the $60-90 billion annual gap between planned spending and budget caps: 1) preserve force structure but cut acquisition and operations, 2) cut acquisition/operations and phase in force structure reductions, 3) achieve savings primarily through cutting force structure, or 4) reduce force structure under modified budget caps. Specific impacts like reductions in active brigades, carriers, and aircraft squadrons are illustrated under different options.
Items and norms of assistance (covid 19) (1)sabrangsabrang
This document outlines modified norms for assistance from State Disaster Response Funds (SDRF) for containment of COVID-19 in India. It lists items eligible for funding, including quarantine camps, screening, testing laboratories, and medical equipment. It provides norms for assistance, allowing for actual expenditure up to 30 days initially for quarantine camps, with the period extendable by the State Executive Committee to 25% of annual SDRF allocation. It also limits procurement of essential equipment to 10% of annual SDRF funds and notes that oversight is needed to avoid duplication with other government schemes.
The Congressional Budget Office presentation summarizes approaches to reduce federal spending on the Defense Health System. Military health care costs have risen significantly and are projected to account for over 16% of the DoD budget by 2030. TRICARE beneficiaries now pay less out-of-pocket than civilian counterparts. Options to slow cost growth include increasing fees and copayments for retirees or preventing enrollment in prime plans. These could save billions annually. Smaller approaches like disease management and auditing fraud may only save around $100 million each year.
If the Trump Administration’s goals for increasing the readiness, size, and capabilities of the military were pursued, cumulative costs would be $683 billion (or 12 percent) higher from 2018 through 2027 than costs of the Obama Administration’s final budget plan for those same years.
About half of that difference would result from implementing the Trump Administration’s goals for expanding the size of the military after 2018. The other half of that difference would accrue primarily because more spending is planned for readiness and for research and development than was included in the Obama Administration’s final budget plan and because the current plan starts at a higher end strength than would have been the case under the 2017 FYDP. Specifically, the new Administration’s request calls for 2.130 million military personnel in 2018, whereas the Obama Administration’s final plan called for 2.074 million military personnel in that year.
Presentation by David E. Mosher, Assistant Director for CBO’s National Security Division, at the Professional Services Council’s 2018 Federal Strategic Planning Forum.
The document discusses the increasing costs of the Department of Defense (DoD) budget over time. Three major contributors to rising costs are increased compensation for military personnel, higher operation and maintenance costs per service member, and rising unit costs for new weapon systems. The DoD budget is projected to continue growing under current plans and strategies. Some options to address rising costs include finding savings in specific areas like pay and benefits, weapons acquisition reform, and reducing overhead, or scaling back the military's role in national security strategy.
The Congressional Budget Office document projects that operating, maintaining, and modernizing U.S. nuclear forces will cost $296 billion from 2014 to 2023 according to the agency's analysis of Defense and Energy Department budgets. This includes $241 billion for delivery systems, weapons, and command/control and an additional $56 billion for potential cost growth. It breaks down costs for each leg of the nuclear triad—ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and bombers—and defines categories of modernization, sustainment, and operations spending.
This document summarizes a Congressional Budget Office report projecting the costs of U.S. nuclear forces from 2015 to 2024. It estimates that nuclear forces will cost $348 billion over the 10 year period, with the Departments of Defense and Energy spending $227 billion and $121 billion respectively. The largest costs are for ballistic missile submarines at $83 billion, intercontinental ballistic missiles at $26 billion, and bombers at $40 billion. Costs are projected to grow beyond original budget estimates by $49 billion over the period.
CBO Report on Long-term Implications of FY 14 Program November 2013Tom "Blad" Lindblad
The Nov. 21, 2013, Congressional Budget Office report examines the Defense Department's future years defense program "and projects its budgetary impact roughly a decade beyond the period covered by the FYDP."
The Congressional Budget Office presentation outlines the budget challenges facing the Department of Defense over the next decade given fiscal constraints. It discusses four approaches to scaling back the DoD's budget plans to close the $60-90 billion annual gap between planned spending and budget caps: 1) preserve force structure but cut acquisition and operations, 2) cut acquisition/operations and phase in force structure reductions, 3) achieve savings primarily through cutting force structure, or 4) reduce force structure under modified budget caps. Specific impacts like reductions in active brigades, carriers, and aircraft squadrons are illustrated under different options.
Items and norms of assistance (covid 19) (1)sabrangsabrang
This document outlines modified norms for assistance from State Disaster Response Funds (SDRF) for containment of COVID-19 in India. It lists items eligible for funding, including quarantine camps, screening, testing laboratories, and medical equipment. It provides norms for assistance, allowing for actual expenditure up to 30 days initially for quarantine camps, with the period extendable by the State Executive Committee to 25% of annual SDRF allocation. It also limits procurement of essential equipment to 10% of annual SDRF funds and notes that oversight is needed to avoid duplication with other government schemes.
The Congressional Budget Office presentation summarizes approaches to reduce federal spending on the Defense Health System. Military health care costs have risen significantly and are projected to account for over 16% of the DoD budget by 2030. TRICARE beneficiaries now pay less out-of-pocket than civilian counterparts. Options to slow cost growth include increasing fees and copayments for retirees or preventing enrollment in prime plans. These could save billions annually. Smaller approaches like disease management and auditing fraud may only save around $100 million each year.
If the Trump Administration’s goals for increasing the readiness, size, and capabilities of the military were pursued, cumulative costs would be $683 billion (or 12 percent) higher from 2018 through 2027 than costs of the Obama Administration’s final budget plan for those same years.
About half of that difference would result from implementing the Trump Administration’s goals for expanding the size of the military after 2018. The other half of that difference would accrue primarily because more spending is planned for readiness and for research and development than was included in the Obama Administration’s final budget plan and because the current plan starts at a higher end strength than would have been the case under the 2017 FYDP. Specifically, the new Administration’s request calls for 2.130 million military personnel in 2018, whereas the Obama Administration’s final plan called for 2.074 million military personnel in that year.
