An Outsider's Perspective

[Ken White]

but that's counterbalanced by being too knowledgeable about PPBES -- at least as it was operational in the 80s and 90s.

It does break widgets out of programs but the myth lies in the fact that the authorization is most always last years plus inflation.

Your summary is succinct and accurate -- hard to do and thus a good job, I think. Only thing you left out was the fact that the widgets will have to be produced in West by God Virginia...

[John T. Fishel]

colleague, and former Leavenworth MMAS student from West by God Virginia would say, "You got that one right, old son!"

[J Wolfsberger]

Do we even want to get into color of money, DAB, congressional "oversight," and the myriad other considerations?

As for congress, any contractor on any major program knows there had better be a chart providing the names of subcontractors by state and congressional district. It may not (probably won't) affect the SSEB, but it damned well will make a difference in selling the program to congress. (For decades a well known senator voted against everything in defense, except the system manufactured in his home state. Coincidence, I'm sure. )

And let's not get into what happens when professional politicians, and staffers with degrees in public administration, decide they're God's gift to engineering.

[Ken White]

Do we even want to get into color of money, DAB, congressional "oversight," and the myriad other considerations?
...
And let's not get into what happens when professional politicians, and staffers with degrees in public administration, decide they're God's gift to engineering.

Especially that last para..

The C-130 is a great aircraft, all models. The Herky Bird is literally worth its weigh in gold. Its longevity is amazing -- and due, not least, to sub-contractors in every State...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

it's not PPBE that's broken, it's the lack of desire on DoD's part to implement the system at the OSD level and enforce it. The services, in spite of the relentless tapping into their respective TOAs by Congress, the JCS, and COCOMs, actually do a fairly good job on scrubbing programs.

You're right about the accounting system(s) though, it's all Kabuki math.

[Ski]

Ken - answering your question - opinion, backed up with anecdotal evidence (everyone's favorite).

You old guys, with all your collective wisdom and knowledge. Damn you! I did not know that several Presidents wanted to kill PPBES, and would like to be able to reference that if you know of any sources/books, etc...

Agree with the opaqueness - some transparency would be lovely if there is a clarifying agent available, but like you said, asking the Congress to help is asking the security guard for the keys to the bank vault.

introduced. Smoke and mirrors it was then, is now and ever shall be...

Obviously you missed the fact that numerous attempts by several Presidents from both parties to kill PPBES and put the US Government under GAAP rules have died in Congress. Congress likes the current system simply because it is opaque and no one can really see what they're doing with your money; they aren't going to let it change any more than they're going to stop earmarks...Heh. Y'all know this or is it opinion?

[Ken White]

Ken - answering your question - opinion, backed up with anecdotal evidence (everyone's favorite).

That's what I figured. Nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence, all you gotta do is sift for bias...

You old guys, with all your collective wisdom and knowledge. Damn you! I did not know that several Presidents wanted to kill PPBES, and would like to be able to reference that if you know of any sources/books, etc...

Agree with the opaqueness - some transparency would be lovely if there is a clarifying agent available, but like you said, asking the Congress to help is asking the security guard for the keys to the bank vault.

Not all that wise, I'm afraid. Have to back off a bit. I misspoke; most Administrations have tweaked PPBS, not tried to get rid of it -- for, as was said above, it was better than the previous systems. No excuse for my error.

For example, this Administration in Feb of '03 pushed the DoD comptroller to implement performance based budgeting to focus on the costs of achieving outocmes instead of the details of program administration. It allowed for the creation of Program Change Proposals to allow for changes to POMs on a zero-sum basis.

The basis for my statement was some of the history contained in this paper (LINK) which my former financial guru pushed me to read about ten years ago. There's probably a free copy out there somewhere but I wouldn't have clue on where to find it. IIRC, it did contain specifics on which admins had done what tweaking -- the author's contention was that such tweaking had effectively ruined the process.

Slightly more accurate was my statement -- and my real thrust in the comment -- that several administrations have tried to push the government into GAAP accounting and Congress isn't amused. That wasn't totally correct and I plead guilty to shorthand; what I should've said was that several Admins tried to push Congress into standard accounting practices like plain old double entry bookkeeping AND to revise the appropriation process. I'll add that there were senior civil servants within those Admins who didn't work too hard to get such changes made -- everyone in Government derives some fiscal advantage from that opacity. Here are a few links on that score:

LINKShows failure by exec and legislative branches.

LINKBiased but a reasonable summary of the smoke and mirrors

LINK An abstract but conveys the sense of my comment re: several Admins trying to push Congress.

LINKThere's also been some pressure, sporadically, form within DoD.

[Ski]

Thanks much for the sources Ken. Appreciate the help.