-
Chains of Austerity
June 20, 2012 | 83 comments
-
John Edwards, RIP
June 4, 2012 | 28 comments
-
New Hampshire Has Gotten Old
January 9, 2012 | 37 comments
-
Confessions of a K Street Freeloader
November 18, 2011 | 26 comments
-
The Left’s Mormon Problem
October 14, 2011 | 328 comments
The Tax and Spend Spectator
Tough Nuts Roasting Under Friendly Fire
Business at this suburban D.C. company has been great — but what if Congress cuts its lifeline?
It has been a very good year for the company, its various spokesmen tell me. Yes, everyone else may be hurting but orders for their product are up, they are expanding capacity and they are hiring workers too. Even relations with the unions are good. The future — well, their future anyway — is bright.
I learn this while sipping wine at a reception the company is throwing at its swank northern Virginia offices to mark its good fortune. What is the point of being successful if you cannot brag about it to reporters? And when have reporters ever turned down an open bar?
The only thing that can spoil the good times, I’m told repeatedly, is Congress.
No, burdensome regulations are not the issue. Nobody at the party is worried about that. And nobody talks about the economy sliding further downhill either because it lacks a “jobs bill” or some such.
No, they are worried that Congress will stop spending. You see, this company’s business is defense-related. And now that the so-called “super committee” has failed they are facing the prospect of the first serious cut-backs of the post-9/11 era thanks to the automatic “budget sequestration” provisions.
Assuming they do kick in. The company and its lobbyists are not going to take this lying down. They are already working on members of Congress to undo the cuts one way or another.
They are not exactly rolling a boulder up a hill either. As one explains to me, it is just a matter of explaining to individual lawmakers how much the cutbacks will damage the economy in their home state. And, hey — guess what? — the company has operations in almost every state in the union.
Is the lawmaker an anti-war lefty? No problem, just talk to the workers’ unions and get them to talk to the lawmakers. The lobbyists will be happy to set that up. “We’ve always gotten along great with the unions,” one tells me.
Is the lawmaker a Republican? Again, no problem. Heck, it is even easier. Even self-proclaimed budget hawks turn out to be, well, hawks when it comes to defense. Several are already publicly on their side. Defense is apparently the only area of government spending that is done with pinpoint accuracy and there is no fat to cut away.
If the lawmakers are stubborn, well, just warn them that without the procurement the U.S. will lose its cutting edge in defense. The engineers and other mechanical experts will move on to other fields. After all, these are highly skilled, highly sought-after people. Our defense technology could fall a generation behind other countries without them. What red-state Republican wants to run against that ad?
“But is that really so?” I asked, sipping on my wine. Why can’t the engineers just be hired back if it turns out we need them? It is not like they are moving to China, right? Don’t we just have to offer them a good salary?
No, no, no, I am told, it is not that way at all. But even after my host explained it to me I am not certain I completely understood or believed him. Then again, what do I know? I am not an engineer, just a lowly writer.
The only roadblock this time is Congress’s 60-odd caucus of Tea Party members. “We’ve been working on them for a year now, but they are a tough nut to crack,” one of the company employees tells me.
Indeed, for the first time at the event the mood darkens when those radicals are mentioned. That their obsession with getting the federal budget under control could extend to defense has caught the company off-guard and its Washington team is not sure what to do.
None of the usual lobbying ploys seem to work on them, one sighs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thirsty McWormwood
More Articles From The Tax and Spend Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/01/tough-nuts-roasting-under-frie
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Doctor_X| 12.1.11 @ 7:00AM
If the DDG-1000 program stops at two ships and the MLP is cut then the division of the company I work for will be in trouble! I've been saying it for years we're too much into Gov't work!
But I HOPE those uneeded programs are cut! we don't need a 300 ship Navy!
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.1.11 @ 7:52AM
Reagan said, when asked what the "right amount" was, when it came to Defence Spending. Reagan replied: "You spend whatever you need."
If we still believed in the Greatness of our Founding Fathers, and the Founding Documents that they left for us, we would know that The Defence of the Country, is JOB #1, for the Federal Government. Welfare? Entitlements? Bailouts? Subsidies? Student Loans? Government Funded ABORTIONS?
60 Years of Communists, and Socialists, and Maoists, and Progressives, controlling the every level of our Children's Education, has truly made us an IGNORANT people. If not, down right STUPID.
I have a TV GUIDE. I know what's on Television. SWAMP PEOPLE are on The History Channel, instead of The Constitution. Ice Road Truckers, instead of The Magna Carta. People driving wide trucks on skinny roads, instead of Lincoln.
We can watch 3 Sl*t Sisters, doing all the things that you'd expect 3 SL*TS to do, as their Proud Mommy, looks on. Endless Cooking Shows. Endless Decorating Shows. Endless Shows about Abandoned Storage Units, and the Pawn Shops that buy the Crap that's left in them.
What we allow these Politicians to do, is Evil. It is EVIL to spend our Children's Money. It is something WORSE, when we destroy their chances for a Bright Future. And, even WORSE, when we do it to THEIR CHILDREN, as well.
"The only thing that Evil needs to flourish, is for GOOD MEN to do nothing."
Some of us try to elect Good Men. Good Women. But, time and time, again, we underestimate the LURE of The Dark Side. The Money, the Power, the Prestige. And, of course: THE MONEY. (Yeah, I know that I already said The Money, okay? It's called "EFFECT") Where was I? Oh yeah.
Winston Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others". One KING is bad enough. But, 536 of them? It's a miracle we're not BROKER. 536 Flawed Men and Women doing the OPPOSITE of what they were sent there to do. Looking out for THEMSELVES, and to Hell with The People. One of these days we'll learn from History. Just NOT from the History Channel.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.1.11 @ 10:23AM
No doubt. Sign in a trillion dollar bill to socialize medicine, then cut a trillion out of defense. But at least we'll be healthy slaves, ready to work for our new master.
markenoff| 12.1.11 @ 11:39AM
Assuming the trillion dollar socialization of medicine works. Everyone will have medical insurance but only those who can game the bureacracy will get medical care. When the bureacrats control medical care the first ones to get medical care will be the bureacrats.
And by our new master you mean the Chinese, right?
PolishKnight| 12.1.11 @ 11:47AM
In the former USSR, the medical care for the average worker was atrocious, but free. You could bribe a doctor or staff member to improve the quality of care. To it's credit, it was fiscally efficient. Few lawsuits, obviously (try suing the government under socialism), and little regulation by our standards since the FDA is about regulating private businesses rather than itself.
This modern system we have with government union thugs and bureaucrats getting top notch care while the rest of the population labeled as losers pay high premiums to keep democrat trial lawyers in business is ideal for them.
1blumutt| 12.1.11 @ 11:12PM
Timothy l. Pennell, this is priceless. With a bit of editing for punctuation, this would make a wonderful Christmas card enclosure. And Merry Christmas to you!
fembrandt| 12.1.11 @ 7:56AM
Stay on this beat, Thirsty. For one, you'll be able to easily obtain the 550-680 grazing finger food calories that you need to round out the end of your work day. Second, you'll continue to learn how big government, Washington, contractors, lobbyists, staffers, and know-nothing politicians work.
***Sooner or later you'll be invited out to a post or military test site to personally get to observe a project that is 80% complete but still needs funding. Just remember quid pro quo then. Yes, you'll be expected (and leaned on) to write glowing things....
We're not talking about "begging" here. It's called extortion. At the highest levels.
While you are chewing on this, read up on the Medal of Honor US Marine who worked for BAE.
Truth-telling is extremely rare to find. Doing the right thing? Even rarer.
c. j. acworth| 12.1.11 @ 8:01AM
I would suggest to The Company Mr. Wormwood writes about that ther is another tactic they could try with the Tea Party coalition in Congress. Point out that defense is a resposibility of government explicitly set out in the Constitution. Also point out that we have burned up a lot of equipment in the last 10 years, for good or ill, that needs to be replaced or refurbished. I don't doubt for an instant that there is plenty of savings to be found in defense, but cutting too much in the one area that Uncle Sam really is responsible for is not necessarily wise.
Maxwell| 12.1.11 @ 8:19AM
Let me ask as question, not that anyone actually answers my questions but by asking it makes me feel better. When was the last time government spending was actually reduced and by reduced I mean by actual accepted accounting methods?
Second, by cuts, are we talking about cutting what is proposed to be spent? By that I mean, if it is proposed we hike spending for defense $500.00 for fiscal year 2012 but along come the budget cutters who say, we are going to cut spending 50%. If that is the case then
defense is going to go up by $250.00 over what was spent in fiscal year 2011, and the only 'cut' that was made was to proposed spending. That is false accounting.
Nymph| 12.1.11 @ 11:28AM
Maxwell,
You are absolutely correct. I'm going to use round figures to make it easier. The amount the government takes it is $3T, but the proposed budget is $4.5T, thats a $1.5T deficit. The "Cuts" to spending are only in the $1.5T deficit. So even if they cut this amount in half, there is still a $750 B deficit. So these "cuts" are actually cuts, they are a reduction in the amount they overspend. Try that with your household budget and see how long it takes to put you in real trouble.
rd| 12.1.11 @ 12:07PM
Try that with accounting numbers in my business and I'm out in the alley on my keister in 60 days. Maybe just 45.
