Previous: Toward Restoring Constitutional Government Gates’s Cuts that Aren’t

Cato at Liberty ^ | January 6, 2011 | Christoper Preble

[Captain Kirk]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is poised to axe or significantly restructure a number of high-profile weapons platforms, and otherwise rein in the Pentagon’s budget. The reports present these initiatives as intended to preempt greater scrutiny of the military’s budget by Congress.

The cuts will be announced later today, but it seems pretty clear that Gates will call for terminating the unnecessary Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), a Marine Corps program that is more than 176 percent over its original per-vehicle cost. Unhappily for taxpayers, the Pentagon has already spent $3 billion on the program, which has managed to deliver only prototypes. The Marine Corps’s version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will also be delayed, according to news reports. And the secretary will continue his search for efficiencies in defense, an initiative that even the reliably conservative Washington Examiner finds worthy.

But amidst all the focus on “cuts”, two facts stand out:

1) Gates intends for the efficiencies, if they materialize, to be plowed back into the military’s coffers — not returned to taxpayers or used for reducing the deficit. Pentagon spokesman Jeff Morell told Politico’s Jen DiMascio ”any story which purports that he is going to announce that the services don’t get to keep and invest the savings they’ve made are flat out wrong.”

[Sequoyah101]

I can’t argue with cutting the EFV after $3bil and only prototypes. Seemed like a foolish idea to me anyway. Such a vehicle that must keep moving to more-or-less stay afloat?

To put the F-35B on notice is the right thing to do as well. The program appears to be stumbling on its stories and not able to keep them straight. They are grasping at straws in patching up problems because they don’t appear to be able to make solid fixes to the VSTOL systems. In VSTOL mode the airplane is too heavy to be very useful... limited range and limited payload and not rugged enough for unimproved field use.

As for the rumored cuts to military health care... very bad idea. As for cutting deeper into the support functions, and equally bad idea. Though the contract support function has gone too far. Many of the support function jobs have been taken over by unions or have such restrictions as to make them not useful. For example, flight operations support that can’t be used after certain hours or on weekends... this should be taken over by military people that are required to work when there is work to be done.

[Sequoyah101]

I can’t argue with cutting the EFV after $3bil and only prototypes. Seemed like a foolish idea to me anyway. Such a vehicle that must keep moving to more-or-less stay afloat?

To put the F-35B on notice is the right thing to do as well. The program appears to be stumbling on its stories and not able to keep them straight. They are grasping at straws in patching up problems because they don’t appear to be able to make solid fixes to the VSTOL systems. In VSTOL mode the airplane is too heavy to be very useful... limited range and limited payload and not rugged enough for unimproved field use.

As for the rumored cuts to military health care... very bad idea. As for cutting deeper into the support functions, and equally bad idea. Though the contract support function has gone too far. Many of the support function jobs have been taken over by unions or have such restrictions as to make them not useful. For example, flight operations support that can’t be used after certain hours or on weekends... this should be taken over by military people that are required to work when there is work to be done.

[Walts Ice Pick]

If we want to reduce the size and scope of government in this country, then we need to cut defense spending just like we need to cut everything else. The time has come for other countries to begin providing for their own defense.

[BroJoeK]

"Gates will call for terminating the unnecessary Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), a Marine Corps program that is more than 176 percent over its original per-vehicle cost."

Isn't 176% about normal for defense projects?
Seriously, has there ever been a new weapon completed on-time and on-budget?

Yes, the EFV has some technical issues, but "unnecessary" is a powerful word, if true.

I think the real issue here is conceptual: is the inevitable price paid in reduced survivability on land more than compensated by the hugely increased speed in water?

Or, to put it another way: is it more important to get from ship to shore quickly, or instead, to have a slower vehicle in the water, but better suited for land warfare?

For whatever it's worth: speed on the water seems like a good thing.
Once a beachhead is secure, then they can use other means to bring in the heavy stuff -- tanks, etc.

Or, maybe the beachheads can be secured by air-born troops, and they just forget about all that hydroplaning business.
After all, why hydroplane, when you can fly?

I'm certain the Deep Thinkers have noodled this one over, and over, and I'd be happy to go with whatever they say.

But maybe a little "time out" wouldn't hurt so much, in the long run?

[BroJoeK]

Walts Ice Pick: "If we want to reduce the size and scope of government in this country, then we need to cut defense spending just like we need to cut everything else. The time has come for other countries to begin providing for their own defense."

Conceptually, do you understand the difference between Constitutionally "enumerated" powers and "not enumerated" powers of the Federal Government?
Do you know the Federal Government has no Constitutional "not enumerated" powers?

National defense is "enumerated" in the Constitution, whereas about 90% of the remaining Federal budget is not.

Would you not suppose that, before reducing the Federal Government's legitimate expenses, Congress might first eliminate its unconstitutional spending?

[Walts Ice Pick]

Would you not suppose that, before reducing the Federal Government's legitimate expenses, Congress might first eliminate its unconstitutional spending?

I'll bite: Will you then join me in calling for an end to welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

[BroJoeK]

Walts Ice Pick: "I'll bite: Will you then join me in calling for an end to welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?"

What, did I go to the wrong web site by mistake?
I could have sworn this is Free Republic, where we advocate constitutional conservatism, etc. What do you think?

Of course, I'm as politically realistic as the next guy -- I'm only saying, as we begin reducing Federal spending, can we not somehow give special consideration to those areas that the Constitution enumerates the Feds are supposed to be doing?