Presentation by David E. Mosher, Assistant Director for CBO’s National Security Division, at the Professional Services Council’s 2018 Federal Strategic Planning Forum.
The document discusses the increasing costs of the Department of Defense (DoD) budget over time. Three major contributors to rising costs are increased compensation for military personnel, higher operation and maintenance costs per service member, and rising unit costs for new weapon systems. The DoD budget is projected to continue growing under current plans and strategies. Some options to address rising costs include finding savings in specific areas like pay and benefits, weapons acquisition reform, and reducing overhead, or scaling back the military's role in national security strategy.
Presentation by Doug Elmendorf, Director, to the budget conference committee led by Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Budget Committee and Chairman Patty Murray of the Senate Budget Committee
Ashton Carter 20% Headquarters Management Reduction Memo 31 July 2013Tom "Blad" Lindblad
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has directed a 20% cut in management headquarters spending throughout the Department of Defense to streamline operations and eliminate lower priority activities. This applies to staffs such as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Service Secretaries and Chiefs, combatant commands, and intelligence programs. Components must submit plans for achieving the 20% reduction in headquarters budgets and staffing by September 23 as part of their regular budget submissions.
Presentation on Capitol Hill in a Panel Discussion with Local Leaders, by Sarah Puro, Principal Analyst, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office
Presentation by Eric Labs, CBO’s Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons, at the 2016 Defense Outlook Forum.
Over the next 30 years, the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan will cost one-third more than the service has received historically, CBO estimates. In particular, cost growth in lead ships (and its effect on subsequent ships) drives up the cost of the Navy’s shipbuilding program. If future Navy shipbuilding budgets are in line with those over the past 30 years, the Navy’s fleet will be about 20 percent smaller in 2045 than under the Navy’s plan.
The Congressional Budget Office document provides information on approaches to reducing federal spending on national defense. It outlines options for reducing the defense budget, including reducing the size of the military, capping increases in military pay, replacing military personnel with civilians, increasing health care fees for retirees, and modifying or cancelling major weapons procurement programs. Each option includes estimates of potential budgetary savings over both short and long time horizons. The document also discusses arguments for and against each of the cost cutting approaches.
This presentation by Nikolay Begchin, Russian Federation, was made at the 10th Meeting of CESEE Senior Budget Officials held in Den Haag on 26-27 June 2014. Find more information at http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/10thannualmeetingofseniorbudgetofficialsfromcentraleasternandsoutheasterneuropeanceseecountries.htm
The programs funded through the Highway Trust Fund are currently authorized through 2021. Activities funded through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund are currently authorized through 2023.
Since 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) has regularly requested large appropriations to supplement its base-budget funding. Most of that nonbase funding has been designated for overseas contingency operations (OCO) that began after 9/11. CBO examined how DoD’s use of OCO funding has affected its spending.
Growth of Funding. Between 1970 and 2000, nonbase funding accounted for about 2 percent of DoD’s total spending. Since 2001, such funding has accounted for a much larger and persistent share of annual defense appropriations.
Amounts of Funding. Nonbase funding peaked at 28 percent of DoD’s budget in 2007 and 2008. From 2001 to 2018, it has averaged about $116 billion per year (in 2019 dollars), totaling about 20 percent of DoD’s total funding.
Funding for Enduring Activities. In CBO’s estimation, from 2006 to 2018, more than $50 billion in OCO funding per year (in 2019 dollars), on average, has gone toward the costs of enduring activities rather than the temporary costs of overseas operations. DoD’s most recent budget request indicates that, beginning in 2019, the department plans to increase the base budget to include most of that enduring funding in future years.
Presentation by F. Matthew Woodward, an analyst in CBO’s National Security Division, at a joint seminar by the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office.
Presentation by Chad Shirley, CBO’s Deputy Assistant Director for Microeconomic Studies, at the Transportation Policy & Finance Summit of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA).
Federal spending on highways (or, synonymously, roads) totaled $46 billion in 2014, roughly a quarter of total public spending on highways. But that spending does not correspond very well with how the roads are used and valued.
This presentation illustrates how spending on highways is related to their use and performance, and it examines three approaches that the Congress could consider to make highway spending more productive.
This document is the Budget Control Act of 2011 which aims to provide for budget control through discretionary spending limits and a deficit reduction process. It establishes caps on security and non-security discretionary spending from 2012-2013, then moves to an overall discretionary spending cap from 2014-2021. It creates a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction tasked with proposing deficit reduction legislation and establishes a process for across-the-board spending cuts (sequestration) if the committee fails or Congress rejects the proposal. The act also includes provisions related to the debt ceiling, Pell grants, student loans and other budget changes.
Presentation by Sarah Puro, Principal Analyst in CBO’s Budget Analysis Division, at the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference.
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015. The bill provided $281 billion in contract authority for surface transportation programs through 2020. Under provisions of the bill, CBO estimates, the Highway Trust Fund will be able to meet obligations through 2020.
This presentation discusses proposals to reduce federal spending on military health care. It summarizes proposals from the Department of Defense and the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to restructure TRICARE by consolidating plans and encouraging more efficient care consumption. It also examines Congressional Budget Office options to slow cost growth through increased cost sharing and better disease management that could reduce spending by $18-90 billion and $0.02-0.15 billion respectively over 10 years. The presentation outlines CBO's approach to estimating costs and effects of policy changes on the federal budget.
The Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf presented on federal budget challenges including growing deficits, rising debt levels, and increasing spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare which will contribute to unsustainable fiscal policies if not addressed. The presentation included charts projecting the federal deficit, revenues and outlays as a percentage of GDP, federal debt held by the public compared to GDP, growth in major spending categories, unemployment rates, and the components of federal spending.
Central fiscal revenues in Ukraine increased in the first four months of 2019 primarily due to a transfer of profits from the national bank, wage growth, and increased natural gas extraction. However, revenues were also lower than expected in some areas like VAT and tobacco taxes. Government expenditures were largely financed as planned, with the largest allocations going to wages, social protection, defense, and debt servicing. The budget surplus decreased compared to the same period in 2018. Ukraine recently transitioned from an IMF Extended Fund Facility program to a new 14-month Stand-By Arrangement.
Program-based instruments for long term budgeting development in the Russian ...OECD Governance
This presentation was made by Nikolay Begchin, Russian Federation, at the 12th Annual Meeting of OECD-CESEE Senior Budget Officials held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on 28-29 June 2016
OECD, 7th Meeting on Public-Private Partnerships - Gisela LEHMER-KERKLOHOECD Governance
This presentation by Gisela LEHMER-KERKLOH was made at the 7th Meeting on Public-Private Partnerships held on 17-18 February 2014. Find more information at http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/ppp.htm
In fiscal year 2016, for the first time since 2009, the federal budget deficit increased in relation to the nation’s economic output. The Congressional Budget Office projects that over the next decade, if current laws remained generally unchanged, the deficit would decline in 2018 and then resume its upward trajectory—the result of strong growth in spending for retirement and health care programs targeted to older people and rising interest payments on the government’s debt, accompanied by only modest growth in revenue collections. Those accumulating deficits would drive debt held by the public from its already high level up to its highest percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) since shortly after World War II.
CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2017 has increased since January 2017, when the agency issued its previous estimates, because revenues are expected to be lower and mandatory spending is expected to be higher than earlier anticipated. Additionally, the current projection for the cumulative deficit for the 2018–2027 period is about $700 billion more than reported in January.
CBO’s economic forecast—which underlies its budget projections—indicates that under current law, economic growth over the next two years would remain close to the modest rate observed since the end of the recession in 2009. Nevertheless, economic growth would continue to outpace growth in potential (maximum sustainable) GDP and thus continue to reduce the amount of underused resources, or slack, in the economy. The result would be increases in hiring, employment, and wages, along with upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. In the later part of the 10-year projection period, output growth would be constrained by a relatively slow increase in the nation’s supply of labor.
Presentation by Sam Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for CBO’s Budget Analysis Division, at the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers annual conference.
This document provides an overview and agenda for an annual Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) virtual orientation from February 21-24, 2022. The orientation aims to strengthen the capacity of national institutions to mainstream climate change into their plans and budgets using CCET typologies. It will provide guidance on climate change priorities, the linkage between development plans and climate change instruments, and the process for tagging climate change projects and budgets. The orientation is mandated by the Climate Change Commission and Department of Budget and Management to ensure climate change considerations are implemented across government agencies.
To provide information about its plans beyond the coming year, the Department of Defense (DoD) generally provides a five-year plan, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), that is associated with the budget it submits to the Congress. Because decisions made in the near term can have consequences for the defense budget in the longer term, CBO regularly examines DoD’s FYDP and projects its budgetary impact for roughly a decade beyond the period covered by the FYDP. For this analysis, CBO used the FYDP that was provided to the Congress in April 2014; it spans fiscal years 2015 to 2019, and CBO’s projections span the years 2015 to 2030.
For fiscal year 2015, DoD requested appropriations totaling $555 billion. Of that amount, $496 billion was for the base budget and $59 billion was for what are termed overseas contingency operations (OCO). The base budget covers programs that constitute the department’s normal activities, such as the development and procurement of weapon systems and the day-to-day operations of the military and civilian workforce. Funding for OCO pays for U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan and other nonroutine military activities elsewhere. The FYDP describes DoD’s plans for its normal activities and therefore generally corresponds to the base budget.
DoD’s 2015 plans differ from its 2014 plans in important ways. For example, in an effort to reduce costs, the current FYDP includes sizeable cuts in the number of military personnel, particularly in the Army.
Presentation by Doug Elmendorf, Director, to the budget conference committee led by Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Budget Committee and Chairman Patty Murray of the Senate Budget Committee
Ashton Carter 20% Headquarters Management Reduction Memo 31 July 2013Tom "Blad" Lindblad
The Deputy Secretary of Defense has directed a 20% cut in management headquarters spending throughout the Department of Defense to streamline operations and eliminate lower priority activities. This applies to staffs such as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Service Secretaries and Chiefs, combatant commands, and intelligence programs. Components must submit plans for achieving the 20% reduction in headquarters budgets and staffing by September 23 as part of their regular budget submissions.
Presentation on Capitol Hill in a Panel Discussion with Local Leaders, by Sarah Puro, Principal Analyst, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office
Presentation by Eric Labs, CBO’s Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons, at the 2016 Defense Outlook Forum.
Over the next 30 years, the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan will cost one-third more than the service has received historically, CBO estimates. In particular, cost growth in lead ships (and its effect on subsequent ships) drives up the cost of the Navy’s shipbuilding program. If future Navy shipbuilding budgets are in line with those over the past 30 years, the Navy’s fleet will be about 20 percent smaller in 2045 than under the Navy’s plan.
The Congressional Budget Office document provides information on approaches to reducing federal spending on national defense. It outlines options for reducing the defense budget, including reducing the size of the military, capping increases in military pay, replacing military personnel with civilians, increasing health care fees for retirees, and modifying or cancelling major weapons procurement programs. Each option includes estimates of potential budgetary savings over both short and long time horizons. The document also discusses arguments for and against each of the cost cutting approaches.
This presentation by Nikolay Begchin, Russian Federation, was made at the 10th Meeting of CESEE Senior Budget Officials held in Den Haag on 26-27 June 2014. Find more information at http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/10thannualmeetingofseniorbudgetofficialsfromcentraleasternandsoutheasterneuropeanceseecountries.htm
The programs funded through the Highway Trust Fund are currently authorized through 2021. Activities funded through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund are currently authorized through 2023.
Since 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) has regularly requested large appropriations to supplement its base-budget funding. Most of that nonbase funding has been designated for overseas contingency operations (OCO) that began after 9/11. CBO examined how DoD’s use of OCO funding has affected its spending.
Growth of Funding. Between 1970 and 2000, nonbase funding accounted for about 2 percent of DoD’s total spending. Since 2001, such funding has accounted for a much larger and persistent share of annual defense appropriations.