Thank you, Maxwell and Nymph. We are lied to constantly from one's mayoral office to the statehouse to Capitol Hill.
markenoff| 12.1.11 @ 11:45AM
Defense spending in the United States has fluctuated in the last century, rising from one percent of GDP, peaking at 42 percent in World War II, declining from 10 percent in the Cold War to five percent today.
The defense establishment that sent the White Fleet around the world before World War I was tiny, compared to the defense establishment of mid century. It was about 1.25 percent of GDP. Yet this tiny establishment was expanded into an expeditionary army in World War I that consumed over 14 percent of GDP and turned the tide of the war in France. After the war the armed forces were rapidly demobilized and defense spending returned to about 1.25 percent of GDP.
Then in World War II the United States achieved an unprecedented mobilization of resources, and defense spending rose to 42 percent of GDP in 1945. But after the war it never returned to previous levels. From a low of 7.33 percent of GDP in 1948 it doubled to 15 percent at the height of the Korean War in 1953, and was maintained at about 10 percent during the peak of the Cold War through the end of the Vietnam War. Against this the defense buildup during the Reagan era, from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP in 1986 was modest, and the Bush buildup from 3.6 percent in 1999 to 6 percent in 2010 to fight the first battles against Islamist extremism equally restrained. The plans of the Obama administration show a reduction in spending back to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
Unlike almost everything else the fedearl government spends money on, providing for the common defense is not only allowed but required by the Constitution. What is it worth to keep nuclear weapons from being detonated in US cities?
NH-Engineer| 12.1.11 @ 8:23AM
I AM an Engineer - and, those experts will not disappear if they are cut - most engineering professionals working in A&D (Aerospace & Defense) understand the contract-basis of their jobs. They will just find other temporary jobs until they find another contract. I've done it myself. It's no big deal. The corruption of the DC-based money machine is ruining this country.
Louis Jenkins| 12.1.11 @ 8:34AM
Wormwood? Isn't that the star that fell on the world and turned most of the drinking water bad? Found in Revelations? Yes, we'll be Thirsty alright. If the government doesn't get it's spending agenda in order we'll be scraping the bottom of the water barrel for something to slake our, the tax payer's, thirst. Regardless of whether it's high tech offensive weapons, or low tech clubs, Uncles Sam is still on his spending binge.
Our government is out of control. They have sealed the records of the border patrol agent who was gunned down with a Fast and Furious M-4, Obama says the Republicans don't care about the Bush tax break for white-middle-class families, Michelle takes vacations and bills the tax payers 1/2 million, and we're left with nothing? Both sides, 536 men and women, are playing the middle-class. They're already super rich and couldn't care less. And it's business as usual in the District of Criminals.
PolishKnight| 12.1.11 @ 11:41AM
Louis, when it comes to playing the middle class, the left are masters at it. I was flipping through cable the other day and saw a propaganda film "Capitalism, a love affair" and saw it was sponsored by Acorn. In it, they bash big corporations and all the victims are working class whites. It can't be coincidental since they wouldn't hesitate to bash a conservative documentary for such lack of diversity. They want working and private sector middle class whites to say: "hmmm, those corporates are evil. We need Karl Marx to save the day!" Of course, what they don't mention is that leftists would NEVER want to hire any of these working class whites but would only consider a few token leftist white collaborators.
In the meantime, it's amazing the right ever wins any elections at all. While the left promises a smorgasbord of benefits, the right bashes gay marriage, abortion, and tax increases on the wealthy. Whatever the merits of those positions, they do little for the remaining electorate that the left has been sniping at for decades.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.1.11 @ 10:25AM
Let's cut the majority of the budget out of the only constitutional responsibility of the federal government, National Security. GREAT IDEA!!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 12.1.11 @ 10:26AM
I know there is waste, and we should look for it. But can we at least start by eliminating Federal Programs that shouldn't be there.
Nevermind, this is part of the plan, isn't it?
PolishKnight| 12.1.11 @ 11:35AM
One of the key mistakes Reagan made was to try to protect the defense dept. from cuts. It provided an opportunity for the left to bash him on fiscal conservativism and for the left to double-dip on getting defense spending money in their districts (Boston and Northern Virginia.)
There are plenty of constitutional mandates that socialists are exploiting for profit. Police and fireman's unions have made formerly honorable professions into just another union goon voter bonanza. Imagine if the military was unionized...
