PDA

View Full Version : Runaway U.S. Defense Spending Not Only Bilking Tax Payers



Nickdfresh
05-08-2010, 06:42 PM
Gates: Runaway Military Spending May Affect War Plans
By Adam Entous
Reuters

ABILENE, Kansas

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the U.S. military on Saturday it must rein in spending that he called out of sync with today's tough economic times, and said budget woes could be a factor in deciding whether to use force against Iran and others.

Promising to play a hands-on role in wringing out savings, Gates held out the possibility of axing headquarters, merging whole agencies and culling the officer corps, taking on entrenched interests sure to put up a fight.

Sticker shock from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also mean President Barack Obama and Congress may be more cautious about committing U.S. forces to another costly military engagement, he said.

"I do think that as we look to the future, particularly for the next couple of years or so while we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the Congress and the president would look long and hard at another military operation that would cost us $100 billion a year," Gates told reporters.

"If there's a real threat out there, the president and Congress will spend whatever it takes to protect the nation. But in situations where there are real choices, I think this would be a factor," he added.

Asked if Iran fell into the category where costs would be a factor in deciding whether to strike over its nuclear program, Gates said it was unclear. "It depends on developments over the next year or two," he said.

Gates said his goal was to cut overhead in the Defense Department's nearly $550 billion baseline budget between two to three percent, or $10 billion to $15 billion per year, starting in fiscal 2012. The savings would allow the Pentagon to sustain force levels and free up funds for modernization programs.

Without such savings, Gates said, "it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth rates necessary to sustain the current force structure."

The budget warning was widely seen as part of stepped up efforts by Gates to define his legacy as Pentagon chief.

The venue Gates chose to deliver his message was the presidential library of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned about a "military-industrial complex" in a January 17, 1961, farewell speech.

'ROOT-AND-BRANCH' CHANGES

High unemployment and a record $1.4 trillion budget deficit are among the toughest domestic challenges Obama faces and could dim prospects for his Democratic Party in congressional elections in November.

Gates said the military spending "gusher" sparked by the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States "has been turned off." He cited America's "difficult economic circumstances and parlous fiscal condition."

Gates's call for "root-and-branch" changes and his questioning of whether the current number of headquarters, flag-officers and commands were necessary could trigger a struggle with groups that have major clout in Congress.

Jacques Gansler, who served as the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer from 1997 until 2001, said Gates' biggest hurdle may be winning over members of Congress who are liable to say: "'We all want to make savings but not in my district.'"

Gansler said the secretary's goal of saving 3 percent was doable through efficiencies such as greater competition for contracts, streamlining computer systems and easing requirements that half of all maintenance work on U.S. weapons systems be done at U.S. government depots.

"We'll get this done," Gates said, promising to spearhead a review to reduce wasteful spending and slash bureaucratic overhead. But it is unclear how long Gates will remain in the job to follow through on what he acknowledged would be a "long-term process."

Gates already has angered some vested interests by persuading Congress to cut, kill or limit a number of big-ticket military programs, including Lockheed Martin Corp's premier F-22 fighter. On Monday, he again questioned the need for a projected $13.2 billion landing-craft program for the Marine Corps. The so-called Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is to be built by General Dynamics Corp.

(Additional reporting to Jim Wolf; Editing by Vicki Allen)

Copyright © 2010 ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10593247) Internet Ventures

Nickdfresh
05-08-2010, 06:45 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Nickdfresh
05-09-2010, 12:39 PM
I mean, what does it say when the fucking SECRETARY OF DEFENSE says we're spending WAAAYYYY too much on the bloated military budget? And furthermore, that not only are tax payers wasting their money by giving big subsidies to the merchants of death industry, but we are actually hurting preparedness by giving into these lobbyist pricks--from contractors to internal military officer groups--rewards to maintain a dated status quo relic from the Cold War. The article hinted at something I read a while ago, that the ratio of officers to enlisted/NCOs in the military is so weighted to the officers, that we have several times more generals in proportion to the soldiers than we did in WWII...

Blackflag
05-09-2010, 03:48 PM
I mean, what does it say when the fucking SECRETARY OF DEFENSE says we're spending WAAAYYYY too much on the bloated military budget?

I think it says his boss is a sell-out.

knuckleboner
05-09-2010, 04:38 PM
I think it says his boss is a sell-out.

which one, bush or obama?



that said, what about his comments do you disagree with? you think congress is correct to buy the alternate engine to the JSF?

you think we need more attack nuclear submarines?

will additional c-17's make the nation more safe from terrorism?

is the debt not a problem if it's going for defense spending?...

Blackflag
05-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Both. I didn't say I disagree. No. No. No. No.

Nickdfresh
05-09-2010, 05:32 PM
I think it says his boss is a sell-out.

His boss has done more to actually question this spending than just about any other president...

Blackflag
05-09-2010, 05:59 PM
He's "questioning?" :lmao:

Nickdfresh
05-09-2010, 07:04 PM
He's "questioning?" :lmao:

If you actually kept up, you'd know this, idiot...

Blackflag
05-09-2010, 07:13 PM
What is he, 60 Minutes? His job isn't to "question."

Bush to Obama - unchanged.

Nickdfresh
05-09-2010, 07:30 PM
What is he, 60 Minutes? His job isn't to "question."

Actually as a civilian in management, that's exactly his position...


Bush to Obama - unchanged.

Um, Bush ratcheted up spending after 9/11. Under the Obama administration, there have been several cuts--most notably in the F-22 Raptor program. Some stuff you never say under Bush, cuntrag...

Blackflag
05-09-2010, 07:48 PM
Actually as a civilian in management,

The President is not a "civilian in management." :lmao: You've become a troll and an apologist.

Nickdfresh
05-09-2010, 08:56 PM
The President is not a "civilian in management." :lmao: You've become a troll and an apologist.

Well fuckwit, what did your CIA dinner-date say? What exactly is the POTUS?

Blackflag
05-09-2010, 10:48 PM
If you're clueless again, you don't have to ask me for the answers. You could ask any high school civics student. He plays a challenging dual role - civilian head of the executive and military commander-in-chief. And commander-in-chief is a military position, and has put them on the battlefield before.

But either way you slice it - any lame argument that the buck doesn't stop there on military spending is just laughable. Take Obama's schlong out of your mouth, please.

The GAO "questions." The President commands.

Nickdfresh
05-10-2010, 08:16 AM
If you're clueless again, you don't have to ask me for the answers. You could ask any high school civics student. He plays a challenging dual role - civilian head of the executive and military commander-in-chief. And commander-in-chief is a military position, and has put them on the battlefield before.

But either way you slice it - any lame argument that the buck doesn't stop there on military spending is just laughable. Take Obama's schlong out of your mouth, please.

The GAO "questions." The President commands.

Last time I checked, retard, he's still a civilian whether he's "Commander in Chief" or not. In fact, being a veteran, I recall classes on my chain of command which implicitly stated that the U.S. military was under civilian control and management. The last sitting president to fathom going into battle in uniform was Pres. George Washington during the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion...

Secondly, if you had a clue of what you're talking about, you'd know that most of the military spending was earmarked long ago with plans being made in the Bush administration, possibly some going back to Clinton. But tell us, super-genius, what would you specifically like Obama to do? What should be the first cuts? You'd also probably know that it is Congress that actually writes the checks and is at least as responsible for all this than any president, past or present...

Blackflag
05-10-2010, 01:37 PM
Last time I checked, retard, he's still a civilian whether he's "Commander in Chief" or not. In fact, being a veteran, I recall classes on my chain of command which implicitly stated that the U.S. military was under civilian control and management. The last sitting president to fathom going into battle in uniform was Pres. George Washington during the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion...

I thought you played a military expert on the internet?




But tell us, super-genius, what would you specifically like Obama to do? What should be the first cuts?

Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan - same as everybody who voted for him wants. That should save a few bucks.

Nickdfresh
05-10-2010, 09:55 PM
I thought you played a military expert on the internet?

Right. Just like you play a mindless, blabbering argument troll on the internet...


Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan - same as everybody who voted for him wants. That should save a few bucks.

We are pulling out of Iraq, albeit very slowly. And we could save a few buck$ pulling out of Afghanistan. But 9/11 was sort of planned there. and how'd that go for the U.S. economy?

Personally, I think we should pull out of Europe and switch the defense budget to finding ways to use more clean, renewable energy thereby drastically reducing our need for so much foreign oil and virtually eliminating the need for keeping such a large defense budget...