Congressional Budget Office reports

[DOR]

The Army’s Costs to Eliminate Its Deferred Maintenance Backlog and to Renovate and Modernize Its Buildings
November 2022

CBO analyzed roughly 49,000 buildings in use on Army bases in the United States that the Army’s active component is responsible for maintaining. The cost of eliminating the maintenance backlog and returning the buildings to standards matching the Department of Defense’s goals would be about $19 billion (in 2020 dollars). The cost of renovating and modernizing the buildings within their current footprint (the area they cover on the ground) to fully provide users with the capability to fulfill their missions would be an additional $34 billion.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58220

[Albany Rifles]

The Army’s Costs to Eliminate Its Deferred Maintenance Backlog and to Renovate and Modernize Its Buildings
November 2022

CBO analyzed roughly 49,000 buildings in use on Army bases in the United States that the Army’s active component is responsible for maintaining. The cost of eliminating the maintenance backlog and returning the buildings to standards matching the Department of Defense’s goals would be about $19 billion (in 2020 dollars). The cost of renovating and modernizing the buildings within their current footprint (the area they cover on the ground) to fully provide users with the capability to fulfill their missions would be an additional $34 billion.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58220

And you wonder why DOD was pissed when Trump pulled Military Construction Army funds to build the wall along the border. Up until 2 years ago I worked in a "temporary for wartime only" building built in 1940 during the mobilization for World War 2. We finally moved into our "new" facility (built in the 1960s) after a refurbishment.

Army leadership has been trying to address this for decades but have been unsuccessful in getting funding. It's also why you are hearing so much in the news about contaminated water at so many military bases...lack of funding to upgrade and keep industrial plants running safely.

We had expected to recoup a lot of funding with closures due to BRAC. And we were starting to see that. But that funding, like so much else, got sucked up by the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq.

[DOR]

Options for Reducing the Deficit, 2023 to 2032--Volume I: Larger Reductions

Dec 7, 2022: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58164

CBO issues a volume describing 17 policy options that would each reduce the federal budget deficit by more than $300 billion over the next 10 years or, in the case of Social Security options, have a comparably large effect in later decades.


Savings over 10 years, 2023-2032

1. Establish Caps on Federal Spending for Medicaid_ _ _ _ _ $501-871 billion

2. Limit State Taxes on Health Care Providers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $41-526 bn

3. Reduce Federal Medicaid Matching Rates __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $68-667 bn

4. Increase the Premiums Paid for Medicare Part B_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $57-448 bn

5. Reduce Medicare Advantage Benchmarks _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $392 bn

6. Reduce Tax Subsidies for Employment-Based Health Insurance_ _ _ _ _ $500-893 bn

7. Reduce Social Security Benefits for High Earners_ __ _ _ _ _ _ $40-184 bn

8. Set Social Security Benefits to a Flat Amount_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $270-593 bn

9. Increase the Max Taxable Earnings Subject to SS Payroll Taxes_ _ _ _ _ $670-1.204 bn

10. Reduce Spending on Other Mandatory Programs_ __ _ _ _ _ _ $580 bn

11. Reduce the Department of Defense’s Annual Budget_ _ _ _ _ $995 bn

12. Reduce Nondefense Discretionary Spending_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $332 bn

13. Increase Individual Income Tax Rates_ _ __ _ _ _ _ $502-1,329 bn

14. Eliminate or Limit Itemized Deductions_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $541-2,507 bn

15. Impose a New Payroll Tax_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $1,136-,2,53 bn
_ _ _
16. Impose a Tax on Consumption_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ $1,950-3,050 bn

17. Impose a Tax on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases_ _ _ _ _ $571-865 bn

[Albany Rifles]

#3 is going to negatively impact the poorest as we will see states cut Medicaid support instead of raising taxes to fill the resultant void.

#10 is too opaque...want to know more.

#11 I'd like more specifics...how much of these are killing pet programs of law makers that actually increase defense spending beyond what the Pentagon has called for?

[DOR]

#3 is going to negatively impact the poorest as we will see states cut Medicaid support instead of raising taxes to fill the resultant void.

#10 is too opaque...want to know more.