Here's the solution: A 0% budget. EVERY agency and sub-agency has to justify their spending each year, set and publish priorities, and then slash the bottom 10%. That's how the private sector does it. Do we need EVERY one of the hundreds if not thousands of military bases we have across the world?
example| 12.1.11 @ 1:57PM
Polish Knight, to put a specific on "nationalizing" (a.k.a placing the taxpayer on the 'dime' for funding something) a former military post, look no further than the recently "retired" Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia.
The Army was the occupier. It made no sense to keep Fort Monroe open as a military post; it has no size, certainly no military purpose or advantage.
No problem. Closing it should help save taxpayers (debt!) on defense spending.
Whoa Nelly No! Now it will no longer be a taxpayer expense under the Department of Defense, it will fall under the NATIONAL Parks Service.
BLUF: The Taxpayer is still on the hook.
The justification: It is a national historical landmark in Hampton Roads. Okay....just keep it "historical" and let a private company run it. Even whiny Virginia GOP Governor Bob McDonnell (a future president wannabe) wouldn't or didn't seem to want to consider this option.
Make the taxpayer responsible; run up the debt!!
So Polish Knight, you're still funding an unnecessary military post in FY 2012, just under a different government accounting line.
Thom| 12.1.11 @ 3:20PM
Example,
Tell me how much money the taxpayers saved by moving the Function and staff at Ft Monroe to other bases and having to build facilities and quarters for those moved? Closing Ft Monroe saved nothing but that was the demands of those that wanted to “close bases” to save money. The National Park service cost to oversee a historical site is tiny in comparison to the cost of actually “closing” Ft Monroe btw. Turning a military site into a civilian profit center has a few associated costs not normally found when just clearing a vacant forrest for a shopping mall or high rise up scale property tax revenue source for the local taxing authority. Ft Monroe is a National Park now because most of it can’t be converted to other use without considerable cost and no civilian contractor wants to take on that cost.
PolishKnight| 12.1.11 @ 11:16AM
It's going to be interesting because most of the white male defense contractor workers I know are strong republicans but the rest vote for Obama.
Bottom line: government workers vote socialist and in system where there's a healthy enough private sector to pay taxes to maintain those benefits while the private sector workers are second class citizens, it's like USSR on steroids.
The left are masters of class warfare but perhaps the way to win it is to take it to the next level: When there's a critical mass of white males and private sector workers who can plainly see that the leftist socialist state is exploiting them, then it's game over. When it becomes Greece, that's the end of it. The different special interest welfare groups battle it out to not be in that 1% of cuts.
Pat| 12.1.11 @ 12:36PM
Ya gotta love reporters like this anonymous author – they can spend years interviewing people on a wide range of political subjects and still not realize how things work in D. C. Dumber than a bag of rocks or simply careful as to which Movers and Shakers they might irritate – probably the causative factor varies with the individual reporter. But as someone involved with the Defense industry, I can say the primary purpose of spending taxpayer money on National Defense is to enrich members of Congress. It’s true, the Honorable Bubba Cornswaggle or Senator Stanton Throckmorton IV have a very personal interest in defense contracting, it’s not glaringly obvious to us taxpayers but it’s there. Money gleaned from taxpayers magically appears in their Cayman Island bank accounts and those Cayman bankers are so notoriously tight lipped they make the Swiss look like blabbermouths. Or, a close relative receives a generous sub-contract or a well-paying job or an insider tip on where the next contract award will go.
The recipe is astoundingly simple. Find something taxpayers are interested in or manufacture some issue taxpayers are persuaded to adopt as their personal agenda. Then as a humble elected employee of these same taxpayers, you create spending bills, you enjoy a quiet drink with your colleagues while planning how to divvy up the loot, who gets what, what special disbursement clauses need to be inserted to complete the swindle. Once the insider deal is struck, your taxpayer paid aides craft the necessary legalese and then, on cue, you and your colleagues cast your predetermined votes. Defense Spending, Green Environmental Causes, Banking Reform, Fannie Mae – these are merely vehicles to personal wealth, a legislative means to an end. Think of it like a West Hollywood realtor peddling some aging star’s 12 room mansion. The asking price for the home is $15 million but the commission at 6% is $900,000 to the realtor – a rather handsome reward for a few hours of work. Our elected employees would easily understand the realtor’s financial motivation because it’s exactly the same as their own – moving huge wads of money around while collecting that all important commission on each deal.
