Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RFEngineer
Nope. But like any good bureaucrat guarding his budget, you seem to think that you have to strive for bigger budgets ad infinitum. You know darn well that “tailoring the force and mission” is a farce in defense budgets predicated on justifying the new system someone wants.

DOD is getting a reduced budget prior to sequestration. They were the only agency that suffered a real reduction in budget as part of Clinton's peace dividend.

I don't know darn well that "tailoring the force and mission” is a farce in defense budgets predicated on justifying the new system someone wants." You sound like Obama.

I do know that it takes more than a decade from conception to operational use for a weapons system. We are using systems that were designed 10 to 20 years ago. And many of our planes and ships are even older.

The point I make, that eludes you is that we have to cut back on EVERYTHING. I’m equally tough on other threads on social security/medicare, for instance. Start one, ping me to it, I’ll participate

The point is that we won't cut back on those entitlement and means tested welfare programs. First, an aging population will add 10,000 people a day for the next 20 years to the entitlement programs, i.e., there will be twice as many people 65 or older in 2030 as there is today. So costs are going to go up regardless of what efficiencies we may try to achieve. It is just demography.

Second, medical/health costs are going up faster than inflation and GDP growth. Our technology is far better, but it costs more. And add to this more elderly with more medical needs.

Third, there is no political will to rein in the costs of entitlements. The politicians are responding to what the people want. That is, they want all the benefits the welfare state has to offer, but they don't want to pay for it in terms of taxes or a cut in benefits. One third of current retirees depend upon SS as their sole source of income. Two thirds of SS receipients have SS as more than one-half of their income. And most Americans are not putting away money for their retirement.

Finally, we are in the process of implenting a huge new entitlement program, Obamacare, that will add 18 million to the Medicaid rolls and no doubt, cost much more than projected--just like Medicare which costs nine times what it was estimated to cost.

What we are seeing is the Guns versu Butter struggle as this nation declines. Any reductions in defense spending will be plowed back into the welfare state which has an insatiable appetite just to keep treading water. Let's at least be honest and say that we are playing a zero sum game with defense going against the welfare state.

If our bureaucrats in the DoD (or any other federal dept) didn’t use apocalyptic language, they might not get ever increasing budgets.

Disagree. My 36 years experience in the federal government doesn't support that assertion.

You even ridicule the very notion of drastically reduced budgets of the sort that would be required in an inevitable fiscal collapse of our finances (it IS inevitable) Who is separated from reality, you or me? I submit it’s you, but we can argue that, too.

If we have a financial collapse, defense will be the last thing to be cut. We will need armed forces to address the resulting civil disorder and riots as we can no longer pay the welfare benefits and have to reduce SS and federal pensions. Greece is the perfect example of how people will react. They will take to the streets and demand the stuff government promised them.

So is $500Bn a year enough to provide for the defense of the United States of America?

Silly question. I would hate to find out the answer if it isn't. I have already provided you the right way to approach our defense budget needs. It doesn't start by providing a fixed amount and saying stay within it.

50 posted on 01/20/2013 4:38:38 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: kabar

“I do know that it takes more than a decade from conception to operational use for a weapons system. We are using systems that were designed 10 to 20 years ago. And many of our planes and ships are even older. “

This is a near-fatal problem, not a feature of our DoD procurement system.

“Disagree. My 36 years experience in the federal government doesn’t support that assertion. “

You missed the first rule of bureaucracy then. That is SOP for bureaucracy.

“It doesn’t start by providing a fixed amount and saying stay within it.”

Declining to define a budget is the sole purview of the US Senate at this time. The budget process ALWAYS requires you to define a defense posture, the systems, and the contingencies required to meet a specific budget number. Always.

did I say Always?

The present DoD leadership is saying “I’ll do it but I’ll destroy the future US Armed forces because I’m a passive-aggressive douchebag that wants to say ‘I told you so’”


51 posted on 01/20/2013 4:47:35 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson