By Cliff Montgomery – May 31st, 2013
Lawmakers from all sides say that America is in a fiscal crunch. They tell children there is not enough federal money for schools. They inform citizens and others living here that the country lacks the funds needed to fix a crumbling infrastructure in the first stages of collapse.
And yet, the Secretary of Defense recently pointed out to these same lawmakers that they are choking the Pentagon with an overabundance of money and weapons that the Defense Department does not want, and for which it has no rational use.
In 2012, Washington spent almost 20 percent of its federal expenditure – a cool $689 billion – on its war machine and associated ‘international security assistance’, according to figures from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
War spending has become so ridiculous that Robert Hale, who serves as Under Secretary for the Defense Department, recently wrote Congress to ask for its assistance in helping the Pentagon “hold down defense costs while also meeting national security needs.”
Hale wrote of a number of reductions the Defense Department already has made in such matters as force structure, military modernization, personnel costs and overhead expenditures. He then made a point of asking a number of empathetic U.S. Representatives to show support for the Pentagon’s proposed cuts.
“As we seek to hold down defense costs while also meeting national security needs, we need the help of Congress,” Hale wrote to the lawmakers, who included Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI).
“In recent years, Congress has denied a number of our proposals, including the elimination of lower-priority weapons programs (i.e., Global Hawk Block 30) and elimination of lower-priority military force structure (including Navy ships and Air Force aircraft),” added Hale.
“Congress has also rejected some of our proposals to slow the growth in military compensation and benefit costs, including certain proposed increases in fees and co-pays for military retiree health care,” declared the Defense Under Secretary.
“Congress has also so far rejected our efforts to pursue consolidation of our infrastructure, which will lead to large long-term savings,” Hale wrote.
Such reckless spending is a habit lawmakers appear to have maintained for a while.
Last month, Defense Department Secretary Chuck Hagel told the House Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon has been trying to make a number of needed cuts to its bloated budget. For instance, it would like to do away with two amphibious ships and seven AEGIS cruisers that Defense experts say should be retired by Fiscal Year 2015, and it is aching to shed over 70 aircraft of the Reserve and the National Guard that are now redundant.
But the Pentagon can’t get rid of these aging, unnecessary – and wildly expensive – items, because Washington continues to insist on funding them.
Why is this so? We suspect two reasons:
1. Every U.S. politician is afraid to make rational cuts to America’s severely bloated military budget, since they know opponents will claim they’re ‘soft on defense’,
2. Many would rather not touch the military-industrial complex in his or her area. It could be quite a tough business taking on wealthy contractors who may provide a number of decent jobs back home.
All the same, some lawmakers may be ready to change things. The band of Representatives to whom the Under Secretary of Defense went begging for help? They declared such an intention in an earlier letter to the Pentagon chief. But taxpayers will have to wait and see if these politicians are as good as their word.