Of course the mainstream media are careful not to blab the details of these frequent swindles to the public – where’s the fun in that? Get carried away with journalistic integrity and your sources dry up, no one in Washington will give you the time of day let alone a personal interview – reporting the truth or preserving your career – a fairly obvious choice. Granting transactional immunity to legislators and placing certain federal employees in their unofficial Witness Protection Program, our intrepid media reporters serve the same role as pimps do for ladies of the evening. Do we actually believe the DOE handed Soylandra $550 million and it was all spent for legitimate purposes? Or that Congress with their vast subpoena powers couldn’t learn what actually went down? Or that Washington Post reporters couldn’t find that one low level DOE staffer who pushed the paperwork through and obtain a revealing “spill the beans” interview? If only Defense spending involved millions for bleak and austere federal prisons where our elected employees and their media pimps could spend their remaining days we would be assured money spent on National Defense was properly allocated for once.
Of mice and men| 12.1.11 @ 1:36PM
Pat, a question for you: The CEO of your beltway bandit defense contract company is not also banking in the same bank in the Caymans? How about the three vice presidents of said defense contractor?
They've never "vacationed" in the Caribbean?
Your point is well taken. HOWEVER, much of the taxpayers' money for defense spending is swindled...into multiple hands, pockets, dubious bank accounts. And not just to 600 D.C. takers who work in the Hart, Dirksen, Rayburn, or Canon buildings. I imagine that there are full time, senior Congressional staffers who also profit quite well.
All in all, a defense contract that spans 25 years and includes at least $245 billion in those 25 years -- probably dumps about $250,000 to $400,000 in roughly 85 - 100 different "players" very discrete offshore banking accounts.
$400,000 is not that much. This is why there are always at least six dozen really big DOD contracts underway at any one time.
Overall, Pat, I agree: It is probably one reason why congressional officeholders see Defense committees on the Hill as "plum assignments."
Those 75-100 players? A healthy mix of elected officials, senior congressional staffers, a state governor or two, a few city mayors, retired admirals and generals who work as lobbyists, the PR lobbyists team members, Pentagon insiders who keep the project alive, AND your defense contractor company(ies) leadership team which usually features former senior ranking active duty US military officers.
I say there is a whole lot of loot to be swindled at the National Defense Pork Trough. And lots of hands who want in. Not just Senator Snort and Congressman Clydesdale.
What say you?
Pat| 12.1.11 @ 2:36PM
Interesting, which defense contractor do you believe profited from the Soylandra swindle or the Fannie Mae debacle – Boeing, Lockheed or Northrop? Which vice-president of Northrop decided to cancel the B-2 bomber program after building only 20 of the projected 100 platforms – and what profit was made on the massive investments in plant and equipment idled by Congress after their cancellation? When Congress is fighting over which state will get the new armament plant is it because Boeing or Sikorsky can’t figure out where to locate a new plant site – they need a Congressman’s or Senator’s technical expertise to decide it for them? When a massive study for a new tactical fighter is completed and years of detailed planning is submitted to DOD, why does Congress vote to fund the program and then cancel it later? They made a hasty decision, they changed their minds on a whim after 1,000 hours of discussion, they didn’t like the paint scheme on the new airframe? Or, they made their personal profit on the deal and, once the money was banked, they no longer had a need for the program?
The DCAA performs audits of defense contractors which would make a colonoscopy appear un-intrusive - but who audits members of Congress with such zeal and unlimited manpower? Defense contracts, bank bailouts, federal “loans” to Green companies, saving the jobs of autoworkers – all grist to Congress’ wealth mill. The media focuses on the vast sums being moved between taxpayers and recipients, but never on the under the table commissions to our elected employees. Does it really matter whichever latest federal spending program is providing the basis for the commission – it probably doesn’t to the elected employee receiving the gift.
Kingofthenet| 12.1.11 @ 12:55PM
You Conservatives/Tea Part 'patriots' can't see the forest thru the trees, in your quest to tame the debt 'beast' you aren't facing basic social/demographic facts. Any plan should have an 'end game' otherwise it's not Strategic just 'Feel Good' gestures with zero chance of success.Ok than let's look at our predicament, and FUTURE realistic chances of realizing them. Let's take the last 60 or so years, from say 1950, in that time was the population of young people growing or shrinking? How about cost of Health Care? Cost of Energy? Was innovation and totally new tech on the upswing? Well the 50's was the HEIGHT of the Baby Boom.If their parents were the greatest generation, than the Boomers were the BIGGEST Generation, nothing since has come close.Most costs in that time were fairly controlled, from energy to healthcare, we had Massive Medical advances, Television, Computers and the Internet. Yet with ALL that good stuff we NOW are in debt for a total of over $15 Trillion. What is the Future prospects? are the next 60 years likely to be better than the last 60? Well all those 'boomers' are now retiring and becoming a drain, and there isn't enough new young people to shoulder the burden.Costs for everything are skyrocketing, and while no one knows what will happen with innovation, the last 15 years have just showed evolutionary advances. We would be LUCKY if the next 60 years 'just adds' another 15 trillion in debt, much less cuts a dime...
