Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

Posts Tagged ‘DOD spending’

Rebuttal of Tom Coburn’s lies about defense spending

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 19, 2012


Tom Coburn’s newest book, the Debt Bomb, has recently been published. In that book, Coburn suggests many useful fiscal reforms and savings… except when it comes to defense spending.

Coburn, who is an anti-defense libertarian and not a conservative, is an ardent opponent of defense spending per se, and in his drive to deeply cut (and thus gut) America’s defense, he’s made up a litany of blatant lies that he wrote into Chapter 13 of his book, wrongly titled Defense: Peace Through Strength Through Streamlining.

The title is misleading because what Coburn actually advocates is not peace through strength, but peace through weakness, and the spending cuts he advocates go far beyond streamlining. He advocates massive cuts to actual military capabilities. He calls on Congress to implement the disastrous defense cuts proposals he has made in his ridiculous “Back to Black” plan. To reiterate:

1) Cutting spending on the nuclear arsenal and the arsenal of means of delivery by $7.9 bn per year, i.e. $79 bn over a decade, for purely budgetary reasons, by:
a) cutting the nuclear stockpile down to the inadequate levels allowed by the disastrous New START treaty (former SECDEF James Schlesinger deems them “barely adequate”);
b) cutting the ICBM fleet from 500 to 300 missiles (i.e. by a whopping 200 missiles);
c) cutting the SSBN fleet from from 14 to 11 subs;
d) delaying, again, for purely budgetary reasons, the Next Generation Bomber program until the mid-2020s when it hasn’t even been allowed to begin; and
e) maintaining a reserve stockpile of just 1,100 warheads;
f) cutting the strategic bomber fleet to just 40 aircraft compared to the current 96 nuclear-capable B-2s and B-52s and 66 non-nuclear-capable B-1s.
This is the worst of all his proposals by far. The disastrous New START treaty, which does not cover tactical nuclear weapons (in which Russia has overwhelming advantage), ordered the US to cut its nuclear arsenal to already-inadequate levels, so that Russia could keep nuclear parity status with the US. Cutting the US nuclear arsenal down to levels authorized by this treaty is a mistake; cutting it further would be an ever bigger mistake; cutting it by a whopping 200 ICBMs, 3 SSBNs, and hundreds of warheads would be an egregious blunder which would make America much less safe and invite a Russian nuclear first strike. Coburn also proposes to forego any modernization of the deterrent until the mid-2020s, and then only of the bomber fleet. A requirement for a Next Generation Bomber Type is real and was officially acknowledged by the DOD 5 years ago, in 2006, in that year’s Quadrennial Defense Review.(1) It was later confirmed by the 2010 QDR.(2) It was subsequently acknowledged by the then leadership of the DOD, including Secretary Gates. Later that year, the CSBA – which Coburn likes to cite as a source – released a report (authored by retired USAF Colonel Mark Gunzinger, who participated in all defense reviews to date) stating that an NGB is an urgent requirement which must be met by 2018 at the latest and that consequently, the NGB program must not be delayed any longer. (3)
In short, the nuclear triad is the last part of the military that should be cut. And for all of these draconian cuts, Coburn would “save” only $7.9 bn per year, whereas my proposals of cutting the administration budgets of the DOD alone would save taxpayers well over $10 bn per year.
2) End the purchases of V-22 Ospreys at no more than 288 aircraft, thus allowing some Marine H-46s to retire unreplaced, leaving the USMC with far fewer V-22s that they believe they need, and not having the V-22 Osprey as an option for the USAF’s CSARX competition or the Navy’s Carrier Onboard Delivery Aircraft Replacement plan. The savings: a meagre $0.6 bn a year, or $6 bn over a decade.
This proposal is just as dumb as the first one. Barring the USAF’s bombers (B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s), there isn’t a single weapon type in America’s inventory that is as combat-proven and as battle-tested as the V-22, which has been widely used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It is more survivable, and can fly much farther and faster, than any other rotorcraft in history, and can fly to places where other rotorcraft cannot. When an F-15E was downed in Libya earlier this year, it was a V-22 that rescued its crew. The V-22 is a must-have aircraft type. Orders for it should be increased, not cut. And contrary to Coburn’s claim, it costs only a little more than an MH-60: $67 mn for a V-22 vs at least $44 mn for an MH-60.
3) Cancel the Marine (STOVL) and Navy (CATOBAR) variants of the F-35, buy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets instead. The saving: a paltry $700 mn per year, i.e. $7 bn per decade.
This proposal, frequently stated by those who wish to cut the defense budget deeply, is fundamentally flawed, because it’s based on two wrong assumptions: a) a Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant is not needed; b) the Super Bug is interchangeable with the F-35.
There is clearly a requirement for a STOVL variant, as confirmed by USMC Commandant Gen. James Amos, who is himself a Naval Aviator. He knows the F-35B better than anyone. Coburn’s assumption that a STOVL variant won’t be needed is based on wishful thinking. As for the second assumption: no, the Super Bug is not an alternative to, nor even substitute for, the F-35. It’s basically a redo of the F/A-18 Hornet, a plane that first flew in the 1970s. It is not stealthy, has a much shorter range compared to the F-35C, and a higher maintenance cost. It can operate only in benign, uncontested airspace.
4) Retire the USS George Washington early, cutting the carrier fleet permanently to 10 and cutting the number of carrier air wings from 10 to 9. This would save a paltry $600 mn per year, i.e. $6 bn over a decade, at a large cost to America’s defense.
This would also be reckless. Contrary to Coburn’s claim, during the Cold War, the USN needed – and always had – at least 15 carriers. Throughout the Cold War, the Navy had no fewer than 15 carriers. The flattop fleet was not cut until after the Cold War. In 2007, the Congress reluctantly agreed to cut the carrier fleet from 12 to 11, while simoultaneously writing a well-grounded requirement for at least 11 carriers into law. Last year, the Congress again reluctantly agreed to waive that requirement – but only for two years, from 2013 to 2015, until the USS Gerald R. Ford is commissioned. As studies by the Heritage Foundation have repeatedly shown, the Navy needs no fewer than 11 carriers at any one time. Cutting the carrier fleet and the number of CAWs would be reckless.
5) Cancelling the Precision Tracking Space Satellite (PTSS) program of the Missile Defense Agency.
This program is necessary to create a constellation of 6 dedicated satellites tracking ballistic missiles, a capability that none of America’s current satellites offer.
6) Cutting the total number of troops deployed in Europe and Asia to just 45,000.
While Europe can certainly defend itself on its own, having only one plausible enemy (Russia), this cannot be said of America’s Asian allies. The US can afford to withdraw troops from Europe but not Asia, where any American drawdown would be viewed as a sign of weakness and disengagement, which Sec. Panetta and President Obama have both recently tried to prevent, trying to assure America’s Asian allies that this will not happen.
7) Using the $100 bn savings that Secretary Gates for deficit reduction, not for military modernization as Sec. Gates wanted and the Services – which worked hard to find these savings – were promised by Gates, President Obama, and the Congress.
These savings were to be used for a number of military modernization programs, including purchases of additional ships, modernization of the Army’s combat vehicles, and the forementioned Next Generation Bomber program. Taking that money away from them and using it to pay the bills for a deficit caused exclusively by runaway civilian spending would not just be dumb, it would be an act of heinous betrayal.
(8) Delay the Ground Combat Vehicle for purely budgetary reasons. The saving: a paltry $700 mn per year, i.e. $7 bn per decade.
For purely budgetary reasons. Do I need to say more?
9) End the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program without replacement, not with a replacement as Sec. Gates proposed.
The decision of Sec. Gates (whom Coburn quotes selectively) to cancel the over-budget, delayed Marine amphibious truck vehicle known as the EFV was the right one. However, as a replacement, Gates proposed starting a new, less complex, less costly amphib program that is scheduled to produce the first amphibious trucks in 2014, so that Gen. Amos can ride in them before he retires in late 2014. As both Gates and Amos have stated, there is a clear requirement for such a vehicle. The USMC’s obsolete, Vietnam War era AAVs must be replaced. Coburn proposes not to replace them.
1o) Cutting DOD weapon R&D spending by 10% in FY2012, then by another 10% in FY2013, and then freezing it for a further 8 fiscal years.
Again, this is motivated purely by budgetary concerns, not military ones. Coburn claims that from FY1981 to FY1988, the DOD received, in constant dollars, $407 bn, and he claims that is only $51 bn per year. He’s wrong, and apparently can’t do simple math. $407 bn divided by seven is $58.142857 bn, i.e. ca. $58.143 bn. He proposes to cut R&D spending to a paltry $58.0 bn and keep it there, even though that is LESS than what was invested during the Reagan era.
Furthermore, Coburn claims (in the “What to cut from defense” subchapter) that his B2B defense cuts proposals are not just prudent but “necessary”. No, they are not. They would actually be deeply damaging, as they deeply weaken America’s defense and thus imperil national security. Furthermore, as the RSC, the Heritage Foundation, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul have shown, it is possible to balance the federal budget WITHOUT significant defense cuts (even while Rand Paul, like me, proposes to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan quickly).
Furthermore, Coburn opens this chapter of his book with a selective quotation from President Eisenhower’s farewell address and falsely claims that Ike’s worst fears about the “military-industrial complex” have realized. No, they haven’t. Not even close. While the defense industry surely does a lot of lobbying on Capitol Hill and in the DOD, they have abysmally failed to prevail in the vast majority of cases, as evidenced by all the defense cuts (including the closure of over 50 weapon programs) since President Obama took office.
If the military-industrial complex exists and is so powerful, how come could it not even defend save any of those 50 weapon programs from termination?
Coburn claims that defense spending is a sacred cow. He writes:

“Of all the sacred cows that need to be tipped in Washington, defense spending is the biggest and the most stubborn.”

But the truth is that defense spending is NOT, and has never been, a sacred cow. Defense spending was deeply cut during the late 1940s, the 1950s, the 1970s (throughout the entire decade), and the 1990s, and has now been slated for $1.087 TRILLION dollar cuts over the next decade ($487 bn plus $600 bn through sequestration); on top of that, GWOT (OCO) spending is being cut annually and is set to zero out by FY2016, after the last US troops leave Afghanistan. Any claim that the DOD has ever been, or currently is, a “sacred cow” is a blatant lie.
Coburn acknowledges that

“First, it is one of the few legitimate Constitutional roles of the federal government. Also, peace through strength is not a mere slogan but a reality of life. Maintaining a strong national defense is vital to our national security. Our strength is our best deterrent. Without it, our economy, freedoms, and liberty are all placed at risk.”

and that
“Knowing what to keep and what to cut in the defense budget is our first responsibility as elected officials. Thinking critically about defense is your responsibility as well.”
 That is well said, but Coburn’s actual policy proposals are totally inconsistent with these principles that he CLAIMS he professes. On the one hand, he admits that a strong defense is necessary, but on the other, he advocates deep defense spending cuts, including draconian cuts to actual military capabilities and arsenals such as the ICBM fleet.
Coburn then commends the ignorant, biased, anti-defense hack Chris Edwards of the CATO Institute for bashing the F-22 program as a parochial project, and commends its cancellation, but the F-22 was NOT the parochial pork project Edwards and Coburn portray it to be. It was a NEEDED 5th generation fighterplane program which was WRONGLY cancelled by the Obama Administration, with Congressional consent, in FY2010. Now the future of the entire US fighterplane fleet relies on a single, troubled program – the F-35 – while Russia and China are testing their stealthy 5th generation Raptor-like fighterplanes.
Coburn also decries the former second engine for the F-35 as a pork project, yet it was actually a necessary program which was sustaining competition in the F-35 program. By killing it, the Congress gave Pratt&Whitney a monopoly on F-35 engines and forced three American military services as well as many foreign countries to rely on a single engine type. That was a reckless decision, yet Coburn lauds it.
Coburn furthermore complains that

“Congress has a rich history of ordering ships and planes our generals did not ask for and do not need.”

But the generals are hardly infallible, and per the Constitution, it is the CONGRESS, not the generals, who is supposed to decide what weapons the military needs and in what quantities. The Constitution vests the prerogatives “to provide for the common defense”, “to raise and support Armies”, and “to provide and maintain a Navy”, and to build military facilities SOLELY in the Congress. Deciding what weapons the military needs and in what quantities is exclusively for the Congress to make, not for the generals, the SECDEF, or the President. Although, to be fair, some of the earmarks he mentions were indeed irresponsible and harmful for the troops (such as the polyester clothing inserted by Congressman David Wu).
In the last 20 years, the generals, forced by successive Administrations to toe their propaganda lines and understate real military requirements, have usually testified (under White House pressure) in favor of ever fewer ships, planes, ground vehicles, and other weapons. So their testimony is not credible.
While on this subject, it’s worth noting that his own B2B plan proposes to cut many military capabilities that the generals deem necessary and worth protecting from cuts, including many procurement programs the generals deem necessary (including 2 variants of the F-35 and the V-22).
Moreover, earmarks constitute only a tiny part of the defense budget and the total federal budget, and are currently banned due to a moratorium. It is, however, only a moratorium, and needs to become a permanent, total earmark ban.
Calling us, opponents of deep defense cuts, “defenders of the status quo”, he calls defense spending’s tiny share of GDP a “misleading” figure. But I am not a defender of the status quo, merely an opponent of defense cuts (especially deep ones), i.e. of cuts to MILITARY CAPABILITIES and needed programs. I do not oppose DOD reforms; I’m actually the author of the largest DOD reform proposals package ever devised. Coburn also falsely claims that the nonwar (core) defense budget is larger today than it was during the height of the 1980s.
The current core defense budget is $531 bn. The FY2010 budget was $534 bn. The budgets for FY1987, FY1988, and FY1989 were, respectively: $606.35 bn, $574.23 bn, and $585.60 bn. So from FY1987 to FY1989, defense spending was MUCH HIGHER than it is now.
Coburn decries the fact that despite defense spending growth, the military is not stronger than it was in 2001 and is significantly smaller than in the 1940s or the rest of the Cold War. But the deep defense spending, force structure, and procurement cuts he advocates would make the problem much worse.
He also claims that “the growing cost of military hardware has been a key driver of our debt”, but that is not true. Although many weapon programs have suffered serious cost overruns, their cost (and even total military spending) has NOT been a key driver of America’s public debt. The military budget amounts to just 19% of total federal spending and accounts for only a tiny minority (less than 10%) of the spending growth that has occurred since FY2001.
The savings he proposes besides acquisition reform, while laudable and worth pursuing, would save taxpayers only $15.9 bn per year (or, including eliminating fraudulent Agent Orange compensation, $20.12 bn per year) – a tiny share of the over $100 bn worth of annual defense spending cuts his B2B plan calls for and the amount that the sequester would cut out of defense.
Coburn then cites a lobbyist (!) for Americans for Tax Reform as a credible source. The lobbyist falsely claims that the sequester would cut only $500 bn over 10 years (in reality, it would cut at least $550 bn over a decade, IN ADDITION TO the $487 bn cuts already ordered by the first tier of the BCA). The lobbyist, while admitting that sequestration would cut the core defense budget by $140 bn n FY2013 alone, ridiculously claims that this is
“hardly a huge pill to swallow, ESPECIALLY since the bill doesn’t include limits on supplemental spending. Who’s to say the 050 cut doesn’t just show up in additional supplemental spending? Something to ponder for conservatives who are concerned about ‘deep’ defense cuts.”
These claims are blatant lies. Firstly, a $140 bn annual cut (which would be deeper than even I previously thought) WOULD be a huge pill to swallow. It would amount to more than 26% of the DOD’s core budget for FY2012 ($531 bn) and its requested FY2013 budget ($525 bn). Such cuts would completely gut the military. That is inevitable. They would mean drastic reductions in end-strength, the military’s size, compensation for the troops, maintenance and training funding, and modernization (i.e. very few purchases of new equipment, at a time when the vast majority of the military’s gear is old, obsolete, and worn out and needs to be replaced). There isn’t that much waste in the defense budget. (BTW, ATR’s lobbyists waste more money every year than the DOD does.)
Why won’t these items show up in the supplemental? Because 1) the White House has explicitly prohibited the DOD from doing so; 2) to do that, they would have to increase the ANNUAL supplemental request by $140 bn per year, up from $88.5 bn requested for FY2013, and not even the stupidest Congressman will buy that trick; 3) supplemental funding is shrinking annually and is slated to shrink further every year (to $88.5 bn in FY2013 and $44.5 bn in FY2014) and eventually zero out when the last American troops leave Afghanistan. That shrinkage has been ongoing and will continue regardless of whether sequestration proceeds. Any claim that the DOD will simply move sequestered budget items worth $140 bn PER YEAR to the supplemental is a blatant lie.
That’s something to ponder for those callously unconcerned about the sequester’s deep defense cuts and those who make light of these cuts. But of course, ATR lobbyists are not on Capitol Hill to tell the truth; they are there to lie.
Coburn buys into ATR’s lies, and falsely claims that “regardless of how deep the defense cuts may look, they will never materialize.” This is a blatant lie, as proven above; the supplemental cannot be used to avoid sequestration, and the sequester itself will kick in on Jan. 1st absent Congressional action.
Furthermore, while Coburn admits that sequestration is bad because it would cut everything equally deeply – the necessities along with waste – he falsely claims that “the dollar goal of sequestration (…) was not the problem, just the method.”
He’s completely wrong, however. It’s not just sequestration’s METHOD of cuts that’s bad, it’s the DOLLAR GOAL as well. A $100 bn or $140 bn ANNUAL cut of defense spending would be deeply damaging for America’s defense, as it would cut waste ALONG WITH actual military capabilities and crucial modernization programs. That is an inevitable consequence of such deep budget cuts to an arbitrary figure. There isn’t that much waste even in the DOD. Not even close. As proven by Coburn’s failure to find more than a paltry $20.12 bn in efficiencies. Even under a different method, if required to cut its budget by $100 bn per year, the DOD would HAVE to dramatically cut military capabilities and thus weaken America’s defense. (For specifics, see here.)
Coburn claims that “even with sequestration, defense spending would still increase by 16% over the next ten years compared to 23% without sequestration.” That is a blatant lie. Under sequestration, defense spending will grow by only a few points over this year’s level, and only at the end of the decade. At the start of the decade, it will be dramatically cut, and from then on, will be growing very slowly, not reaching FY2011/2012 levels until FY2019 at the earliest, as proven by the first graph (produced by the CBO) below. As the second graph below (from the Bipartisan Policy Center) shows, under sequestration, defense would be cut to a record low, not seen since before WW2.
Coburn claims that “streamlining will strengthen, not weaken, our national security”, but the massive, reckless defense cuts he advocates (predominantly cuts to military capabilities and modernization, not to DOD waste) would gravely WEAKEN America’s defense and jeopardize national security. He ends this chapter by quoting a proverb saying that all great powers destroy themselves from within, but defense/military spending is not destroying America at all. It constitutes just 19% of the federal budget, a small share. It is not responsible for America’s fiscal woes.
In short, this entire chapter of Coburn’s book is completely worthless and ridiculous. It’s a litany of blatant lies. Conservatives should not waste their money buying that book.
References:
[1] The 2006 QDR, as released by the DOD.
[2] The 2010 QDR, as released by the DOD. The author will send you a copy of both Reviews at request.
[3] Mark Gunzinger, Sustaining America’s Advantage in Long-Range Strike, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010.

Posted in Economic affairs, Ideologies, Military issues, World affairs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Paul Ryan is right; the generals are wrong; or “how dare you question Obama’s infallible generals”!

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on April 7, 2012


Recently, House Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, decided to stop Obama’s process of gutting America’s defense, reject his pseudo-strategy, and pass a budget that adequately funds defense – adequately according to their and their advisors’ judgment, not that of Obama and his penny-pinchers in the Pentagon.

When asked by defense cuts’ supporters why he wants to provide more funding to the DOD than the DOD itself and the Joint Chiefs request, he replied, “I don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice.”

When he said that, the Democrats, other defense cuts’ supporters, and the media went ballistic, claiming that Ryan had called the generals “liars” and had insulted them, and calling on him to apologize. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey himself took umbrage at those words, while still claiming that the DOD developed a strategy first and a budget second when everyone knows it’s not true:

“[Ryan was] calling us, collectively, liars. (…) I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”

But Paul Ryan and other pro-defense Republicans is right, and their critics are dead wrong, for the following reasons.

Firstly, we know that Obama has a habit of pressuring senior generals to change their testimonies to suit their agenda. Just ask 4-star General William Shelton, the commander of USAF’s Space Command, who says Obama pressured him to do just that.

It is quite conceivable that the Joint Chiefs were also pressured to testify, wrongly, that the $487 bn in defense cuts ordered by Obama is survivable.

General Dempsey himself, before he was confirmed, testified that deep defense cuts would weaken defense, that “national security” spending did not cause the deficit problem and that cutting it will not solve it.

More recently, he said, quite correctly, that sequestration of defense spending (the second round of BCA-ordered cuts, totalling another $600 bn) would mean “we would no longer be a global power”. Today, under obvious pressure from the White House and other defense cuts supporters, he claims he was misunderstood and that he only meant that “we wouldn’t be the global power that we know ourselves to be today.”

No, General, that’s not what you originally said. That’s what the White House now tells you to say. I’m sure that if the White House told you “say that the sequester would be harmless”, you would be saying exactly that.

While I wouldn’t call the generals liars or fools, this is not the first time that someone has coached witnesses to deliver a favorable testimony.

Secondly, no matter how hard the generals and civilian DOD bureaucrats may insist to the contrary, the FACT is that Obama’s defense budget cuts mandate drove the pseudo-strategy the DOD issued in January, not the other way around. Obama demanded deep defense cuts, and the DOD had to produce a “strategy” to fit these cuts. That’s what happened, despite the generals’ and civilian bureaucrats’ pretensions to the contrary.

Obama demanded $400 bn in defense cuts on April 13th, 2011, during a budget issues speech at the GWU – long before there even was any talk of a debt ceiling deal. At the time, even his own SECDEF, Robert Gates, was surprised of the defense cuts mandate, and the DOD had to start working out how to implement them. Then, on August 1st, Obama negotiated a debt ceiling deal that mandated $487 bn in cuts from “security spending”, which Obama slapped exclusively on the DOD.

Only later was there any talk of a “strategy” to fit these cuts. Before April 2011, the DOD was not working on any “strategy” and was hoping that the cuts of January 2011 would be the last. Indeed, Gates himself cautioned against any further, let alone deep, additional defense cuts repeatedly, both in DOD briefings and Congressional testimonies. Yet, in April 2011, Obama slapped a $400 bn defense cuts mandate on him and the DOD.

Even if someone claims “the DOD knew for a long time that more budget cuts would be coming”, that doesn’t help them. In fact, it only proves my point. Budget cut mandates came first; the strategy came only later. Thus, the National Journal lied when it claimed

“Ryan’s frank rebuke of the generals came as he repeated an oft-heard Republican complaint: that the fiscal 2013 defense request (…) was not “strategy-driven,” but rather was based on an artificial spending cap imposed by the White House.”

That is not a mere “oft-heard Republican complaint”, that is a FACT. The FY2013 defense budget proposal was NOT strategy driven. It was based on an artificial spending cap that Obama instituted as early as April 2011 – long before there was any “strategy”!

