Home » Budget Industry » CBO: 355-Ship Fleet Will Cost $6.7 Billion More Per Year Than Current Navy Budget Request


CBO: 355-Ship Fleet Will Cost $6.7 Billion More Per Year Than Current Navy Budget Request

Ingalls Shipbuilding lands the 700-ton deckhouse on the amphibious assault ship Tripoli (LHA 7) on July 9, 2016. Ingalls Shipbuilding photo.

Two of four shipbuilding scenarios detailed by a Congressional Budget Office report released Wednesday would create a 355-ship Navy by 2037, but current Navy spending requests only maintain the status quo of the current-sized 282-ship fleet.

Starting in the current Fiscal Year 2018, and continuing for the next five years, the Navy proposes in its 2019 Budget to spend an average of $20.8 billion a year on shipbuilding – an amount, according to CBO calculations, that wouldn’t pay for maintaining the status quo of current fleet size of 282 ships, let alone pay for a fleet size increase.

In four scenarios, the CBO report offers lawmakers variations of proposed shipbuilding plans to consider funding for the next three decades. Building a 355-ship fleet, according to the CBO, would require buying 330 new ships for the next 20 years and spending between $103 billion and $104 billion to maintain this fleet through 2047.

CBO Graphic

“The president’s budget only allocates $20 billion to shipbuilding and proposes to build 10 ships. We must get to 13 ships and increase the budget accordingly,” said Rep. Rob Wittman, (R-Va.), chair of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces Subcommittee, in a statement released last week before a hearing on the Navy’s shipbuilding plan.

The CBO’s report suggests funding level of $26 billion per year would strike the “sweet spot” to build a 355-ship Navy, added Wittman, who also co-chairs the House of Representatives shipbuilding caucus.

Concentrating on buying new ships, the CBO reports, would require the Navy to add between 12 and 13 new ships each year, spending an average of $26.7 billion annually on shipbuilding.

If the Navy extended the lifespan of some ships near retirement age, the CBO reports a 355-fleet could be achieved quicker but would not provide the Navy with an ideal mix of ships for several years. The Navy’s shipbuilding pace would start off slower, between 11 and 12 new ships annually, at first, and require spending an average of $27.5 billion per year. The slightly higher annual price includes the cost of extending the life of existing ships.

“Those figures are more than 60 percent higher than the amounts the Navy has spent on shipbuilding over the past 30 years and more than 25 percent higher than the amount appropriated for 2017,” the CBO report states.

Just maintaining the status quo, keeping a future fleet at a size comparable to the Navy’s current 282-ship fleet, will still require buying new ships to replace those being retired from service. This plan would require average annual spending of $22.4 billion on shipbuilding, still more than what the Navy proposes spending on shipbuilding in FY 2019.

CBO Graphic

Maintaining the fleet of 282 ships for 30 years would cost an estimated $91 billion-per-year, because the costs associated with building new ships and keeping ships at sea are still expected to increase, according to the CBO analysis.

“Pay for military and civilians is projected to increase faster than inflation as are costs to supply and repair the Navy’s ships,” the CBO report states.

Lawmakers could also decide to essentially do nothing by capping funding for the Navy’s annual shipbuilding plan to what the CBO report described as an average of historic funding levels. However, even this option comes with steep costs, requiring $82 billion-per-year to maintain the fleet for the next 30 years, and would likely result in a fleet of 230 ships by 2047 — down from the current total of 282.

Opting for a smaller fleet would likely reduce the nation’s shipbuilding capacity, the CBO reports. Limiting funding to historic levels would only require slightly more than five ships being built per year, which is less than one ship per existing shipyard.

“It is not clear whether that would be enough business to keep all seven yards open, although if it were, the workforces in those yards would shrink to reflect the reduced activity,” the CBO report states.

  • Duane

    That’s interesting reading. Essentially CBO reports that the Navy’s current requested ship starts aren’t even up to replacement levels, let alone a big buildup to 355 hulls. Obviously the Navy leaders understand that, yet seem afraid to propose spending even at replacement levels.

    There seems to be a very, very big gulf between Congressional talk of building up the fleet, and reality.

    I’ve believed all along that the 355 ship fleet was a fantasy. According to this report, so is the current 282 ship fleet.

    • Todd

      It would be even better if Lockmart wasn’t sucking up so much of the construction budget for it’s large crappy ships. If we fire Lockmart and deepsix both LCS, we’ll have a lot more money to build real warships to hit the 355 goal.

      • DaSaint

        Not really. $1B per year only gets you 1 FFG(X). And that may happen, but doesn’t solve the problem.

        BTW, if we eliminate the 26 funded LCS, you know, because they don’t work, we don’t like them, or whatever, you’re down 26 hulls. You want that? Cause it will take at least 15 years – from first launch of the FFG(X), circa 2026 – to replace just those ships.

        • Duane

          Putin’s puppies on the internet would love nothing more than to ditch our LCS. Unfortunately for the “trolling community” and Putin, no such luck. The Navy loves the LCS.

          • NavySubNuke

            I always laugh when I see you post nonsense like this.
            In reality besides you and laz there is almost certainly no greater fan of the LCS program than Putin and Xi.
            The fact that the US has spent tens of billions of dollars on two separate ships that have almost no armaments, lack any ability to defend themselves outside of a five mile radius, and cost over 1/2 of what a new Arleigh Burke destroyer costs just has to warm their dark little murderous hearts.
            I realize you and Laz won’t agree with this but anyone who is willing to think about this objectively would of course realize that in a war with China or Russia 16 additional Burkes would provide far more capability and capacity for the fight than the 32 LCS we instead spent the money on. Note: that trade doesn’t even include the $6B+ we are spending the R&D and procurement of the mission modules themselves.
            And God only knows how much extra per year we are going to spend sustaining two independent school houses and two independent parts streams to sustain two different types of LCS vs. how much we would have spent sustaining those 16 DDGs. We could probably buy another DDG or two for the amount we would have saved on the sustainment side alone.

          • Duane

            The lowly LCS has better anti ship and antisub weaponry and sensors than the Flight II and IIA Arleigh Burkes that don’t even deploy ASCMs. And equal to the Flight Is and IIIs.

            But if course as always you and your fellow comrades-in-ship-hate refuse to recognize such facts that refuse to conform to your routine lies.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            The LCS is equal to the Burke. So much for rationality from some on here. LOL..

          • Todd

            It’s the year 2025 and the POTUS is facing a crisis, he asks, as have every other president in U.S. history has, “Where are the LCS…” 😛

          • Chesapeakeguy

            I’ll bet that POTUS will discover a few of them are ‘iced in’ at Montreal and some other places!

          • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

            Oh man, the LCS-THE NAVY is iced in? D a n g! Raise the white flag already will ya. THE NAVY cannot operate in any weather other than tropical, everybody knows that.

          • Duane

            In a crisis every ship, boat, aircraft, etc in our military will all play a role.

          • Todd

            But all of those roles will be minor compared to the mighty role the LCS is going to play in defeating the chinese navy all by itself

          • BMC retired

            In the admiral’s world, we don’t need carriers, cruisers, destroyer, submarines, those are all sooooo 2010 thinking, all we need are LCS…..and a lot of prozac (for the admiral).

          • NavySubNuke

            I’d take 16 Flight II or IIAs armed with SM6s over 32 LCS any day.
            As would anyone with any real knowledge on this subject.
            But please do say hello to Xi and Putin the next time you are at an LCS fanboy meeting.

          • Dan O’Brian

            The LCS fanboy club only has four members: Dueneee, Xi, Putin, and the CEO of lockmart.

          • Duane

            You’re forgetting the US Navy, which outnumbers the internet ship haters anonymous club membership by approximately 300,000 to 1, or thereabouts.

          • BMC retired

            There you go again Admiral, stating that the LCS is far superior to a Arleigh Burke destroyer. Perhaps it’s time for you to put down the game controller and understand the reality of the situation before you post nonsense like this. Using your logic, the LCS is the most powerful warship on the planet, even more powerful than CVN’s and Virginia class submarines.

          • Duane

            I didnt write that the LCS is superior to ABs. Apparently your English reading skills need work. LCS and ABs are entirely different ship types with extremely different roles and requirements.

            What I actually wrote was to debunk NSN’s routine lies that the LCS cannot fight, by specifically noting the fact that LCS today come armed with ASCMs, which AB Flight IIs and IIAs don’t deploy. Which makes the LCS more capable and lethal than the newest ABs in the fleet. That is a temporary advantage of the LCS, as the Navy is planning to deploy LRASM in Mk 41 cells on the IIs and IIAs, probably within the next 1-2 years.

