I know some will disagree but EVERY department should have to face sharp cuts and if it means scaling back military purchases and maybe close a few bases, so be it. There are a bunch of domestic cuts I’d like to make too, including scrapping a few agencies altogether, but we can survive with a few less bombers and missiles.
Everyone in the federal government should be prepared for some deep belt-tightening and that has to include the military.
I do not object to base closings. I do not not object to cuts on unneeded military programs.
What I object to is the Senate not voting on a budget for the past few years.
I would love to see programs like converting aircraft and naval vessels to (green) fuels that cost 200% more than JP-8 and diesel cut out all together.
If the bloated federal bureaucracy were a business, it would have to balance the books. A new CEO would be brought in to set the strategy and focus priorities around the strategy. Spending on ACLU activities not supporting the strategy would be immediately cut. No program would be immune from scrutiny.
There would also be across the board spending and payroll cuts. Typically a new CEO of a turnaround company will within the first week cut headcount across the board by at least 10% knowing the remaining employees will take up the slack. It is amazing when there are fewer people how many nonproductive paper pushing activities naturally go away when there are fewer bodies to do the work.
Another benefit of across the board head count costs is the least productive people are normally the ones cut. A department manager, told to cut one employee will automatically send packing the employee who walks into the office late everyday, chit chats on personal phone calls throughout the day, and races out of the office at 5:00 pm while others are slaving away.
Over the past three decades private industry has gone through waves of downsizing to become more efficient. Given the federal bureaucracy has continued to grow through that time it is ripe for significant reduction. Likely a 15% across the board reduction of head count could be implemented without having any real impact on services. Combine with a 10% reduction in non interest on the debt spending, and you’ve closed about 1/3 of the annual deficit with minimal effort. Then begin cutting entire departments who no longer have any purpose or whose missions can be accomplished by state and local government. Education, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, HUD, and much of Health and Human Services can be eliminated or transitioned to the states within a year.
With respect to Defense we have to decide what it’s real mission is. Over the past 50 years the military has been an imperialist force intervening around the globe in wars at the whim of the President. On the whole these wars were conducted at great expense with little positive impact on the safety of the average citizen. Plus our huge military has allowed Europe and Japan to transfer most of their defense costs to the US taxpayer. Meanwhile, we’ve failed to implement a missile defense shield to truly protect the homeland from nuclear missiles and we have failed to protect the borders allowing millions of foreigners to invade and settle the homeland. If we take a hard look at the mission of our military, agree to stop intervening in the affairs of nations around the globe, and focus on defending the homeland, we can realize significant savings in defense spending while actually making our borders and our citizens more secure.
Unfortunately our political leaders have no will to prioritize goals and cut spending to levels required to support the essential activities. It is easy to see how this will play out. If Obama is reelected, he will blame the Republicans for not working cooperatively with him. The automatic cuts and tax increases will be implemented in January. Obama will implement the spending cuts in a way that will be most visible and painful to the people. He will go on a relentless PR campaign blaming the Republicans in Congress. After a few months, the Republicans will compromise, restoring the spending while leaving in the tax increases? The tax increases will slow the economy causing the Federal Reserve to print more money and Obama to demand more spending. If the Republicans don’t pass the new spending they will be blamed for the bad economy. Ultimately we will have hyperinflation followed by a financial collapse.
Same if Romney is reelected. At this point it is unlikely the Republicans will capture the Senate. Even if they do Harry Reid can filibuster to obstruct Romney’s agenda particularly tax reform. The Republican leadership will be afraid to cut spending during a recession. The deficit will continue to spiral out of control resulting in economic collapse.
At this point it seems economic collapse is inevitable within the first two years of the new President’s term. Is it better to reelect Obama and let the collapse happen on his watch? Or is it better to elect a liberal Republican and let conservative Republicans be falsely blamed?
Defense spending has been declining while domestic and entitlement spending is going up. Even with sequestration, the entitlemnt spending is actually MORE than it is now, while the defense spending again will be cut. I’m for rooting out the excesses in ALL, not just the selected few.