And the DOD’s genuine strategy from just 2 years ago (when budget circumstances were even worse), the 2010 QDR, is quite different from this pseudostrategy. It called for a much larger and more capable military than this pseudostrategy calls for. Did the world become much safer in the last 2 years? No. Obama decided to cut defense even more deeply.

Thirdly, can’t we see it for ourselves that Obama’s new defense cuts would severely weaken the military? They include, inter alia, scrapping one third of the cruiser fleet (the 7 youngest cruisers), retiring 2 amphibious ships and many other vessels, eliminating 7 fighter squadrons, cutting funding for bombers by 40%, eliminating many crucial weapon development programs (including lasers, other directed energy weapons, and railguns), delaying many other crucial weapon programs (including the next-gen cruise missile) and procurements (including SSNs and SSBNs), cutting the shipbuilding plan by 16 vessels, cutting the already-underfunded nuclear-weapon-modernization program by 15%, and cutting 27 strategic and 65 tactical airlifters when the USAF already has too few of them. Anyone with half a brain should understand that this will weaken the military.

Fourthly, the generals are humans, not gods. They are not infallible – no more than I am or you are. As mere humans, they are just as prone to grave error – including a severe error of judgment – as everyone else. It’s time to stop fetishizing generals.

Lastly and most importantly, determining what’s necessary to defend America, and providing the necessary resources, is NOT the generals or the DOD’s job. It’s Congress’ job. The Congress is supposed to make America’s defense policy, and the generals, along with DOD civilians, are supposed to merely execute it. In other words, the Congress makes policy, and the generals are to obey.

The US Constitution vests the prerogatives to “provide for the common defense (…) of the United States”, “to raise and support Armies”, “to provide and maintain a Navy”, to make laws for governing the Armed Forces, to summon and discipline the Militia, to declare war, to punish piracies and felonies on the high seas, and to make appropriations SOLELY in the Congress. The Constitution gives Congress, and ONLY the Congress, the prerogative to make America’s defense policy – to determine both defense budgets AND programs and the force structure (along with bases, deployments, wars, and the UCMJ).

Of course, to make informed decisions, it needs the advice from many sources – and that includes not only serving generals, but also former military officers, independent analysts and study panels (such as the Hadley-Perry Panel), Congressional advisors/analysts, the CRS, and others.

But Congress is supposed to rely, above all, on its own knowledge and sound judgment (if it’s capable of rendering any – and it’s supposed to be). It should NOT fetishize generals and DOD bureaucrats, nor is it supposed to defer to them, let alone to President Obama. It must rely primarily on its own judgment and knowledge, for it, not the generals, is to make defense policy decisions (and take responsibility for them).

This entire  argument has four root causes. One is the understandable, but wrong deference to generals on defense policy caused by the fetish of generals. The second one is the overall worship of supposed “experts” (generals on defense policy, the SCOTUS on the Constitution, the IPCC on “global warming” – remember how skeptics like Jim Inhofe were treated when they questioned the saintly IPCC?) that Americans have been forced to perform since their primary school days. People are taught to blindly listen to “experts” and never question them; if you do, you’re condemned universally. Thirdly, decades ago, the Congress ceded its Constitutional prerogatives on defense policy to the Executive Branch long ago.

And fourthly, as schoolchildren and adults, members of Congress, like all Americans, were constantly taught and told NOT to think for themselves, to rely on others for judgment, and to defer on others on various issues. Such indoctrination not to think independently has caused most of them to be unable, or afraid, to render independent judgment.

And this needs to be corrected. Members of Congress are supposed to think for themselves, not defer to others.

Paul Ryan and HASC Republicans have shown they are capable of doing that. For that, they should be praised, not pilloried.

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/paul-ryan-accuses-generals-of-budget-dishonesty-20120329

Posted in Military issues, Transport | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of Jack Hunter’s newest anti-defense lies and whitewashing of Ron Paul

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on January 6, 2012


In its opinion sections, the Daily Caller continues to publish whatever garbage leftist columnists send to it, including a recent utter garbage, written of course by the utterly-discredited leftist libertarian Jack Hunter, who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Firstly, it is ridiculous for him to lecture anyone on the true meaning of “conservatism” and the definition of who a conservative is, because he doesn’t understand these definitions himself and is NOT a conservative. Secondly, no, Ron Paul, as we shall see, is DEFINITELY not a conservative (let alone the most conservative presidential candidate), and calling him one is false and insulting to every REAL conservative, including myself.

Thirdly, despite Hunter’s claims that:

„Paul’s Pentagon cuts, which aren’t much different from what Sen. Tom Coburn has suggested, are necessary to streamline our military and tackle our debt problem.”

His cuts are very much different from what Sen. Tom Coburn has suggested (in terms of specifics – Paul provides no specific proposals in his budget plan, while Coburn does – the fact that Coburn’s proposals would be utterly disastrous is a different matter), and NO, they are NOT necessary to “streamline” the military and tackle the debt problem. It is unclear what Hunter means by “streamlinling the military”; if by that he means reforming it, he’s wrong, because 1) budget cuts are NOT necessary to reform the military and would actually impede the task; and 2) Paul has proposed NO specific reforms of the US military and the DOD, just a huge budgetary cut.
Hunter then used Tom Coburn as a shield for Paul:

“Coburn has allies besides Paul in this fight, or as National Review’s Jamie Fly writes:

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that purports to speak for the Tea Party movement, issued its own “Tea Party Budget” containing the recommendations of its debt commission. They suggested enacting defense-spending reforms previously proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn that would result in almost $1 trillion in savings over ten years.”

Coburn is an utterly discredited anti-defense libertarian, so if I were Hunter, I would not even mention his name. I’ve actually read and analyzed his proposals, and have written about them extensively (for example here and here). They would be utterly disastrous if implemented. He proposes to cut the USAF’s ICBM fleet by 200 missiles, from 500 to 300; cut the ballistic missile submarine fleet from 14 to 11; cut the carrier fleet and the number of carrier wings; cease the production of combat-proven (in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya) V-22 aircraft; unilateral cuts in the already-too-small nuclear stockpile; cancel the F-35’s B and C variants just as they are getting back on track; cancel the PTSS anti-ballistic-missile satellite EW program; delay the next-gen bomber program until the mid-2020s (when it will be too late); cancel the production of amphibious assault vehicles; implement many more damaging cuts; and do all of that for purely budgetary reasons, not because of any military factors, in isolation from any military issues. The cuts to the ICBM and SSBN fleets alone would dramatically reduce and weaken America’s nuclear deterrent and possibly even encourage a Russian nuclear first strike on the US.

Yet, as damaging as Coburn’s (and Paul’s) defense cuts would be, they would utterly fail to balance the budget. $1 trillion in defense cuts over a decade is $100 bn per year – just 1/15th of the annual budget deficit. This would mean unilateral disarmament in exchange for a tiny reduction of the budget deficit.
Hunter then lied further that:

“There’s a reason that Paul is the only presidential candidate who has been able to offer $1 trillion in cuts. He is the only candidate willing to address the black hole that is Pentagon spending. After entitlements, “defense” spending is the largest part of our budget. Still, Paul allows for a military budget four times the size of China’s and larger than President Bush’s 2005 military budget.
This is what Morris calls “dismantling the military.””

Firstly, the claim that “Pentagon spending” is a “black hole” is both false and insulting. It is a blatant lie, just like most of what Hunter writes. The DOD’s budget is NOT a black hole – it is always passed by Congress as a specific, limited amount of money – limited both in terms of the topline and in terms of what it can be spent on. It is not a “black hole”, but rather the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government, as stated by the Constitution in its Preamble and the fourth section of its fourth Article:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

The Constitution actually PRIORITIZES national defense and elevates it above all other issues. Of the 17 enumerated prerogatives of the Congress stated in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, 9 (i.e. more than half) deal with military matters.

Hunter even denies that the Pentagon budget is defense spending, calling it “defense” spending with a quotation mark. His claim that after entitlements, military spending is the largest part of the federal budget is technically true, but only because entitlements by themselves consume a full 58% part of the federal budget – leaving little money for everything else, including the military, which must content itself with a mere 19% share. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Government devotes just 19% of its budget to its #1 Constitutional duty. And as the military budget is whacked further and entitlements continue to grow on autopilot, these proportions will get even worse for the DOD and even better for entitlements.

The military budget is a tiny portion of federal spending – just 19% of the total, 4.51% of GDP (lower than it was throughout the entire Cold War except FY1948), and just $2,100 per capita, less than it was throughout the entire Cold War, including the Reagan years. Calling it a “black hole” is a blatant lie. Cutting defense spending is NOT necessary to balance the budget, as both the Heritage Foundation and the Republican Study Committee have shown.

Paul’s budget plan would allow for only a $501 bn defense budget, less than 3.5% of GDP and the lowest proportion since before WW2 (excluding the late Clinton years). Moreover, it allows for NO funding of the DOE whatsoever, not even for its defense-related programs, which presumes that they would be moved to the DOD. Their budget for the current FY is $17 bn under the FY2012 NDAA, so that would leave only $484 bn as a core defense budget, not $501 bn. This would be barely $3 bn higher than Bush’s FY2005 core defense budget (which was $481.08 bn adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars) and MUCH SMALLER than his TOTAL FY2005 military budget, which included GWOT spending (which was $87 bn in nominal dollars in FY2005 and whichPaul would end completely and immediately if it depended on him). Last but not least, under Paul’s plan, defense budgets would not, after FY2013, even keep up with inflation, which means they would be cut in real terms STILL further.

Moreover, whatever total figure the defense budget was in FY2005 – seven fiscal years ago – is totally irrelevant as to what it should be today. The defense budget must be determined SOLELY on the basis of the the threat environment of today and the one expected for tomorrow, not according to some past budgetary figure. But Hunter, as a guy totally ignorant about defense and budgetary issues, doesn’t understand that.

The claim that it would be four times larger than the PLA’s budget is also utterly false. China’s military budget for FY2011 was $185 bn; to be four times larger, Paul’s defense budget would have to be 4x$185 bn, i.e. $740 bn, which is not going to happen (and $740 bn is not needed, ca. $550 bn should be enough). But equally importantly, in China, things are 3-4 times cheaper than they are in the US, meaning that if PPP differences are accounted for, China already has a larger defense budget than the US.

Furthermore, let’s not forget that Paul is the chief GOP defender of the sequestration’s mechanism and its defense cuts totalling $1.065 TRILLION, which, if implemented, WILL gut the military.

Cutting defense spending significantly to balance the budget would be a foolish mistake. It would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. It would save little money in the short-term and zero in the long term, because eventually, America’s military weakness would encourage aggression and launch America into another war that would be costly in terms of both money and blood. America’s current military spending, at 4.51% of GDP, is a small and worthy investment in preventing war.

As George Washington rightly said, “timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it.” He was also right to warn of “the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger.” It’s much better to prepare for war and to prevent it rather than arming yourself post factum, when war has already begun.

Last but not least, if Paul is going to implement Tom Coburn’s defense cuts proposals, or anything similar, that IS going to gut the military for the same reasons I listed in my critiques of Coburn’s proposals, while failing to reform the DOD. So Dick Morris was right – Ron Paul DOES want to dismantle the military – as does veteran pacifist Barack Obama (who is, like Paul, an ardent supporter of the sequestration mechanism). That is a fact.
Then, Hunter invoked Russell Kirk: “But since we’re discussing conservatism, let’s take a look at what Russell Kirk had to say about this subject.” He quoted Kirk’s objections to Operation Desert Storm.

Kirk had reasons for his concerns. But with regard to Desert Storm, they were unfounded. That operation was limited in scope and objectives. Its only goal was to kick Saddam Hussein’s military out of Kuwait and cripple it. Once these goals were achieved, President Bush the Elder brought US troops back home. He didn’t say “Oh, let’s go further, take Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein, because the opportunity has presented itself!”

Conducting Desert Storm was the RIGHT thing to do. There was no way that the US could’ve tolerated Saddam’s drive to dominate the entire Middle East and his threat to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest reservoir of oil. It had NOTHING to do with 9/11, which was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, which was hostile to Saddam Hussein.
But don’t waste your breath telling that to Hunter, who bombastically (and falsely) claims that

“For basically every position Morris calls “liberal” or “radically left-wing” you can find some of the most prominent and respected names in American conservatism agreeing with Paul.”

Which is a lie, because there are many issues (e.g. defense, foreign policy, abortion, traditional marriage, etc.) on which there isn’t a single prominent, respected conservative who agrees Ron Paul. This is ESPECIALLY visible on the issue of defense, which is understandable that in order to be a conservative you MUST support a strong defense and generous funding for it. Providing generous, adequate funding for a strong defense, not constraining it with disarmament treaties, making sure that the military is adequately trained, housed, AND equipped with the most modern and most lethal weapons America can produce – this is an INTEGRAL, IRREMOVABLE part of conservative philosophy (as opposed to libertarianism) and is the biggest difference that distinguishes us conservatives from libertarians (including Ron Paul).

“Morris’s mistake is definitional. What Morris calls “conservatism” is simply the current conventional Republicanism. One does not necessarily equal the other. Ask Barry Goldwater. Ask Ronald Reagan. Ask Ron Paul.”

Ron Paul is not an authority on anything, let alone on the definition of conservatism, because he’s not a conservative. As for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan – both of them fervently supported a strong defense and a hawkish foreign policy; Goldwater’s policy might’ve even been a little too hawkish (in 1964, he said he would drop a nuclear bomb on Northern Vietnam). Both of them would’ve strongly opposed, and campaign against, Ron Paul if they were alive today (sadly, they’re not).

Moreover, defense spending and the war in Iraq are hardly the only aspects of foreign policy on which Paul is completely at odds with conservatism and conservatives – he’s completely at odds with us conservatism on the entire FP spectrum.

So whom does Hunter quote as an authority on conservatism and its history? None other than the extremely-leftist, anti-defense, anti-Republican, Soros-supported J Street propagandist Peter Beinart of the liberal TDB:

“Here’s where Morris and Gingrich really show their ignorance. Writes The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart (…)”

Not that I care about what Beinart says, but I’ll refute just one of his Coolidge quotes, namely that “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”

In fact, the public does not support defense cuts: according to multiple polls conducted last year, 57% of Americans oppose any such cuts, and 82% opposed any defense cuts by the Super Committee and the sequester. Military service is voluntary in the United States, yet more people join the military’s ranks than the DOD can accept.

Hunter then lied, trying to whitewash his boss, that:

„Much has been made about the fact that Paul criticized Reagan in 1988 and bolted to run third party out of disgust with the Republican Party. Yet, Paul’s beef was not that he was against the Reagan Revolution, only that it had failed to live up to its promise in terms of shrinking government. Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse Reagan in 1976. So Paul was one of Reagan’s earliest supporters — and later his criticism was that Reagan wasn’t “Reagan” enough.”

That is utter garbage. That is NOT what Ron Paul was saying at the time. What Paul REALLY criticized and bashed Reagan for were, almost exclusively, his defense buildup and his staunchly anti-Communist global foreign policy. THAT is what Paul bashed Reagan for. THAT is what most of Paul’s farewell letter to the GOP in 1987 was about. Paul, of course, repeated the “defense is a big government project” lie in his letter a few times, and Hunter repeats it like a robot to this day. But it doesn’t change the fact that Hunter’s claim was a lie. Paul couldn’t care less about the size and scope of government; all he cared about was gutting America’s defense.

As for the false claim that the Reagan Revolution “had failed to live up to its promise of shrinking government”, it’s also a lie. Ronald Reagan cut the EPA’s budget by 22% in his first year and reduced spending as a share of GDP, while massively cutting taxes, abolishing wage and price controls, deregulating the oil and railroad industries, abolishing the ban on nuclear fuel recycling, eliminating tons of needless regulations, laying off thousands of bureaucrats in the DOD and further thousands in other agencies, reforming welfare programs, etc. Of course, he did not achieve everything he had hoped for, e.g. abolishing the Education Department and the DOE, which he always advocated. But there is a limit to what a President can achieve without the Congress on his side. Throughout his entire tenure, Reagan was fought fiercely by a House (and from 1987, a Senate) dominated by liberal Democrats such as Tip O’Neill. Reagan was merely a President, not a dictator.

Nonetheless, Ron Paul, together with his buddies Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, slandered Ronald Reagan in the worst possible terms. Leaving aside Paul’s slanderous 1987 letter and his infamous 1988 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Rothbard and Rockwell, with Paul’s tacit approval, called Reagan a “warmonger” and called on the Congress to impeach him and remove him from office. When Reagan left office – but with all honors and with a high popularity rating – Rothbard called him a cretin and claimed that his tenure was “eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years”. This was the same Rothbard who was Paul’s intellectual father.

„To this day, Paul remains to the right of Reagan on government size and scope — hardly a “left-wing” position.”

No, he does not and he never was. Ron Paul is to the left of Reagan on these issues. He supports massive pork projects and defends them. He supports transferring tons of money out of the defense budget and into entitlement programs to appease the entitlement class. He also believes that states have the right to impose Big Government and any violations of individual liberties on their citizens – even those perpetrated by the California state government. He’s PERFECTLY FINE with Big Government – as long as it is imposed by states and not the federal government. To those who object, he says “leave your state”. In that regard, he’s indistinguishable from other Big Government Republicans like Mitt Romney.

Hunter then shamefully used Ronald Reagan, whom his boss and his buddies regularly slandered throughout the 1980s and later, as cover for his lunatic boss:

“But where Paul did admire Reagan in the mid-to-late ’80s is where Newt Gingrich and other Republican hawks most certainly did not. When Paul says today that we should always exhaust all diplomatic efforts before going to war — with Iran, for example — Paul’s Republican critics call him “weak” or an “appeaser.” They said the same about Reagan. When Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, Gingrich called it “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.””

Firstly, Ron Paul never admired Ronald Reagan, especially not during the mid-to-late 1980s, when he constantly spat on him together with his buddies Rothbard and Rockwell. Secondly, Ron Paul is not saying „exhaust all diplomatic efforts before going to war” – he’s saying „no wars ever, not even if America is attacked, because America is always to blade for all of the world’s problems”, as evidenced by his opposition to going to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and his criticism of the US entering WW2. All of his rivals, on the other hand, are saying „exhaust all non-war options, but IF these efforts fail, we MUST be ready to go to war with Iran IF NEED BE.” As George Washington said, „to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of keeping the peace.”

Thirdly, it is absolutely ridiculous to compare the rational, and, by Soviet standards, liberal Gorbachyov (Hunter can’t even get his name right) to the irrational mullahs ruling Iran, led by Ali Khamenei, and their irrational puppet speaker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Gorbachyov was willing to make significant concessions and to liberalize the Soviet society. More recently, he has called for free elections and for Putin’s immediate resignation. He did not try to use force to keep Warsaw Pact states subjugated; he agreed to a peaceful dissolution of the Pact. OTOH, the irrational Iranian mullahs are suicidal and fanatical. They have repeatedly stated their desire to attack Israel and the US. They are co-responsible for 9/11 and are the bigest sponsors of Islamic terrorism in the world. If Reagan were President today, he wouldn’t have tried to reason with them. He would’ve dealt with them the same way he dealt with Colonel Qaddafi:

“Despite our repeated warnings, Qaddafi continued his reckless policy of intimidation, his relentless pursuit of terror. He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong. I warned that there should be no place on Earth where terrorists can rest and train and practice their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we would act with others, if possible, and alone if necessary to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere. Tonight, we have.”

Wasn’t it the Libyan intervention that caused Rothbard and Rockwell to call Reagan a “warmonger” and call for his impeachment?

In any case, Hunter’s pathetic attempt to use Ronald Reagan as a cover for his boss and claim that Paul was a “Reagan admirer” is false and insulting. As are his lectures about the meaning of conservatism and the claim that Paul is a conservative and the most conservative Presidential candidate in the last 50 years – an honor that belongs undisputably to Reagan. Yet, Hunter not only falsely claimed that Reagan was merely “arguably the second most conservative candidate”, he claimed that Ron Paul advocates “strict constitutionalism:

“It could be reasonably argued that Reagan was the second-most conservative person to run for president in the last 50 years after Paul, whose strict constitutionalism no doubt continues to create controversy.”

That is also a blatant lie. Ron Paul is no adherent to constitutionalism. If he was, he would’ve accepted the ENTIRE Constitution as it is, instead of cherry-picking parts of the Constitution that he likes and rejecting those that he doesn’t like, such as the Constitutional authorizations of, and REQUIREMENTS FOR, a strong defense – which Ron Paul ardently opposes – and the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, thus protecting individual liberties. Paul ardently opposes both, which means he’s no constitutionalist and no adherer to the Constitution.
Ron Paul is not a conservative. Not by a long-shot. As Dick Morris has said, he’s an ultra-left wing politician who merely happens to agree with conservatives on a few issues.

But even a blind pig will find an earful of corn once in a while.

If you support defense cuts – let alone those massive defense cuts that Paul and Coburn advocate – you are not a conservative. Not by a long shot.

If you support a foreign policy of isolationism or appeasement, you are not a conservative.

If you believe that Big Government and abortion on demand are okay, as long as they’re imposed by state governments, you are most certainly not a conservative.

Mr Hunter, your lectures about conservatism could not be further from the truth.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/30/ron-paul-is-the-most-conservative-presidential-candidate/

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=7046

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Posted in Constitutions, Military issues, Politicians, World affairs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jack Hunter’s rehashed old lies about defense spending

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 21, 2011


Official Ron Paul Propagandist Jack Hunter has not given up in his vain effort to redefine conservatism as anti-defense libertarianism. He’s still ranting against defense spending like a 7-year-old child, claiming that you must support deep defense spending cuts if you want to be called a conservative.

Utter garbage written of course by the Official Ron Paul Propagandist, who is completely ignorant about foreign policy and defense issues. I’ve refuted his blatant lies many times on this website and on my blog, yet, unrepetantly, he comes back and repeats his old lies like a machine or a Soviet press spokesman.

He claims that

“As the Founders understood well, it is hard-to-impossible to preserve limited government at home while maintaining big government abroad. History and experience tell us that one always begets the other. This certainly rings true as we spend trillions of dollars on domestic programs that we match with trillions more overseas.”

The claim that robust funding for defense and other strong-defense policies represent “big government abroad” is a blatant lie, just like most of what Hunter writes. He claims a few paragraphs later that:

“Unfortunately, unlimited Pentagon spending remains the big government too many Republicans still love.”

Pentagon spending is NOT “big government”, it is not a big government program, and it is not anti-conservative. Providing robust funding for the US military is compatible with, and is actually an INEXCISABLE PART, of the conservative ideology, as I have proven in this AT article. Funding defense generously is, and has ALWAYS been, a part of conservative philosophy and a belief of the American conservative movement. If you don’t support it, YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE, PERIOD. If you support defense cuts, you are not a conservative and have no right to call yourself one, period.