Amounts of Funding. Nonbase funding peaked at 28 percent of DoD’s budget in 2007 and 2008. From 2001 to 2018, it has averaged about $116 billion per year (in 2019 dollars), totaling about 20 percent of DoD’s total funding.
Funding for Enduring Activities. In CBO’s estimation, from 2006 to 2018, more than $50 billion in OCO funding per year (in 2019 dollars), on average, has gone toward the costs of enduring activities rather than the temporary costs of overseas operations. DoD’s most recent budget request indicates that, beginning in 2019, the department plans to increase the base budget to include most of that enduring funding in future years.
Presentation by F. Matthew Woodward, an analyst in CBO’s National Security Division, at a joint seminar by the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office.
Presentation by Chad Shirley, CBO’s Deputy Assistant Director for Microeconomic Studies, at the Transportation Policy & Finance Summit of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA).
Federal spending on highways (or, synonymously, roads) totaled $46 billion in 2014, roughly a quarter of total public spending on highways. But that spending does not correspond very well with how the roads are used and valued.
This presentation illustrates how spending on highways is related to their use and performance, and it examines three approaches that the Congress could consider to make highway spending more productive.
This document is the Budget Control Act of 2011 which aims to provide for budget control through discretionary spending limits and a deficit reduction process. It establishes caps on security and non-security discretionary spending from 2012-2013, then moves to an overall discretionary spending cap from 2014-2021. It creates a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction tasked with proposing deficit reduction legislation and establishes a process for across-the-board spending cuts (sequestration) if the committee fails or Congress rejects the proposal. The act also includes provisions related to the debt ceiling, Pell grants, student loans and other budget changes.
Presentation by Sarah Puro, Principal Analyst in CBO’s Budget Analysis Division, at the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference.
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015. The bill provided $281 billion in contract authority for surface transportation programs through 2020. Under provisions of the bill, CBO estimates, the Highway Trust Fund will be able to meet obligations through 2020.
This presentation discusses proposals to reduce federal spending on military health care. It summarizes proposals from the Department of Defense and the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to restructure TRICARE by consolidating plans and encouraging more efficient care consumption. It also examines Congressional Budget Office options to slow cost growth through increased cost sharing and better disease management that could reduce spending by $18-90 billion and $0.02-0.15 billion respectively over 10 years. The presentation outlines CBO's approach to estimating costs and effects of policy changes on the federal budget.
The Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf presented on federal budget challenges including growing deficits, rising debt levels, and increasing spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare which will contribute to unsustainable fiscal policies if not addressed. The presentation included charts projecting the federal deficit, revenues and outlays as a percentage of GDP, federal debt held by the public compared to GDP, growth in major spending categories, unemployment rates, and the components of federal spending.
Central fiscal revenues in Ukraine increased in the first four months of 2019 primarily due to a transfer of profits from the national bank, wage growth, and increased natural gas extraction. However, revenues were also lower than expected in some areas like VAT and tobacco taxes. Government expenditures were largely financed as planned, with the largest allocations going to wages, social protection, defense, and debt servicing. The budget surplus decreased compared to the same period in 2018. Ukraine recently transitioned from an IMF Extended Fund Facility program to a new 14-month Stand-By Arrangement.
Program-based instruments for long term budgeting development in the Russian ...OECD Governance
This presentation was made by Nikolay Begchin, Russian Federation, at the 12th Annual Meeting of OECD-CESEE Senior Budget Officials held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on 28-29 June 2016
OECD, 7th Meeting on Public-Private Partnerships - Gisela LEHMER-KERKLOHOECD Governance
This presentation by Gisela LEHMER-KERKLOH was made at the 7th Meeting on Public-Private Partnerships held on 17-18 February 2014. Find more information at http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/ppp.htm
In fiscal year 2016, for the first time since 2009, the federal budget deficit increased in relation to the nation’s economic output. The Congressional Budget Office projects that over the next decade, if current laws remained generally unchanged, the deficit would decline in 2018 and then resume its upward trajectory—the result of strong growth in spending for retirement and health care programs targeted to older people and rising interest payments on the government’s debt, accompanied by only modest growth in revenue collections. Those accumulating deficits would drive debt held by the public from its already high level up to its highest percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) since shortly after World War II.
CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2017 has increased since January 2017, when the agency issued its previous estimates, because revenues are expected to be lower and mandatory spending is expected to be higher than earlier anticipated. Additionally, the current projection for the cumulative deficit for the 2018–2027 period is about $700 billion more than reported in January.
CBO’s economic forecast—which underlies its budget projections—indicates that under current law, economic growth over the next two years would remain close to the modest rate observed since the end of the recession in 2009. Nevertheless, economic growth would continue to outpace growth in potential (maximum sustainable) GDP and thus continue to reduce the amount of underused resources, or slack, in the economy. The result would be increases in hiring, employment, and wages, along with upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. In the later part of the 10-year projection period, output growth would be constrained by a relatively slow increase in the nation’s supply of labor.
Presentation by Sam Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for CBO’s Budget Analysis Division, at the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers annual conference.
This document provides an overview and agenda for an annual Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET) virtual orientation from February 21-24, 2022. The orientation aims to strengthen the capacity of national institutions to mainstream climate change into their plans and budgets using CCET typologies. It will provide guidance on climate change priorities, the linkage between development plans and climate change instruments, and the process for tagging climate change projects and budgets. The orientation is mandated by the Climate Change Commission and Department of Budget and Management to ensure climate change considerations are implemented across government agencies.
To provide information about its plans beyond the coming year, the Department of Defense (DoD) generally provides a five-year plan, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), that is associated with the budget it submits to the Congress. Because decisions made in the near term can have consequences for the defense budget in the longer term, CBO regularly examines DoD’s FYDP and projects its budgetary impact for roughly a decade beyond the period covered by the FYDP. For this analysis, CBO used the FYDP that was provided to the Congress in April 2014; it spans fiscal years 2015 to 2019, and CBO’s projections span the years 2015 to 2030.
