Replies

Phlyer: "I work in the defense industry, and I can readily identify ways in which defense spending can be cut without reducing acquistion and support of weapons systems."

I am highly dubious of all such claims, since they imply that current decision-makers are idiots, and that seems doubtful.
Indeed, no government institution has a stronger incentive to be cost-effective than the military, since lives and national survival are at stake.

Yes, I understand the role of Congress, and its need to keep projects in members' districts viable.
It is also historically true that no future war will be exactly the same as any past war, and therefore our current training & equipment may or may-not be effective when needed.

So the military must be prepared for any contingency, most of which will never happen, and that by definition is "wasteful".
Indeed, an astute enemy will study carefully exactly what we are and are-not prepared for, and will attack us in the latter.

So here's my point: budget cutting simply reduces the number of contingencies the military is prepared for, and increases the probability that we will be attacked in some area of weakness.

Phlyer: "So, my 'solution' would be to more or less hold the line on defense spending (~4.5% of GDP) for five years as part of a general spending reduction, then elevate it to ~7% when we've gotten overall spending in line."

Without knowing the true conditions of each service -- their training, equipment, morale, etc. -- it's impossible to say exactly what they need.
But if 5% under Bush II was adequate during war time, then surely it will be adequate in relatively peaceful years.
And that would avoid the need to ever increase to 7%, short of some unexpected national emergency.

As for where our Federal budget cuts should occur, I have a simple solution: get out a copy of the Constitution and read -- where does it specify each Federal function.
Those Federal functions not specified in the Constitution should be first for budget cuts.

Problem solved, right?

;-)

. . .since they imply that current decision-makers are idiots . .

Not idiots, just bureaucrats.

A retired president of Bell Aerospace (not sure of his name, but he retired in the early 80's so you can look it up) said that he would accept - sight unseen - any contract for 1/4 the price if he could perform without government reporting requirements. In my own company we proposed test programs to the government - on things we wanted to do so the bid wasn't padded - and when they wouldn't approve proceeded to do them on our own money for 1/3 the contract bid price. Norman Augustine of "Augustine's Laws" said something much the same.

Bureaucrats exist for three reasons, in decreasing order of importance. 1) Protect their own positions, which they do by demanding bulletproof CYA data for any decisions they can't avoid. 2) Grow the bureaucracy, because their power comes not from serving the country. It comes from building an empire. 3) (If they must. . . ) Prevent nasty, unscrupulous contractors from 'getting away' with anything.

Nowhere on that list is a requirement to assist industry to deliver high-value, high-efficiency products to the government.

That doesnt' make them stupid. It just makes them bureaucrats. If your family depended on you retaining your position in the bureaucracy, and even growing it in importance (budget/salaries), then you might do the same thing. One must understand 'the enemy' in order to defeat him, and the value system of bureaucrats inherently builds inefficiencies. By now (since the last life-or-death struggle in 1942), the US Government generally and DoD in particular bureaucracies have grown until they are sucking all the life out of the system they are supposed to be serving. (And don't even get me started on NASA!)

. . . it's impossible to say exactly what they need.

Which is why I used only 1 or 2 significant figures, and an approximation signal (~) as well. The federal budget has 12 significant figures, and the DoD budget has 11. It's not required to know 'exactly' what they need in advance to set policy.

Those Federal functions not specified in the Constitution should be first for budget cuts.

On this we agree absolutely. As I said earlier, I wouldn't start with DoD cuts, except in letting the DoD bureaucrats know they won't be allowed to stifle cost-effectiveness by getting rid of some of the non-value-added 'oversight' and the overseers that go with it. On the other hand, the whole budget problem is really about dealing with 'entitlements', and *none* of them are even allowed by the Constitution.

The federal government seized 1/8 of all the compensation my father received throughout his working life for Social Security. At the end of his life, he needed that money to live on. We can't just eliminate those payments without ruining the lives of honest, hard-working men and women who would have been fine without the bureaucracy 30 years ago, but have no alternative now.

Nonetheless, Social Security is not Constitutional. Neither is Medicare, nor Medicaid, nor Food Stamps, nor any of the other "entitlement" programs. We need to move back from that heresy and toward the Constitution.

In the meantime, there are at least 5 cabinet-level departments that could be eliminated immediately or at least demoted to less than cabinet level (Education, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, HUD) and at least 3 others that could be essentially eliminated with the small value-added part going somewhere else (e.g. the nuclear regulatory part of Dept. of Energy to DoD).

Anyone whe honestly reads the Constitution would reach essentially the same conclusion. Which means I'll add another 'characteristic' to bureaucrats which is not the same as stupid. They are inherently dishonest - as established with great clarity by Friedrich Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom."