Pentagon Spending: Up, Up, and Away!
February 10, 2017
William J. Astore / AntiWar.com & Greg Corombos / WND Radio
Show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value. The Trump administration clearly values military weapons and wars. The Pentagon is due to get a major boost under Trump who has ordered the Pentagon to draft a "supplemental" budget for 2017 that would $40 billions more on top of the $600 billion the Obama administration budgeted. In 2001, it was estimated that the Pentagon, which has never been audited, had wasted more than $2 trillion dollars over the years. And that was 16 years ago.
Pentagon Spending: Up, Up, and Away!
William J. Astore / AntiWar.com
(February 9, 2017) -- Show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value. Under the Trump administration, what is valued is spending on military weaponry and wars. The Pentagon is due to get a major boost under Trump, as reported by the Associated Press and Foreign Policy:
Money train. It's looking like it might be Christmas in February for the U.S. defense industry. The Pentagon has delivered a $30 billion wish list to Congress that would fund more ships, planes, helicopters, drones, and missiles, the AP reports.
And that might only be the beginning.
President Trump has already ordered the Pentagon to draft a "supplemental" budget for 2017 that would include billions more for the US military on top of the $600 billion the Obama administration budgeted for…
As FP's Paul McLeary and Dan De Luce recently reported, there are proposals floating around for a defense budget as high as $640 billion for 2018, which would bust through congressionally-mandated spending caps that Democrats -- and many Republicans -- are happy to keep in place. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been tasked with completing the supplemental request by March 1.
The Pentagon, which has never passed a financial audit and which has wasted more than two trillion dollars over the years (this figure came in 2001, when Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under Bush/Cheney), is due to be given even more money to spend, irrespective of past performance or future need.
Naturally, each military service is already posturing and clamoring for the extra money promised by Trump. Consider the US Navy, which, according to Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William Moran, will be "Just Flat Out Out Of Money" without this supplemental funding boost from Congress.
According to the Navy and Marine Corps:
Five attack submarines would see their maintenance availabilities canceled this year and be put at risk of being decertified if no supplemental were passed out of Congress, Moran added, in addition to similar cuts to surface ship maintenance availabilities.
Assistant Commandant Gen. Glenn Walters said "we would stop flying in about July" without a supplemental. He clarified that forward forces would continue to operate, but for units training at home, "all training would cease without a supplemental, and that includes the parts money and the flying hour money."
Even if the supplemental – which could total between $30 and $40 billion for all the armed services – is passed in a timely manner, the Navy and Marine Corps still face massive readiness issues that money can't immediately address.
That last part is disturbing indeed. Even with billions in additional funding, the Navy still faces "massive readiness issues."
Well, here are a few radical suggestions for Trump and the Pentagon:
1. If money is tight, why not re-prioritize? If readiness is compromised, why not scale back the mission?
2. Before boosting funding, why not force the Pentagon to pass a financial audit?
3. If trillions of dollars have gone "missing" over the last decades (remember, a Republican Secretary of Defense made this claim), why not launch missions to find that money before spending billions of new money?
You don't reform a bureaucracy that wastes money by giving them more money. It's like reforming an addict on drugs by giving him more money to spend on drugs. Until the Pentagon can account for its spending, its budget needs to be flat-lined or cut.
The only way to force the Pentagon to think about "defense" spending is to limit its budget. Throwing money at the Pentagon just ensures more of the same, only more: as in more weaponry, more wars, and more fraud, waste, and abuse.
Given the Pentagon's track record over the last half-century, does anyone truly think that more money is a solution to anything?
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at email@example.com. Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
$125 Billion in Pentagon Waste 'Just Tip of Iceberg'
Defense Dept. 'has never passed a financial audit'
Greg Corombos / WND Radio
(December 6, 2016) -- A recently uncovered evaluation of Pentagon spending shows $125 billion could be slashed within five years, showcasing the challenge for the incoming Trump administration to make government more efficient, an effort that will also be tested by Trump's call for a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending.