skip| 12.1.11 @ 9:34PM
"You Conservatives/Tea Party 'patriots' can't see the forest thru the trees . . . Any plan should have an 'end game' otherwise it's not Strategic just 'Feel Good' gestures with zero chance of success"
This advice, from a liberal atheist, for us conservative tea partiers, whose plan for life is the 'end game' of eternal joy and peace in the presence of God forever, who in the meantime are doing something about all the 'feel good' unconstitutional government deficit spending that has our total unfunded liabilities somewhere between 150 and 200 trillion dollars, and who are doing so in the meantime for the temporary peace and joy of everyone - justly - and not an arbitrary few - corruptly - while in this world.
Idiot.
Ron| 12.1.11 @ 1:38PM
You know, it reminds me of the "Warfighter" program...A soldier lugging around an optimized rifle, carrying a video camera and intergrated helmet heads-up display screen. The promos on the Miliraty channel claimed we needed it to ensure the US Military stays miles ahead of the opposition. My MOS was 11B10, and while I understand the value of intelligence, and not putting our troops in harms' way until absolutely necessary, I see our forces losing troops to men armed with nothing more modern than AK47s/AK74s, without holographic or Ecotech sights, RPGs, and IEDs...So what good is all of this electronic wizardry? If it is to intimidate our enemies, it is not working!
Same thing with the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) that is being touted...new calibers, new configurations, programmable rounds...Again, we have been using M16 variants, M14's are even being pressed back into service, and .50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns (Ma Deuce) to good effect, yet we are told they are not good enough, and the American taxpayer is being soaked for yet another new rifle, and fancy electronics. to what point?
Old School Better?| 12.1.11 @ 2:11PM
Ron, thanks for posting. Don't we (all the time) overweight the 11B infantryman with just way too much gear? Large rucksack, water, food needs, change of clothes, entrenching tool, helmet, ammo, radios, web gear, and then the weaponry.
Soon the gear weighs more than the man.
And all that tech stuff -- it is weighty, requires lots of electricity/batteries and repairs. Plus it ain't always very robust or weather resilient, right? Dirt, dust, mud, grit. A troop can spend a lot of his time just cleaning and cleaning again.
I'm asking.
I've also been to military tech shows and DOD level conferences where this stuff is touted. Looks great if a man only has to wear it and deal with it for 72 hours or 7 days, tops. But for 21 - 30 days?
It looks - always - to me like significant weight problems, tech breakdown problems, repair problems, and just the fear of always losing some gear parts in the rough and tumble nature of move, stop, patrol, stop again, new fire base, move again, stop overnight, move again....etc. (losing the gear and creating a potential vulnerability when the enemy has it)
Thom| 12.1.11 @ 3:40PM
The Defense Department tends to oversell its weapon systems in part because Congress is composed of people who have no idea what disadvantages we are at against likely adversaries that have huge numerical superiority. The mindset of the Pentagon is that our forces will be inferior in numbers and thus must have every edge possible to overcome that. On one hand it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy due to cost of our “stuff” and on the other hand every time the military says something new-x is better than 16 old-y we end up with less of New-x and take a net loss in capacity (not capability). I remember the claims about the Apache, M1 and all these optimized wiz bang combat rifles that could do everything but walk and talk and only cost $15,000 each a decade ago….. The first time I picked up a dressed up M-4 I was impressed that it weighted more than a Garand which begged the question where the lightweight carbine goal went? The question that needs an answer to is which came first the need to get the most mileage out of our smaller force levels or the cost of all our “stuff” produced in small numbers relatively speaking making even that all we can afford?
Defense contractors tend to respond to Pentagon request for all these whiz-bang things not the other way around. If you asked for the moon and take a decade to design and test it out expect to get an appropriate price for that.
Thom| 12.1.11 @ 3:12PM
The underlying premise of this article is that somehow "defense spending" is immune to efficiencies and that there are hordes of "fat" that can be trimmed.... but lobbing gets in the way of doing the right thing.... Oh, where to start....
The bulk of the increase in Defense spending (excluding separate funding for Iraq and Afghanistan) are the cost of consumables related to increased operations and increased labor cost associated with paying people bonuses for enlisting or re-enlisting in an all-volunteer force in time of "war" ..... People deployed to a "war zone" get paid a bonus for that too btw. Just the obvious cost increases from say 2000 would give someone with an hour's research information this writer does not seem to desire. In round numbers fuel cost three times and ammo is typically 2.5 to 3.5 times as expensive as it was back in the good old days of 242 billion Defense budgets that left us with no money for fuel or training of pilots on 9/ 11/2001. The effort to supply our forces at war 8000 miles away from the US alone is an enormously costly task and not part of the separate funding of those efforts commonly looked at in Iraq and Afghanistan. What escapes those that think the Defense of this Nation can be run like a business is that the Military is all about contingencies that you and I don't normally have to plan for.... Like the Police and Fire Departments one can always find things to cut that aren't needed on a daily basis but when the bell goes off what one man sees as "fat" is often times a treasure chest of stuff for those we demand take care of the matter. I could cut a lot of money out of the Defense budget but most of it would be either politically correct funding or someone's Golden Calf. The money being spent on the modern equivalent of high tech PT boats is but one example of a Golden Calf. Congress itself is responsible for there being almost no economics of scale present in Defense Department weapon systems purchases. It takes over a decade to design, test and field any of our modern weapon systems but just a single vote to destroy the industrial base necessary to produce said weapons. What Defense Contractors ask for their products and services has to cover the enormous risk of investing in infrastructure and staff on what may be a very short term basis. The F-22 can perform all the missions of the conventional takeoff and landing F-35 but the F-35 cannot perform several important missions of the F-22. When all is said and done the F-35 is going to cost as much as the F -22 at the assembly line because of cost overruns in trying to design one airframe to perform many different missions. We tried this in the 60s and early 70s with the F -111 san that failed to produce useable "fruit" and "savings".
If someone can find a way to turn off the "war" we are involved in on a global basis and return the US to the good old days of Sleepy Hollow several hundred billion alone would not be spent by the Defense Department on consumables related to supporting said "war" without cutting force levels or weapon production. On top of this, despite the increase in Defense spending adjusted for inflation the total force size has remained relatively constant, no new weapon systems of meaningful numbers have been procured since the late 1980s and the bulk of our weapons systems are normally much older than the people we ask to operate them. As evident to anyone who actually spends more than an hour researching what goes into the cost of our Defense budget, the Federal government is a very bureaucratic beast and the Defense Department is one of those bastard stepchildren of that process meaning that everything the Federal Government does cost a lot more than it needs to..... I give you three attempts over a decade at getting a competitive bid on replacing a 500+ fleet of 46 year old tanker aircraft only to simply award it to the US monopoly company in the end. Any bets on the Tanker contract not having cost overruns over its fifteen year life for just 179 planes? The last time people with shallow thinking saw the Defense Department as a "cash cow" we ended up cutting our force levels in half to save the difference between a 388 billion budget in 1988 dollars to that of a 242 billion budget in 2000 dollars. That same zeal for saving forced our military industrial complex to shrink into even fewer players in the market place and reduced competition is never a good thing long term. If we continue on this trend we are still going to spend a lot on "defense" simply because personnel cost are what they are in a country with a per capita income seven times larger than in China but we won't have any "defense" capabilities nor the ability to take care of external threats. An observant person would note that in all our conflicts other than "war" that we lost there is a common element missing from the equation that enabled us not being able to "win" the conflict on the battlefield and resolve the matter. You need look no further than spending three years in Iraq trying to subdue the violence there with what amounted to a third of our deployable combat infantry forces..... It took 45% to shut down a fourth rate insurgency with a fair number of allied partners shouldering some of the burden. The difference between the European military forces and ours is that theirs are only suitable for parades on Armistice Day celebrations. Man for man their military cost a lot of money just like ours does but they have no capability of "defense".
Efficiencies can always be found in any bureaucratic endeavor but fighting a war and winning it is not a business endeavor. No one is going to bail us out of our military endeavor if we make the wrong "business" decisions.
Ron| 12.1.11 @ 3:28PM
Thanks, Old School Better...
Sorry, I misspelled "military" in one sentence.
I agree Thom, ammunition is a consumable, as are spare magazines, MREs, canteens, socks, uniforms, bandages, and many other items associated with combat and training. But you hit the nail on the head with regards to the comment about the upgraded F-35 not being as mission capable and versatile as the F-22. That was the point about the upgraded infantry weapons as well...Do we really, truly need another ACR in service, or could those R&D and purchase dollars be better allocated, or cut?
