Gates leads efforts to cut $15 billion from the Pentagon budget

[bascule]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html

 

While teabaggers bitch and complain about the size of government spending, one area they're probably not thinking of when it comes to saving money is the US military, which spends more than every other military on earth... combined.

 

And yet, Robert Gates is suggesting that perhaps there's money which can be saved within the Pentagon. Tickle me surprised.

 

In fact, he claims to be able to cut up to $15 billion, and has recommended the military prepare for further spending cuts.

 

Amazing!

[pink_trike]

They'll save 12 million a year by ending DODT.

[Skye]

It's a lot of money to save but military spending is apparently rising by $14bn between 2010 and 2011 anyway. I think it's hard to see spending really being curtailed long term without looking at overlapping and unnecessary capabilities.

[Pangloss]

Do you feel that there are any "overlapping and unnecessary capabilities", Skye?

 

$15 billion does not sound like a lot to me and I think they can probably get that if they work on it. Real savings -- the kind that would actually make a difference in the deficit/debt -- will be much harder. Here's why you won't see significant cuts in Defense spending during the Obama administration, regardless of what Republicans do. (Though I'm sure we'll be told it's their fault, somehow.)

 

Procurement (those big contracts you hear about on TV) only accounts for ~$140 out of $685 billion in the 2010 budget (source). If you add in R&D (about 80) that's still only about a third of the budget. And here's the problem: The low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Every single major program has already been curtailed or heavily modified to suit a tighter budget. For example, we're not building the vaunted (and hideously expensive) Seawolf class submarines, we're building the scaled-back, economical Virginia-class submarines (6 in service, 6 under construction, all under budget and ahead of schedule, and all needed to replacing aging Los Angeles-class boats (leaving far fewer in service)).

 

Similarly, we're not building the vaunted CVX carriers, we're building the scaled-back Ford-class carriers (only one under construction). We're already planning to retire Nimitz-class carriers before they're replaced, scaling back the number of carriers in service (Bush plan). We're barely buying any F-22s -- the number is insufficient to replace the F-15, and nobody knows what that means yet. The only thing we got to stand pat on is the F-35 (JSF), which happened in part because we'll get some of our money back from overseas sales (the Brits are building their first supercarriers, the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, to carry them).

 

Which brings me to the two reasons you won't see a major cut in Defense during the Obama administration:

 

1) If you want the big cuts, you have to go after the whopping $437.5 billion (2010 budget) that goes to personnel, operations and maintenance (that's maintenance of the old crap we're no longer building, meaning if you cancel the new stuff that bill just gets bigger). Currently we're something like 8.5 million jobs in arrears. The military employs something like 1.5 million Americans. With the new numbers we've added a bit under 600,000 jobs in the first half of this year. The math here is pretty obvious -- nobody's going to touch military personnel.

 

2) Logical or not, as long as Al Qaeda and the Taliban are sending people over here to set off bombs, Defense spending will not be seriously curtailed. The political math just doesn't work out.

 

That having been said, there will likely be some savings from mustering out war veterans over the next couple of years, and of course the end of spending in Iraq/Afghanistan at some point. And really as big as that department is I have no doubt that some changes could be made and perhaps even some real savings found that the administration can hang its hat on. It'll need to do that in order to go after social spending anyway, which of course is where the real money is.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Pangloss

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

1) If you want the big cuts, you have to go after the whopping $437.5 billion (2010 budget) that goes to personnel, operations and maintenance (that's maintenance of the old crap we're no longer building, meaning if you cancel the new stuff that bill just gets bigger). Currently we're something like 8.5 million jobs in arrears. The military employs something like 1.5 million Americans. With the new numbers we've added a bit under 600,000 jobs in the first half of this year. The math here is pretty obvious -- nobody's going to touch military personnel.

 

That's what he said he wanted to do. See bascule's link:

 

Gates rattled off examples of costly bureaucracy inside the military, as well. A simple request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan must be reviewed and assessed at multiple high-level headquarters before it can be deployed to the war zone. "Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?" Gates said to reporters Friday.

 

More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, the military still has more than 40 generals, admirals or senior civilian equivalents working in Europe. "Yet we scold our allies over the bloat in NATO headquarters," he said.

 

In another article I saw he questioned the fact that military insurance premiums haven't gone up a bit in a decade or two.

[D H]

That's what he said he wanted to do. See bascule's link:

Gates rattled off examples of costly bureaucracy inside the military, as well. A simple request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan must be reviewed and assessed at multiple high-level headquarters before it can be deployed to the war zone. "Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?" Gates said to reporters Friday.

 

More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, the military still has more than 40 generals, admirals or senior civilian equivalents working in Europe. "Yet we scold our allies over the bloat in NATO headquarters," he said.

The first is bureaucratic overhead. Just because Gates cuts it (assuming he can cut it) does not necessarily equate to a troop reduction. It might just mean that people are transferred from bureaucratic bloat positions to operations.

 

One reason the military has so many top-level positions is because many reach their level of incompetence after getting promoted to colonel (or equivalent). The military can't get rid of them anymore -- but they can give them an up and out.

 

That bureaucratic overhead and top-level bloat are exactly the kind of small potatoes to which Pangloss was referring. 15 billion out of 550 billion is 2.7% -- pretty small potatoes.