            Also, in ASW, the LCS is clearly superior to the Flight I ABs, because those older ABs cannot deploy or support aircraft such as the MH-60 and MQ-8 that are fully deployed and supported by LCS … and also because LCS uses a variable depth sonar that is superior at sensing and tracking deep diving subs below thermoclines that hull mounted transducers on surface ships cannot sense.

            So in these respects, yes, the LCS is better than an AB. But since an AB has as its primary role area air defense, and not SuW or ASW, that is to be expected. The ABs are highly capable in that role, and LCS are not.

            It’s apples vs. oranges. Apples make lousy oranges, and oranges make lousy apples.

          • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

            Perhaps you can’t remember your own words admiral, with your short term memory, here they are: “The lowly LCS has better anti ship and antisub weaponry and sensors than the Flight II and IIA Arleigh Burkes” You clearly state that the LCS is superior. Perhaps we need to retire all of the Arleigh Burkes since the LCS is far far far superior. In fact, the LCS can obviously protect the CVN much much better so let’s just sell all of our Arleigh Burkes to the chinese, they might be able to use them as garbage barges.

          • Retired

            The only “Navy” that loves the LCS are the admirals picking out their furniture for their Lockhead corner offices. The rest of the real Navy understands the LCS is nothing but a shiny aluminum coffin. Oh and by the way, the chinese would LOVE to face the LCS in battle.

          • Duane

            Show us your proof that rank and file officers and enlisted members share your twisted, ridiculous ship hate. You and your comrades (yes … that term has a loaded meaning, fully intended) ought to be embarrassed to be associated with a pathology like ship hatred. But, apparently not.

          • Curtis Conway

            The US Navy loves the LCS because its cheap, fast and is manned by fewer sailors. Combat capability in a threat environment, particularly the modern Battlespace, it is a disaster except in the most narrow environment that exist only in a few places on the planet. What is required is a multi-warfare ship with long legs that is significantly more capable than the FFG-7s it will eventually replace in ‘Show the Flag’, and ‘Proactive Presence Operations’ about the planet for the Unified Combatant Commanders.

            The LCS vessels should be relegated to specific regions where they are effective, and to SOF and Marine Raider support. They will excel in supporting US Coast Guard Operations in any region, including the South China Sea, but not the Arctic. Some should perhaps move into Mine Countermeasures.

            The FFG(X) will be the next DDG-51 platform, and become more prolific with time than the destroyers are today. Smaller ships with greater capability, and smaller crews is the wave of the future. The 9-RMA AN/SPY-6 will one day give the upgraded FFG(X) platform the same tracking envelope of a current Aegis Cruiser. ‘Show the Flag’ and ‘Proactive Presence’ does not require a huge magazine, and lots of expendables, just the ability to respond effectively, and demonstrate resolve via judicious interdiction, and measured actions. That will become the mission of the FFG(X) where they will be the Go-To platform for the Unified Combatant Commanders. It may very well be the only effective platform in the Arctic (no hull mounted sonar).

      • Duane

        In your fantasy world ships are free. In the real world ships are and always have been expensive. Navies are much more expensive to build and maintain than ground armies, going back to ancient times. Trolling Lockheed Martin is the most useless class of trolling there is And btw … the LM freedom class LCS is by many leaps and bounds the cheapest warship we build today, both in gross dollars and in dollars per ton of ship and in dollars per unit of naval capability. If your concern is too many dollars per ship, start with the CVNs.

        • Dan O’Brian

          Let’s talk ‘bang for our buck’ (perhaps you’ll understand a little). The CVN may be expensive but it has lots of bang for our bucks and it’ll last 30 plus years. The LCS has zero bang for our tax buck and it’s well past the point of mid-life already, heck, the first LCS are going to start retiring in the next 5 years.

  • Curtis Conway

    Has it escaped the imagination that one can build more/different kinds of ships that is in the current pipeline, over the same period of time? To add greater aviation pressence to any ocean environment, littoral, or amphibious operation area increases the introduction of faster and more effective lethality (F-35B Lightning II JSFs). Increasing LHA-6 Class large-deck aviation platforms does this, and the mobile basing options can pick up the slack for amphibious equipment lift, along with LX(R) enhancements.