Thom| 12.1.11 @ 4:14PM
Ron,
I am intimate with the AR system. Take the 6.8 x 43 and stretch it to 47 mms replace the 115 grain round with a 125 grain round, lengthen the lower/upper receivers to match with a 30 rds mag to match, increase barrel length to 22 inches and add a standardized piston system and you’ve corrected ever deficiency of the AR system known for next to nothing compared to all the tricked out super guns. Don’t shorten the barrel below 16 inches for in vehicle use and you don’t have to invest so much in overcoming the muzzle pressure problems with the M-4 in cold weather or after it gets very hot too. On top of this a whole lot of people don’t have to relearn the feel of the AR system which comes into play with every new super rifle they come up with. The best weapon in the world hands down is the one in your hands you know how to employ and have confidence in. So many things have been done to weaken the reliability of the AR system over the decades and very little to actually improve the base system with very little money spent.
As to where/what to cut there is no easy answer. Our force structure (combat capable) is shrinking. We aren’t building enough of any replacement weapon system to replace what we have now. We are building “stuff” at such low rates with such uncertainty of continuation that the “set up” cost of producing just about any mil-spec item is excessive. We have one carrier under construction all the time and that won’t replace the ones we have now with a 50 year service life even. We have one carrier in a three year overhaul all the time. It takes a decade to produce and field a carrier battle group and its planes and we are operating reduced wing sizes to save “money”. Not too far down the road it won’t be an option as there won’t be enough serviceable planes to fill the rosters of our deployable carriers. A fraction of our M1 force is up to date; same for the Bradley’s and a like. The F-18 A/B, C/D models are deficient in many ways for “strike” missions but they don’t weigh loaded what the F-35 weights empty… and are faster but shorter ranged by a bit…. The Defense department is looking for “miracle” systems because it can’t match our most likely adversaries in numbers with the exception of at sea and the Air Force has almost no conventional capability outside US territory without foreign bases to operate from…. For the price of one F-35 you can buy several new tricked out F-16 or F-18 variants and most missions under most circumstances won’t require stealth capabilities thus the shear cost of the F-35 program will in effect cut our total capacity while only advancing our capability at the per plane level in some ways…. As I said, we get almost no economies of scale savings because our defense spending and priorities change about every 2-4 years but it takes over a decade to do all that it required to produce one major weapons system….It is going to take over 40 years to replace our tanker fleet plane for plane and the last plane replaced will have served 80 years…. What do you think the changes are of actually replacing those tankers on a cargo for cargo basis? My money is on it won’t even be that good when all is said and done and Boeing has a bit of a cost overrun……
Clint| 12.1.11 @ 4:18PM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Thom| 12.1.11 @ 5:59PM
Reagan spent massive amounts on modernizing our “defense” forces which were twice as large as today in real terms….. He got cost savings by signing long term contracts to produce lots of “stuff” that is now 30+ year old “stuff” in many important areas. He signed on to produce more “stuff” in one year of his presidency than we have produced in the last 8 years of similar “stuff”. He used competition to achieve the best price for the items desired. We no longer have competition in this arena. Many of our major weapon systems are sole source now in effect because there is not enough production of “stuff” to cover the fixed cost of development and low unit production. We are selling off “inventory” of “stuff” to those rich enough to afford them and refusing to produce advanced versions of affordable weapons for our allies thus what Reagan was able to do 30 years ago has no bearing to what can be done today. Reagan ended the practices put in place under Carter that rewarded what he spoke of by applying common economic sense. If you aren’t going to produce enough “stuff” to cover the development and setup cost to produce said item don’t complain about 1054 specialized wrenches costing $1000 each. Sears produces 100s of thousands of wrenches at a price anyone can afford but ask them build just 1000 to mil spec that have no other price and see what Sears ask for them. Fraud isn’t responsible for everything the military uses costing three times as much to power and each round of ammo costing 3-4 times as much as a decade ago. If it is made out of metal, it cost a lot more to produce today than a decade ago. The bulk of the Defense Budget does not go to or involve Defense contractors.
Clint| 12.1.11 @ 6:29PM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
"Much of the waste in defense is directly attributable to the appropriations process. The vote delays on the MX missile and the suspension of the B-1 bomber cost this country billions of dollars--dollars that were lost forever as those systems that were set back had to be reprogrammed at higher cost.
"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."
The President particularly praised the commission's recommendation for five-year spending projections and two-year budget cycles for the Pentagon. "We are the only major country in the world that rewrites its defense budget every year," Reagan said.
"The waste that results is immense," he said. "No company in the private sector could survive if it couldn't plan for the future. The effect of funding programs this way is less defense and more cost."
Reagan appointed the commission, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, last June and asked it to propose reforms that would end "horror stories" about $600 toilet seat covers, $400 hammers and fierce interservice rivalries."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
wedding dresses | 12.6.11 @ 3:34AM
"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."