For fiscal year 2015, DoD requested appropriations totaling $555 billion. Of that amount, $496 billion was for the base budget and $59 billion was for what are termed overseas contingency operations (OCO). The base budget covers programs that constitute the department’s normal activities, such as the development and procurement of weapon systems and the day-to-day operations of the military and civilian workforce. Funding for OCO pays for U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan and other nonroutine military activities elsewhere. The FYDP describes DoD’s plans for its normal activities and therefore generally corresponds to the base budget.
DoD’s 2015 plans differ from its 2014 plans in important ways. For example, in an effort to reduce costs, the current FYDP includes sizeable cuts in the number of military personnel, particularly in the Army.
The document summarizes the US Department of Defense's budget request for fiscal year 2014. It requests $526.6 billion to protect US security interests at home and abroad. It reflects difficult choices to balance priorities like supporting troops, readiness, modernization, and personnel care amid declining budgets. The budget seeks efficiencies, prioritizes key capabilities aligned with strategic guidance, and protects readiness to avoid repeating mistakes of past drawdowns.
Chapter IIJP 5-0CSAs, and applicable DOD agencies for preparatJinElias52
Chapter II
JP 5-0
CSAs, and applicable DOD agencies for preparation of plans based on current military capabilities. It implements the planning guidance provided in the GEF and the joint planning activities and products that accomplish that guidance. In addition to communicating to the CCMDs’ specific planning guidance necessary for planning, the JSCP operationalizes the strategic vision described in the NMS and nests with the strategic direction delineated by the NSS, DSR, and the DOD’s planning and resourcing guidance provided in the GEF. The JSCP also provides integrated planning guidance and direction for planners.
The JSCP is described in detail in CJCSI 3110.01, (U) 2015 Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP).
e. GFMIG. The GFMIG documents force planning and execution guidance and show assignment of forces in support of the UCP. GFM aligns force assignment, apportionment, and allocation methodologies in support of the DSR and GEF, joint force availability requirements, and joint force assessments. It provides comprehensive insights into the global availability of US military resources and provides senior decision makers a process to quickly and accurately assess the impact and risk of proposed changes in force assignment, apportionment, and allocation. JS prepares the document for SecDef approval, with the Joint Staff J-8 [Director for Force Structure, Resource, and Assessment] overseeing the assignment and apportionment of forces and the Joint Staff J-3 [Operations Directorate] overseeing the allocation of forces. It is updated every two years and approved by SecDef. The GFMIG informs planners of the processes for distributing forces globally. It provides SecDef direction to the Secretaries of the Military Departments for assigning forces to CCDRs in order to accomplish their assigned missions, specifies the allocation process that provides access to forces and capabilities when assigned mission requirements exceed the capacity and/or capability of the assigned and currently allocated forces, includes apportionment guidance to facilitate planning, and informs the joint force structure and capability assessment processes. The assignment tables in the GFMIG and Forces for Unified Commands Memorandum serve as the record of force assignments. SecDef’s decision to allocate forces is ordered in the Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP).
See Appendix E, “Global Force Management,” for additional information and descriptions.
9. Combatant Commanders
a. Planning Organization. At the CCMD level, a joint planning group (JPG), operational planning group, or operational planning team (OPT) is typically established to direct planning efforts across the command, including implementation of plans and orders.
b. Strategic Estimate. The CCDR and staff, with input from subordinate commands and supporting commands and agencies, prepare a strategic estimate by analyzing and describing the political, military, economic, social, information, and i ...
Presentation by David Arthur, an analyst in CBO's National Security Division, at the Naval Postgraduate School's 19th Annual Acquisition Research Symposium.
This document provides an overview of directed-energy (DE) weapons and their potential to provide operational advantages for the U.S. military. It examines emerging DE technologies like high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves that could be deployed in the next 5-20 years. These include ground-based lasers to defend bases, ship-based solid-state lasers to counter missiles and fast attack craft, and aircraft/missile-borne high-power microwaves to attack enemy air defense systems. While the technologies are maturing, cultural and funding barriers have prevented transition to military capabilities. Successful demonstrations of major new DE weapon systems may be needed to prove their value to military leaders.
This document summarizes a report on assessing the impacts of climate change on water and energy resources for U.S. Army installations. It discusses trends in water stress indexes and century-long flooding that could impact bases by 2050 and 2070. The report was produced by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center to evaluate climate factors and their potential costs as part of the Army's process for stationing and realigning forces over the long term. It outlines the Center for Army Analysis' current process for modeling the "military value" of bases using attributes like available land, housing, and water resources to recommend future stationing actions.
This document provides a summary of the Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032. It outlines a vision for unmanned systems to project military power while reducing risks to human life over the next 25 years. The roadmap establishes six goals to improve effectiveness through integration, standardization, policies/procedures, control measures, prototyping processes, and cost control. It identifies key mission needs like reconnaissance and surveillance, target identification, counter-mine warfare, and CBRNE reconnaissance to guide research priorities.
This document provides a summary of the Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032. It outlines a vision for unmanned systems to project military power while reducing risks to human life over the next 25 years. Key points include:
- Unmanned aircraft, ground, and maritime systems have increased contributions to military operations and are highly desired by combatant commanders for missions like reconnaissance and surveillance.
- The roadmap establishes goals to improve effectiveness, interoperability, and cost control of unmanned systems through increased integration, common standards, and prioritizing validated capabilities.
- Top priority missions for unmanned systems are identified as reconnaissance and surveillance, target identification and designation, counter-mine warfare, and chemical
The document provides guidelines for agencies in formulating their FY 2024 budgets under the Two-Tier Budgeting Approach. Tier 1 budgets will fund existing programs and projects, while Tier 2 budgets can include new proposals that are priorities under the administration's 8-Point Socioeconomic Agenda. Eligible Tier 2 proposals must be implementation-ready, aligned with infrastructure plans, and approved by the NEDA Board. Agencies must justify any requests for additional personnel.