The Constitution REQUIRES a strong defense and clearly prioritizes this issue above all others. Of the 18 enumerated prerogatives of the Congress listed in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, 9 (i.e. 50%) pertain to war or to national defense. Among them are the prerogatives to provide for and maintain a Navy; to raise and support Armies; to punish piracies; to make rules for the Land and Naval Forces of the
United States; to declare wars; to organize and discipline the militia; to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States. Moreover, Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution obliges the federal government to provide for America’s defense: “The United States shall guarantee to each state in this Union a Republican form of government, and protect each of them against invasion…”

And the claim that Pentagon spending is “unlimited” is also a blatant lie. For starters, DOD spending is never “unlimited”, because very DOD budget authorized by Congress is for a very specifc, limited sum of money. On top of that, defense spending (and total Pentagon spending) has been SHRINKING for the last 2 years. In FY2010, it was $564 bn and almost $700 bn, respective. In FY2011, it was $529 bn and $688 bn. The recently-passed FY2012 NDAA authorizes only $645 bn for the DOD (plus another $17 bn for the DOE’s defense-related programs), and of that, only $526 bn will be the core defense budget, the rest being spending on Afghanistan. The FY2012 Defense Appropriations Act would authorize even less, $518, as a core defense budget, as a part of a $633 bn total military budget.

The total amount of money authorized by the FY2012 NDAA amounts to a tiny, pathetic, small 4.5% of America’s GDP (which is $14.66 trillion), a Carteresque level of military. The core defense budget ($526 bn) amounts to a microscopic 3.59% of GDP, the smallest share since WW2 excepting the late 1990s. The claim that Pentagon is “vast” or “unlimited” is a blatant lie.

“The Founders’ talk of “entangling alliances” requiring “standing armies” was recognition of the inherent dangers of war — and especially permanent war.”

Garbage. Firstly, many of Founding Fathers supported standing armies, at least as a necessary thing. George Washington is on record saying that “to be prepared for war is one of the effective means of keeping the peace and admonishing the Congress in 1790 that:

“Among the many interesting
objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common
defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most
effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed
but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories,
as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for
military supplies.”

James Madison asked in 1788: “How could a readiness for war in times of
peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the
preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?”

During the Constitutional Convention, when one participant proposed a limit on a standing army to just 3,000 men, the others proposed a provision that any invading army also be limited to just 3,000 men. And so, the issue died.

Furthermore, the claim that alliances and standing armies cause “the inherent dangers of war, and especially permanent war”, is also a blatant lie. A strong defense and strong alliances PREVENT WARS, they don’t provoke them, a lesson that Paul and Hunter evidently have not learned yet and will never.learn. It is the ROK-US alliance, and America’s nuclear umbrella, that has kept South Koreans safe and free for the last 58 years. Starting, by the way, with President Eisenhower. And yet, Hunter still fakes Eisenhower’s farewell address into something it was not:

“President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial
complex” reflected the same concerns within a 20th-century, post-WWII
context.”

Dwight Eisenhower is often cited as a president who,
wary of the “military-industrial complex”, wanted to dismantle this large
standing military and enact dramatic defense cuts. His Farewell Address is
often cited by opponents of a strong defense as “proof” that a large standing
military and defense spending threaten the US economy and Americans’ civil
liberties. Nothing could be further from the truth. If one reads the actual
text of Eisenhower’s farewell address, it is clear that what Eisenhower meant
was that the US defense industry should never be allowed to skew the democratic
political process, nor to turn the federal government into a cash cow. During
the same Farewell Address, Eisenhower stressed the need for a strong defense,
saying that “our arms must be mighty, ready for constant action, so that no
aggressor will risk his self-destruction.”
Eisenhower’s speech is therefore the opposite of what defense critics claim it
is: a call for a strong defense. Here’s the full relevant quote,
which you can read and judge for yourself (emphasis added):

“Now this conjunction of an immense
military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American
experience. The
total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every
city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize
the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend
its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved.
So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take
nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper
together.”[1]

If one reads the entire speech, rather than just one sentence quoted out
of context, it is clear that Esienhower did not call for any defense cuts. What
he did do was to warn the citizenry to “compel the proper meshing” of the
defense establishment with “our peaceful methods and goals”, and not to allow it to subvert America’s ordinary
democratic political process, “so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Hunter then falsely claims that:

“During the Reagan era, when we were fighting a global superpower that
possessed thousands of nuclear weapons, this made sense. It does not
make sense anymore.”

Garbage. A strong defense and robust funding for it ALWAYS make sense. It is also always needed, because there is always an evil person preying upon others. In the current world, with Communist China, Putinist Russia, North
Korea, Iran, and a multitude of terrorist organizations threatening the US, a strong
defense is needed more than ever – even more so than during the Reagan era. Peace
won’t keep itself. Peace depends on a strong defense, and that, in turn, depends
on adequate funding, not a tiny budget of 3.5% of GDP.

“Today, we are fighting individuals, or collections
of individuals, with infinitely less military capabilities and no
particular attachments to nation-states. Ask yourself this: What,
exactly, does having thousands of troops stationed in Afghanistan do to
prevent some sick individual from trying to blow up his underwear on an
airplane?”

That is also garbage, which minimizes threats
to America’s security and is designed to lull the American people into a false sense
of security. Terrorist organizations and the Taleban are not the only threats facing
the US, or even the most dangerous ones. China, Putinist Russia, and North Korea
are the biggest threats. These countries have nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles
capable of reaching the US, and tons of conventional weapons. China is pursuing
a military buildup at a neck-breaking pace, and Russia is now rebuilding and reforming
its own military. North Korea is compensating for its outdated Soviet weapons with
ballistic missiles of increasing range and tons of weapons of mass murder. Making
light of these threats is criminally irresponsible.

Thousands of troops stationed in Afghanistan
won’t prevent people from detonating bombs on a plane, but they are denying, and
will continue to deny, sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and the Taleban. Afghanistan is not
the most important battleground, anyway. Plus, there is no such person as a stateless
terrorist. Every terrorist organization in the world is supported by a state. Hamas
and Hezbollah, whom Ron Paul glorifies, are sponsored by Iran. Al-Qaeda was, prior
to the US invasion of Afghanistan, sponsored and harbored by the Taleban government
of that country. Recently, a judge has found that Iran and Hezbollah were co-responsible
for 9/11.

“Which brings us to conservatism’s fate. Want to know why Paul is the
only GOP presidential candidate who has proposed substantive spending
cuts — $1 trillion in the first year? It’s because only Paul addresses
Pentagon spending, the largest portion of our budget after entitlements.”

That is also 100% false. Firstly, Ron Paul is not the only one
who proposes substantial federal spending cuts – Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and
Newt Gingrich also have proposed them, with Bachmann introducing legislation in
Congress (she supports the abolition of the Edu Department and the EPA), Gingrich
supporting a $700 bn annual spending cut plus another $120 bn per year cut to entitlements,
and Rick Perry outlining his own plan to cut federal spending from 24% to 18% of
GDP and eliminate 3 Cabinet Departments (the ED, the DOE, and the DOC). The claim
that only Paul supports defense spending cuts or tackles defense spending is also
a blatant lie: Huntsman supports deep defense cuts too, Bachmann also supports some
DOD cuts, and Perry demands a full audit of the DOD. Moreover, as I said earlier,
if you support defense cuts, YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE, PERIOD.

“Paul
continues to make the same argument that former Chairman of the Joints Chief of
Staff Mike Mullen has made: that our debt is the greatest threat to our
national security.” Again, Hunter quotes other pe ople selectively and out of context.
Mullen has also said that „cuts [to the defense budget] can reasonably only go so
far…” and that that there’s a limit to what cuts the DOD can tolerate; and that
America’s current military spending, 4.5% of GDP, is actually a bargain price.

“As for national
security concerns, Paul’s $1 trillion in cuts still allows for a defense budget
four times greater than China’s and larger than even President George W. Bush’s
2005 defense budget.”

FALSE. Firstly, China’s military budget for FY2011 is something on the order
of $180 bn (no one knows how much exactly for sure, because the PLA greatly understates
its budget and has many off-budget income sources such as factories and farms),
so for the US defense budget to be 4 times larger than the PLA’s, it would have
to be $720 bn. Paul would provide only $501 bn in FY2013, i.e. less than 3 times
the PLA’s budget. Furthermore, in China, things are several times cheaper than in
the US, so Paul’s defense budget would actually be significantly smaller smaller
than the PLA’s budget if PPP differences are accounted for. Furthermore, we don’t
know what exactly Paul’s meagre, tiny defense budget, which would amount to less
than 3.5% of GDP, would be spent on. Furthermore, it would be SMALLER than Bush’s
FY2005 core defense budget (if one includes the DOE’s defense-related programs).

“This is how drastically Pentagon spending — along with all government
spending — has grown under President Obama. Cries from the GOP field that Obama
is “weakening” our defense with “cuts” mirrors liberal shrieking about
conservatives hurting the poor or seniors by reforming welfare or entitlements
(just ask Paul Ryan).”

Gibberish.
Pentagon spending has NOT grown drastically under President Obama. Since FY2010,
it has been CUT, not increased. Obama slightly increased defense spending in FY2010
from FY2009 levels, and since then has only been SLASHING them: $529 bn in FY2011,
$518-526 bn in FY2012. And yes, Obama IS weakening America’s defense with big cuts.
In FY2010 and FY2011, he ordered the closure of over 50 crucial weapon programs
to pay for the Afghan war. In April 2010, he signed the New START treaty which orders
massive cuts to the US nuclear deterrent and places strict limitations on America’s
missile defense. In January 2011, he ordered Bob Gates to cut defense spending by
$178 bn. April 2011, he cut defense spending in real terms under the CR and ordered
a further $400 bn in defense cuts. Now he’s pledging to veto any bill that would
spare the DOD from the impact of the sequester, which would cut the CORE defense
budget (NOT GWOT spending) by $1.065 trillion over the next decade. Obama has SIGNIFICANTLY weakened America’s defense
with irresponsible defense cuts. That is a FACT.

And so we come to Hunter’s
final statement, which is basically a rehashment of his old lies:

“Big-government
advocates always claim that any changes or reductions in the status quo would
be catastrophic. Conservatives always argue that not only can we no longer
afford such spending, but that reducing big government will be better for all
parties involved in the long run. Republicans can remain doubtful about whether
Paul’s foreign policies will actually make us safer (they will, if our own
intelligence and military members are to be believed). But they cannot doubt
that Paul’s foreign policy addresses a cost we can no longer afford (our
current foreign policy and related spending costs about $1.2 trillion annually,
roughly our entire deficit).

To disqualify Paul because of his foreign policy views is to
also disqualify any chance of actual spending cuts. Until conservatives learn
this lesson and begin to apply their limited-government philosophy
comprehensively, conservatism itself will largely remain a moot point.”

These claims are blatant lies. As stated earlier, robust funding is not only compatible with
conservative ideology, it is an integral, inexcisable, irremovable part of conservative
philosophy
. In other words, conservative ideology REQUIRES generous funding for
defense. The claim that those who don’t support massive defense cuts are not “conservatives”
is a lie, just like the claim that conservatism will remain “a moot point” until
large-scale defense cuts occur. Limited government does not require defense cuts.
And we conservatives need no lessons from you, Jack, or from your despicable mentor
Ron “Blame America First” Paul. Neither you nor your despicable mentor are conservatives,
and you have nothing to teach us. In fact, it is YOU who needs to learn some lessons.
Like the lesson of the 1930s, that isolationism causes war rather than prevent it,
and the lesson of the 1970s, that defense cuts and a weak defense INVITE war instead
of preventing it. But you’re so stupid and so blinded by your libertarian anti-defense
ideology that you’ll never learn these lessons.

“Republicans can
remain doubtful about whether Paul’s foreign policies will actually make us
safer (they will, if our own intelligence and military members are to be
believed).”

No, they will not. Defense cuts, appeasement of America’s enemies, dumping
America’s allies, and isolationism will only make America less safe and invite war.
And who are our “military members”? A small anonymous sample group chosen for polling
purposes? I know many members and veterans of the military who actually believe
that STRONG DEFENSE POLICIES and strong alliances will keep America safe. People
like Nick Popaditch, Paul Krumenacker, Allen West, and Duncan Hunter. As well as
the over 100 veterans who have endorsed Rick Perry for President, including three
Medal of Honor recipients (Dakota Meyer, Michael Thornton, Jim Livingston), one
Navy Cross recipient Marcus Luttrell, and one Purple Heart recipient Daniel Moran.

“But they cannot doubt that Paul’s foreign policy addresses a cost we can
no longer afford (our current foreign policy and related spending costs about
$1.2 trillion annually, roughly our entire deficit).”

That is a blatant lie which Hunter has borrowed from the utterly
discredited Bruce Fein. The total military budget for the current fiscal year is
$662 bn, and the DOS has a budget of roughly $56 bn, which amounts to a total “foreign
policy” budget of $718 bn, way less than the $1.2 trillion that Hunter claims. His
figure is a blatant lie. Moreover, the defense budget is NOT responsible for America’s
fiscal woes.

Finally, your claim that “The only GOP candidate offering the kind of cuts the tea party has said it desires is Ron Paul” is also patently false, as proven above.

[1] D. D. Eisenhower, Farewell
Address to the Nation, 1961, text available at the American Rhetoric
website, http://www.americanrhetoric.co…. Retrieved on December 21st, 2011.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/why-conservatives-must-adopt-ron-pauls-foreign-policy/

Posted in Military issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Defense Reform Proposals Package – the 23rd edition

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on December 19, 2011


Ever since 2008, I’ve been posting proposals of real reforms of the DOD. I publish the complete, updated, comprehensive package of defense reform proposals (which I dubbed the DRPP) every month. In this 23rd edition of the DRPP, I’m presenting all the reform proposals that I have devised to date (including ca. 141 annual money-saving reforms). Many of them are my own original proposals; many others are the ideas of other people and organizations, including former Secretaries of Defense Frank Carlucci, William Cohen, Donald Rumsfeld, and Robert Gates; DOD agencies and boards; members of Congress, including members of the House Armed Services Committee; and the Heritage Foundation.

………………………………….
A) Healthcare cost and benefits reforms

1) The military retirement system reform proposals of Senator McCain should be adopted. Alternatively, Congress could adopt the reform proposals devised by Baker Spring of the Heritage Foundation. Senator McCain’s proposals are preferrable, however.
2) The DOD should stop sending ordinary MRAP vehicles and conventional armored vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, Humvees) to Afghanistan and start using small MRAP vehicles there instead (because ordinary MRAP vehicles, AKA big MRAP vehicles, often roll over). This will radically reduce healthcare costs for the DOD and the DVA, and reduce the costs of replacing vehicles that have been written off.
3) As for other IED-intensive theaters, the only vehicles sent by the US military to those theaters should be mine resistant vehicles such as RG-32s, RG-33s, Stryker-based ambulances, Cougars, Casspirs, etc. (but not RG-31s, MATVs nor Humvees).
4) M113s, including M113-based ambulances, must be withdrawn from all theaters, and eventually retired and replaced with GCVs or Strykers and Stryker-based ambulances. These four reforms would protect American soldiers from mines, thus reducing healthcare costs and vehicle costs.
5) Military housing projects should be built, whenever possible, on lands already owned by the Federal Government.
6) The bureaucratic labyrinth that harms many wounded soldiers should be radically reduced; the budget of the DVA (Department of Veterans’ Affairs) should be reduced (if possible) – DVA should provide good services to American vets at a low cost.
7) Backlogs of claims of DVA benefits must be eliminated and so should be the bureaucracy that created them.
(8) The bureaucratic hurdles and long waits that American vets complain about should be eliminated; the waits should be short.
9) The DOD and the DVA should have a unified benefits-for-vets system.
10) VA hospitals should be privatized if this would reduce VA healthcare costs.
11) Only military personnel, their relatives, veterans, DOD officials and the President should be allowed to use DVA and DOD hospitals. (Currently, Members of the Congress are also allowed to use these hospitals, with the DVA or the DOD paying the costs.)
12) All DVA and DOD hospitals must adopt electronic health records to reduce costs.
13) VA policies and VA disability regulations must be made simple, and their numbers must be reduced. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301426.html)
14) Religious workers (priests, pastors, pops, rabbis, imams, et al.) should always be available to all veterans.
15) The Martinsburg VA hospital PTSD program should be expanded by 25 beds. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301426_4.html?sid=ST2007101902742)
16) DOD hospital staff and DVA hospital staff should be legally obliged to ensure that their patients will not overuse prescription drugs and will not drink alcohol. Alcohol drinks must be banned from DOD installations, DOD hospitals and DVA hospitals. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_2.html)
17) Spanish-speaking personnel of DOD hospitals must always be called upon to help Spanish-speaking troopers and vets. All recruits who don’t speak English must be taught this language after they join the military.
18) Because 88% of American troopers believe that current Army literature for DODH patients is useless, the Army must prepare a handbook called “the handbook no one gets”, which would explain how outpatients live.
19) The complex disability benefit process must be simplified and its costs curtailed.
20) The number of documents a soldier is required to file with the DOD must be reduced from the current level (22); the 8 commands he must file them to must be merged with each other (thus creating a single command); a single information system should be used to process all forms (rather than 16 different inf. systems); the Army’s 3 personnel databases must be merged; the new single Army personnel database must be able to interact with the separate pay system and the medical recordkeeping databases. The Army should consider merging these MR databases. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_4.html)
21) Forms and records must always be kept on the military’s databases and at DOD hospitals, and must never disappear (the disappearance of forms and records is the most common reason why troopers languish at WRAMC); the name and photo of every trooper who ever served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and other warzones must be entered to the apropriate databases and sent to all DOD and DVA hospitals.
22) “Civilian care coordinators” and case managers must be well-trained by the DOD or the DVA and and must understand the DOD medical system. When hiring them, the DOD and the DVA should always choose experienced DVA or DOD employees and experienced vets who have used the DOD system or the DVA system. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_4.html)
23) Every hospital platoon sergeant and every case manager must keep a written list of all patients assigned to him, the wars during which they fought, and their sigs, and must always have a copy of that list in his pocket.
24) Troopers should be allowed to use umbrellas at military hospitals. They should also be given winter clothes. Amputees and troopers whose legs or arms are broken shouldn’t be required to wear uniforms. DOD hospitals should try to devise a way other than a formation (which soldiers hate) to “keep track of their patients”. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_5.html)
25) The staff and the platoon sergeants of DOD hospitals should eliminate all rodents at DOD hospitals.
26) Hospital cafeterias must be located close to hospital rooms.
27) Injured soldiers (except lightly injured soldiers) shouldn’t be obliged to guard military hospitals – healthy soldiers should serve as their guards.
28) The streets and boroughs surrounding military hospitals must be purged of drug dealers by municipal PDs, state PDs and the FBI.
29) Paperwork for new uniforms must always be kept at appropriate desks, and must never disappear. Troopers who lack new uniforms must be provided with civilian business attire as interim solutions (they need appropriate attire for their Purple Heart ceremonies). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_4.html)
30) DOD hospital staff must fight all kinds of stachybotrys, including black mold, and must fight cockroaches and any other insects that invade DOD hospitals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_mold)
31) Every DODH platoon sergeant and every DODH employee must study all of his patients.
32) A CH system and water must be available at all DOD hospitals. Their elevators and garage doors, if broken, must be repaired. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172_5.html)
33) The Service Secretaries should review all military hospitals and, if they can, merge them with each other to reduce installation costs (just like Walter Reed is scheduled to merge with Bethesda Naval Medical Center). Hospitals should be merged with the BNMC, Fort Detrick, the Dewitt Army Hospital, or other hospitals. The medical unit based at Bolling AFB should be relocated to Andrews AFB. Other hospital mergers and unit mergers should be decided by Service Secretaries. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Detrick; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeWitt_Army_Community_Hospital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_National_Military_Medical_Center; http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31660)
34) All records of veterans retired from the military should be stored exclusively by the DVA. The DOD should store the records of currently-serving servicemen and send these records to the DVA when these servicemen retire (but maintain the copies); and it should give the DVA any records it asks for. It shall manage the records together with the DVA.
35) The number of forms and signatures required of veterans by the DVA should be significantly reduced. The DVA should use all the information it has about veterans before it asks them for any further information, forms, or signatures. It must also solve all other problems mentioned by this article: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/va_nightmare_a_harbinger_of_wh.html
36) Burger King, KFC, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and Popeye restaurants should be banned from all American military installations in the US and abroad. Junk food should be banned from all American military installations, as well as OCSes, military academies, military colleges, and DOD-sponsored schools. (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/02/gns_obese_troops_020109/; http://www.frumforum.com/the-armys-war-on-fat)
37) All members of the US military should be required to perform an annual physical test consisting of e.g. 36 push-ups. If they don’t pass it, though, they should be allowed to try to pass the test again. Members who are too obese to serve should be allowed to physically exercise and pass the physical test before they are discharged.
38) The Congress (or state legislatures) should ban junk food and tobacco from all schools across the US, and require all American children to pass a comprehensive physical exam every 4 years. It should be required to graduate from elementary school and high school. It should entail: 1) push-ups 2) sit-ups 3) runs.
39) Cigarettes, cigarette machines and cigarette sellers shall be banned from, and smoking should be banned at, all American military installations (in the US and abroad) as well as OCSes, military academies, military colleges, and DOD-sponsored schools. This should include the Pentagon building. Smoking should also be prohibited for troops on duty, regardless of where they are.
40) The Congress should adopt the wide-ranging nutrition statute proposed by the Mission Readiness group, except that it should not increase nutrition funding. (http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2010/04/20/report_says_school_food_making_kids_unfit_to_serve)
41) All members of the US military should be forbidden to eat junk food and served only healthy food. (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/02/gns_obese_troops_020109/)
42) The US military should hire only physically-fit, non-obese individuals; yoga should not be taught to recruits; recruits should be required to do pushups, sit-ups and runs. Schools and parents must force American youngsters to do exercise frequently, and the percentage of youngsters ineligible to join the US military must be reduced from the current level (75%). The military’s training curriculum must be revised. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/army_softens_training_for_recr.html)
43) The military retirement age should be increased to 70 years of age. Military personnel should be entitled to a military pension after they serve for 30 years (which should be the baseline service period for military benefits). The retirement system must be dramatically simplified by the Congress. (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalpay/a/retirementpay.htm)
44) The DOD’s HC programs must be restructured and reformed so that they will function like free-market programs.
45) Military personnel dependents older than 18 years of age should not be eligible to use the DOD’s HC programs. It is ridiculous to claim that 26-year-old people are “children”.
46) The DOD should request additional Military Construction Appropriations to repair Camp Lejeune (NC), stop the toxic spill now plaguing that installation, and clean the base up. (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKnKFeGa3lUI&h=d68b8)
47) All medical facilites, agencies and commands of the DOD should be merged into a single Military Medical Command, which should be responsible to the relevant Assistant SECDEF. The saving would be $307 mn in CY/FY2007 dollars (i.e. $323.97 mn in 2010 dollars). (doctor-student.net/article.php%3Fid%3D616046)
48) The DOD should raise TRICARE program premiums to adequately finance that program. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4617597)
49) HC program costs must not be allowed to grow in real terms by even 1%, and must be reduced to their FY2001 levels.
50) The 2014 QDR must review how to stop the growth of personnel costs and HC program costs and how to reduce them. But even before the QDR is written, the DOD should submit reform proposals along with an annual DOD budget request. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4617597)
51) Every year, the DOD’s medical facilities and agencies must find savings on their programs.
52) The pill that treats PTSD (reported by the MSNBC) should be used widely by the DOD.
53) It shall be illegal to smoke on all lands owned by the DOD, at all DOD installations, inside all buildings owned or used by the DOD, and aboard all vehicles and ships owned by the DOD.
54) The DOD’s benefits and assistance policies must be modernized. They must stop emulating the failed Soviet model and start emulating the competitive private sector model, which is the envy of the world. (http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/93/2001-06-25%20re%20The%20DoD%20Challenge.pdf)
55) The DOD’s HC program system must be broadly restructured to save $460 mn per year, as per the recommendation of the GAO. In addition, all other reforms reccommended by the GAO in its report of 1/3/2011 should be implemented. (http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/gao-details-billions-in; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf) Also, all wasteful expenses identified by the DOD’s IG should be abolished.

