« PreviousContinue »
T A B L E O F E X H I B I. T. S
Health Care Charges -- Current and Proposed
Savings Estimate -- Health care Cost
Summary of log2 Triennial Survey for
Comparison of Disposable Income for
Operating Costs as a Percent of Sales —-
Estimated Savings -- PCS Moves
Summary of FY 1983 SRB Program Payments
FY 1983 SRB Commitments for Zones Manned
Aviation Career Incentive Pay Expenditures
Officers Qualified for Continuous ACIP as
Estimated Savings if ACIP Rates are Reduced
for Members with More Than l 2 Years of
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) —Task Force of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control has completed its review of OSD operations and selected Department of Defense (DOD) activities. The mission of the DOD is to deter war and, if deterrence fails, to conclude any conflict on terms favorable to the United States. All functions in DOD and its component agencies are performed under the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary of Defense.
DOD's total obligational authority for fiscal year 1983 is currently estimated to be $239.4 billion. This includes $61.7 billion for payment of military salaries and retirement; $66.2 billion for operations and maintenance, including civilian salaries; $24.8 billion for research, development, testing and evaluation: $80.2 billion for procurement; and $6.5 billion for other expenditures.
DOD employs two million military personnel in approximately 5, 600 locations throughout the world. There are almost one million reservists and more than one million military retirees. Spouses and dependents of active duty, reserve, and retired military personnel total more than seven million. In addition to the total military-related population of l l million people, there are about one million civilian employees of the Department of Defense and an estimated three million employees of defense contractors. The policies and programs of the Department thus directly affect the lives of more than l 5 million people.
This Task Force reviewed OSD as to both the functions performed within the Agency and its responsibilities for monitoring and controlling functions common to the military services: the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy (including the Marines).
The OSD Task Force did not attempt to assess the appropriate budget level required for DOD to fulfill its mission. Rather, the Task Force sought to identify cost saving opportunities that would enable DOD to fulfill its mission in a more cost-effective manner.
The OSD Task Force analyzed defense cost saving opportunities in the following areas:
Opportunities for Cost Savings and Reverue Enhancements
The osD Task Force review identified 40 cost savings and revenue enhancement opportunities. When fully implemented, these recommendations could produce annual savings and revenue of about $19 billion (in 1983 dollars), plus one-time savings of nearly $5.0 billion, offset by about $1.8 billion of one-time implementation costs. It should be noted, however, that it will take several years to realize fully the savings of some of the more significant
In no case do we recommend diminishing the defense program. The OSD Task Force is in full agreement with the need for a strong national defense posture. All recommenda– tions are made with full appreciation of this over riding need .
Almost 40 percent of the recommended savings can be derived from improved management of the weapons acquisition process. The OSD Task Force analyzed the process only. The issue of specific weapons choices was not addressed since this was beyond the competence of the review team and not relevant to our charge.
Over all Findings
Management of OSD and DOD is an awesome task. The Department has more employees and more locations, and controls more dollars, than any other free world organization. As would be expected in a democracy, DOD is under constant scrutiny by Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the White House, the media, special interest groups for and against its activities, its employees, its retired employees, business leaders, and the general public.
Two special circumstances impede efficient management and decision-making, as viewed by private sector standards. First, the military services have never really bought in to the need for central management by the Secretary of Defense. DOD has been in place for 35 years, but the services still resist its authority. Secondly, Congress continually con– stricts DOD's management prerogatives. Weapons choices, base deployment, and other major management decisions cannot be made in isolation from home district political pressures from throughout the country. This creates an environment which favors expansion of programs; the management efficiencies of contraction or consolidation are seldom attainable.