Posted on 07/07/2013 1:40:13 PM PDT by Kaslin
Modest spending cuts that were put into place March 1 due to sequestration have mostly failed to result in the economic doom predicted by Keynesians. Now the defense industry is working to undo those cuts.
Jeremy Herb of The Hill has reported on lobbying industries going up to Capitol Hill, redoubling their efforts to restore budget cuts:
Cord Sterling, vice president of legislative affairs for the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), said his group is working to articulate the damage from the cuts that are now beginning to take hold. They remain hopeful that a fix is on the horizon.
...
The industry’s public case is also hampered by the share prices of its biggest firms. The stocks of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and other top contractors have all jumped since sequestration took effect in March.
...
Sequester opponents are looking to the continuing resolution that will be needed in September and the upcoming debt ceiling debate as opportunities to fight against the automatic budget cuts.
This is especially troubling for small-government conservatives in light of David Fahrenthold and Lisa Rein's reporting for the Washington Post this past week:
Sequestration did hit, on March 1. And since then, the $85 billion budget cut has caused real reductions in many federal programs that people depend on. But it has not produced what the Obama administration predicted: widespread breakdowns in crucial government services.
The Washington Post recently checked 48 of those dire predictions about sequestration’s impact. Just 11 have come true, and some effects are worse than forecast. But 24 predictions have not come to pass. In 13 cases, agencies said it is too soon to know.
It makes sense that, if the promised pain of sequestration turned out to be largely illusory, the defense industry would have to try doubly hard to protect their place at the government trough. This week's Washington Post report should assure Americans not to believe what the defense industry is now trying to sell, and stick hard to the spending cuts that everyone in Washington agreed upon.
Talk about getting rid of defense contractors and that seldom spoken of entitlement class goes rabid.
It also makes sense that other programs can be cut without dire effects. A lot of social programs could take a haircut and survive. And they are by far the largest portion of the budget.
As well, Congress can redefine the word entitlement to make it much more exclusive. Don't have to change the rules, just the assumptions on which the rules are made.
The House has already passed a Military construction bill 402-12
http://fcw.com/articles/2012/06/01/house-approps-bill-pass-pay-freeze.aspx
I think the defense contractors are living in something of a fantasy if they think not, the gravy train, but the gravy Mississippi, is going to keep flowing forever.
The big lesson of sequestration was that, no matter how bitter and spiteful Obama was about cutbacks, the government is so nonsensically bloated that it was liposuction of a teaspoon of fat, hardly noticeable.
So the question back to those defense contractors, is how many gallons of pure fat are going to have to be sucked out before we get anywhere near the meat?
Time to go back to working for your bread, and producing on time and on budget. And from the government side, once a blueprint for a project is sent to the contractor, it is finalized: NO MORE CHANGES. Sorry if this means that 200 naval officers don’t get to claim they were part of the project, because they made some change to the design, on their resumes.
Just like giving a junkie more heroin.
I agree with this, on one condition:
America needs to make more.
We are outsourcing everything. Bring back US manufacturing.
Now.
We cannot lead the world, by buying everything from China.
That just won’t work.
Some contractors are very necessary but a good many only exist as a result of a government grown too big. Look at the NSA, if they were doing only what they were supposed to be doing they wouldn’t need God knows how many people to do it.
The top 10 military contractors take in nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars per year and those are contractors that I consider to be mostly necessary. On the other hand are companies like Booz Allen which exist by the hundreds and cost us hundreds of billions per year themselves. Booz Allen (a politically connected company) took in nearly $6 billion taxpayer dollars last year alone.
I’d sure like to see a complete list of companies currently working under government contracts but I wouldn’t know where to start.
Restore budget cuts?
Hell no! We need MORE cuts. Real cuts, not cuts in spending growth.
The contractors lobby with $$$$. Congress loves to monkey with sequestration and with tax laws. This is how they coerce companies to keep the money flowing in.
UH I have some answers for you STOP redoing the commissary every 6 months, and the Exchange, bring in lower priced products. WE do not have $200 for a Vera Wang wallet, nor do our Troops. Do not put in any more of those dozens of $7K speed bumps in 5 mph parking lots (Commissary and Exchange). We do not need more monuments either. Nor do we need 11 admirals when 1 will do, which is all we had when Millington, TN was a training base, now its BUPERS.
And when you don’t spend all the funds at the end of the year RETURN them don’t waste them on those speed bumps. Or putting up another unneeded monument,
our $$ at that
The defense industry is comprised of alot more than just the big guys. There are also tons of small businesses that work in that area. If the government is going to spend money, defense is a good area. Unlike most industries and recipients of government funding, the defense industry is comprised of almost all US citizens. Furthermore, it is one of the few industries that is actually dominated by highly educated science and engineering professionals.
Make no mistake, like all industries there is some waste. I would argue that a fair amount of the problems are caused by the government customers intervening in programs,, changing requirements, and shifting goals, with no regard for cost impacts. Right now the industry is bleeding out. Money is tight, programs are being killed, and R&D is being crushed. Once the top technical folks leave the industry for greener pastures, the damage will be significant...much like the expertise we are losing in the space industry.
Anyway, I am all for cuts. I just question if taking them all out of defense is the right move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.