56) The military’s pay, benefit and pension systems must be reformed and their costs must be significantly reduced. No member of the military should see a pay cut, but the current “one size fits all” model of pay, benefits, and pensions must be abolished and replaced with a graduated system which will reward combat personnel (and especially those such as Navy SEALs who conduct the most daring, most dangerous missions) more generously and noncombat personnel (e.g. desk officers, staff personnel, HQ personnel, and grass mowers) less generously. Also, the entire pensions (retirement packages) system must be reformed and its cost  significantly reduced; the required length of service and the military retirement age should be increased. Servicemembers should also be encouraged to remain within the ranks of the military for as long as possible, rather than retire when they’re in their 40s or 50s as is the case now. There should be no change for those who have already retired or are set to retire in the next few years, just as the SS program should not be changed for those who have already retired or are set to retire in the next few years. (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1570)

57) Every service must establish a task force on troopers’ suicides and implement every policy necessary to prevent troopers from committing suicide; American troopers and veterans should be told that they shouldn’t be ashamed if they’re suffering from TBI or PTSD and should be encouraged to go to DVA hospitals.
58) Drugs which don’t treat PTSD should be withdrawn. New drugs which treat PTSD must be invented and introduced.

59) The entire recommendation of the DBB regarding military pension reform (i.e. reform of the military retirement system) should be adopted, without prejudice to other proposals contained in the DRPP. The military retirement age should still be raised. The service years minimum should be 25 years. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/15/pentagon-scraps-traditional-pensions-in-its-proposed-retirement-program/)

60) If the costs of DOD medical programs increase, premiums should be increased further, but only to the extent necessary to fully fund these programs.

61) The following reforms recommended by the DOD in September 2011 should also be implemented: a) Military retirees would pay an annual fee for TRICARE-for-Life health insurance, and TRICARE pharmacy co-payments would be restructured; b) savings of $6.7 billion over 10 years by establishing “modest annual fees” for members of TRICARE-for-Life, which becomes a second-payer insurance to military retirees who transition to the federal Medicare program upon turning age 65. The change would begin with a $200 annual fee in fiscal 2013; c) savings of $15.1 billion in mandatory funds and $5.5 billion in discretionary funds over 10 years by restructuring co-payments for TRICARE pharmacy benefits; d) to bring the TRICARE plan more in line with private and other federal plans, the plan would eliminate co-pays for generic mail-order drugs, while shifting retail co-pays from a dollar amount to a percentage co-pay. The change would apply to military families and retirees, but not active duty service members. e) As the DOD’s plan proposes, there should be a “grandfather clause”. (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65377)

62) The DOD needs to devise some retirement system reform proposals to change the current retirement system so that it will no longer be profitable for servicemembers (LTCOLs, LTCDRs/CDRs, and Sergeants First Class) to retire immediately after 20 years of service. This means incentivizing them to retire at their prime during their best years, when they’re still fit to serve. Instead, the DOD’s retirement system should incentivize people to continue serving with the US military.(http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=72709754-3461-4884-b813-5793272602f2)

Aside from these reforms (including 30 cost-controlling methods), the DOD and the DVA could certainly devise additional ways of healthcare cost reduction if they wanted to. The goal should be to reduce the annual total cost of the DOD’s HC programs by 60%, from $50 bn proposed for FY2011 to $20 bn. (One analyst claims that the FY2010 cost of DOD HC programs was $59.7 bn.) This annual cost must, of course, be prevented from ever rising to $65 bn per year. (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4669) However, to stop the growth of, and reduce, HC program costs, the US government must also stop waging unnecessary wars and stop deploying American troopers to countries where they don’t need to be.

The DOD’s total personnel costs (not just the number of personnel) must be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced below today’s level of $148 bn per year (as of FY2012), not merely prevented from rising. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/an-unacceptable-squeeze-on-defense-modernization)

………………………………………
B) PROCUREMENT METHODS REFORM
1) Ramp up the production rates of F-35s, and order hundreds of additional F-35s to reduce the price per plane (i.e. to implement economies of scale). Large quantities of ships and planes (e.g. Virginia class submarines and F-35 planes) should be ordered to bring prices down. For example, the order for F-35s should be increased by 1172 planes. Weapons are cheaper to buy by the bulk. The US military must negotiate a reduction of the F-35’s cost-per-unit (or at least the price of the F-35A variant) to $75 mn, the same as for each F-35A to be sold to Japan, in return for a US military order of 2443 or more F-35s (additional F-35s should be ordered at an even lower price per unit) (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japan-swoops-for-f-35-shoots-down-typhoon-fa-18ef-366176/)
2) The DOD (and all other governmental departments) should always sign fixed-price contracts (they don’t do that now, the grim result being that contractors hike prices after contracts are signed).
3) Whenever a contractor of any governmental department (e.g. the DOD) allows a large-cost overrun to happen, the guilty contractor should be punished (the US government does not do that at present even though it legally could).
4) The US government should sign free trade agreements with raw material supplier countries (including titanium producing countries) to bring the prices of raw materials (including titanium, which is used to produce F-22s among other things) down.
5) The Defense Business Board (a subversive, traiterous organization) should be abolished.
6) The procedure for the acquisition of military equipment by the DOD should be as follows: when the DOD decides to order a new weapon type, it should first send RFPs and tell candidates what the exact requirements of the DOD are. After candidate corporations submit their proposals, the DOD should objectively evaluate them according to the requirements earlier stated to these candidates, and choose the best offer, regardless of local politics. For example, in the KC-X program, the DOD should choose whichever tanker type is the best one, regardless of the protests of trade unions and certain regionalist members of the Congress. (Update: the DOD has chosen Boeing.)
7) Program requirements should never change (except for exceptional circumstances) after the deadline for candidate corporations to submit bids.
(8) To curb inflation, the US government should stop printing money, and must adopt the gold standard.
9) To further drive weapon costs down, the DOD, the DOS and the White House should permanently conduct a huge campaign of promoting American weapons abroad in order to receive foreign contracts for American weaponry. Currently, foreign orders are small. For details, please read this: http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/what-american-weapons-should-be-offered-to-whom/
10) The US military must never decrease the number of weapons it has and must never trade quantity for quality.
11) The US military should have a two-service CSAR helicopter program (instead of a single-service CSARH program) and should conduct it together with allied militaries in order to 1) reduce unit costs (and total program costs) and 2) ensure the commonality of American and allied CSAR helicopters.
12) The US should ratify DTCTs with the UK and Australia; and negotiate, sign and ratify DTCTs with Denmark, Holland, Germany, El Salvador, Turkey, Kuwait, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Chile, Panama, Norway, the Philippines, Georgia, Colombia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, and Eritrea, and possibly other countries as well.
13) No-bid contracts should be banned.
14) Once the DOD signs an order for a given quantity of weapons, it should not reduce its order.
15) The US should sign titanium purchase agreements with the Russian state-owned titatium producing corporation and establish a vertical supply chain for titanium.
16) Multi-year-procurement-contracts should become the standard procedure for purchases of significant quantities of weapons.
17) The DOD must negotiate a reduction of the per-plane price of an F/A-18E/F plane to $40 mn with the producer of that planetype (Boeing). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALHwrfRsPNE)
18) With few exceptions made on a case-by-case basis, the DOD should rely exclusively on governmental employees rather than contractors. DOD contracts must be managed only by DOD employees, not by contractors.
19) The USAF’s crucial CSAR-X program (which was supposed to yield replacements for the USAF’s Combat Search And Rescue Helicopter Fleet) was cancelled in April 2009 by Bob Gates. I have developed an alternative way to replace the USAF’s vintage CSARH fleet: buy 141 (or more) casual H-60 Black Hawk helicopters and modify them for the CSAR role (as was done with the USAF’s first MH-60 helicopters – they weren’t purpose-built CSAR aircraft, but rather modified H-60 helicopters). Black Hawks (not CSAR helicopters) are currently being procured by the US Army and the USAF anyway, and have been procured for many years. As interim helicopters, the 27 H-1 Iroquis helicopters currently parked at AMARC, all H-34 helicopters currently parked at AMARC, all H-46 helicopters parked at AMARC, and all H-53 helicopters currently parked at AMARC, should be recommissioned and modified for the CSARH role. These helos should also become available to the governors of Gulf Coast states.
20) The US military should replace its UH-1 Iroquois utility helicopters and its UH-1N Huey utility/SAR helicopters with the same type of aircraft that will replace the USAF’s obsolete MH-60 CSAR helicopters. Such a common type of replacement helicopters would mean significant savings. For the USAF alone, it would mean a one-time saving of $600 mn.
21) America’s allies should not be required to obtain licenses to repair their American-produced equipment. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/reform-of-export-controls-is-part-of-the-gates-grand-design?a=1&c=1171)
22) America must create a single agency responsible for licensing and enforcement (which must be a part of the DOD), with one all-encompassing list of controlled items (right now there are several lists that are the responsibility of different agencies) and a unified information system for tracking license requests and licensed items. The US government should also establish a single enforcing agency that would enforce the law and coordinate, and a single black list of all end-receivers who must not be allowed to receive American technology. Such a list should include any country or group that is hostile to the US or conducts policies that harm the US. (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4613; http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=58830)
23) The USDOD should create a Strategic Weapon Programs Fund and finance the SSBNX program from it to protect other ship programs. The fund should receive money exclusively from the sales of exquisite equipment of the DOD and obsolete warships. These monies should be devoted exclusively to that fund. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/lynn-rejection-of-need-for-strategic-programs-fund-neglects-key-concerns?a=1&c=1171)
24) The contract for “the continued development, production, test, training, operations, and sustainment” of the MDA’s Ground-Based Midcourse BMD system should be submitted to a bid. Both Boeing and LM want to bid for it. It would be worth $4.2 bn over seven years. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1566818820101215?pageNumber=2)
25) The highest-priority programs of the DOD, such as bomber, submarine, fighterplane, tanker, AWACS, ICBM, SLBM, cruise missile, attack aircraft, aircraft carrier, amphibious assault ship and LPD programs, should be managed by three-star officers.
26) The New SSBN (SSBNX) program should use a modified Virginia class hull design or the Ohio class design, not an entirely new design, thus saving the USN $3 bn on every submarine. This means that the USN’s future submarines should be derivatives of the Virginia class, which is one of the quietest submarine classes on the planet. Every next-gen submarine should have 20 missile tubes, not 16 as the Navy plans. The Navy should buy 18, not 12, SSBNs.
27) As the Heritage Foundation has recommended, the Congress and the DOD should “Modernize Logistics Systems. Currently, performance-based logistics partnerships between Department of Defense and defense industry personnel have helped increase our combat capabilities. The Aerospace Industries Association estimates that modernizing and expanding such performance-based logistics could save as much as $32 billion per year.” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/The-Building-Blocks-of-a-Strong-National-Defense)
28) As the HF suggests, the Congress should “Undertake Broader Acquisitions Reform. Congress should promote a wider reform agenda for acquisitions that includes restoring a systems engineering team approach, simplifying criteria, continuing competition well into the production phase, and carefully deregulating the defense market to remove barriers to entry and cut through the red tape that drives up costs.” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/The-Building-Blocks-of-a-Strong-National-Defense)
29) The DOD should always use multiyear procurement contracts when ordering surface combatants, submarines, fighterplanes, attack aircraft, EW aircraft, bombers or helicopters, and any other products whose purchases are spread over more than one FY, because MPCs reduce costs and stabilize the shipbuilding industry and other industries that make products for the DOD. Almost all DOD weapon procurement programs should be conducted on a MYP basis. (http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/2010%20SASC%20Posture%20Hearing.pdf)
30) The DOD must develop a rapid, cost-efficient method/procedure of procuring everything it needs, including insulation materials and other products that reduce the rates of consumption of fossil fuels. But whenever possible, the DOD should buy commercial (civilian) off-the-shelf-products – e.g. civilian insulation materials, which the Army is already buying. (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61265)
31) Because the EFV program has been cancelled, the USMC should modernize its existing AAVs and receive amphibious M113 APCs that would be retired from the Army as a result of further Stryker APC purchases.
32) To further stabilize procurement programs, and all other defense programs, as well, the Congress should (1) combine the authorization and appropriations processes; (2) reduce the number of committees and subcommittees having overlapping oversight of DoD budgeting; (3) revise procedures to make it impossible for individual members to introduce amendments to the budget bill forcing the president to buy items not in his budget request; (4) shift to a biennial Defense budget; and (5) adopt reforms to further stabilize the procurement process, including funding more programs on a multiyear basis. The multi-year procurement method should be the rule, not the exception. These reforms were suggested as early as September 1988 by Secretary Frank Carlucci.(http://www.defense.gov/specials/secdef_histories/bios/carlucci.htm) To accomplish #4, the Congress should pass, and send the President for signature, the Biennial Budgeting Act (H.R. 114, S. 211) sponsored by Rep. David Dreier (CA-26) and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA). (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:11:./temp/~bdRfXv:@@@L&summ2=m&; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:6:./temp/~bdgLEU:@@@P)
33) The US military should purchase bombers (and other high-tech weapons) in “blocks” or batches, not in one huge tranche, and with block upgrades, as suggested by former DOD acquisition czar Dr Paul Kaminski. Such a reform would reduce costs and the development cycle and enable the DOD to add new capabilities or mods to aircraft as laboratories develop them. Dr Kaminski was right that “we can’t afford 20-year-development-cycles” – these days, technology progresses in months and years, not decades, and weapons can become obsolete in a decade or less. (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/09/dsb-chief-block-buys-best-for-bombers/)
34) The USN should limit the crew of each additional Burke class surface combatant it orders to 200 personnel, 100 fewer than on the Burke class vessels built so far; equip such warships with a new fuel-efficient “hybrid” powerplant derived from the DDG-1000’s electric motors; and equip it with bow bulb, located just above the sonar dome protrusion on the existing generation of warships. According to internal Navy studies cited by the CRS and defensetech.com, the second bow bulb would improve the ships’ fuel efficiency by about 4 percent and lead to slightly better speed and range. No new guns should be installed aboard these warships. Tomahawks should handle the CAS task. The DOD should promote competition between the two shipyards which build these ships to reduce costs. The cost of one Burke class vessel should be reduced from $1.843 bn – 2 bn to $1.4 bn or, preferrably, to $0.932 bn. That is to say that the cost of an Arleigh Burke class vessel should be reduced to $932 mn per ship, as is the case of the cost of a single King Sejong the Great class vessel, which is larger, heavier, and more heavily armed than an Arleigh Burke class vessel. UPDATE: The costofwar.com website says that the unit cost of a single Arleigh Burke class vessel is just $1 bn, but its cost should be still reduced further nonetheless. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/old-destroyer-g/; http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3655903&c=AME&s=SEA) In addition to all of these reforms, the USN should use multi-year-procurement procedures to achieve maximum possible savings on any Burke class warships it may purchase, and significantly reduce the crew of every new Burke class warship. Moreover, every year, the USN should be procuring the same number (at minimum two, and preferrably four) of such warships. The cost of one such warship must be reduced to no more than $1 bn, down from the current cost of $1.843 bn. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-build.htm; http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA543249)
35) The unit prices of all 3 F-35 variants must be reduced to no more than $40 mn. To help negotiate a cost reduction of the F-35C variant, the DOD should warn Lockheed Martin that it will either reduce the unit cost or lose some (or all) of the orders to Boeing and its F-18E-F Super Hornet aircraft. Similarly, Boeing should be warned that it must keep the unit cost down, and reduce it to 40 mn per plane, or it will receive no more orders for Super Hornets.
36) For all future weapon programs, the DOD must abide by the following principles: 1) precisely define the program’s requirements at the beginning of the program; 2) give yourself enough time to develop the weapon type; 3) incremental-knowledge based acquisition. (http://www.youtube.com/user/HASCRepublicans#p/u/19/AtwKKt4i5A0, 1:14:00)
37) Generally, for most equipment purchase programs, the DOD should employ competitive-bidding, competitive-purchasing procedures (as opposed to sole-source purchases), as is the case with the LCS program.
38) The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) should use its subpoena prerogative whenever necessary, including when contractors refuse to provide information requested by the DOD, and should deliberately look out for scandals, scams, cases of fraud, and cases of theft. The institutional culture of the DCAA should therefore be changed, and the directive related to the DCAA, signed in 2009 by Deputy SECDEF William Lynn, should be amended if need be. Also, the DOD must eliminate the staffing shortages, audit backlogs and significant audit delays experienced by the DCAA; increase the capability of companies to compete for, and obtain, federal contracts must be increased; replace “pass/fail audits” with “inadequate-in-part” audits; and ensure that it will take the DCAA no more than 3 months, rather than several months or years, to revalidate the corrections a contractor has taken to fix any inadequacies found in a contractor’s business system. (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=7953f7b8-84cb-49ef-ab26-9ed7078c9d6c)

(http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510536p.pdf)

39) The Alternative Jet Engine Program (the F136 jet engine program) should be maintained as a competitor to the F135 engine type. The short term cost of this program would be small; the long-term savings would be large, as is always the case when a competition is staged. The producer of F135 engines must not be granted a $130 bn dollar monopoly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II#Engines;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric/Rolls-Royce_F136)

40) Strict product quality standards and anti-counterfeit standards must be imposed on American and imported products, and the DOD must fight counterfeit products and ensure that it doesn’t buy them and that they do not reach the US military’s inventory. Anyone selling or trying to sell the US government counterfeit products must be severely punished. (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20110621.aspx)

41) There must be a fast-lane development/procurement procedures for those goods (including weapons) that troops need urgently. The Lean Six Sigma method should be used to hasten their production (and the production of all other products that the DOD buys). The Lean Six Sigma method should be implemented across the entire DOD.

42) For all future weapon programs, the DOD should use, to the fullest extent possible, off-the-shelf technology, including commercial off-the-shelf technology.

43) As suggested by former Vice Chairman of the JCS Gen. James Cartwright, the DOD should develop three lanes of development and acquisition of weapons and other goods: 1) a fast lane for the most urgently needed goods; 2) a medium-speed lane; 3) a slow-speed lane for long-term priority weapons that need to be developed slowly and carefully. However, the development times of even long-term priority weapons must be dramatically shorter than they are now, because technology progresses in months or years, not in decades.

44) The Congress should pass, and the President should sign, the Defense Cost-Type Contracting Reform Act of 2011 sponsored by Sen. McCain and cosponsored by Senators Ayotte and Graham (S.1694). Furthermore, for all current and future weapon programs, contractors should pay for 100% of any cost overruns, and must accept this rule as a part of the contract when they sign it. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:75:./temp/~bdgLEU::)

45) The DOD must open (create) competition throughout the life-cycle of weapon systems for components and subcomponents. Air Force estimates indicated that this type of competition could render up to $2 billion in savings annually when applied to sustainment of Air Force commercial derivative aircraft engines alone, yet the Department has not embraced this competitive approach.

46) The entire US government, including the DOD, must immediately stop buying anything (including parts for military systems) from China, and must buy everything they buy from American producers if possible. Protective tariffs should be instituted, China should be punished for the manipulation of its currency, a new Buy American EO and a new Buy American DOD Directive should be issued, and a new Buy American Act should be passed. All parts for all military systems used by the DOD must be produced in the US (not abroad), must have the “Made in the USA” label, must be new, and must be certified to have been produced in the US. This will protect the US military from flawed or used-up Chinese parts while rebuilding the US industrial base. (http://bigpeace.com/sfr/2011/11/08/defective-military-hardware-from-china/)

47) The JLTV program should reduced but not cancelled, as suggested by General Amos. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YYdc2sVuOpA#t=5051s)

48) To prevent a repeat of the “Ill wind” procurement scandal, the DOD and the Congress should: 1) criminalize insider information trading by DOD employees; 2) prohibit use of contract specifications to favor one contractor over others; and 3) prohibit collusive bidding by contractors while creating incentives for contractors not to make collusive bids. (http://www.defense.gov/specials/secdef_histories/bios/carlucci.htm)

49) To reform the Ground-Based Midcourse Interceptor program, the DOD should avoid excessive concurrency between development and deployment. The deployment of any further GBIs should be delayed until all problems with the GBI program are fixed and the interceptors are sufficiently tested.

50) The Stryker program should be cut and eventually closed, and any resulting savings should be used to upgrade M1 tanks to the M1A2 SEP TUSK standard (all M1 tanks should be upgraded to this standard); the Lima production plant must NEVER be closed; closing it would cost $380 mn, and restarting production 3 years later would cost $1.3 bn, a total cost of $1.68 bn, an utter waste of money; instead, the Army should keep the production plant open forever and continue to modernize M1 tanks to the M1A2 SEP TUSK standard; the GCV program should be delayed or cut if necessary to provide further funding to upgrade M1 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lima_Army_Tank_Plant; http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/21/the-tank-at-the-end-of-history/#ixzz1KFgG9QisDoDBuzz.com; http://www.supportabrams.com/; http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7184244&c=FEA&s=TEC; http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110715/FREE/110719927#)  The saving resulting from keeping the Lima Production Plant open permanently would be at least $1.68 bn over the FY2013-FY2016 period, and all of it should be reinvested in the modernization of all Army and USMC M1 tanks to the M1A2SEP TUSK standard.

51) In general, across all DOD procurement programs, costs can be contained by: starting programs on a solid foundation of knowledge with realistic cost and schedule estimates and budgeting to those estimates; locking in sufficiently defined requirements early; managing the cost, schedule and performance trade-space effectively to ensure that needed capability is procured within a fixed, reasonably short period of time; insisting on early and continued systems engineering; leveraging mature technologies and manufacturing processes, being careful about buying weapon systems that promise generational leaps in terms of capability; and certainly not doing so under cost-plus contracts. “We must also ensure transparency and accountability throughout, and use competition to encourage industry to produce desired outcomes and better incentivize the acquisition workforce to do more with less.  We should also embrace initiatives geared at making the government as skilled and knowledgeable a buyer as Industry is a seller.”. These reforms have been suggested by Sen. John McCain. No cost-plus contracts for anything should ever be signed by the DOD. (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=42987243-f045-7da7-6952-e32c98949a64)

52) The root causes of cost overruns and delays, identified by Sen. John McCain, must be tackled. They are: “aggressive promises for ‘revolutionary’ capability; poorly understood or fluid requirements; unrealistic initial cost estimates; overly optimistic schedules and assumptions; unreliable manufacturing and integration risk assessments; starting major production with an immature design or unproven critical technologies; and poorly performing government and industry teams.  The disruption from those root causes has been exacerbated by a shocking lack of any accountability.  So, over time, we have been left with a defense procurement system that has actually incentivized over-promising and underperformance.” (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=42987243-f045-7da7-6952-e32c98949a64

53) The DOD and weapon manufacturers must never ignore the basic laws of physics and chemistry,and must never develop weapons that consist of dissimilar metals, because such metals, when they meet, tend to corrode. An example is the F-22.