Department of Defense INSTRUCTION NUMBER 5000.02 Jan.docxsimonithomas47935
Department of Defense
INSTRUCTION
NUMBER 5000.02
January 7, 2015
USD(AT&L)
SUBJECT: Operation of the Defense Acquisition System
References: See References
1. PURPOSE. This instruction:
a. In accordance with the authority in DoD Directive 5000.01 (Reference (a)), reissues the
interim DoD Instruction 5000.02 (Reference (b)) to update established policy for the
management of all acquisition programs in accordance with Reference (a), the guidelines of
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11 (Reference (c)), and References (d) through
(ce).
b. Authorizes Milestone Decision Authorities (MDAs) to tailor the regulatory requirements
and acquisition procedures in this instruction to more efficiently achieve program objectives,
consistent with statutory requirements and Reference (a).
2. APPLICABILITY. This instruction applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD
Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in
this instruction as the “DoD Components”).
3. POLICY. The overarching management principles and mandatory policies that govern the
Defense Acquisition System are described in Reference (a). This instruction provides the
detailed procedures that guide the operation of the system.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES
a. Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE). The DAE is the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)). The DAE will act as the MDA for
Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated Information System
(MAIS) programs. In accordance with Table 1 in Enclosure 1 of this instruction, the DAE may
DoDI 5000.02, January 7, 2015
2
delegate authority to act as the MDA to the head of a DoD Component, who may further
delegate the authority to the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE). The DAE may also
delegate MDA authority to another OSD official as the DAE considers appropriate.
b. MDA. The MDA will establish procedures for assigned programs using this instruction
as guidance. MDAs should limit mandatory procedures applicable to all assigned programs so as
to not exceed the requirements for MDAPs or MAIS programs and other acquisition programs
governed by this instruction or DoD Directive 5000.01 (Reference (a)). MDAs should tailor
regulatory procedures in the document consistent with sound business practice and the risks
associated with the product being acquired.
c. Heads of the DoD Components. The DoD Component Head will implement the
procedures in this instruction and Reference (a). Component-required procedures will not
exceed those specified in this instruction. When necessary, waivers or requests for exceptions to
the provisions of this instructio.
Brad Keck is a senior financial analyst and business leader with over 36 years of experience in the U.S. Air Force and intelligence community. He currently works as the Director of NRO Programs at Tecolote Research, where he manages 21 personnel supporting National Reconnaissance Office contracts. Prior to this, Keck held several acquisition and budget-related roles within the Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office, including developing annual budget submissions and managing programs worth billions of dollars. He has a proven track record of successful contract and program management.
The PPBE process involves 4 concurrent and overlapping phases: Planning establishes long-term strategic priorities, Programming translates priorities into programs within budget constraints, Budgeting prices programs and develops the budget submission, and Execution monitors program spending. The process links strategic vision to resource allocation and ensures programs balance capabilities with available funds.
The Department of Defense is the largest energy consumer in the federal government, using over 5 billion gallons of fuel in 2010. As fuel prices rise, the DoD faces challenges to increase energy efficiency without harming its mission or personnel quality of life. The document discusses how the fully burdened cost of fuel, including delivery, is much higher than the base fuel cost. It also outlines the DoD's goals to improve energy efficiency, increase use of renewable energy to 25% by 2025, and reduce overall energy consumption in accordance with various Energy Independence acts.
Ralph Smith has over 25 years of experience in program management for the Department of Defense (DoD), including over 5 years as a Program Manager or Deputy Program Manager. He has managed complex technical programs involving targets and countermeasures for the Missile Defense Agency. His experience spans multiple organizations within the DoD, including the Naval Sea Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, and the United States Navy. He holds a Master's degree in Information Systems and has received numerous honors and awards over his career for his leadership and program management accomplishments.
This document summarizes a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of approaches the Department of Defense (DoD) could take to scale back its budget plans to comply with spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The CBO found that fully implementing DoD's plans would exceed allowed funding by large margins. It examined options for reducing costs through smaller military forces, less funding for operations and equipment, or both. The CBO outlined four options combining these approaches that would meet BCA limits, with larger cuts needed in later years due to rising costs.
KDP C is an important decision point for NASA projects where the agency decides whether to proceed to implementation and commits to a project's cost and schedule estimates. This panel discusses updated NASA processes to help ensure projects are on track for technical success within budget and schedule by KDP C. These include developing an integrated baseline, independent reviews, and documenting approvals and commitments in a decision memorandum to formalize support and establish external commitments. The integration of baseline development, independent checks, approval to proceed, and commitments is meant to help projects successfully complete implementation.
What is a Shoreline Management Plan?
Developed in partnership by local authorities, regulators and other stakeholders, a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) is a high level non-statutory policy document designed to assist coastal flood and erosion risk management planning. It provides a large-scale assessment of the risks (to people, property, the natural and historic environment) associated with coastal erosion and flooding at the coast over the long-term. It also proposes policies to help manage these risks sustainably over the next hundred years.
The SMP enables planners and regulators to plan for and manage the way that the coast will change. This could be by maintaining or improving defences, by enabling the natural processes to play a greater role, creating new natural habitat or by helping areas that are at risk of flooding at some point in the future to cope with and limit the impact of flooding events.
The SMP2 for the Severn Estuary updates an earlier SMP1 (2000) for the estuary. It aims to provide more certainty for landowners, residents and businesses; to know how the coast will be managed by regulators during the next 100 years, so that they can plan ahead and make decisions about investments, homes, development and the management of their resources.
This document provides three sentences summarizing a military document establishing criteria for designing medical military facilities:
The document outlines policies and procedures for designing and constructing safe and functional medical facilities for the Department of Defense, including requirements for master planning, architecture, structural design, energy efficiency, and various building systems. It establishes the Defense Medical Facilities Office as responsible for maintaining healthcare facility criteria and provides responsibilities for other offices involved in the military construction process. Technical criteria in the document must be followed for all medical facilities projects over $500,000.