The Pentagon study was commissioned to find areas of administrative bloat that could be then channeled toward actual military projects. The review was finished by the Defense Business Board in January 2015 and suggested $125 billion could be cut over a five-year span. However, the Washington Post reports the amount of waste was so massive that officials buried the study.
"Uncovering the bloat is not a surprise, and covering it up is also not a surprise," said Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz, who believes $125,000,000,000 in unnecessary spending at the Pentagon is just the tip of the iceberg.
"The Pentagon has never passed a financial audit, so we know that there's a lot more waste even than the Defense Business Board found," Schatz told WND and Radio America.
One of the most glaring findings from the Defense Business Board is that a quarter of the Pentagon's $580 billion budget was spent on overhead, such as human resources, accounting and other line items not directly related to training and fighting.
"Right now, the Pentagon has almost an equal number of civilian personnel and contractors as it does troops, which seems to be a little bit too much in terms of support. You should have more troops than support," Schatz said.
While the Defense Business Board recommended reallocating the wasted money toward combat-related programs in future years, Schatz said it's not that easy to make those changes.
"A lot of people who have run the Pentagon have tried to get things done to make the whole operation run more effectively," he said. "Congress gets in the way as well. It's difficult to get rid of a wasteful program or even reduce staff."
Schatz said this kind of waste has been going on at the Pentagon for decades. His own organization was founded to follow up on the government waste-cutting recommendations of the Grace Commission -- a panel commissioned by President Reagan. In 1984, the Grace Commission uncovered billions and future trillions that could be cut throughout government. Congress ignored the recommendations.
He said the findings on the Pentagon look pretty familiar.
"The Grace Commission found a lot of similar expenditures at the Pentagon. Five of the 47 Grace Commission task force reports were on the Pentagon, a lot of it dealing with procurement and personnel," he said.
Schatz also said defense officials missed a golden opportunity to come clean to Congress.
"The report itself said take this money and use it for more important defense purposes. The Pentagon brass apparently didn't trust Congress to do that. I think they would have received this quite well. Congress has closed unnecessary military bases when they needed to. They would certainly cut back on this kind of overhead," Schatz said.
Many Trump supporters are expecting him to tackle government waste head-on and were encouraged by his call for Boeing to scrap construction of a new Air Force One after going above budget on the project.
Schatz said Trump needs people who will actually address these issues.
"We hope that's the case. I think taxpayers and voters brought Donald Trump here to do these kinds of things. He's not attached to any of these matters or any of the companies that are involved," Schatz said. "It's time to make changes. A number of the people coming in have longstanding business experience.
"While the government is not a business, it's very difficult to fire people, which is part of the problem. They can certainly initiate more ways to spend the tax dollars effectively."
Also looming on the horizon is Trump's trillion-dollar plan to revitalize US infrastructure. Conservative critics see it as a big-government rerun of the Obama stimulus, but Schatz believes that is highly unlikely. Done right, he thinks a targeted approach could actually be a boon to the US.
"I don't see any way a Republican Congress approves another stimulus, so it won't look anything like that," he said. "If it's done properly and it's done by pushing a lot of that money down to the states so that they can spend it effectively -- and the way that transportation funds are spent overall is part of this deal -- then, yes, some of this could be very helpful."
But he said they need to avoid horrific ideas like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" that overwhelmingly passed through a GOP-controlled Congress and was signed by George W. Bush.
He said there are also really bad ideas from the Obama stimulus that should not be duplicated.
"We don't need the federal government to go back to paying for streetscapes and street lights in the middle of a small town, which is part of what happened under the stimulus and the transportation bill in 2006," Schatz said.
So can it realistically be done in an efficient way that doesn't result in myriads of wasteful projects?
"Saying that we need a trillion dollars is not the same as putting the legislation into place and determining how it can be done," Schatz said. "There's a lot of talk about public-private partnerships. There might be more roads with tolls that help pay for the roads. So there are ways to pay for some of this in the way the construction is done and how the funding is done into the future."
Copyright 2016 WND
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.