54) Concurrency between testing and production must always be avoided for all weapon programs. For the F-35 program, for which this phenomenon has already occurred, that concurrency must be reduced significantly. Therefore, the DOD should slown orders for F-35s for the next several years (or until LM demonstrates that the F-35 design is mature and that all design flaws have been resolved, and demonstrates the F-35’s basic flying qualities) to no more than 30 aircraft per year, and preferrably 24 aircraft per year. Of these, the majority of aircraft should be C-model (Navy variant) fighters, because the UK needs these aircraft ASAP. All cracks on A and B model aircraft must be addressed. The QLR’s report’s recommendations must all be implemented. All future tranches of F-35s (and all other weapons) must be bought under fixed price contracts.  (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-f-35-concurrency-reaches-turning-point-366056/) All other problems with the F-35’s design must also be resolved. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-f-35-concurrency-reaches-turning-point-366056/) The F-35’s B and C variants must undergo more frequent testing than before in order to catch up with the schedule (the C variant is only 5 test flights behind schedule, but the B variant is 30 test flights behind schedule). (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-finds-new-structural-weakness-on-two-f-35-variants-361687/; http://defensetech.org/2012/01/05/uk-concerned-about-f-35-slowdown/)

55) The DOD should consider creating a single procurement agency for the entire DOD similar to Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) which is responsible for the procurement of weapons for the entire Australian military and has an annual budget of 11.8 bn AUD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Material_Organisation)

56) All obstacles for troops to obtain the equipment they need in war must be removed. In January 2012, the Washington Times reported that such obstacles still exist.

57) The cost overruns that plague the SBIRS program must be ended and it must be completed on budget.

58) The DOD should adopt competitive acquisition strategies across the board, including for components and subcomponents of weapon and non weapon systems throughout the entire lifetime of a vehicle, plane, or ship. Air Force estimates indicated that this type of competition could render up to $2 billion in savings annually when applied to sustainment of Air Force commercial derivative aircraft engines alone, yet the Department has not embraced this competitive approach. (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=98c8b6cf-0f86-4151-a9db-e89ecd020788)

59) The cost of one San Antonio class LPD must be reduced to no more than 1.282 bn, and preferrably even less. Cost reductions should be negotiated with builders on the promise of additional orders, and competition should be used to reduce costs further.

60) All ship cost-cutting reforms proposed here should be implemented, except laying off workers or making them part-time employees, because that would only further damage the industrial base. Annual ship orders must be significantly increased (and under this plan, they would be) if the shipbuilding industry is to survive. It is nonsense to claim that the Navy can’t devote more than $15 bn per year to shipbuilding when the DON’s annual budget is ca. $170 bn and the DOD’s annual core budget is $526 bn. $15 bn is just 2.85% of the core defense budget. Even doubling the shipbuilding budget would mean it would amount to just 4.7% of the core defense budget. Radical cuts of bureaucracies, HQs, noncombat units, and fuel costs (as well as other savings proposed herein) should be used to pay for increases for orders for ships (and other weapons). (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=646#.TxcRW21BrOw.twitter)

61) The cost of a Virginia class submarine must be reduced down to 2 bn and preferrably even lower. This can be accomplished partially by implementing the reforms already planned by the program office and the ONR, and partially by significantly increasing the orders for these subs. They’re cheaper to buy in larger numbers. (http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Cost-Reduction-VA-Class-Subs.aspx)

62) The cost of one San Antonio class LPD must be brought down to no more than $1.28 bn and then further down to the cost of a single Mistral class vessel ($420 mn – $600 mn) to make this class competitive with the Mistral class.

There are only a few pseudomilitary procurement programs which should be closed. Here are those programs:
C) PROGRAM CLOSURES
1) The presidential helicopter fleet modernization program (which replaced the VH-71 program) should be closed. The DOD should order 12-19 VH-60 helicopters instead. The cost of a single VH-60 must be limited to no more than $15 mn.
2) The DOD should immediately cease purchases of RG-31s and MATVs.
3) The DOD should cancel the order for 54 RQ-4 Global Hawk drones and order 54 MC-12 Huron ISR planes (or 54 RQ-170s) instead, at a price of $10 mn per plane (for MC-12). The DOD should offer RQ-4 aircraft only to foreign countries (including France, Canada, Spain, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia). If no one orders any additional RQ-4 UAVs, the RQ-4 production line should be closed. The US military should standardize on the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance program. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45718)
4) The DOD should standardize on a single type of mine rolles – either the Army type or the USMC type.
5) All spending on MC-130s should be ended immediately, and the MC-130 program should be ended immediately. An adequate number of V-22s should be ordered instead.

6) The Reaper program. All orders for Reapers should be cancelled.

7) The Distributed Common Ground System program should be terminated. It has already cost $3 bn. It is over budget, 5 years behind schedule, and can’t perform even basic tasks.

(8) The Navy should terminate the LCS program. LCS ships are nonstealthy, unstable, unsurvivable, unable to defend themselves, and lack any offensive capabilities. The cost of a single LCS is $440 mn (2 times what it was originally supposed to be) without even counting the cost of LCS modules, without which LCS ships are incomplete. These ships are also suffering from serious corrosion problems – both the monohull and the trimaran. As Adm. James Lyons suggested, “The program should return to its original target of $220 million per ship and combine with the U.S. Coast Guard to build a dual-purpose ship with a credible integral combat system that can meet limited warfare requirements. This very different ship should be built in large numbers as part of the coming Ocean Patrol Cutter Program. Such a change would achieve huge savings for both the Navy and the Coast Guard tied to large production numbers. The funding saved from canceling the LCS could be used to procure the most capable high-end combatant ship with margins enough to allow future modernization.” Alternatively, the DOD could purchase 55 Holland class ships (which are cheaper than LCSes) or French-produced avisos (e.g. D’Estienne D’Orves) or British-produced offshore patrol vessels. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/18/cruising-for-a-bruising/; http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/05/why-we-need-better-ships/; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/01/ship-shopping-list/; http://blog.al.com/live/2010/12/navy_seeking_deadline_extensio.html;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576050230082124722.html;http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20110621.aspx)

The savings resulting from this cancellation would run into tens of billions of dollars.

9) The Army’s D6A program, a multi-billion-dollar intelligence program, should be cancelled and replaced by the intelligence program that all other services, as well as PayPal, use at a total cost of just $25 mn, as suggested by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YYdc2sVuOpA#t=5051s)

10) The MEADS program should be cancelled, and the resulting savings should be used to develop and buy a new variant of the PATRIOT system to provide the same capability. Even though this will require buying dozens of additional PATRIOT batteries, it will still cost a lot less than continuing the MEADS program.

…………………………………………………
D) BUREAUCRACY REDUCTION
1) The US military should transport only the necessary WH staff (e.g. the Secret Service), medical staff and military staff during official tours; only such staff should be allowed to make tours on any DOD-owned aircraft; all in all, an American delegation for a summit should number no more than 100 people.
2) The staff of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Public Affairs should be reduced by 50%.
3) Reduce the staff of the Office of the SECDEF by 75%, and the budget of the OSD by 75%. This should include a reduction of the SECDEF’s salary by half, and a reduction of the salary of the DOD spokesman ($165,000 per year) by 25%.
4) The DOD Police should be merged with the Pentagon Police, and should become responsible for the Pentagon in Arlington (VA). It should also be merged with the PFPA, and inherit all of their rights and duties. (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510568p.pdf)
5) The Office of the Under SECDEF for Policy should be abolished. The “Defense Prisoner of War/MIA Office” should report to the USD for Personnel; the Offices of “the ASD for Intl Security” and “the ASD for Global Security” should be merged and should report directly to the SECDEF and the Deputy SECDEF. The five Under Secretaries of Defense reporting directly to the SECDEF shall be: USD (Comptroller), USD for AT&L, USD for Personnel and Readiness, USD for Global Security Affairs, USD for Intel. Alongside them, the Director ofA&M at the OSD, the General Counsel of the DOD, the DOD’s IG, the SECDEF’s Assistant for Public Affairs (who should replace the USD for Public Affairs), and the chiefs of some DOD agencies should also report to the SECDEF. Thus, there would be only 5 USDs reporting to the SECDEF, and their title would be the same: “Under Secretary of Defense for …”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Secretary_of_Defense_for_Policy; http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/DoD_Structure_Jan2008.png)
6) The number of Naval Districts should be reduced from 10 to 7 by: a) merging the DC Naval District with the 5th Naval District; b) merging the 13th Naval District with the 17th Naval District (and the HQ should be in Juneau); c) merging the 8th Naval District with the 7th Naval District. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_district)
7) The CIA should be abolished because it pointlessly duplicates (and rivals with) the DIA. All of its personnel, equipment, and buildings should be given to the DIA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency)
(8) The Pentagon Task Group on Climate Change should be dissolved.
9) The number of paperwork doers in the Pentagon must be reduced by at least 25% (http://www.bens.org/our-work/signature-issues/defense-reform/tail-to-tooth-commission/why-t2t.html). The number of lawyers employed by the DOD should be reduced by at least 10%.
10) The office of Deputy Under Secretary of the Army and the office of the Chief of Public Affairs of the Army should be dissolved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Organization_of_the_Department_of_the_Army_Headquarters.png) The office of the Chief of Naval Information should be merged with the office of the Chief Information Officer of the Navy.
11) The cost of overhead must be reduced as a share of the DOD budget from 40% now to no more than 20%, and ideally 10%.
12) The DOD must review all of the “positions” it maintains and consider how many of them could be merged or abolished.
13) The number of command tiers/ bureaucracy tiers separating the SECDEF from a line officer must be reduced from 30 to 17, and ideally to 9.
14) All contractors who only supervise other contractors, all bureaucrats who only supervise other bureaucrats, and all secretaries who only supervise other secretaries should be sacked.
15) The USMC’s Combat Development Command (MCCDC), which is responsible for training and similar roles, should be merged with the USMC’s Training and Education Command.
16) The cost of the administration of the Department of the Army must be reduced by 25%, from $13.786 bn to $10.3995 bn.
17) The number of Presidential appointees (incl. Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and Under Secretaries) employed by the DOD must be reduced by at least 50%. The number of Under Secretaries of Defense should not exceed 5 (plus one Assistant to the SECDEF for Public Affairs), and they should be: USD for ATL, USD for Personnel and Readiness, USD for Intelligence and Counterintelligence, USD for Global Security Affairs, and USD (Comptroller).
18) All unneeded boards and commissions in the DOD must be abolished. Their number must therefore be halved from the current level (65), as must be their cost ($75 mn per year). One of the boards that should be dissolved should be the Defense Policy Board. (http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13782)
19) The number of the internally-demanded reports and studies generated every year must be reduced by at least 25% from the level to which Robert Gates proposed to reduce them. The DOD should also work with the Congress to reduce the number of Congressionally-directed reports (no fewer than 905 per year as of 2011) by at least 75%. Likewise, the number of the intel reports generated by the DOD’s intel agencies and the rest of the USIC should be reduced by at least 25%. (http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13782; http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/93/2001-06-25%20re%20The%20DoD%20Challenge.pdf)
20) The DOD should review if every single building it owns is truly needed, and sell all unneeded buildings.
21) At the DOD, there should be only one agency (and only one military command, subordinated to it) responsible for information operations (influencing foreign populations to like the US); and only one agency (and one military command, the US Cyber Command) responsible for cyber wars.
22) The General Counsels of the AF, the Navy and the Army should be laid off; their duties should be assumed by their service JAGs, who, like all JAGs, must be admitted into the bar of at least one state.
23) The Air Force District of Washington should be abolished. The USAF Honor Guard, Andrews AFB and Bolling AFB should be subordinated to the Air Mobility Command.
24) The Sixteenth Air Force should be deactivated, as should be the AFRICOM. All USAF units based in the continent of Europe, from Lisbon to the Urals, should all be subordinated to the Third Air Force, and through it, to the EUCOM.
25) Eventually, the three military departments should be abolished as Sen. Stuart Symington proposed in 1961; the four Services should be subordinated directly to the SECDEF and the Military Departments’ functions should be assigned to the four Services and to the OSD.

26) The office of Senior Military Assistant to the SECDEF should be abolished. The Chairman of the JCS should perform that function. The offices of Vice Chairman of the JCS and Director of the Joint Staff should be merged – the Vice Chairman of the JCS should be, ex officio, the Director of the JS.

27) The cost of the amalgam of DOD bureaucracies, agencies, and commands (known by the DOD employees as the 4th Estate) must be reduced from $63 bn per year to $21 bn per year, i.e. by a factor of three. The resulting savings would be $42 bn per year. (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1570)

28) Also, the current apparatus for managing people and money across the DoD enterprise is woefully inadequate. The agencies, field activities, joint headquarters, and support staff functions of the department operate as a semi-feudal system – an amalgam of fiefdoms without centralized mechanisms to allocate resources, track expenditures, and measure results relative to the department’s overall priorities. This must end. All DOD agencies, field activities, joint HQs, and SSFs must be subordinated directly to the OSD and forced to report, every year, how much money they spend annually and how many people they employ. (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1570)
29) These amendments should be adopted to reduce the size of the DOD bureaucracy: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-363; http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=112&amdt=h328

30) The number of DOD committees that must approve requirements for every weapon program must be dramatically reduced from the current number (40). (http://www.youtube.com/user/securefreedom#p/u/27/cDLQFIyjB-g)

31) NAVSEA/Bureau of Ships should employ no more than 4,000 people, which it was employing during the 1980s, when it was buying 28 ships per year; and ideally to 1,000 people, which it was employing during WW2, when it was buying 1,000 ships per year. The Bureau of Ships should instead bet on the quality of personnel – it should employ engineers, businessmen, MBAs, and MIT and VT graduates. (http://www.youtube.com/user/securefreedom#p/u/27/cDLQFIyjB-g)

32) The vast majority (if not all) report requirements and statistics requirements imposed on squadron commanders must be abolished. Military personnel should be allowed to use salty language in non-official conversations; anonymous complaints should no longer be accepted; alcohol infractions, unless they cause a disaster, should not be career-enders; neither should be views about sexual orientations, risque jokes, speech likely to offend favored groups, or mere SUSPICIONS of sexual harrassment, and any allegations of such missteps must be reported by name, not anonymously via a hotline. Military literature must not favor any group nor emphasise the achievements of historically-discriminated groups. The military’s politically-correct culture must be ended. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/18/lehman-rocks-navy-complaints-about-political-corre/?page=all)

33) The DOD should not be micromanaged by the Congress, and should be debureaucratized. Specifically:

The Congress should allow the DOD to consolidate its three Post Exchange systems, thus repealing the law that currently prohibits the DOD to do so. (http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/93/2001-06-25%20re%20The%20DoD%20Challenge.pdf)
The DOD should not be required to ask the Congress for permission to build a $500,000 building. (http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/93/2001-06-25%20re%20The%20DoD%20Challenge.pdf)
The DOD’s policies should stop bouncing officers and their families from assignment to assignment every 2-3 years and then easing them out to retirement between the ages of 45 and 55, while they’re still fit to serve. (http://library.rumsfeld.com/doclib/sp/93/2001-06-25%20re%20The%20DoD%20Challenge.pdf)
The DOD should be allowed to move any amount of money up to $20 bn freely from one DOD account to another, without prejudice to other provisions of the DRPP.
Uniformed people should perform only military jobs.
The number of pages of justifications the DOD must submit every year to the Congress (26,000 as of 2005) and the number of reports the DOD must submit to the Congress annually (800 as of 2005) must be radically reduced (by at least 75%).
The time it takes to develop a new weapons system must be significantly reduced.
A National Defense Authorization Act should number no more than 20 pages. The FY2005 NDAA numbered 534 pages. The NDAA for FY2012, as passed by the House, numbers 920 pages.
The Congress should significantly reduce the number of changes it makes every year to existing RDT&E programs.
Not only should the retirement age be significantly increased, but also military officers should be encourage to serve with the military until they’re really too old to serve. These days, military officers retire when they’re 45-55 years old.To quote Secretary Rumsfeld: “We spend millions of taxpayer dollars training top-notch officers and senior enlisted, giving them experience-and then we shove them out the door in their 40s and early 50s, when they are at the top of their game — and we will be paying 60% of their base pay and providing them with comprehensive healthcare for the rest of their lives. The loss in talent and experience to the Department and the country is sizable.“

The Congress and the DOD should establish more flexible military retirement rules, so that those who want to serve longer have the option of doing so-so we can retain talent instead of automatically pushing it out the door.

The Congress should establish sunset procedures for the hundreds of required reports so that we can discontinue those that have outlived their usefulness. We simply must find better ways to exchange data between DoD and Congress, so that the Congress gets the information it needs to assess performance and the DOD does not have to employ armies of personnel and consultants preparing information members of Congress no longer need.

(http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=179)
The DOD should stop transferring officers from one assignment to another during a period of just 16 months.
The DOD should reduce its huge number of inspectors, auditors, and investigators.
The DOD should, if possible, reduce the number of people who develop and justify the DOD budget, and ensure that all remaining budget developers and justifiers ensure that the DOD budget is spent effectively and produces the desired results.

34) “The DoD’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposed spending $87.6 billion on contracted services, a $23.7 billion (38 percent) increase from the previous year.” The DOD needs to freeze the cost of contracted services at the FY2011 level or only slightly above, which would be $63.9 bn in FY2011 dollars. They must be bought for a lower price, some can be discontinued, and others can be performed by government employees. The DOD nowadays spends more money on buying contracted services than on buying goods (such as weapons). Update: the FY2012 NDAA, if signed into law, would freeze this spending at FY2010 levels, a necessary first step. (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/floor-statement-on-the-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012/?section=alltypes)

35) Government employees, including civilian DOD employees, must earn no more than the average pay of a private sector worker.

36) The Air Force should consider closing the Air Force Materiel Command (the buying department of the Air Force) and assigning its acquisition functions to other Air Force Commands (and establishing new task-specific commands for that purpose if necessary); for example, the ACC would be responsible for the acquisition of fighterplanes, drones, and B-3s; the Global Strike Command would be responsible for the acquisition of ICBMs and post-B-3 bombers; the Airlift Command would be responsible for buying cargoplanes, tankers, CSAR aircraft, and other such aircraft; the Air Force Space Command would be responsible for buying all space-related systems (including rockets and satellites). When the Navy Material Command was closed in 1985 by SECNAV John Lehman, many bureaucrats were laid off and much money was saved.

