'A culture of shared sacrifice is one of the greatest strengths of the U.S.s volunteer military. It is not, however, a good basis on which to decide budget cuts. Facing at least $450 billion in reductions over the next decade -- and as much as $1 trillion total if the congressional deficit supercommittee fails to reach a consensus and the automatic deficit trigger kicks in -- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta may be tempted to follow precedent and ask for trims across the services and their programs. But it would be far better for U.S. security, and future budgets, if Panetta focused on eliminating clearly identified waste and redundancies. Although some big-ticket items, like drawing down troop levels in Afghanistan, will have to play out politically, the Pentagon could act quickly to halt production on a number of unnecessary projects. The savings could be spent on programs that will prepare us for our immediate and future challenges. We have a few suggestions for where to cut: -- The F-35 Lightning II. Lockheed-Martin Corp. (LMT)s next- generation fighter plane is a wonder of versatility, but the current generation (the ubiquitous F-16, among others) is still vastly superior to the competition -- only one American fighter jet has been shot down by enemy fire in the past 40 years. The Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission advocated eliminating the Marine Corps version of the F-35 and trimming by half the number going to the Navy and Air Force, for a savings of $30 billion over the next four years. We find that too timid: The entire $385 billion program should be on the chopping block. -- The Ford-class supercarrier. At a time when the Navy is questioning whether it needs (or can afford) all 11 carrier groups it has, why would it want to spend $120 billion on 10 new carriers that offer few significant improvements over the current Nimitz class? (Especially given that the signal upgrade, a new electromagnetic catapult system, is designed in part to launch the equally unnecessary F-35.) Carriers are big, easy targets in an era defined by asymmetric warfare, and are vulnerable to vastly improved anti-ship weapons. When China launched its first aircraft carrier in August, a State Department spokesman said the U.S. would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment. We would welcome the same from the U.S. Navy. -- The M1 Abrams tank. The mainstay of combat operations since 1980, the M1 is a fine vehicle, but we already have plenty. Dont take our word for it, but that of Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, the Armys deputy chief of staff. Weve got a very fit and complete fleet, he told a Senate committee last spring. And thats what has caused us to stop buying something that we no longer need. The Army says it could save $1.3 billion a year if it temporarily shut down the M1 manufacturing plant in Ohio for three years. But, as so often happens when a weapons system is under review, a group of congressmen has rallied around the manufacturer -- in this case, a unit of General Dynamics Corp. (GD) - - to keep production going. In general, these scenarios in which the military claims to not want a program that Congress is intent on saving are Kabuki theater; the truth is that the generals can kill anything they are intent on killing. None of this is to say that we should halt or impair military research and development. In fact, innovative programs should get more money. The Predator and other drone programs are excellent examples of relatively cheap technologies that have paid huge dividends, and deserve expanded budgets. To free up that money, however, Panetta has to find big savings, and programs such those above -- as well as the health-care program for service members and veterans, which will be the subject of a future editorial -- are obvious targets for trims that will actually make the U.S. more secure.' http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...n-america-s-defense-and-its-economy-view.html
Uncle Ferd says dem Chinamens would be able to come over here in a rowboat... Panetta Warns Military Cuts Would Invite 'Aggression' November 10, 2011 | Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday that sweeping military cuts which could be triggered by the failure of the congressional deficit committee to strike a deal "invites aggression" from abroad. See also: Panetta: Bigger defense cuts would be devastating Tuesday, 16 Aug 2011 WASHINGTON (AP) Bigger defense cuts triggered by failed deficit reduction negotiations would have "devastating" effects on the nation's security, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday.
Anything that makes any part of the government smaller will improve not only the government but life for the rest of us.
US capitalism has been reliant on her military sector, using it to minimise the problems created by a labour market too focused on low wage labour. Think twice if you want a shift from the status quo; i.e. Don't think its necessarily going to be hunky-dory through just moaning at aspects of government inefficiency
No nation on earth is going to attack the U.S. at this time. Except for the world wars every war we have been in has been a war of opportunity for the benefit of our economic elite. So how big a military force do we really need for defense as opposed to putting dollars into privileged pockets?
We can't restrict analysis into the military sector to 'public good' provision. It has an active economic role
I know what economies of scale means... yet the Cold War is over. The Russians aren't coming. I think defense cuts are certainly in order. We are fighting a different sort of war these days with drone capabilities.
Arms production costs have exploded. That makes economies of scale even more crucial. The problem for your argument is that you're making security argument without any regards to economic reality. US capitalism, without the bloated military sector, will be even more unstable
Then its time to retool and innovate.. Doing the same thing we have done since 1942 doesn't seem to be working.
Easily said, but the US system is highly reliant on the military sector. We shouldn't play pretend over that, unless you're after an end of capitalism...
I am very much in favor of Capitalism.. but we can't keep doing what has driven the economy into the ground.
The military sector hasn't driven the economy into the ground. You're making non-economic argument and twinning it with economic fallacy. Not a cheery combination
Not sure I understand. Are you saying the military is a part of our economy? My first thought is that it costs the economy. I think it's the most expensive thing a nation can have. On the other hand, it is used as a cudgel to prompt weaker countries to go along with our trade agreements. Even when it is against their best interests. Is that it? Prosperity through bullets?
Plan B is to become the arsenal of the world as America was before WWI. Our weapons systems are the most advanced on the planet. We will sell them for cash on the barrel head to almost anyone. We will sell our weapons to both sides in the conflicts which ensue as other powers attempt to fill the vacuum created by our withdrawal from the eastern hemisphere. It is very possible to have a small federal govt. and a huge weapons industry selling to foreigners. Peace for America, jobs for Americans, weapons for almost everyone else.
What has then, in your opinion, the social welfare sector? The military sector does create some GDP, but primarily it is a drain wide open. A massive chopping of funds would be disasterous, but a slow thining of it is a must. GHWB and Clinton both did that and we were just as capable and it benefitted the economy. Just as at the end of WWI and WWII the US suffered a recession transfering from a military economy to a civilian economy, so if we cut 5% per year we would be on our way.
Lets see we have Obama spending trillion and the Democrats say the Military is the problem? So in a bad economy we should add to unemployment by cutting the military. What money is saved if they go from the military to unemployment and food stamps? How is that better for those getting booted out of the military?
Civilian expenditure for Keynesianism is found to be more effective. The problem is the ridiculous nature of US capitalism and its reliance of extra-market military interference
The problem is a socialist president not working with the private sector. He only wants government and union job growth.
No it is not. Listen to his thanksgiving address. It is a socialist type of community speech and no mention of prayer or God. That is a socialist speaking http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ving-god-thanksgiving-speech-article-1.982870