#11 I'd like more specifics...how much of these are killing pet programs of law makers that actually increase defense spending beyond what the Pentagon has called for?

CBO just offers analysis; Congress asks for what it wants.
So, some congress critter asks for an analysis of how much of a larger tax break can be given to his best friend if we just cut out all that unnecessary medical care for people who won't ever vote for him (cause, we're all about voter suppression). Some staffer says, "um, maybe drop the bit about tax breaks for the uber-rich?," and the CBO does it's thing.

As for the other two items, the details are all in the link.

[DOR]

Long-Term Implications of the 2023 Future Years Defense Program
CBO Jan 11, 2023

CBO analyzes the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) plans for 2023 through 2027 as presented in the 2023 Future Years Defense Program and projects that DoD’s costs would increase by 9 percent from 2027 to 2037 without the effects of inflation.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58579

[DOR]

U.S. Hypersonic Weapons and Alternatives

The Army, Navy, and Air Force are each developing hypersonic missiles—nonnuclear offensive weapons that fly faster than five times the speed of sound and spend most of their flight in the Earth’s atmosphere. Those missiles are intended to be maneuverable and capable of striking targets quickly from long distances. In this report, CBO analyzes the hypersonic weapons being developed by the U.S. military and compares them with less expensive existing or potential weapons that might fill similar roles, such as cruise missiles or ballistic missiles.

https://www.cbo.gov/

[tbm3fan]

U.S. Hypersonic Weapons and Alternatives

The Army, Navy, and Air Force are each developing hypersonic missiles—nonnuclear offensive weapons that fly faster than five times the speed of sound and spend most of their flight in the Earth’s atmosphere. Those missiles are intended to be maneuverable and capable of striking targets quickly from long distances. In this report, CBO analyzes the hypersonic weapons being developed by the U.S. military and compares them with less expensive existing or potential weapons that might fill similar roles, such as cruise missiles or ballistic missiles.

https://www.cbo.gov/

So here is a dumb question. With all three working towards the same goal of a hypersonic missile would it be too hard to work together in say a joint development? Calling AR...

[Officer of Engineers]

The C3 alone is different in all 3 branches. Launch conditions are drastically different. Naval one has to deal with salt water. Army one has to deal with surviving incoming fire. The birds need a big red cape.

[Albany Rifles]

So here is a dumb question. With all three working towards the same goal of a hypersonic missile would it be too hard to work together in say a joint development? Calling AR...

There can be some overlap but more importantly what is the functional requirement for each service? If the launcher is big enough and you need a tracked launch vehicle then it probably won't be carried by anything smaller than a B-52. Really need to work through all of those different points need to be addressed.

[astralis]

See: F-35 mess.

[Albany Rifles]

See: F-35 mess.

What he said...

[tbm3fan]

There can be some overlap but more importantly what is the functional requirement for each service? If the launcher is big enough and you need a tracked launch vehicle then it probably won't be carried by anything smaller than a B-52. Really need to work through all of those different points need to be addressed.

I knew that but just threw it out there. Of course the Air Force could be expected to go big while the Army would need something small enough to fit on the back of a Toyota pickup...

[DOR]

Availability and Use of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Fighter Aircraft


CBO compares the availability and use of the Department of the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter aircraft with the availability and use of their predecessor F/A-18C/D Hornets and other aircraft operated by the Department of the Navy and the Air Force.

CBO found that availability rates have declined with aircraft age for most types of aircraft, but that Super Hornets have aged more adversely than their predecessor F/A-18C/Ds; flying hours do not explain differing patterns of availability decline; and availability rates of Super Hornets may stabilize or continue to decline.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58687

[DOR]

Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2023 to 2032

If carried out, the plans for nuclear forces delineated in the Department of Defense’s and the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2023 budget requests, submitted in April 2022, would cost a total of $756 billion over the 2023–2032 period, for an average of just over $75 billion a year, CBO estimates. That 10-year total is $122 billion, or 19 percent, higher than CBO’s most recent previous estimate of the 10-year costs of nuclear forces, $634 billion over the 2021–2030 period.

https://www.cbo.gov/