E) FUEL COST REDUCTION

The DOD spends $15 bn per year on “energy” and is responsible for 80% of the federal government’s annual rate of consumption. 75% of that energy consumed annually is spent operationally. Unfortunately, the DOD’s Energy Strategy of June 2011 doesn’t even begin to address this issue. Here are the solutions:
1) The entire “green fuels” scam in the DOD must be ended IMMEDIATELY and all persons involved in it, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, fired and prosecuted. All “alternative fuel usage” and “alternative energy sources usage” mandates and goals, and all “alternative fuel” programs and purchases, must be ended immediately. The military should NOT buy ANY “alternative fuels” except Fischer-Tropsch fuel. It should never buy any kind of fuel which costs more than JP-5 or JP-8 fuel. It must always buy the cheapest possible fuel. Naval aircraft should be propelled SOLELY by pure 100% JP-5 fuel, which costs less than $4 per gallon, while algae-derived fuel costs $15-$26 per gallon. ONLY fossil fuels and nuclear fuel should be used by the DOD, and nothing else. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48175; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/navy-agriculture-departments-to-purchase-biofuels-for-fleets/; http://news.investors.com/article/594703/201112131558/navy-biofuel-gate-latest-obama-green-scam.htm; http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/12/10/navy-buys-biofuel-for-16-a-gallon/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha;http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ContentRecord_id=790b0fed-12a0-4705-b5d6-bee09c0c435b&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=13e47ffa-0753-47a7-ad5e-1ba7592015c9; http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel; http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/o_algae_save_us_from_big_oil.html; http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123196846; http://www.redstate.com/badkarma6/2011/12/18/propping-up-the-green-industry-via-the-military/)
2) Require that all US military installations (except Nellis AFB) be powered only by nuclear reactors and coal electric plants.
3) The DOD should not finance any nonmilitary-related projects, including any nonmilitary-related energy or technology projects. This includes spending on any noncompetitive energy source, any noncompetitive civilian technological device, or any other non-military-related thing. Moreover, catalyzing a commercially viable alternative energy industry is not within the military’s purview. Even it if were, the federal government has a horrible track record of developing products for commercial use. In most cases, governments fund things that have no market value—hence the need for government support. No such money should be provided by any government agency, including the DOD, to any things that lack any market value. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)
4) The US military should encourage the construction of synthethic fuel factories around the country, ignore environmentalists’ protests, and deny that global warming is happening.
5) All future Amphibious Assault Ships of the US Navy should be propelled by nuclear reactors rather than diesel engines. This would cost only 4% more than conventional propulsion, and only on the basis of an optimistc assumption that during the next 3 decades the price of oil will not grow by more than 1% per year above inflation. If the price of oil grows annually by at least 1.7% per year above inflation rates from now until 2040, nuclear propulsion will become economical for Amphibious Assault Ships.
6) The US military should start recycling nuclear fuel.
7) All civilian employees of the DOD should use laptops rather than stationary PCs (laptops are 11 times more electricity-efficient than stationary computers).
(8) The Army’s solar electric plant project should be cancelled.
9) The DOD should stop trying to “green” the US military. (http://bigjournalism.com/lfairchok/2010/02/16/condition-red-obama-attempts-to-turn-the-defense-department-green/)
10) No flyovers.
11) People who are not members of the Executive Branch (including the Speaker of the House) should fly commercial airliners, not military jets. Military VIP jets must be reserved exclusively for members of the Executive Branch. The fleet of Gulfstream-V jets should be reduced from 9 to only 6 jets. Any orders for any additional VIP jets (excluding three large VIP jets to replace SAM28000 and SAM29000) must be cancelled. (http://www.ntu.org/news-and-issues/multimedia/new-jets-ordered-for-congress.html)
12) The USAF should use Fischer-Tropsch fuel for 80% of its North America based aircraft by 2050. To enable the US industry to produce large quantities of FT fuel, the USAF (or the Dept. of the Interior) should donate land to FT fuel producers, if they build FT fuel factories on it. All environmental restrictions on the US military must be abolished. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340923,00.html)
13) All civilian cars owned by the DOD must meet a 80-mpg CAFÉ standard. Simoultaneously, the fleet of civilian cars owned by the DOD must be reduced by 50% and the surplus cars should be sold. The SECDEF should stop riding gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs and start riding in highly-efficient cars such as Ford Mondeos.
14) The US military should exploit all unused coal reserves in the US.
15) All algae in the US must be reserved for fuel producers, so that they can produce biofuels for the US military if need be.
16) Winglets should be installed on all civilian aircraft of the DOD (C-40s, Gulfstream jets, C-32s, E-4s, VC-25s, OC-135s, WC-135s, B737s, etc.) and on all KC-10 tankers of the DOD. All future civilian aircraft that the DOD will buy must have winglets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Winglet_upgrades)
17) The USAF should replace its 4 B757s (C-32s) and its 2 B747s (VC-25s) with 4 B787s. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/AF1-012809.xml&headline=Boeing%20Only%20Contender%20for%20New%20Air%20Force%20One)
18) WH helicopters should be available ONLY to members of the Executive Branch, and no one else. (http://www.frumforum.com/dnc-donors-paid-for-pole-dancers-plus-wh-helicopters)
19) New engines should be installed on all B737s owned by the DOD to reduce the amount of fuel consumed every year by B737s. This would mean a saving of $125,000 per year per plane. (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/01/bca_fuel-efficient_737_01_18_11.html)
20) LV100-5 engines should be installed on all M1 tanks of the US military, and should be made able to run on Fischer-Tropsch fuel and on a 50/50 blend of diesel and FT fuel. New APUs should be installed on all M1 Abrams tanks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)
21) C-26 aircraft shall be used only as cargo aircraft, not as antinarcotics aircraft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-26_Metroliner)
22) All American military installations, academies, colleges and office buildings (such as the Pentagon building) should be provided with electricity exclusively by nuclear reactors, hydroelectric plants, NG electric plants, and coal electric plants.
23) The statute which prohibits the US government to buy synthetic fuel which emits more CO2 when produced than oil-derived fuels must be repealed. The DOD should not sequestrate the CO2 emitted when such fuel is produced, but it should use biomass as well as coal and natural gas to produce such fuel. Similarly, Section #526 of the 2008 NDAA must be repealed. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3969089&c=FEA&s=TEC) Biomass should be used to produce synthetic fuel only when it becomes as cheap as coal. When it does, a sufficient amount of biomass should be reserved for the US military.
24) The US military should use Fischer-Tropsch fuel (alongside petroleum-derived fuels) to propel its tanks, IFVs, APCs, MLRSes, trucks, generators and heaters. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3969089&c=FEA&s=TEC) When buying synthetic fuel for any purposes, the US military should not discriminate against foreign synthetic fuel producers.
25) When buying synthetic fuel, the US military should require that synthetic fuel be derived from lignite or other cheap genres of coal. This will guarantee that the US military will always buy the cheapest genre of fuel possible. Other genres of coal are also acceptable, though. (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3969089&c=FEA&s=TEC)
26) All bases and buildings of the DOD should be thermically isolated. (http://lci.tf1.fr/science/environnement/2010-04/l-armee-americaine-se-met-au-vert-5824550.html)
27) The DOD must not use any foodstock plants as sources of fuel. (http://lci.tf1.fr/science/environnement/2010-04/l-armee-americaine-se-met-au-vert-5824550.html)
28) All of the DOD’s green programs, including those of the Air Force, including all DOD wind turbine programs, must be terminated. As reported bz Sen. Coburn in December 2011: “The Air Force attempted a $14 million construction project to convert three Alaskan radar
stations from diesel to wind turbine energy using stimulus funds, but had no assurance the
project was properly planned or would result in any cost savings, the Department of Defense
(DoD) Inspector General (IG) found. As a result, the IG told the Air Force to shut down their construction efforts at one station
altogether, and to consider ending the other two before spending more taxpayer funds on the botched effort. The Air Force undertook the project with stimulus money earmarked for “shovel-ready” projects. But the IG found the turbine idea wasn’t “shovel-ready” when the Air Force committed to it. “[DoD] did not ensure that the three wind turbine projects. . . were adequately planned,” the IG wrote in an October 2011 report. “As a result, DoD cannot ensure that the three wind turbine projects are viable, that [DoD] personnel appropriately selected the projects for Recovery Act funding, and that Recovery Act funds were appropriately used.” As a result of the audit, the Air Force has decided to cancel construction on one of the turbines. But the unspent money from that turbine won’t be saved –– they will use part of it to pay for cost overruns on the other two turbines. If there is any money left over after that, the Pentagon says, it won’t go back to the Treasury, but will be spent on “additional, appropriate. .. project(s) yet to be identified.” (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365)
29) The DOD should stop trying to “green” fighterplanes (including F/A-18 jets). (http://lci.tf1.fr/science/environnement/2010-04/l-armee-americaine-se-met-au-vert-5824550.html; http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/22/341032/navy-green-hornet-goes-supersonic-with-biofuel.html; http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123197414)
30) The DOD should review all of its infrastructure in the US and abroad (including all of its buildings). Those that are not needed and will never again be needed should be dismantled so that they can be taken off the books and so that the DOD will no longer need to maintain them (and to save energy costs). In the case of DOD infrastructure abroad, unneeded infrastructure should be returned to the host countries. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVhh8gqXSUA)
31) A military counterpart of the following hydrogen fuel research program should be created at the DARPA. It must be well-funded and made a priority program of the DARPA. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/cheap_energy_and_genetic_engin.html; http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=engineered-virus-harnesses-light-to-10-04-14
32) All civilian vehicles of the DOD and the rest of the US government must be fit for a 50/50 blend of FT fuel and casual gasoline, as well as for 100% Fischer-Tropsch fuel.
33) Notwithstanding the above policies, the DOD should always buy the cheapeast available fuel, regardless of whether it’s ordinary kerosene or something else.
34) When buying algae-derived fuel (if at all), the DOD should buy only AD fuel produced from oil from an algae fermentor, not from an algae pond (except when the price of oil is above $70/bbl) nor a PBR. It should also produce oil from algae from Kentucky bogs and from Chesapeake bay. (http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/5-Issues-with-Algae-Fuels.html)
35) B-52s (including the B-52s from AMARC that will be recommissioned) and E-3s should receive new, fuel-efficient engines.
36) The entire civilian vehicle fleet of the DOD (and the rest of the federal government), and if possible, all light-armored ground vehicles of the DOD (including Humvees and MRAP vehicles) and USN ships should have their engines replaced with flexible or LPG-propelled engines to wean the DOD off oil-derived fuels. Similarly, oil should not be used to heat DOD buildings – natural gas, electric devices, geothermal devices, and solar devices should be. The federal government’s car fleet (including the car fleet of the DOD) should be reduced by 50%.
37) Economies of scale must be implemented to ensure that alternative fuels are financially viable (i.e. that they do not cost more than regular fuels). (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123197414)
38) The T55 engines of all H-47 Chinook helicopters must be replaced with new engines to reduce their fuel consumption rate by 1/3 and costs by 1/2. (http://www.vectorsite.net/avch47_2.html#m4)
39) (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123196846)
40) All new civilian aircraft bought by the DOD must be equipped with winglets.
41) New engines, ones which will save 19% of the fuel consumed by E-3 aircraft, should be installed on E-3 planes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry#Future_direction)
42) When the First Lady travels anywhere, she should never use the USAF’s VC-25s (B747s); instead, she should use smaller aircraft such as B757s or Gulfstream jets. Similarly, the President of the United States should, whenever possible, use one of the USAF’s 4 B757s or Gulfstream jets rather than B747s. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050002/the-obama-presidency-increasingly-resembles-a-modern-day-ancien-regime-extravagant-and-out-of-touch-with-ordinary-people/)
43) All tents of the US military should be foam insulated and have solar batteries; the US military should buy tents that have solar batteries en masse to equip all of its infantry units. All buildings of the DOD which the DOD does not plan to close or sell should be thermally-isolated. (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61265)
44) The US military should immediately stop fueling its ground vehicles and conventional ships with regular diesel and start fueling them with Fischer-Tropsch fuel (or a blend of FT fuel and regular diesel), which should be derived from coal, peat or wastewood. The US military should not buy any FT fuel derived from natural gas, because NG should be reserved for the civilian market.
45) This equipment should be standard gear for all US Army and USMC units. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/afghanistans-green-marines-cut-fuel-use-by-90-percent/; http://www.usmc.mil/unit/1stmardiv/Pages/RenewableenergyvitaltoMarinessuccessinAfghanistan.aspx)
46) These fuels and policies should be implemented: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/fueling_the_future_british_sci.html; http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/the_energy_technology_breakthr.html
47) The mandate on the DOD to derive 25% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 (codified in Section 2911(e) of Title 10 of the United States Code) must be repealed IMMEDIATELY. If the Congress refuses to repeal it, the President and the DOD should announce that they will refuse to abide by it. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)
48) The Army should designate further “pilot net zero installations”, and the other Services should designate their first such installations.

49) Any alternative energy sources should be used only if they reduce costs or increase military capabilities. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)

50) No long-term contracts based on price floors for anything, fuel or anything else, shall be signed by the DOD. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)

51) As the Heritage Foundation recommends, “Establish a capabilities-based determination on the best way to ensure secure domestic base energy supplies. An over-reliance on the U.S. electricity grid is emerging as a concern for some military planners. An attack on the civilian grid could leave domestic military bases without power. While this fear may be legitimate, by itself it does not justify alternative energy investments.” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)

52) No greenhouse gas emissions limitations should be imposed on the DOD. Any such limitations must be repealed. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)

53) The DOD should recycle all of its metal, plastic, and paper waste.

54) Neither the White House nor the DOD nor the Congress should mandate any expensive alternatives to fossil fuels. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/06/Capability-Not-Politics-Should-Drive-DOD-Energy-Research)

55) The DOD shall buy only traditional lightbulbs (which are much cheaper than fluorescent bulbs). (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/green_follies_escalate_in_the.html)

56) In the CONUS, in Japan, and in South Korea, for heavy ground vehicles, and cargo, the DOD should use trains rather than road transport or aircraft transport, wherever possible.

57) Solar panels should be installed on the roofs of buildings and vehicle hangars at all military bases in FL, CA, NM, AZ, and NV, including the roofings over tank parking spaces at 29 Palms. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=331678120186444&set=a.331680660186190.77942.100000327763907&type=1&ref=nf)

58) As a response to high oil prices ($110/bbl as of 24/1/2012), all ships of the America class after the USS America should be nuclear-propelled.

F) PERSONNEL REDUCTION
1) Reduce the aggregate number of civilian employees of the three service departments by at least 50%; The number of DOD speechwriters must be reduced by 50%; the number of DOD advisors must be reduced by 25%.
2) Radically reduce the number of generals (Russia plans to reduce the number of serving Russian generals from 1100 to 900). The number of generals and admirals should be reduced to no more than 776 (the pre-9/11/2001 number) from the current number (876), and preferrably to 700. Also, reduce the number of DOD civilian employees to the CY2000 level. This means that the growth of the number of generals, admirals and DOD civilian employees since 2000 must be completely reversed. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ranks.htm;http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13782) Furthermore, the military should cancel and revoke its plans to lay off (pinkslip) captains, majors, and colonels, and instead radically reduce the number of generals and admirals, to no more than 700. Retiring OF-3 to OF-6 rank officers, who are at their prime, makes no sense. Analyst Kerry Payton estimates this number to be 919, not 876, as of 11-5-2011. It should be reduced, in any case, to no more than 700. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/dod_mismanages_its_force_reduction_program.html)
3) The annual cost of military personnel (which was $170 bn in FY2010), on the whole, must be radically reduced, by no less than $40 bn, and its inflation-adjusted growth must be stopped. Salaries and privileges must be reviewed. The DOD must also invent a system that will be generous enough to recruit and retain high-quality people, but not one that will cause the DOD to collapse under the weight of personnel costs like GM and Chrysler did. (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1508)
4) Dual-hat some commands and merge others (e.g. the US Army’s FORSCOM should be merged with the Army’s SDDC, and the Army’s Materiel Command should be merged with the Army’s AASC);
4a) Replace all C-5As with C-17s (the crew of a C-17 consists of 3 people; the crew of a C-5 jet consists of 9 folks) or An-124s or An-225s;
5) Replace the 3 Seawolf-class SSNs with 3 Virginia-class submarines when the Seawolf-class retires;
6) Cap the salaries of all civilian employees of the DOD.
7) Require that every new ship program reduce the number of personnel required for 1 ship in comparison to the ship program it is replacing (the Gerald R Ford class is supposed to require 25% fewer crewmen than the Nimitz class); and
(8) On the whole, the number of the DOD’s civilian personnel (800,000 people as of September 2011) should be reduced, on the whole, by at least 20% through attrition (replacing only 50% of retiring civilian DOD employees), even taking hirings of significant numbers of civilian DOD personnel for tasks such as acquisition into account. The system of salaries and pensions for these civilian employees must be reformed so that its cost will be reduced in real terms. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576416271311589238.html?mod=googlenews_wsjv)
9) The posts of the Vice Chairman of the JCS, and the Administrative Advisor of the SECAF should be abolished as should be the entire Environmental Division of the CNO’s Office the AFIS and the AFPS; the military bands of the USAF, of the USMC, of the USN and of the US Army (except their central bands) should be dissolved.
10) The Honor Guards of the four services of the DOD should be reduced by 50%. The 3rd Infantry Regiment of the US Army should be reduced to 1 battalion.
11) The Army’s PSYOPS group, the 4th PSYOPS group, should be disbanded. It’s a useless propaganda unit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Psychological_Operations_Group)
12) The aggregate number of soldiers and marines should be initially capped at the 2009 treshold.
13) The US Army’s NASCAR team should be abolished. (http://www.army.mil/-images/2009/07/13/44751/army.mil-44751-2009-07-14-070737.jpg)
14) The US government should abolish the CIA and assign its functions to other intel agencies (e.g. the DIA). It should also create a dedicated counterintel agency at the DOD.
15) Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Asian part of Russia should be added to the AO responsibility of the USPACOM. The US Africa Command should be disbanded; Africa should become an AOR of the US Central Command. Israel and the rest of Asia Minor, should be added to the AOR of the USCENTCOM, too.
16) The presidential helicopter fleet should be replaced with 14 VH-60 helicopters. No separate program for that purpose is needed, these 14 VH-60s should be derivates of H-60s.
17) The Naval Historical Center and the Army Historical Center shall be abolished, and all historians employed by the DOD except the historians at military universities shall be retired and not replaced.
18) The Joint Staff’s personnel should be reduced by at least 25%; the Air Staff’s personnel and the Naval Staff’s personnel should both be reduced by 10%. The personnel of the Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy of the JCS should be reduced by at least 25%. (http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6545)
19) The US Strategic Command’s Center for Combating WMDs should be abolished. The Civil Affairs Commands of the US Army should be merged to form 2 commands, one on the East Coast and the other one on the West Coast (in CA); their personnel should be reduced by 50%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Civil_Affairs_and_Psychological_Operations_Command)
20) The staff of every Marine and Army division should be reduced by at least 10%, as should be the number of personnel at each geographic AF command and at each Numbered Air Force except the 18th AF.
21) The staff of each task force should be reduced by at least 10%. The JFCOM (including the personnel the Strategy and Policy Directorate) and the AFRICOM should be dissolved. The HQ personnel of every other unified combatant command (the geographic and functional commands alike) must be reduced to pre-2001 levels. This means laying off 694 employees of the OSD, 30 employees of the Joint Staff, 1405 employees of the Dept. of the Army, 517 employees of the Dept. of the Air Force, 2,007 employees OF THE CENTCOM, 1,391 employees of the EUCOM, 9 employees of NATO, 37 employees of NORAD, 776 employees of the PACOM, 1831 employees of the SOCOM, 881 employees of the SOUTHCOM, 1581 employees of the Strategic Command, and 341 employees of the TRANSCOM. In the case of the NORTHCOM and the AFRICOM, which did not exist in 2000, the number should be reduced by 50% (by 745 people and 742 people, respectively). That would be a total of 12, 987 DOD HQ employees. Unfortunately, these numbers have grown at all DOD commands since 2000, even at the EUCOM, even though since 2000 the DOD has withdrawn tens of thousands of military personnel from Europe. Gates would only freeze the number of HQ personnel. The total HQ personnel numbers and post-2000 HQ personnel growth rates for each command and Military Department are available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43794546/DoD-HQ-Staff-Comparisons-2000-2010
Complete data on HQ personnel of each comamnd and each Military Department as well as the Joint Staff should be provided to the Congress, and Sen. Webb’s questions should be answered. (http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/11-24-2010-01.cfm)
22) The number of officers should be reduced if it can be done in a way that would ensure that this policy doesn’t weaken the US military. The current number of American military officers who are not generals or warrant officers is 209,878. The total current number of American military officers is 226,565. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ranks.htm)
23) Replace all C-130E-Hs with Super Hercules planes, because according to the USAF’s website, “The C-130J is the latest addition to the C-130 fleet and will replace aging C-130E’s. The C-130J incorporates state-of-the-art technology to reduce manpower requirements, lower operating and support costs, and provides life-cycle cost savings over earlier C-130 models. Compared to older C-130s, the J model climbs faster and higher, flies farther at a higher cruise speed, and takes off and lands in a shorter distance. The C-130J-30 is a stretch version, adding 15 feet to fuselage, increasing usable space in the cargo compartment.
C-130J/J-30 major system improvements include: advanced two-pilot flight station with fully integrated digital avionics; color multifunctional liquid crystal displays and head-up displays; state-of-the-art navigation systems with dual inertial navigation system and global positioning system; fully integrated defensive systems; low-power color radar; digital moving map display; new turboprop engines with six-bladed, all-composite propellers; digital auto pilot; improved fuel, environmental and ice-protection systems; and an enhanced cargo-handling system.” – http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
24) The next generation of attack submarines should be as automated as the Russian Graney class, so that the crew of one submarine will be reduced to only 50 crewmembers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graney_class_submarine)
25) On top of the above reductions, the DOD should retire the 14,650 Air Force personnel and 2,477 Navy sailors hired in 2009 (under the FY2010 budget), and reverse the Bush expansion of the military by 100,000 men (the “Grow the Army Initiative” and the “grow the USMC program”).
26) On top of the above reductions, the increase of the number of military personnel proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2009 should be reversed. (It is supposedly scheduled to expire in FY2013, after FY2012.)
27) On top of the above reductions, the USN, the USAF and the US Army should review whether they can afford to reduce their officer-to-enlisted-man ratio to 1:9 (the USMC’s ratio) and their civilian-to-military-man ratio to 1:15 (the USMC’s ratio). (http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/cmc/Documents/090515%20–%20Gen%20Conway%20at%20CSIS.pdf)
28) On top of the above reductions, the USAF should reduce its current number of personnel from 335,000 to 331,700 (the authorized number), and resume its 2002 plan to lay off additional 40,000 airmen. (http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-to-cut-2-300-officers-from-its-rolls-1.133672)
27) On the whole, the number of military personnel (counting Guardsmen, Reservists and AC personnel together) should not exceed 2.2 million. The number of Army combat personnel should be reduced to its pre-2008 level, but not lower. The Marine Corps should likewise reduce its end-strength, but not to fewer than 175,000 men (it’s normal active-duty size before 2008), and must always retain its basic force structure (3 active duty MEFs, each one including a Marine Division, a MAW, and logistical units). 175,000 active-duty Marines is the absolute minimum.

28) The number of contractors must be reduced; the annual cost of contractors and the annual cost of contractors must be frozen at the FY2011 level (in real terms) and then reduced somewhat. The resulting annual savings would be $23.7 bn per year in FY2012 dollars.

G) SHIP AND PLANE RETIREMENTS
1) Retire all obsolete aircraft as soon as their replacements arrive. By “obsolete aircraft” I mean aircraft that can neither fly nor fight. For example, the USAF’s entire Hercules fleet of the non-Super-Hercules variants should be replaced by Super Hercules planes (as should be the Hercules planes of the non-Super-Hercules variants owned by foreign AFs); the USMC’s KC-130 tanker fleet should be replaced by tankers derived from Super Hercules planes. The USAF’s obsolete CSAR helicopters should be replaced with new MH-53 or new MH-60 helicopters, or other CSAR or multi-purpose helicopters, but these must be new. All E-3 AWACSes should be replaced with E-10 jets. The Army should reclaim all H-57 helicopters parked at AMARC for spare parts or recommission them and modify them for the CSARH role.
2) Offer the aircraft carriers USS Constellation and USS John F Kennedy to India (or any other country) if India (or any other country) pays for these ships and refits them. If not, scrap them.
3) Strip the two remaining reserve battleships of the USN, the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin (and two decommissioned battleships, USS Alabama and USS Massachusetts) of their guns, then sell the 2 reserve battleships (Iowa and Wisconsin) to scrappers. The guns themselves should be used to arm two monitors that should be ordered.
4) All KA-planes, A-4 jets and F-4 planes parked at AMARC should be sold to the IAF, the Luftwaffe, the Argentine AF, the Japanese AF, or the ROKAF. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II_non-U.S._operators) All SH-2 helicopters parked at AMARC should be sold to the RNZAF. All C-9 and DC-9 planes parked at AMARC should be sold to Third World airlines.
5) The Spruance class vessel still moored in a reserve fleet should be sold, not sunk; USS Barry should be scrapped; CG-47-49 and CG-51 should be recommissioned and upgraded with the Aegis BMD system; no American ships should be sunk by the USN; the USN must not donate any ships as museum ships.
6) All obsolete ships in American reserve fleets (i.e. all ships in those fleets except modern ones like those of the Ticonderoga class and Los Angeles submarines, which should all be recomissioned except those LA class submarines whose lives have ended) should be sold or scrapped to earn money for new weapons. All 4 Forrestal class aircraft carriers and the ex-Kennedy should be scrapped. Alternatively, the USN should implement James Brinton’s plan for a Great White Fleet of 3 decommissioned, demilitarized aircraft carriers (funded by private charities and foreign governments,manned by civilians) that would conduct humanitarian operations in lieu of USN ships (thus saving the DOD and taxpayers money, time, and equipment). (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/18/a-great-white-fleet-for-the-21/1#commentcontainer) The USN’s reserve fleets (mothballed fleets) currently number 251 ships. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_fleet; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_reserve_fleets#List_of_USN_reserve_fleets; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_River_Reserve_Fleet)
7) All F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s that are too old to fly or cannot fly for any other reason must be cannibalized for spare parts. All F-15s and F-16s that are flyable should be recommissioned as interim aircraft to replace retiring F-15s and F-16s. This means that all F-15s and F-16s which are not too old to fly should continue to serve the USAF. All F/A-18s which are flyable should be recommissioned as interim aircraft to replace retiring F/A-18s.
All S-2s parked at AMARC should be sold to Taiwan, as should be some S-3s parked at AMARC. (Alternatively, all S-2 planes should be sold to the Government of California. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X721NfyQTQo)
All T-2s parked at AMARC should be sold to Greece.
9) The USS Tarawa (LHA-1) should be sold, not sunk. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tarawa_(LHA-1) )
10) All 7 C-20s (i.e. Gulfstream-III jets) should be retired and sold to private owners. All C-32 (B757) aircraft of the USAF should be retired and replaced with 2 B787 jets. 3 of the 9 Gulfstream-V jets of the USAF should be mothballed at AMARC.
11) The Pentagon should give 12 of the Hercules planes parked at AMARC to the RAF; it should then reclaim (i.e. use for spare parts) all other aircraft (incl. B-1s, B-52s, C-5s and A-10s) parked at AMARC (except F-15s, F-16s and A-6s, which should be recommissioned and kept in service as interim aircraft until additional F-35s are ordered, if they are ever ordered) to keep the US military’s aircraft flyable. (Note: the currently planned Pentagon figure of 2443 F-35s for the entire military is woefully inadequate, as was the previous DOD figure of 2543 F-35s.) At the same time, the DOD should continually buy spare parts and upgrades for F-15s and F-16s, taking advantage of the still-open F-15 and F-16 production lines, and continually modernize F-15s, F-16s and A-10s to keep them flying for as long as possible (to prevent a “fighterplane gap”).