    Further down the road, if FFG(X) is a capable milti-warfare platform with sufficient, decent main sensor, and sufficiently capable combat system, or has the space and displacement to provide upgrade options, then a two-for-one swap for some destroyer billets could be traded. That may be an option to explore.

    One game changer is a VSTOL AEW&C aviation platform that can operate off of any flight deck, including Icebreakers, destroyers, and amphibious & auxillary ships (or a pad on the side of a mountian, or stretch of highway). Game changing technology it is in a Net-centric combat envrionment.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    Gee, I don’t understand the problem. Given how NOBODY within our government of any party gives a hoot about deficits and the debt (except when they are in the minority, and only at election time at that!), why would they let little things like supposed ‘budget shortfalls’ trip them up?

    • Ctrot

      That only applies the the “mandatory spending budget” that mostly covers welfare state spending. The left has successfully created a separate, untouchable, sacrosanct section of the budget (which amounts to about 75% of the total budget) that everyone is afraid of examining much less cutting.

      Meanwhile the left also spends most of their efforts trying to get the remaining “discretionary” budget also dedicated to programs which they can buy voters with as well.

      • IssacBabel

        Plus running two wars with out raising taxes or troops.
        In the old days, when we declared wars, we had taxes, war bonds
        to pay for them. Even had that draft thing, so you had enough troops.
        You want a 350 ship Navy, add a Navy Tax to your paycheck.
        “We want 8 and we won’t wait”

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Maybe, but all those past wars involved deficits too. The difference is between welfare and entitlement spending (I look at them as different items, but they still represent the same kind of money drain).

        • Ctrot

          Nope, even wars don’t compare to what we spend on the welfare state. Every 2 years or so we spend as much on ~80 means tested welfare programs in the US as we have spent in total on Iraq/Afghanistan since 2002.

      • PolicyWonk

        You’ll have to explain how its all the fault of the mean old left when they aren’t even in power in either HoR. Its not their fault that the GOP cannot get their stuff together.

        It was the GOP that went and started a who new set of what might as well be called entitlements after being paid off their ultra wealthy and corporate donors – while driving the deficits and national debt to unheard of heights. All on the basis of unfounded (and disproven theories), and their “hoping” it’ll all work out. You might recall the GOP deriding Obama by saying “hope is not a strategy”.

        This stinking excuse for legislation openly declares class warfare on the middle class (let alone the poor) under the guise of “tax reform” – which is draining the US treasury at a rate 10X that estimated by the mathematically challenged GOP.

        It is now the mean old democrats who are the fiscal/economic conservatives, since the GOP divorced themselves from mathematical reality.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Sure Hillary, that’s it…Yawn…

        • Ctrot

          Are you serious? Do you think this situation was created overnight or even recently?

          Democrats had control of the Senate for most of the 50’s and all of the 1960’s and 1970’s. In the House it’s even worse, they retained complete control for 40 years, 1955-1995. Remember your high school government class, spending bills start in the House. Or they did back when we cared about silly little things like following the Constitution.

          And it was Obama who doubled the national debt in only 8 years, not the GOP.

          Republicans are far from being sin free in regard to controlling spending but compared to democrats the GOP is a bunch of penny pinching misers.

    • David Oldham

      Because the Constitutionally mandated defense of the nation is treated like the budgets’ red headed step child whereas entitlement spending is treated as a right that must ever increase.

      • Ctrot

        That’s the best, most succinct, to the point, single sentence description of our current situation I’ve seen. Well done.

      • PolicyWonk

        Right you are – its long past the time we forever rid this nation of corporate welfare and tax breaks for the ultra wealthy. These clowns posing as “republicans” seemingly divorced themselves from anything resembling fiscal/economic responsibility and committed themselves to class warfare to destroy the middle class.

        Come November – the rules may very well start to change.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Yeah right. How were those ultra wealthy amigos of the Dems treated when they were in control? Ever bother to look up WHO contributes the most money to the Dems? This crap cuts both ways. If your beloved Dems cared about the middle class, they’d be onboard with securing the borders. They’re not. So they ain’t!

          • PolicyWonk

            By golly yes I have looked – and unlike the clowns that bought the GOP lock, stock, and barrel – they aren’t fascists. Nor, have they managed to get the democrats to sacrifice the fiscal and economic foundation of the nation – unlike what passes for today’s GOP.

            BTW – the GOP Senators and Congressman who’s districts are along the border want *nothing* to do with new walls, etc. Did you ever wonder why? Or do you think you know more than the people that live with it every single day, year in/year out?

            In short – you’ve been had by a paranoid xenophobe who was looking for scapegoats to blame for problems they created (this technique was patented by Herr Goebbels himself – the propaganda master). And its the suckers of this nation that bought into it.

            And who’s gonna pay for it? MEXICO baby!

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaa…

            (Gasp)…

            Happy Friday!

          • Chesapeakeguy

            My, you are quite the delusional partisan hack on here. Just a few weeks ago, your beloved Nanny Pelosi said that any increases for the military will not be supported by her, and your, party unless ‘domestic spending’ is increased, which of course means MORE welfare. I don’t have any love for the Republican Congressional ‘leadership’, but only a delusional fool would try to claim that this is all the workings of one party. And here you are, making such claims.

            Yeah, happy Friday indeed…

  • bobbymike34

    Represents about 16/100ths of one percent of the federal budget. Illegal aliens cost us $100 billion a year.

    Build the wall and then build some ships.

  • Ed L

    Maybe If the civilian shipyards would reduce their profit margins the Navy could get more ships built. My brother built Aircraft carries he says the perks they see (shipyard employees)for management borders on Obscene

    • NavySubNuke

      Maybe.
      We could probably also get more ships built if we simply bought the workers themselves as slaves — that would really reduce the cost of shipbuilding but I don’t consider it a very palatable option.
      How much profit do you think the shipyards are making anyway? They do have to actually make SOME money after all.

      • Ed L

        Well my
        brother built Aircraft carries he says the perks they see (shipyard employees)for management borders on Obscene

        • NavySubNuke

          Wow Obscene with a capital “O” —- that means it is serious!!!
          Thank you for providing this unquestionable first hand anecdote — all the more reason to purchase folks like your brother to be our shipyard slaves. We’ll provide them room, board, and medical care and they can live.

    • Chesapeakeguy

      A big part of the problem is how military programs must be ‘sold’ now days. If you want Congressional support, then Congressmen will want ‘their cut’. That’s why we see so many components and systems manufactured in multiple states and districts. All of that adds to the costs over and above what they should be. Many moons ago, I worked at what was then Newport News Shipbuilding. The carrier they were building then was the “Vinson”. But the shipyard had its own foundries and manufacturing shops. I’m sure they still do to some degree, but back then, there was no farming out of so much of the construction, the vast majority of it was done in-house. The same goes with Army tanks, and Air Force planes. I’m sure other parts of the government does the same thing!.

      • Ed L

        My brother built Aircraft carries he says the perks they see (shipyard employees)for management borders on Obscene

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Managers at the yards involved might be one thing, but the ‘piling on’ that results from the farming out of so much of the construction of these projects is a big culprit in why they cost so much. The shipping costs alone contribute significantly to that, not to mention that costs in one state can differ quite a bit from what is charged in another.

    • Duane

      LM is a public company and so publicly reports its revenues and earnings or profits every quarter. Easily found on the web.

      For 2017 LM booked $51.0B in revenue and produced $1.9B in profits. That is a profit margin of just 3.73%. The typical public company makes anywhere from 3% to 10% profit margin, so LM’s profits are on the low end of what is expected by investors/shareholders.

      So even if LM operated at no profit at all, the effect on prices would be very small.

      And what investor would invest in a company that makes no profit? How would defense systems R&D, a good portion of which is funded by defense contractors, otherwise get funded?

      • DaSaint

        Well…the typical public company doesn’t have a 10 year stock valuation increase like LM, which has outperformed most public conpanies. And most companies don’t get past 6% on their profit margins. 10% is considered excellent!

        But your point is well supportable that companies need to be profitable to be good at what they do.

        • Duane

          Just as I wrote, typical public company profits are in a range of 3 to 10%, so LM is at the bottom of that range. So what is your point?

          Oh for comparison sake Apple earned well over five times the profit of LM ($10.7B) on nearly identical revenues ($52B) in 2017. All to sell phones and entertainment to the masses, rather than something as mundane as protecting the free world from murderous bad guys.

          Sheesh!

          • DaSaint

            LOL!

          • Dean687

            well, it’s a good thing they can write off all of those multi-million dollar executive salaries and perks as an ‘expense’ right. Ahh, life in the Lockmart corner life is indeed very very good…

  • BorgWorshipper

    Or Maybe the Ship Yards, and supply chains should learn and innovate so they can produce USN Ships much cheaper and much faster.

    • DaSaint

      Sounds great. How? How long would that take? What to do in the interim? Maybe we should buy some foreign made ships in foreign yards in the interim. Strike up some competition. No, not going to happen. Yes, yards should learn, but there should also be more yards for competition, and then lower prices. But logic often doesn’t prevail.

      • El_Sid

        Well, just as a data point, just one John Lewis costs nearly as much as the RFA spent on four broadly similar Tide class tankers, that were built in Korea and are having final fitout in the UK. Obviously that’s a bit of an exception in that the Koreans are much more geared up for tanker production than warships, and there’s lots of strategic reasons for supporting NASSCO, but it gives you an idea of the savings that _could_ be made.

        • DaSaint

          Great point. But will never happen. Congress and all that.

          • El_Sid

            There was enough of a fuss here about the Korea deal, there’s something to be said for having less scrutiny of procurement than you guys. The fact that all our yards were flat out on the carriers was neither here nor there…

            But I think the T-AO vs Tide thing needs banging on about, because it shows what is possible, and it’s a more or less like-for-like comparison. Spending $3bn rather than $11bn on 20 oilers frees up a meaningful amount of cash for other projects.

  • graylens

    The Federal government was able to find far more for hurricaine relief, fire storm relief and foreign relief like the Ebola emergency. How much does California spend sheltering illegals? ( Illegals are a problem that Congress must stop kicking down the road and politicizing and properly humanely address) The past 16 years of warfare have worn out military equipment that must be replaced, an example is the frayed electrical harnesses in Marine , Navy and Army helicopters.

    • old guy

      there is a new foundation called, “ALL VETS LIVES MATTER”. which is trying to establish residences for homeless vets. Great idea.

  • Western

    What about the cut-rate deal the revitalized US aluminum and steel plants are going to give the US government?
    Oh.

  • Eyes open

    Again, the fastest way to get to the goal is to extend the life of what we have. In Philly there are several Aegis cruisers and several frigates. And right next door is a shipyard with the capabilities to bring them back to life. And yes, I keep hearing that the cruisers cannot be modified to take the newer VLS system. BS! They just aren’t thinking outside the box. And also, yes, I know these are being “harvested” for parts to keep the other CGs afloat. What, nobody makes parts anymore? We need to have some thinkers in charge not people that only see new as the way to go.

  • PolicyWonk

    The problem is worse than is stated above – the USN sent a lot of good money after bad by purchasing a fleet of monstrously expensive, commercial-grade utility boats that lack the capability to either protect themselves, or reach out and touch someone. These were all commissioned into the USN (via legal waivers), so someone could pretend they were something they are not, thereby adding artificially to the sea-frame count.

    The most expensive ships the USN ever bought are those that cannot function as fighting ships.

    • old guy

      EXACTLY CORRECT.

  • PolicyWonk

    Social Security is paid for via payroll deductions – so that isn’t an entitlement.

    Neither is medicare/medicaid, because those are deducted from your taxes as well.

    When you PAY for it – it is NOT an entitlement.

    • Chesapeakeguy

      Actually, that’s not correct. BECAUSE you pay for it, and BECAUSE the LAW stipulates that you must receive it after you’ve paid for it, THAT makes it the very definition of what an entitlement is. However, per the official definitions, welfare is ALSO an example of an entitlement. Sad but true…

    • Ctrot

      We (taxpayers) pay for ALL of it.

    • old guy

      MEDICAID is NOT paid like Medicare. It is pure welfare, now compounded by the ACA.

  • Ctrot

    Counting only the “Big 6” is misleading. There are roughly 80 means tested handout programs ran by the federal government which while smaller than the biggies like SS/Medicare etc. they total to over One Trillion a year.

  • old guy

    The CBO couldn’t find their butt with both hands. Almost cost the Navy a great research program when they said that the cost estimate that I had made for my program was 50% LOW. My team brought it in 70 million dollars under MY estimate. Their consistently high estimates is what allows the shipyards to overcharge for everything. CRIMINAL