This report analyzes the cost-benefit of retaining existing water saving regulations in Queensland that require new buildings to install rainwater tanks. Two analyses are presented: 1) an efficiency analysis calculating the project's value to the economy, and 2) a referent group analysis of costs and benefits to stakeholders. The efficiency analysis shows a negative net present value and benefit-cost ratio less than 1, indicating costs outweigh benefits. The referent group analysis also has a negative aggregate benefit, with property developers impacted most by tank costs. Sensitivity analysis varies input variables, and scenario analysis considers three scenarios. The report recommends repealing the regulations based on the analyses, but retaining them could be worth it if requirements are reformed.
Similar to Presentation on CBO’s Projections of the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2014 to 2023 (20)
Presentation by Julie Topoleski, CBO’s Director of Labor, Income Security, and Long-Term Analysis, at the 16th Annual Meeting of the OECD Working Party of Parliamentary Budget Officials and Independent Fiscal Institutions.
Presentation by Rebecca Sachs and Joshua Varcie, analysts in CBO’s Health Analysis Division, at the 13th Annual Conference of the American Society of Health Economists.
Presentation by Jared Jageler, David Adler, Noelia Duchovny, and Evan Herrnstadt, analysts in CBO’s Microeconomic Studies and Health Analysis Divisions, at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Summer Conference.
Presentation by Mark Hadley, CBO's Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, at the 2nd NABO-OECD Annual Conference of Asian Parliamentary Budget Officials.
Presentation by Daria Pelech, an analyst in CBO’s Health Analysis Division, at the Center for Health Insurance Reform McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University.
This slide deck highlights CBO’s key findings about the outlook for the economy as described in its new report, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034.
Presentation by CBO analysts Rebecca Heller, Shannon Mok, and James Pearce, and Census Bureau research economist Jonathan Rothbaum at the American Economic Association Annual Meeting, Committee on Economic Statistics.
Presentation by Eric J. Labs, an analyst in CBO’s National Security Division, at the Bank of America 2024 Defense Outlook and Commercial Aerospace Forum.
An accounting information system (AIS) refers to tools and systems designed for the collection and display of accounting information so accountants and executives can make informed decisions.
Dr. Alyce Su Cover Story - China's Investment Leadermsthrill
In World Expo 2010 Shanghai – the most visited Expo in the World History
https://www.britannica.com/event/Expo-Shanghai-2010
China’s official organizer of the Expo, CCPIT (China Council for the Promotion of International Trade https://en.ccpit.org/) has chosen Dr. Alyce Su as the Cover Person with Cover Story, in the Expo’s official magazine distributed throughout the Expo, showcasing China’s New Generation of Leaders to the World.
How Poonawalla Fincorp and IndusInd Bank’s Co-Branded RuPay Credit Card Cater...beulahfernandes8
The eLITE RuPay Platinum Credit Card, a strategic collaboration between Poonawalla Fincorp and IndusInd Bank, represents a significant advancement in India's digital financial landscape. Spearheaded by Abhay Bhutada, MD of Poonawalla Fincorp, the card leverages deep customer insights to offer tailored features such as no joining fees, movie ticket offers, and rewards on UPI transactions. IndusInd Bank's solid banking infrastructure and digital integration expertise ensure seamless service delivery in today's fast-paced digital economy. With a focus on meeting the growing demand for digital financial services, the card aims to cater to tech-savvy consumers and differentiate itself through unique features and superior customer service, ultimately poised to make a substantial impact in India's digital financial services space.
Economic Risk Factor Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]Commonwealth
May’s reports showed signs of continued economic growth, said Sam Millette, director, fixed income, in his latest Economic Risk Factor Update.
For more market updates, subscribe to The Independent Market Observer at https://blog.commonwealth.com/independent-market-observer.
Monthly Market Risk Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]Commonwealth
Markets rallied in May, with all three major U.S. equity indices up for the month, said Sam Millette, director of fixed income, in his latest Market Risk Update.
For more market updates, subscribe to The Independent Market Observer at https://blog.commonwealth.com/independent-market-observer.
The Rise and Fall of Ponzi Schemes in America.pptxDiana Rose
Ponzi schemes, a notorious form of financial fraud, have plagued America’s investment landscape for decades. Named after Charles Ponzi, who orchestrated one of the most infamous schemes in the early 20th century, these fraudulent operations promise high returns with little or no risk, only to collapse and leave investors with significant losses. This article explores the nature of Ponzi schemes, notable cases in American history, their impact on victims, and measures to prevent falling prey to such scams.
Understanding Ponzi Schemes
A Ponzi scheme is an investment scam where returns are paid to earlier investors using the capital from newer investors, rather than from legitimate profit earned. The scheme relies on a constant influx of new investments to continue paying the promised returns. Eventually, when the flow of new money slows down or stops, the scheme collapses, leaving the majority of investors with substantial financial losses.
Historical Context: Charles Ponzi and His Legacy
Charles Ponzi is the namesake of this deceptive practice. In the 1920s, Ponzi promised investors in Boston a 50% return within 45 days or 100% return in 90 days through arbitrage of international reply coupons. Initially, he paid returns as promised, not from profits, but from the investments of new participants. When his scheme unraveled, it resulted in losses exceeding $20 million (equivalent to about $270 million today).
Notable American Ponzi Schemes
1. Bernie Madoff: Perhaps the most notorious Ponzi scheme in recent history, Bernie Madoff’s fraud involved $65 billion. Madoff, a well-respected figure in the financial industry, promised steady, high returns through a secretive investment strategy. His scheme lasted for decades before collapsing in 2008, devastating thousands of investors, including individuals, charities, and institutional clients.
2. Allen Stanford: Through his company, Stanford Financial Group, Allen Stanford orchestrated a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, luring investors with fraudulent certificates of deposit issued by his offshore bank. Stanford promised high returns and lavish lifestyle benefits to his investors, which ultimately led to a 110-year prison sentence for the financier in 2012.
