In so many discussions I have noted that the government spends too much and callled for cuts. Much of this has been in the midst of political discussion where partisans have charged either that BHO & the Ds only want to tax and spend and the Rs only want to protect the rich and harm the poor. In one of them Red challenged me to start a thread so here it is. I'll list my suggestions with the caveat they are not comprehensive and understand they are not in enough detail for real action. I am also ignoring some political reality in that some I call for the Rs will have heart attacks over and some are anathama to Ds. I hope others who participate forget the small politics and make suggestions they think a braver and better leadership (on all sides) in Washington would find reasonable. So here goes: #1 Defense. There has to be at least a 25% cut in our defense department available without weakening our forces long term or short term. We have too many stationed offshore and while we need to be careful of where and how we pull back we should. I think Europe is one place as well as the Pacific for our land forces. We need to do a better job of managing expensive programs. For example we continue to build M1-A1 tanks even though the Army has 1000's in parks not being used. The air force is building the F-35, F-22 & B2 aircraft. Each is so expensive thet we really can't build enough for a general war. Why not develop drones to replace them? Why do we spend on these big ticket items yet don't equip our various infantry with the best body armor and accessories to fight. Why did I have to send everyday goods, like gun cleaning equipment and handi wipes etc to my cousin in Afganistan? The Navy has similar issues but because of where immediate future hot spots are and the need to make sure the sea lanes are open and if we pull back land forces the Navy is our first line of power projection. Maybe we don't need ballistic missile subs a $5billion a copy. I would not cut our R & D or training budgets a cent and if anything add to it. There is my first suggestion. I realize there can be an argument to keep each program we have in place but we are not infinitly wealthy and have to make decisions on the best way to spend what we have. To prevent each post from being too long I will do another tomorrow or so on domestic discretionary spending. Bottom line I think we can manage our defence budget better and be as rigorous with it as any.
There you go guys that is 20% of the deficit. Again if we look at this as partisans we won't get anywhere. Winston Churchill when he became first Lord of the Admiralty before WW1 made sweeping changes in the Navy that brought vigorous protests from the admirals who protested he was destroying tradition. His response was something like Traditions what traditions Rum, the lash & sodomy are the traditions of the Navy. He swept the away and created a modern navy that was the leader in technology(oil fired turbine driven ships) concentrated his forces effectively to provide the shelter England needed and contro; the sea lanes and starve the germans. He also made a deal with the Saudis to for the Anglo-Arabian oil Company which povided the allies with the fuel they needed. We need someone like Winston today to see and do what is needed.
I completely agree with your bottom line. I'm not sure I can toss out a figure like 25%. We should target waste and fat and let the percentages fall where they may. I think it would be closer to 20%, but I ain't sure. I do have some issues and comments with your breakdown . . Agreed. The rest of the ground troops should be removed. NATO can defend itself from all current threats. If Russian ever becomes a threat again, we can send them back. We should keep the airpower assets in Europe, they come in handy sometimes for quick redeployment to the middle east. We must do a better job of managing weapons systems acquisition for sure. But that is already happening. We haven't built a new M-1 tank since 1992. We just keep refurbishing and updating existing tanks. Our only tank factory is shut down until 2017 to save money. The next generation tank has been shelved for the time being because there isn't a big land-war threat right now. Production of the B-2 bomber ended in 1997, we only have 20. At $3 billion bucks each, it would be a military disaster to lose one. F-22 production has ended as well. We have all we need, since there is no enemy fighter operational to match it. The F-15's actually are still capable of beating all enemy aircraft. Everyone is counting on the F-35 now to replace F-15, F-16, A-10, and F-18. I fear we are expecting one design to do too much and will end up with a plane that is good at many things but excellent at none. But we can no longer afford to have an air force comprised of specialty planes. The navy is getting dangerously small and the world has not gotten any smaller. If we don't redirect some funds into ship building we will lose our global naval capacity which would be a disaster. Existing aircraft will be capable of fighting all potnetial enemies for many years yet. The 60-year-old B-52's are expected to remain in service for another 35 years! We are developing unmanned aircraft at a rapid pace, but not to replace them, but to supplement them. Drones do have major limitations that manned aircraft do not. They are complimentary to each other and costs are coming down because of it. We have the best equipped and armored infantry in the world. I don't understand this objection. We haven't built a ballistic missile submarine since 1997. Agreed. But there are a few R&D budgets that are bloated and should have tougher oversight. On the whole you are on track, but many of your suggestions have already been implemented or are being so. We need more cuts than that. And they can be done without affecting military readiness and effectiveness. 1. Eliminate unnecessary bases. We have about 100 bases from WWII and the Cold War, mostly domestic, that the military no longer needs or wants. But Congress won't let them cut anything in their districts without a fight that the military can't win. Congress must be taken out of it. Bases must be closed. SOme can be "mothballed" against a future need, but we can't just keep bases open to help local and state economies. 2. Slash the National Guard. Ask any veteran guardsman and he will tell you of the colossal waste that goes on. Hundreds of unneeded, un staffed armories; huge waste in procurement; tens of thousands of undeployable troops holding positions (elderly sergeants with medical issues, overweight females, dead-weight officers and NCO's who have found easy gigs; it goes on and on. The Air Guard does a better job, I am told, so it can be done. The Guard is important and many Guardsmen do excellent work, but the system is bloated and wasteful and we just can't afford to run it like we did in the 1950's. It must get leaner and meaner and standards must be raised to active duty standards if they are going to receive full military benefits. 3. Restructure military benefits. This is the biggest expense in the military and as might be expected it can stand some belt-tightening as well. Soldiers no longer get rock-bottom pay but with generous benefits. The volunteer army pays its career NCO's and officers very well and still with generous benefits. A career NCO with 26 years in will be an E-8 making $65,000. A career officer with 26 years will be a colonel making $ 127,000. Maybe all those PX and free family health care benefits are not as necessary as they were before . Nobody begrudges combat veterans generous pensions and medical plans, but perhaps part-time guardsmen and those that served as the librarian at Fort Riley, don't rate the same benefits as combat veterans. 4. More accountability. The military is notorious for $600 toilet seats and $90 hammers. Budgets don't scrutinized for waste and duplication. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. 5. Reduce civilian employees and contractors. In order to add to put more soldiers in the teeth of the dragon instead of the tail, the Pentagon has hired and contracted out more services formerly performed by servicemen to civilians. And they aren't saving money by doing this. The military has over 700,000 civil service civilian employees. A good bud of mine recently retired from the National Guard. He was a mess sergeant capable of running a battalion-sized deployable field mess hall. But when his brigade deployed to Iraq, the mess unit was left behind because food service had been contracted out to Bechtel. The soldiers complained that the food was worse and the food-service civilians were getting better pay than the fighting soldiers.
The biggest hurdle is the divergence in goals between the DoD and the Congress. DoD wants to put together a force to match the strategy (don't laugh). The Congress wants to protect (and grow) jobs in their district. Seldom, if ever, are these goals aligned, thus, the size of the DoD budget is a result of accommodating both goals. Simple, isn't it. And, guess who wins in the end. I did this kabuki at the highest levels for 7 years. Often took a shower when I got home at night.
I once saw a great cartoon. Some junior officer was briefing the General. The junior said, "and General, this plane has the best defensive package ever conceived" The General said, "Explain that capability to me, son." "Yessir...It has components made in every Congressional District!"
raise ss and medicare ages. incorporate means testing to ss raise taxes sell alaska just kidding with the last one
Thanks Red those are good points and I see nothing to quibble with. I hope people don't equate $ with effectiveness. Of course people who face demands can sabatoge the system by applying cuts not where needed but where they hurt and I respect Hollywood's point about congress and jobs though most generals prepare for the last war and need civilian oversight in the worst way for strategic concepts. The point of the thread is to have people think and not react. In one sense the same lens can be taken to every sector of the federal government. That is what I hope to do over the next few days.
Just one quibble I have read and heard from my cousin who served in Afganistan that while we have body armor there are still many improvements to be made. Just recently there was an article about how armor women wear was is not very effective. We may have the vbest in the world but it can easily get much better.
Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and thus speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. military, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical. The debate is especially valid in Afghanistan, when comparing lightly equipped insurgents with U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment. Many troops have complained that under such conditions, they are simply unable to pursue their guerrilla opponents. Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IED's and ambushes, while special forces and dismounted infantry usually make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal as inadequate armor.