12) The DOD should sell all of its decommissioned, obsolete C-130s except those that can be used for cannibalization (reclamation).
H) BRAC POLICY
1) A new BRAC round should be implemented (Fort Devens, Fort Gordon, Bicycle Lake Army Airfield, Heslar Naval Armory, NSA New Orleans, NASJRB New Orleans, Henderson Hall, Camp Kilmer, Navy Broadway Complex, NB Point Loma, NSF Anacostia, NSF Thurmont (AKA Camp David), NSY Portsmouth, the WNY, the 70th Regional RC, the the 96th Regional RC, the 77th RRC, Carlisle Barracks, DC Marine Barracks, Fort Lee, Fort Chaffee, Fort Myer, NIMSF Philadelphia, Pitt US Army Reserve Center, Fort Totten (with the USAFRC), Fort Hamilton, Fort Jackson, Fort Lawton, Fort McPherson, Fort Gillem, Fort Shafter and Gunter Annex should be closed during that round and sold). Fort Gillem was recommended for closure as early as 2005, and Fort Chaffee no longer houses any military units. Units stationed at Fort Lawton should be assigned to other military installations. This article recommends the closure of 1 USAF, 1 USMC, 21Army and 10 Navy big installations, a total of 33 big military installations, plus 1 small USMC installation (Henderson Hall) and 1 small USAF installation (Bellows AFS), on the condition that these bases would not be occupied by American troopers returning from abroad.
2) The US Army, Pacific command (and all other units based at Fort Shafter) should be relocated to Schofield Barracks; subsequently, the DOD should close Fort Shafter.
3) All retired ships mothballed at NIMSF Philadelphia should be moved to other NIMSFs.
4) All units and persons based at Fort Myer should be moved to Fort Belvoir or Fort Meade. Afterwards, Fort Myer should be closed and sold during a BRAC round. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Myer)
5) The US Army’s Reserve Command, Forces Command and Central Command, and the IMC for the Southeast should be moved to other Forts. Afterwards, Fort McPherson shall be closed during a BRAC round and sold.
6) All units stationed at Cannon AFB should be moved to the Hurlburt base (FL), which should be renamed Hurlburt-Johnson AFB (after Donald Hurlburt and Clarence Johnson). Subsequently, Cannon AFB should be reserved for the USAF wings that will come back from Europe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_Air_Force_Base#BRAC_2005)
7) The unit stationed at Henderson Hall should be moved to Quantico (VA). Afterwards, Henderson Hall should be closed, together with Fort Myer.
(8) All units and equipment based at Cheyenne Mountain Station should be moved to Peterson AFB. Cheyenne Mountain Station should not be closed, however. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Air_Force_Station)
9) The DOD should close the Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Kittery, ME; Relocate the ship depot repair function to Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA, Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility Pearl Harbor, HI and Naval Shipyard Puget Sound, WA; Relocate the Submarine Maintenance, Engineering, Planning and Procurement Command to Naval Shipyard Norfolk. DOD recommended to close NSY Portsmouth as early as 2005, but the BRAC Commission removed the NSY from the list. The DOD doesn’t need NSY Portsmouth because it has 2 NSYs in the Pacific area (Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor) and 1 on the East Coast (NSY Norfolk).
10) The entire 42nd Airbase wing should be based at Maxwell AFB. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42d_Air_Base_Wing)
11) The wings which would come back to the US under this plan (including 1 tanker wing from Britain, 1 F-15 wing wing Britain, 1 F-16 wing from Germany, and 1 fighterplane wing from Japan) should be based at Jacksonville AGS (FL), Otis AFB (MA) and Cannon AFB (NM) (which should remain open).
12) The DOD should distribute the eight C-130H aircraft of the 914th Airlift Wing (AFR) to the 314th Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. The 914th’s headquarters moves to Langley Air Force Base, VA, the Expeditionary Combat Support (ECS) realigns to the 310th Space Group (AFR) at Schriever Air Force Base, CO, and the Civil Engineering Squadron moves to Lackland Air Force Base, TX. Also at Niagara, distribute the eight KC-135R aircraft of the 107th Air Refueling Wing (ANG) to the 101st Air Refueling Wing (ANG), Bangor International Airport Air Guard Station, ME. The 101st will subsequently distribute the remaining 8 tankers to Bangor AGS, and 16-17 new C-130Js should be ordered and parked at Niagara, and a new Airlift Wing should be established at that base.
13) The 77th Brigade of the US Army and the AFRC (Reserve Center) should be relocated from Fort Totten to Fort Dix. Subsequently, Fort Totten should be closed.
14) The 2nd Battalion, 228th Aviation Regiment, of the 244th Aviation Brigade of the US Army should be relocated from Horsham (PA) to Fort Eustis (VA).
15) The Pitt US Army Reserve Center should be relocated to Fort Dix (NJ).
16) The 416th Theater Engineer Command should be relocated from Illinois to Vicksburg (MS). (http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/Pages/default.aspx)
17) The 80th Training Command (TASS) should be relocated from Richmond (VA) to Fort Lee or Fort Pickett. (http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/TNG/Pages/default.aspx)
18) The 70th Regional RC (based in Seattle, WA) and the 96th Regional RC (based in SLC, UT) should be relocated to Los Alamitos (CA) and merged with the 63rd Regional RC based in Los Alamitos. The 77th RRC should be relocated to Moon Township (PA) and merged with the 99th RRC based there. The 88th RRC should be relocated from Fort Snelling (MN) to Fort McCoy (WI). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Reserve_Regional_Readiness_Commands)
19) All 7 subs and all 3 Torpedo ships from Naval Base Point Loma (CA), and all commands based there, should be relocated to Naval Base Kitsap (WA) and/or Naval Submarine Base New London (CT) (the 3rd Fleet must be based at NB Kitsap). Subsequently, the DOD should close NB Point Loma. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Point_Loma; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Base_Kitsap)
20) The tenants of NSF Anacostia should be relocated as follows:
a) Commander, Naval Installations; the Naval OSC; the Naval Media Center; and the Naval Research Laboratory – to the DC Navy Yard;
b) the DOD Inspector General and the Office of Chief of Information – to the Pentagon;
c) the Marine Helicopter Squadron (HMX-1) and the Marine FRC – to USMC base Quantico;
d) the DC Army National Guard – to Fort McNair (DC);
e) the WH Communications Agency – to the WH, Fort Meade or Andrews AFB;
f) Construction Battalion Unit 422 of the Navy – to the closest naval base or USMC base (preferrably USMC Base Quantico).
Subsequently, NSF Anacostia should be closed.
21) NSF Thurmont (AKA Camp David) should be closed during a BRAC round and subsequently transferred to the Executive Office of the President.
22) The former Fort Missoula and the former Camp Lockett should be sold.
23) Bellows AFS should be closed, and instead, NAS Key West should become the military’s holiday resort.
24) The HQ of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing should be relocated to NAS Key West (the wing’s units are scattered throghout the US). The Commander of the NF Reserve Command and the Commander of the NAF Reserve should also relocate to NAS Key West. The USMC Reserve should relocate to Camp Pendleton, as should the HQ of the 4th Marine Division (whose units, like the units of the 4th MAW, are scattered throughout the US). Subsequently, NSA New Orleans should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Pendleton; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_New_Orleans)
25) All units based at NASJRB New Orleans should relocate to NAS Pensacola, NAS CC, NAS Mayport or NAS Corpus Christi. Subsequently, NASJRB New Orleans should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Station_Joint_Reserve_Base_New_Orleans
26) The US Army Installation Management Command for the Northeastern Region should be relocated from Fort Hamilton (an administrative installation) to Fort Drum (also located in NY state). Subsequently, Fort Hamilton should be closed. (http://www.hamilton.army.mil/)
27) The Naval Operations Support Center Indianapolis, Marine Corps Reserve Center Indianapolis, and Naval Recruiting Station Indianapolis, as well as the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps Cruiser Indianapolis (CA 35) and all the equipment stored at HNA, should be relocated from Heslar Naval Armory to the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division (70 miles south of Indianapolis). Subsequently, the Heslar Naval Armory should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heslar_Naval_Armory; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center_Crane_Division)
28) The US Army Chaplain School and the US Army Drill Sergeant School should be relocated from Fort Jackson (SC) to Fort Leonard Wood or Fort Leavenw. Afterwards, Fort Jackson should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Jackson_(South_Carolina) )
29) NAS Jacksonville and NS Mayport (located in the city of Jacksonville) should be merged.
30) All commands based at Fort Lee (VA) should relocate to Fort Eustis (VA), which is the principal logistics installation of the US Army. Subsequently, Fort Lee (VA) should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_(Virginia) )
31) The 11th Wing of the USAF and all ceremonial units should be assigned to Andrews AFB and leave Bolling AFB (as should all other agencies based at Bolling AFB except the DIA). Bolling AFB should be separated from NSF Anacostia (which should be closed) and become a base for a new CSAR helicopter wing that I would create. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_AFB)
32) The Army War College should be relocated to Fort Leaven. Subsequently, Carlisle Barracks should be closed and should become a historic landmark.
33) The Navy Broadway Complex in San Diego should be closed. All institutions based there should be relocated to NS San Diego. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Broadway_Complex)
34) The SIGINT brigade currently stationed at Fort Gordon should relocate to Fort Bragg, where it was previously stationed (until 2007). All other units and agencies currently stationed at Fort Gordon, except the Eisenhower Medical Center, should be relocated to Fort Huachuca or Fort Meade. Subsequently, Fort Gordon should be closed.
35) The USMC’s Mobilization Command should relocate to San Diego; the Army’s Richards-Gebaur Army Reserve Center (MO) should be relocated to Fort Leonard Wood (MO); United States Army Reserve’s 308th Tactical Psychological Operations Company should relocate to Fort Leonard Wood or another installation. Consequently, the DOD should stop Rusing the already-closed Richards-Gebaur AFB. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richards-Gebaur_Air_Force_Base; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Mobilization_Command)
36) All units based at Bicycle Lake Army Airfield should relocate to Los Alamitos Army Airfield. Subsequently, Bicycle Lake Army Airfield should be closed, but retained by the DOD as its property. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/bicycle-lake.htm)
37) Both Navy Air Test and Evaluation Squadrons based at NAS Point Mugu (Squadrons #9 and #30) should relocate to NWS China Lake.
38) The National War College should be relocated to Fort Leaven. and merged with the Command and General Staff College. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_University#National_War_College; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_General_Staff_College)
39) The Marine Corps Institute should be relocated from the Washington Navy Yard to MCB Quantico; the Naval Systems Command HQ, the Navy JAG Corps HQ, the NCIS and the Naval Reactors HQ should be relocated from the WNY to the Pentagon. The CNO should relocate from the WNY to the DC Naval Observatory (the residence of the Vice President of the United States). The WNY should serve only as a museum. Eventually, the WNY should be closed as a military installation and ceded to the Department of the Interior.
40) NS San Diego should be merged with NAB Coronado (which is on the opposite side of the SD harbor and is connected to SD by a bridge) and MCAS Miramar (which is just a little far from the city of San Diego). Hurlburt field should be merged with Eglin AFB, which it serves and to which it was subordinated before 1955. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurlburt_Field#History) NS Mayport should be merged with NAS Jacksonville.
41) The USS Barry and all other museums located at the WNY should be relocated to NS Great Lakes, IL. Subsequently, the WNY should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Station_Great_Lakes)
42) All tenants of the DC Marine Barracks should relocate to Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA, located in the Prince William County, which shares a boundary with DC (the Potomac River). Subsequently, the DC Marine Barracks should be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Barracks,_Washington,_D.C.)
43) Dobbins AFRB and NAS Atlanta (a Georgia National Guard facility) should be merged (the two installations share runways). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbins_Air_Reserve_Base)
44) Some closed bases and bases slated for closure should be used as locations for new nuclear electric plants if they’re suitable. Usually, it is difficult to find a location for a new NEP. The DOD should identify and designate those military bases and former military bases which would be good locations for NEPs. (http://www.americansolutions.com/solutionsacademy/wiki/index.php/Nuclear_Energy)
45) Hurlburt Field should be merged with Eglin AFB, which it serves. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurlburt_Field)
46) Fort Drum should be merged with Wheeler Army Airfield.
47) Fort Devens should be closed; all troopers and vehicles stationed there should be relocated to Camp Edwards. During the 1930s, the National Guard recognized that the then-Camp-Devens was too small. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Edwards)

48) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, any base closure policy or base realignment policy must at least be cost-neutral, if not produce net savings. The mistakes of the 2005 BRAC round, which so far has produced net costs rather than net savings, must not be repeated. (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/23/defense-spending-hold-the-line/)
I) POLICY ON VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS
1) All reported perpetrators should, if there is sufficient evidence, be tried by a court-martial, but not if there’s insufficient evidence. “According to DoD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial.” – http://harman.house.gov/2008/09/9-30Hill.shtml
2) The superiors of the alleged perpetrators may use “nonjudicial punishment”, but must always refer these alleged perpetrators to a JAG to conduct an Article 32 investigation and, if there is sufficient evidence, to courts-martial.
3) Every sexually-assaulted servicewoman shall have the right to relocate to another base.
4) Sexual assault victims should never be subjected to “investigations for disciplinary violations”, nor to restrictions. (http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep2003/d20030922usafareport.pdf, page #33)
5) Every victim who reports her sexual predator to the appropriate authorities should be rewarded with an amnesty. (http://www.defense.gov/news/Sep2003/d20030922usafareport.pdf, page #33)
6) Besides any punishment that a court-martial orders, all convicted sexual assault perpetrators should also be deprived of their entire salaries and demoted to the lowest officer rank or the lowest enlisted rank, depending on whether the perpetrator is an officer or an enlisted trooper. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/17/eveningnews/main4872713.shtml)
7) Client-attorney privilege should be guaranteed to every victim of sexual assault who reports a sexual assault.
(8) Every reported sexual assault should be investigated and, if sufficient evidence is found during an Article 32 investigation, referred to a court martial. However, no case should be referred to court martial if there is insufficient evidence, and NO ONE shall be punished without bulletproof, irrefutable evidence that he did commit a sexual assault.
9) The DOD should not hire any additional lawyers, but should instead enlist (at no cost to taxpayers) volunteer organizations that provide legal counsel to victims of sexual assaults.
J) REFORM OF THE INTEL COMMUNITY
1) The number of intel agencies, the size of their administration and their armies of civilian workers (janitors, chefs, etc.), and the amount of money they spent on their buildings must be significantly reduced.
2) All commands and agencies (of the DOD and other departments) which perform the same tasks should be merged. The 51 federal agencies and commands which track down terrorist funds should be merged into 1 agency at the DHS and 1 military command at the DOD. A Goldwater-Nichols Act for the entire federal government should be written and approved by the Congress. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/)
3) Rather than produce a great quantity of intel reports which no one reads or needs, the intel community should start producing only reports which federal officials truly need, on all issues which might interest them. Intel reports must be prioritized according to how important they are, and how important the issues they describe are, and the most important reports shall always be the first reports delivered to, and read by, federal officials.
4) The range of government executives who are entitled to know about all government intel programs (including all DOD intel programs) (the so-called “Super Users”) should be extended to include the personnel of the WH Military Office, the DNI, the leaders of all combatant commands, and other leaders that the President or the SECDEF may designate.
5) All intel agencies must share info with each other on request of one of the agencies. Whenever one agency receives word that a terrorist attack is plotted, it must alert the other 15 intel agencies.
6) The US government must designate the ODNI as a small, lean, efficient agency which will coordinate all the intel agencies, programs, operations, databases and budgets of the USIC (as well as its contractors). The DNI must, by statute, be given wide legal and budgetary prerogatives (including prerogatives over the entire intel budgets of all federal agencies) to command and coordinate the 16 intel agencies of the US. A statute should make it clear that the ODNI controls the entire intel community. He shall meet monthly with the SECDEF, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the DHS Secretary to coordinate all agencies of the USIC.
7) At each department, there shall be only one agency to collect threat tips, one agency to track WMMs, and one agency to coordinate counterterrorist policies. The 263 agencies created or reshuffled after 9/11/2001 must be merged with each other to significantly reduce this number, because multiplication of agencies/bureaucracies/departments doesn’t make the US government more capable to collect intel data and protect America from terrorists.
The ODNI, including the National Counterterrorism Center, must be allowed to view all classified information, including the most secret information, of all intel agencies, including the CIA (which should be merged with the DIA).
9) The size of the ODNI must be radically reduced, ideally to its pre-2008 size.
10) All intel agencies must employ enough analysts and translators to translate and analyze the information they receive, but they must also make sure that they obtain only relevant data, and only on those issues which the US government is interested in or should know about. The NSA should stop wiretapping everyone. The volume of data obtained and stored by the USIC should therefore be reduced.
11) All intel databases of the US government should be connected to each other and viewable for all “Super Users”.
12) The USIC should never hire inexperienced analysts. Instead, it should hire only those analysts who are at least somewhat experienced in terms of the subject they work on. No fresh college graduates should be hired. Analysts must speak the languages of the countries they work on.
13) Reports must not simply “reslice” the facts that are already known by the USIC. They must tell the USIC something new.
14) The ODNI must continually eliminate redundant intel programs, policies and agencies and must ensure that everyone doesn’t produce the same reports.
15) The number of senior executives at DOD and non-DOD intel agencies should be significantly reduced – not merely freezed as Bob Gates has done. (http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13782)
16) Whenever warnings about intra-Army terrorists are sounded, they should be directed to the Army’s 902nd Military Intelligence Group (the Army’s counterintel group), which shall immediately warn all 16 agencies of the USIC; it should also stop trying to assess general terrorist affiliations in the United States, because the DHS is already doing so.
17) The President, the Vice President, the DNI, the SECDEF, the Deputy SECDEF, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DHS Secretary, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the WH Military Office should be authorized to view all Special Access Programs (SAPs) of the US government.
18) Military commanders must be allowed to view everything their subordinates are authorized to view. The “laws of secrecy” must never undermine the military chain-of-command.
19) The SECDEF and the DNI should review all intel programs and policies and abolish all of them which are ineffective.
20) On all databases of the USIC, information shall be strictly hierarchized and prioritized according to how important it is. Information about Yemen and Yemeni terrorists must be prioritized above all other information for as long as Yemen remains a sanctuary for terrorists.
21) A statute should clearly delineate all the “lines of responsibility” of all intel agencies, DOD agencies, DOS agencies and DHS agencies.
22) At the NCTC, there must be analysts who will put all bits of information together and send warnings, as should have been done with warnings about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
23) The flood of information into the NCTC must be reduced and controlled.
24) The DOD must become able to produce audible financial statements every fiscal year, and must deliver them every fiscal year to the Congress, the GAO, and the public (by making it available on the Internet) – as it is required by the law and as every Fortune 500 company does every year. (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ContentRecord_id=3b791d27-87d0-4603-ac3a-68bebbbe0a66&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=13e47ffa-0753-47a7-ad5e-1ba7592015c9)
25) The USIC must stop expanding its new offices and stop building new offices.
26) The US government should assess whether the DHS needs its own research arm, its own command center and the kind of large fleet of armored vehicles that it currently has.
27) The Marine Corps intel arm should be merged with the Navy’s and subordinated to the ONI; the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) should be merged with the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillaince and Reconnaissance Agency, since the USAF is already responsible for launching satellites and for satellite intel. Under this DRPP, the number of DOD intel agencies would be reduced from 8 to 5, and the total number of agencies in the USIC would be reduced from 16 to 12. Further mergers of DOD intel agencies should be considered. The top-heavy DIA must be significantly slimmed down. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45718)
K) ELIMINATION OF OTHER WASTEFUL SPENDING ITEMS AND REFORM OF DOD MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES

1) The DOD’s management structures should be further trimmed, and should be reorganized along the lines of management structures of private corporations like ABM and Google. Executives from such corporations should be brought into the DOD to advise the DOD on the implementation of this reform. (http://www.newt.org/news/cnbc-video-gingrich-balance-budget-by-cutting-taxes-and-government)

2) The DOD’s Human, Social, and Culture Behavior (HSCB) Modeling program and the Humanitarian Assistance Program should be abolished.

3) The Congress must not include any earmarks in defense budgets nor in Supplemental Appropriations Acts, and must eventually ban earmarks altogether. Earmarks included by the Congress in the DOD’s budget cost the DOD $4 bn per year and don’t pay for any personnel, equipment or fuel, but rather for pork projects that are useless for the DOD. The DOD should refuse to execute any earmarks, and the President should be given a line item veto (by Constitutional Amendment, if necessary) to eliminate earmarks from the defense budget.

4) All 48 “projects to celebrate service and recreation on public lands” of the DOD should be abolished. (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=washingtonwaste)

5) The DOD should privatize its mail service, as suggested by Herman Cain. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270724/herman-cain-person-brian-bolduc?page=2)

6) The DOD should apply the Lean Six Sigma method to eliminate wasteful expenditures, speed up the production rates of weapons, make DOD depots and America’s weapon factories more efficient, and deliver weapons to troopers faster. However, all savings resulting from this method (and any other method) should be reinvested in the DOD, not diverted to deficit reduction. (http://strongamericanow.com/plan/case-studies) Moreover, all DOD employees should learn the Lean Six Sigma method.

7) The US military should stop making photos of aircraft, regardless of whether a landmark serves as the background of a photo or not. It should also stop flying aircraft for the purpose of photographying them. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/50-Examples-of-Government-Waste)

(8) The US military needs to adopt a written Joint Concept of Operations, as suggested by retired General John Jumper, to eliminate duplicative programs and ensure that each service has delineated tasks and is buying equipment for that task before a war starts. (http://www.youtube.com/user/HASCRepublicans#p/u/0/5QgCOQBNaMU)

9) The allegations that the DOD buys $20,000 toilet seats must be investigated and, if found true, the responsible parties must be punished and the DOD must stop buying such toilet seats.

10) The DOD’s annual printing costs should be reduced by 50%, from $1.4 billion to $0.7 billion per year.

11) The SECDEF’s travel budget must be reduced by at least 50%, and the SECDEF must stop using the USAF’s jet fleet as a private taxi service and stop imposing large costs on taxpayers. The SECDEF’s party fund must be abolished. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/21/panetta-gets-vip-flights-at-coach-cost/?page=2)

12) GWOT spending: All nationbuilding/development projects should be immediately cancelled. Any future GWOT/war theater projects must not only be completed on budget, they must also be sustainable, i.e. useful for many decades to come, instead of becoming useless. After 2014, the ANSF must be sized right, so as to be big enough to stave off the Taleban threat but also not too big to become unaffordable for Afghanistan. There must be no white elephants. Any unsustainable projects must be cancelled immediately. (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2011/06%20June/06-09-11%20Webcast.html, ca. 148:00)

13) The USAF Space Command’s Space Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) programs, whose goal is to find aliens on other planets, should be terminated permanently. (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=dd783527-3825-4c2a-8572-902087a5efae&ContentType_id=abb8889a-5962-4adb-abe8-617da340ab8e&Group_id=2b5f5ef9-5929-4863-9c07-277074394357&MonthDisplay=1&YearDisplay=2012)

14) The Department of Defense should auction new, unused, or excellent condition excess inventory to the highest bidder rather than transfer it at no cost to federal and state agencies. The savings resulting from this would be measured in billions of dollars per year.

