Ancheta, Jason

English

Texas ScholarWorks

The Twelve Carrier Act: A Bottomless Pit of Investment – The Texas Oratorhttps://thetexasorator.com/2018/10/01/the-twelve-carrier-act-a-bottomless-pit-of-investment/[10/25/2018 3:08:38 PM]HOME ›  LAW ›  THE TWELVE CARRIER ACT: A BOTTOMLESS PIT OF INVESTMENTThe Twelve Carrier Act: A Bottomless Pit of InvestmentBY JASON ERIC A. ANCHETA on  OCTOBER 1, 2018 • ( 0 )When deployed, a metal monstrosity that spans several acres provides sovereign U.S. territory across anystretch of international waters. This is the American hunk of steel known commonly as the aircraft carrier.Because of its girth, this behemoth requires a large budget for its construction, maintenance, and operation.While increased funding might be the solution to some inter-jurisdictional problems in government, much ofthe current allocation for aircraft carrier construction is money ill spent.On February 7, 2017, H.R. 941 — The Twelve Carrier Act was introduced into the 115th Congress in orderto increase the Navy’s naval combat forces from 11 carriers to 12. Since then, it was referred to the HouseCommittee on Armed Services and later to the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.Frankly, we could only hope that this legislation would die there in committee. The legislation calls for moremoney going towards funding the program. If the money addresses specific weak points and does notsimply push past problems under the rug, I am all for increased funding. Otherwise, these vesselscompromise the protection of our nation instead of defending it. With public support for these carriers renewed by articles published by various publications, politicians stopstudying the numbers of our budget because they can take advantage of fears tactics fueled byinternational conflict.Proponents for the bill contend that it is beneficial to eliminate the required Navy certifications for shock trialclearance. Their advocates claim that this bolsters American naval strength in the event of a globalcatastrophe with quicker access to more ships. I beg to differ.Past trial tests indicate that this expedited process would be counterproductive for American defense sincesome issues have not been addressed. By passing this amendment to the National Defense AuthorizationAct for Fiscal Year 2016, Congress would be neglecting some crucial details since naval certification wouldno longer require inspection. Though the fear-based advocacy resonates with the American public, theamendment actually bars our armed forces from ensuring safer facilities in favor of a quicker turnaroundtime.Justin Bachman, a Bloomberg fellow, reported on June 28, 2017, that before considering the outright coststhat the U.S.S. Gerald Ford has had for the military, “critical performance at this time exhibits kinks thatcontractors anticipate will not be remedied until 2019 at the earliest.”Although the legislation in question states that it takes effect in 2023, removing the prerequisite of Navycertification establishes a negative precedent. Passing this bill dissolves any parameter for futureinvestigation. The current terms of the National Defense Authorization Act, providing accountability for theoperation of these vessels, would cease to exist, and suddenly Navy officers have the ability to hideWho We AreThe Texas Orator is a nonpartisan,peer-reviewed political publicationthat was founded and is maintainedby University of Texas at Austinstudents. We value thorough analysisin our articles and strive to protect theideals of free speech and unhinderedaccess to information on campus andnationwide. We seek to keep thestudent body informed of theimplications of ever-changing politicalclimates, both domestically andabroad, from a range of voices andperspectives.We have been indexed as scholarlyliterature by the UT Libraries and byUT Undergraduate Studies.We are sponsored by Ramsey’sRestaurant of Victoria, Texas, and theThomas Jefferson Center for CoreTexts & Ideas. We are also a memberof UT’s Civic Engagement Alliance.Follow us on TwitterMy TweetsOur Instagram    ABOUT ARCHIVE IDEAS PODCAST MERCH CONTACT JOINArts Campus Culture Domestic Affairs Economy Education Environment Foreign Affairs Health Law Satire TechThe Twelve Carrier Act: A Bottomless Pit of Investment – The Texas Oratorhttps://thetexasorator.com/2018/10/01/the-twelve-carrier-act-a-bottomless-pit-of-investment/[10/25/2018 3:08:38 PM]A Lesson from Supreme CourtJustice Anthony KennedyDefending Title IX’s Burdenof ProofGOP Minority Undermines Ruleof LawAmerica Needs to Care Aboutthe Dreamers‹ E-I-E-I-Please No: A Recommendation in theDramatic Race for Texas Agriculture CommissionerTrick or Tariff ›malfunctioning components aboard these carriers. In the effort to label a carrier as operational, theprobability of technical difficulties will only increase and ultimately lead to catastrophic stalling in the midstof any national crisis. Surely, it’s safe to assume that malfunctioning radar systems and aircraft launchsystems are grounds for keeping these required certifications in place.Essentially, any future issues that surface with these aircraft carriers will jeopardize continued operationwithout certifying continued shock tests. If the flagship carrier is experiencing issues with basic mechanicslike propulsion, I would hope that we wouldn’t allow the Navy to ignore such a fundamental function of theseships. I mean, how else is the ship going to get anywhere in the first place if it cannot propel itself?If this was not enough of a consequence, it is also imperative to realize that the investment itself is flawed.Rather than allocating funding to ensure that the vessels commissioned would improve upon older designs,it seems that continued efforts will only create the need for more funding. It would be nice to believe thatmechanical problems solve themselves as time passes, but reality proves otherwise.Scot Paltrow, a financial journalist with Reuters Magazine, finds that the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford is currently$2.5 billion over the budget originally allocated to it.This is problematic, primarily because the Twelve Carrier Act uses the Gerald R. Ford as the template forthe construction of the next ship. Common sense would have us realize that it would not be wise to build acopy of a ship that has problems that have not been addressed yet. Unless our goal is to hinder our militaryfrom providing domestic tranquility and security, the preferred action would have us build vessels thatrequire minimal maintenance. Regardless of whether you support increased defense spending or are a staunch member of its opposition,the effort in question is flawed in its implementation.As a hopeful finance major, I would be crazy to advise you to support an effort that does not offer theintended returns on investment. With this in mind, my recommendation to Congress would be to hold theirassets for the time being. Throwing money at this issue won’t make it any better.And while we’re at it, maybe we can get rid of the proposition altogether. That way, we can start over anddraft a better, more efficient way to solve this defense issue.Share this:Twitter Facebook GoogleCategories: Law Tags: Aircraft Carriers , Defense , Navy , SpendingRELATED ARTICLES  Loading...The Twelve Carrier Act: A Bottomless Pit of Investment – The Texas Oratorhttps://thetexasorator.com/2018/10/01/the-twelve-carrier-act-a-bottomless-pit-of-investment/[10/25/2018 3:08:38 PM] Notify me of new comments via email.Leave a ReplyPOWERED BY WORDPRESS.COM.Email (required) (Address never made public)Name (required)Website

The Twelve Carrier Act: A Bottomless Pit of Investment

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/69201/The%20Twelve%20Carrier%20Act%20A%20Bottomless%20Pit%20of%20Investment%20%e2%80%93%20The%20Texas%20Orator.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

The Twelve Carrier Act: A Bottomless Pit of Investment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas ScholarWorks