3. Tom Petters: In a scheme that lasted more than a decade, Tom Petters ran a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme, using his company, Petters Group Worldwide. He claimed to buy and sell consumer electronics, but in reality, he used new investments to pay off old debts and fund his extravagant lifestyle. Petters was convicted in 2009 and sentenced to 50 years in prison.
4. Eric Dalius and Saivian: Eric Dalius, a prominent figure behind Saivian, a cashback program promising high returns, is under scrutiny for allegedly orchestrating a Ponzi scheme. Saivian enticed investors with promises of up to 20% cash back on everyday purchases. However, investigations suggest that the returns were paid using new investments rather than legitimate profits. The collapse of Saivian l
South Dakota State University degree offer diploma Transcriptynfqplhm
办理美国SDSU毕业证书制作南达科他州立大学假文凭定制Q微168899991做SDSU留信网教留服认证海牙认证改SDSU成绩单GPA做SDSU假学位证假文凭高仿毕业证GRE代考如何申请南达科他州立大学South Dakota State University degree offer diploma Transcript
Discovering Delhi - India's Cultural Capital.pptxcosmo-soil
Delhi, the heartbeat of India, offers a rich blend of history, culture, and modernity. From iconic landmarks like the Red Fort to bustling commercial hubs and vibrant culinary scenes, Delhi's real estate landscape is dynamic and diverse. Discover the essence of India's capital, where tradition meets innovation.
Every business, big or small, deals with outgoing payments. Whether it’s to suppliers for inventory, to employees for salaries, or to vendors for services rendered, keeping track of these expenses is crucial. This is where payment vouchers come in – the unsung heroes of the accounting world.
KYC Compliance: A Cornerstone of Global Crypto Regulatory FrameworksAny kyc Account
This presentation explores the pivotal role of KYC compliance in shaping and enforcing global regulations within the dynamic landscape of cryptocurrencies. Dive into the intricate connection between KYC practices and the evolving legal frameworks governing the crypto industry.
KYC Compliance: A Cornerstone of Global Crypto Regulatory Frameworks
Presentation on CBO’s Projections of the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2014 to 2023
1. Congressional Budget Office
Presentation on CBO’s Projections of the
Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces,
2014 to 2023
CRS Seminar
"The Cost of Nuclear Weapons”: Program and Budget Issues for Congress
January 29, 2014
Michael Bennett, National Security Division
This presentation provides information published in Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces,
2014 to 2023 (December 2013).
See www.cbo.gov/publication/44968
2. Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2014 to 2023
• CBO projected cost of operating, maintaining, and
modernizing U.S. nuclear forces over the next 10 years
– As directed by the Congress in 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act
• Approach:
– Analyzed Department of Defense (DoD) and Department
of Energy (DOE) budgets line-by-line to identify relevant
programs
– Projected budget lines out to 10 years, based on agencies’
long-range plans for each program
– Estimated potential cost growth beyond budgeted
amounts based on historical averages
– Also estimated nuclear-related costs
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
1
3. Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces
(Billions of dollars)
Category
2014
Total,
2014 to 2023
Projected Budgeted Amounts for Nuclear
Forces
Nuclear delivery systems
Nuclear weapons, supporting laboratories,
and naval reactors
9.7
136
Command, control, communications, and
early-warning systems
105
___________
18.0
Subtotal
8.3
___________
241
Total Budgeted Amounts, Nuclear Forces
Additional Costs Based on Historical Cost
Growth
5.1
56
___________
___________
23.1
296
Total Estimated Cost of Nuclear Forces
Memorandum:
Projected Budgeted Amounts for Other
Nuclear-Related Activities
n.a.
59
___________
___________
23.1
355
20.8
215
Source: CBO based on information from DoD and DOE
Notes: Other Nuclear-Related Activities include legacy costs of nuclear weapons and infrastructure, costs for threat
reduction and arms control, and costs for missile defenses and other defenses
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
2
4. Primary Sources of Uncertainty
• Uncertainty about the cost of current plans
– Cost growth estimated based on historical averages, but actual
growth for specific systems could be higher or lower
– Estimate incorporates judgments on which programs to include,
and what fraction of costs to include for systems with both
nuclear and nonnuclear roles (bombers; tactical systems;
command, control, communications, and warning)
• 25% of B-52 and Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) costs assigned
to nuclear role
• Changes in plans
– Budgetary pressures, changes in strategy, arms control,
adjustments to deal with difficulties in development programs
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
3
5. Projected Budgeted Amounts for Triad, 2014 to 2023
(Billions of dollars)
Department
SSBNs
ICBMs
Bombers
Other
Total
DoD
71
20
29
11
132
DOE
11
4
10
n.a.
25
82
24
40
11
156
Total
Source: CBO based on information from DoD and DOE
Notes: The table reflects budgeted amounts for the departments of Defense and Energy, and it
does not include potential cost growth. The amounts shown should not be considered
independent estimates by CBO of the costs of U.S. nuclear forces.
SSBN = ballistic missile submarine; ICBM = intercontinental ballistic missile; n.a. = not applicable.
Does not include costs for tactical systems or command, control, communications, and warning
systems.
Bomber costs reflect 25% of B-52 and Long Range Strike-Bomber costs and 100% of B-2 costs.
DOE’s costs reflect amounts specific to particular warhead types, and do not include other costs of
nuclear laboratories and supporting activities.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
4
6. Projected Budgets for Operating, Sustaining, and
Modernizing the Strategic Nuclear Triad
(Billions of dollars)
Definitions for this analysis:
Modernization = Department of Defense (DoD) research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDTE) and procurement for replacement systems or
major life-extensions of existing systems; Department of Energy (DOE) lifeextension programs for warheads
Sustainment = all DoD RDTE and procurement NOT in modernization; DOE
warhead sustainment
Operations = all DoD military personnel and operation and maintenance
SSBN = ballistic missile submarine
ICBM = intercontinental ballistic missile
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
5
7. Approximate Modernization Program Timelines
Many programs will not yet be in, or will have just entered, production by 2023
For delivery systems, production is assumed to begin in the first year when estimated annual procurement
funding exceeds research, development, test, and evaluation funding
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
6