15) The President should receive the prerogative of a line-item veto to abolish unnecessary expenditures such as additional VIP jets.

16) The Humanitarian Assistance Program of the DOD should be abolished or shifted to the DOS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations)

L) VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS
1) The Secretary of Defense should rank in the American order of precedence ahead of all other Cabinet secretaries.
2) The USCG should be permanently subordinated to the DOD and should standardize its equipment with the USN to the largest extent possible to save money. (http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf)
3) The military’s Female Engagement Teams and the program that finances them should be abolished. Moreover, female servicemembers must never wear any Islamic veil and must never trade helmets for hijabs. (http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/afghanistan/a-woman-s-touch-1.121249;http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/are_us_servicewomen_trading_th.html)
4) The Army gun ban shall be abolished. All members of the US military should be allowed to bring weapons (including their personal weapons) on DOD land and at US military bases, and everywhere else.
5) Global Military Posture Reform: The DOD should withdraw all American troops from Iraq and all other Persian Gulf countries, and bring 50% of American troopers in Afghanistan home. Except the F-15E wing stationed in Britain, missile defense personnel, and the personnel of the Landstuhl hospital, Moron AFB, Sembach Annex and Ramstein AFB, all American units stationed in Europe should be brought back to America and stationed at American bases (new bases should be built or leased for them if need be). Their bases in Europe should be given to host countries. The Marines should considering cancelling the construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility and moving the 1st MAW to Kadena AFB; the 18th Air Wing should be moved from Kadena to another Japanese base or airport (e.g. Osaka Airport, Misawa AFB, Yokota AFB, or MCAS Iwakuni) to make room for the 1st MAW and reduce the US military footprint on Okinawa. At the same time, ALL Marines of the III MEF must remain on Okinawa. They must have all of their units and air, ground, and logistical assets on Okinawa. US Marines should never be sacrificed for the sake of Japan’s domestic political concerns. The plan to relocate 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam should be cancelled. The 8th Army should be withdrawn from Korea, and instead, nuclear weapons and 10-20 ABL planes should be deployed to Osan AFB on top of the F-16s that are already based at Osan AFB. The 35th Fighterplane Wing should be relocated to Osan AFB. The 8th United States Army must return to the US. The fighterplane wing stationed at Spangdahlem AFB (Germany) and the F-16 wing stationed at Chievres AFB (Belgium) should be brought back to the US (to Duluth Airport and Cannon AFB). All US Army troops stationed in Germany and Italy (incl. members of the V Corps, including the 172nd Brigade), all Marines stationed in Europe, all Army troopers stationed in Kosovo, Bosnia and other European countries/territories, all American troopers stationed in Haiti, and ALL American troopers from the Persian Gulf (except the 5th Fleet) should be brought back to the US. All of their facilities abroad should be closed. The F-15 wing stationed at Bitburg AFB, Germany, should be relocated to Otis ANGB, should be redesignated Otis AFB. The F-15 squadron stationed at Soesterberg AFB (in the Netherlands) should be relocated to Eareckson AFS, Alaska, where there is a 3-km runway long enough for F-15s to take off. The USAF tanker wing stationed at RAF base Mildenhall in Britain should be brought back to the US, and the Europeans should be forced to provide their own tanker capabilities for themselves. In South Korea and Japan, all USAF F-16s and F-15s should be replaced by F-22s, and the F-16s and F-15s stationed in these countries should be brought back to the US and given to CONUS-based wings. The problem of duplication of bases must be resolved, and will be resolved if this DRPP is implemented because, for example, Spangdahlem and Mildenhall will be closed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15#Operators) The DOD should also cease funding Naval Station Rota, Spain, and ask Spain to start fully funding it; if Spain refuses, the DOD should move its ships elsewhere, e.g. to Gaeta, Italy, or Constanta, Romania. In total, the vast majority of the 81,000 US troops currently based in Europe should be brought back home. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Station_Rota,_Spain) The DOD should also review whether some Air Force units could be permanently redeployed from Okinawa to Australia. These withdrawals should be cancelled only if their costs would exceed the savings they’d produce. (http://www.therealitycheck.org/?p=10657; http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m1d22-Haitian-rescue-US-forces-in-Haiti-to-number-33000; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/usmarfork.htm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35th_Fighter_Wing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_Corps_(United_States); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Infantry_Division_(United_States); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_United_States_Army#Current_Composition; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Corps_(United_States)#Organization; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USFK; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/172nd_Infantry_Brigade_(United_States); http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576416271311589238.html?mod=googlenews_wsjv; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45718; http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/20/japan%E2%80%99s-inability-to-make-decisions/) On top of that, US troops should be rotated, not stationed, abroad, i.e. deployed there without their families, in order to reduce costs. These troop withdrawals will significantly reduce the stress on the military, prevent the lengthening of tours, and increase “dwell time” even as the US military’s personnel would be reduced by 400,000 troopers. They would also remove a thorny issue poisoning Japanese-American relations, improve America’s relations with many countries, improve America’s ability to cooperate with its allies, close hundreds of unneeded facilities abroad, and save taxpayers much money. However, I would deploy a second carrier battle group to Japan (if Japan agreed), and would deploy a few Burke class vessels of the Ballistic Missile Defense fleet to Incheon, SK, to protect SK from NK missiles. American tactical nuclear weapons should be consolidated at either RAF Laken. or at Incirlik AFB. (Turkey wishes to keep American tactical nukes in Europe.) Also, regarding American troops in Eastern Asia, all SASC recommendations (including the proposal to move the Futenma air wing to Kadena and the proposal not to send servicemembers’ families with them to South Korea) should be implemented. All Cold War era relics must be trashed, and the DOD must resume the reduction of America’s military footprint abroad and the repositioning of American troops from Cold War era garrisons to smaller forward bases, and the replacement of static units with mobile units. As many American bases abroad as possible should be consolidated. Similarly, bases in the US should be consolidated (merged), too. (http://webb.senate.gov/issuesandlegislation/foreignpolicy/Observations_basing_east_asia.cfm?renderforprint=1; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576416271311589238.html?mod=googlenews_wsjv; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45718)
6) The DOD should assess whether any of the troopers currently working at the Defense Logistics Agency could be replaced by civilians (thus freeing troopers for military tasks). If so, they should be replaced by civilians. The DLA currently numbers 21,000 employees. Similarly, the DOD should conduct an entire tail-to-tooth review across its entire structure, because there are reportedly still 300,000 military servicemembers performing civilian jobs.
7) The DOD and the US military must adopt the metric system and discontinue using the US customary system.
(8) The requirements of the budget calendar should never marginalize the defense policy-making process.
9) No F-22s should serve with the ANG of any leftist state (including Hawaii).
10) The DOD must significantly toughen its rules against conflicts of interest. Such cases should be investigated, even if that means threatening competition; reviews should not be limited to large-scale defense programs; the ability of defense corporations to obtain lucrative contracts should be limited; there must be stiff penalties for violators; the ability of the DOD to “hold contractors accountable for failing to disclose an actual or apparent conflict of interest”; the law forbidding the federal government to hire current or former lobbyists must never be waivered; the right of the president to waiver the law should be abolished. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/pentagon-issues-ethics-memo-before-gutting-conflict-of-interest-rules/)
11) Every USS Arizona veteran should have the right to be buried in the wreck of that ship if he wants to be; his family members should have such a right, too, if they want; but the spill of oil from Arizona’s tank must be stopped and the oil must eventually be pumped out of the tank of the USS Arizona.
12) Other than classified projects, budget gag rules should be banned.
13) The DOD must ban any no-bid contracts, except contracts for aircraft carriers (and that’s only because nowadays, there is only one corporation in the US that can build aircraft carriers). It shall cancel no-bid contracts for Mil Mi-17 helicopters and open a competition for helos.
14) The war on drugs should be ended. All DOD expenses related to it (estimated to be $1.2 bn – $1.5 bn per year) should be abolished and reinvested in military equipment.
15) The DOD should immediately discontinue “diversity training” and stop paying attention to or underlining diversity. (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66348)
16) The 37 billets identified by a certain DOD report (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467) should be downgraded to a lower rank than the flag rank.
17) The US Cyber Command, which groups together the 4 cyber groups of the 4 armed services, should be made an independent functional command (currently, it is a unit subordinated to the US Strategic Command). As many IT specialists as possible (including foreign IT specialists) should be hired by the US Cyber Command. A USAF Cyber Command (which should be subordinated to the US Cyber Command) should be established as a “major command”, as a replacement for the 24th AF. It should be established at Lackland AFB. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Cyber_Command_(Provisional); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command)
The Cyber Command should partner with NATO’s Cyber COE. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Command_Transformation#NATO_Centres_of_Excellence)
18) B-1 bombers and F-111s (which should be recommissioned) should be subordinated to the USAF’s Global Strike command (just like B-2s, B-52s and ICBMs are).
19) American nuclear weapons, and the funding for them, and the role of the caretaker of nukes, should be given to the DOD. All of the DOE’s defense-related programs should be moved to the DOD. All nuclear weapon programs should be funded and run EXCLUSIVELY by the DOD, not by the DOE. Only the Armed Services Committees of the Congress should have oversight responsibilities over these programs (along with the Budget/Appropriations Committees). As DefenseNews rightly says, “The U.S. Air Force must modernize its aging arsenal of B-61 and B-83 thermonuclear freefall bombs if the nation is to maintain its deterrence, especially against emerging atomic powers, service officials said. But the weapons are funded partly by the Department of Energy and partly by the Pentagon, which has complicated modernization efforts. ”The B-61 [life extension program] is funded in two different parts,” said Bill Mullins, the Air Force’s associate assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence. “And they go through separate appropriations committees.” If the funding is not synchronized, that can lead to problems, he said. ”We’re watching what’s going on both sides and asking for the defense committees to get with their energy counterparts and make sure they are all on the same page,” Mullins said.” (http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf;http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8383473&c=FEA&s=CVS)
20) The DOD should never pay the Taleban to escort American convoys or protect American supply lines; instead, it should hire private contractors or local militias (or ask NATO allies) to provide escorting troops. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/us-trucks-security-taliban)
21) Japan must increase its funding for the American troops stationed on its soil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan)
22) The DOD should rely on contractors for all nonessential services and tasks, and lay off thousands of bureaucrats. Contractors are less expensive than government employees, because they don’t enjoy the same salaries and benefits as government employees.
23) The four-star rank should be reserved only for the Chairman of the JCS, Service Chiefs (and their deputies), commanders of Combatant Commands, commanders of geographic fleets/armies/marine corps groups/fleets (e.g. the US Pacific Fleet), the commander of American troops in Afghanistan and the commanders of American troopers in whatever country America might invade in the future.
24) It must be made certain that all American troopers will be able to vote.
25) Arms reduction treaties should be rejected; the START-2, New START, SALT-1, SALT-2, SORT, CFE-1, CFE-2, TTBT, and CTBT treaties should be repealed. The DOD must immediately stop implementing the New START Treaty, thus eliminating compliance costs.
26) Personnel of the US military should never be given government-funded credit cards, which they use to spend money on strip dancers and prostitutes. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/50-Examples-of-Government-Waste#_edn31)
27) The Congress should authorize, and the President should appoint, an “Undersecretary of Defense for Management”.
28) The following ship naming standards should be adopted: 1) Ship names should not (with exceptions granted by the SECNAV) repeat themselves, so if a ship name has already been used once, it should never be used again. 2) Ships should, with few exceptions, be named only after American figures and American cities. 3) Ships should receive the names of American figures or American cities regardless of what ship category they represent, but one class of ships, if possible, should receive names only of one kind; for example, any LPDs should be named only after American towns (e.g. Stonycreek Township), and LCSes should be named only after distinguished Sailors and Marines, while America class LHAs should be named only after famous American battles, landings, and crossings (e.g. the battle of Remagen and the battle of Aachen).
29) The USS Utah (BB-31), sunk by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, should be raised and scrapped. The dead sailors who are still aboard that ship should be transported from that ship to a military cemetery and buried there with military honors. Thus, the harbor will be cleared, because the wreck of the USS Utah will no longer clog it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Utah_(BB-31))
30) All DOD and USCG aircraft shall be banned from participating in air shows.
31) All B-52s parked at AMARC should be reclaimed to provide spare parts for the rest of the B-52 fleet before B-3 replacements arrive. The same applies to B-1s parked at AMARC. Enlarging the bomber fleet should be done solely by buying new bombers (e.g. B-3s).
32) Cannibalising any aircraft not retired by the DOD shall be banned. There is an abundant supply of spare parts at AMARC – use that supply.
33) Denying spare-parts from AMARC to in-service planes when in-service planes need spare parts can result in either the grounding and mothballing of those in-service planes which need spare parts but lack them, or the cannibalizing of some in-service planes for spare parts, both of which is unacceptable.
34) The only solution to prevent the disasters spoken of in #33 from happening is to maintain an adequate supply of spare parts at AMARC or other aircraft maintenance centers.
35) America should guarantee TOT whenever bidding for Indian and British contracts.
36) As many scientists as possible should be allowed to immigrate to the US and recruited to work in American governmental laboratories – a total mobilization of the global scientific workforce should be conducted. One of the tools that should be used to conduct such a mobilization should be the SKIL Bill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKIL_Bill)
37) The DOD should not employ any unionized workers.
38) All exquisite pictures on the Pentagon’s walls, all luxury furniture items, all luxury lamps, all sculptures and all luxury carpets at the Pentagon should be sold and replaced with non-luxury, cheap items (http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/photoessay/2006-12/hires_061215-D-7203T-041.JPG).
39) The NSA and the Defense Logistics Agency should, like agencies of the USDOD, sell their exquisite equipment, including exquisite cars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fort_Belvoir_DLA_building.jpg)
40) Like the Schwarzenegger Administration of California, the DOD should organize a garage sale of all of its exquisite civilian equipment (e.g. furniture, cars and lamps).
41) All contracts – even small contracts – must be competitive, that is, contractors must compete for it. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009807689_apusstimulusfactcheck.html)
42) “Supervising America’s participation in conventional arms control treaties” (which treaties should be repealed) shall be removed from the DTRA’s list of responsibilities.
43) Those who defraud the DOD shall forever be ineligible for DOD contracts and for clearances. The DOD shall stop issuing contracts to, or paying, any individuals, companies or organizations that have ever defrauded the federal government; stop rewarding companies suspended for fraud; suspend any companies guilty of fraud; and collect reparations after every won lawsuit. (http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Pentagon_Paid_285_Billion_Dollars_to_Contractors_that_Defrauded_Government_110204;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020204922.html;http://sanders.senate.gov/graphics/Defense_Fraud_Report1.pdf;http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Pentagon_Keeps_Rewarding_Company_Suspended_for_Fraud_101213;http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Kuwaiti_Company_Indicted_for_Fraud_in_Supplying_Food_to_US_Troops_91119;http://www.allgov.com/Where_is_the_Money_Going/ViewNews/Northrop_Settles_Largest_Ever_Defense_Fraud_Suit__But_Loses_Nothing_90405)
44) American nuclear weapons stockpiled in Europe should be consolidated in Britain and Turkey.
45) The DOD should stop writing and conducting Nuclear Posture Reviews, and should start issuing annual reports on the North Korean, Iranian, Russian and Venezuelan militaries.
46) A new National Defense Strategy – one that will treat conventional and irregular warfare equally and reject the numerous ridiculous notions (such as the claim that there will never again be a conventional war involving America) that the Pentagon subscribes to today – should be issued. The Joint Doctrine For Operations (which wrongly says that “that irregular warfare in the later phases of a campaign could require a level of military effort as great as—and perhaps greater than—what is needed for so-called major combat operations”) should be amended accordingly.
47) The National Security Council shall be stripped of its right to issue directives binding on the DOD.
48) M9 pistols should be retired and replaced with M1911 pistols; M16s should be replaced with M14s; M240 SAWs should be replaced with Ma Deuce machineguns.
49) America should withdraw from the UN and the UN Disarmament Conference and refuse to send its representatives to any disarmament conferences.
50) The DOD’s command structure (or at least its middle and upper echelons) must be radically simplified and flattened, like private sector corporations’ structure.
51) The DOD shall resume the pursuit of information on all Americans who went missing during the Vietnamese war and haven’t been found yet (deceased or alive). (http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmsea/Stats2009/Stats20091209.pdf)
52) All public DOD directives must be listed on the DOD’s website in chronological order, with the first DOD directive at the top of the list (currently, they’re listed chaotically).
53) The Uniformed Health Sciences University should be closed.
54) The Army and the Navy should, like the Air Force send messages down the chain of command, even to battalion and squadron commanders, about the importance of auditing their books. All services must become audit-ready by CY2017.
55) Some billets, such as the offices of service JAGs, should be downgraded to the two-star rank. Currently (as of January 2011), they are all three-star offices. Similarly, service commands should no longer be four star commands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_L._Rives)
56) The tenure of the Director of the Joint Staff must be long (at least 4 years); the Director should be, ex officio, a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Defense Acquisition Board.
57) All planned and ordered RQ-7 Shadow UAVs must be delivered, and then the program and the production line should be closed. The USAF should then standardize on MQ-9s and MQ-1s as recon UAVs. But the RQ-7 program mustn’t be closed prematurely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-7_Shadow)
58) The C-130 Avionics Modernization Program should be closed. The DOD should use the savings to buy additional C-130Js to replace old Hercules planes.
59) Vietnam, Lebanon, Mexico, India, Pakistan, Colombia, Thailand, Afghanistan, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru and Brazil should join the PSI.
60) After it is merged with the DIA, the CIA, which has established a special CIA station whose sole target is OBL, should establish special CIA stations dedicated to tracking down Ayman al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadahn, Mulla Omar, KSAAZ, and Zakariya Essabar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakariya_Essabar, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakariya_Essabar). Special US military SOCOM groups should be established from among the current SOCOM troops to capture or kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, Anwar al-Awlaki, Adam Gadahn, Mulla Omar, Zakariya Essabar and Khalid Saeed Ahmad al Zahrani. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al_Zahrani)
61) Training courses must never be duplicated; each service must recognize and honor the training courses, qualifications, certificates, documents, diplomas and graduates of every other service; each service must permit the members of all other services to use secure computer networks even if they had been trained (or cleared) by other Armed Services; members of one service shall not be forced to duplicate training courses or qualifications. (http://www.frumforum.com/a-gay-officer-at-war)
62) The entire federal government, including the DOD, should be computerized and should adjust to the information age. As Newt Gingrich correctly writes, “Moving government into the information age is absolutely vital if the military and intelligence communities are to be capable of buying and using new technologies as rapidly as the information age is going to produce them.” (http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2835/Default.aspx)
63) All unused flight tickets bought by the DOD should be refunded and the money spent on them saved and invested in equipment. (The saving would be $100 mn per year.) The DOD also needs to be more careful about how many flight tickets it buys, to ensure it doesn’t buy unnecessary flight tickets in the first instance. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/10/50-Examples-of-Government-Waste)
64) Although the DOD should not contract core military or departmental missions (e.g. military training, acquisition, and warfighting) to civilian contractors and should reserve them for government employees, it should entrust all nonmilitary, nondepartmental missions to them (e.g. mowing the grass). (http://www.cohengroup.net/news/op_ed/op_ed09072011.cfm)
65) The USN should stop using medium-sized helicopters for every task (by doing so, it is overusing them and thus wearing them out too fast), and should stop trying to standardize on them. It should buy helicopters of different kinds: MH-60s as well as MH-53s, and also V-22 VTOL planes. (http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3548400&c=AME&s=SEA)
66) The DOD’s IT program must be reformed so that it will be on budget (i.e. its cost must be reduced). As of 29th September 2010, it was $6.9 billion over-budget. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1115hCgtK:e23213
67) The DOD should use, whenever possible, electronic messages and computers rather than paper.
68) The federal government must establish a clear chain of command for first responders and rescuers. The chain of command shall include all the relevant institutions, including local governments, county governments, state governments and all relevant agencies of the federal government (the WH, the DOD, the DHS, the FEMA, the DOT, and the DOS). FEMA should become an independent cabinet-level agency and its Director should be designated as the national coordinator of all relevant agencies. All these agencies and their relevant assets shall be subordinated to him during a response operation. The chain of command shall be as follows: the President – the director of FEMA – federal departments and state governments – county governments (subordinated to state governments) – local governments. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#Confusion_over_chain_of_command)
69) The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines should consider adopting a common battle utility uniform (for all four services); the Army and the Marines should also consider adopting a common gala uniform and a common physical training (physical fitness) uniform. Similarly, the Navy and the USCG should consider adopting a common gala uniform. Further uniform standardizations should be considered as well, and should also be achieved across NATO and other alliances. (http://www.youtube.com/HASCRepublicans#p/u/13/JmPAueb5-Vk)

70) The DOD’s Comptroller should draft a complete roadmap of how all services and agencies of the DOD (i.e. all components of the DOD) will become audit-ready. The DOD must also produce financial statements reliable enough for an audit to occur. Subsequently, the entire DOD should be audited, as should be the rest of the federal government.
71) All savings made by the DOD on anything must be devoted EXCLUSIVELY to the force structure and to equipment – not to personnel accounts or unneeded units. (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59658)
72) The arbitrary “annual savings” goals (spending cuts for their own sake) instituted by Bob Gates should be abolished, and instead, the DOD’s executives should review the entire DOD budget every year, and abolish every unneeded program, agency, “job”, command and bureaucracy. Agencies which cannot give up any of their programs should not be ordered to give them up. Instead, the DOD’s executives should review the entire DOD budget every year and abolish every unneeded DOD program, agency, command and bureaucracy.
73) Pornography-blocking software should be installed on all computers of the DOD.
74) All obstacles for small and medium-sized businesses to doing business with the DOD must be removed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvvfM_VzRA4&feature=g-all-u&context=G285a48cFAAAAAAAACAA)

75) The DOD budget must not be used to finance abortions under any circumstances. A ban on DOD funding for abortions must be instituted by a DOD Directive or, even better, by Congressional legislation. (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37622)
76) The CERP program should be halved, and the resulting savings should be devoted to the IED Defeat Fund.
77) The Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds must surrender their F-18s and F-16s (which should be given to combat-duty squadrons) and should start flying A-7s (which the Blue Angels have previously flown) and F-111s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II)
78) The personnel of the DOD (including military personnel) must stop wasting their time on PPT and its computer-generated charts, graphs and bullet points; the personnel of the DOD must stop obsessing with PPT; officers of the military must stop preparing any PPT slides; the DOD must learn to cope without PPT; PPT should be used only for press conferences. The justification:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
79) The DOD should post online Financial Performance Reports for every completed fiscal year, as well as the Audits and Investigative Reports of the DOD’s Inspector General; and enable every American citizen to report “fraud, waste and abuse” to the DOD via the Internet on the main website of the DOD.

80) The DOD should use the same fraud-busting/fraud-detecting system as the one used by American Express and FedEx.

81) The DOD should privatize all mess halls, all of its commissaries, and all of its housing programs.

82) Every person buried in the Arlington National Cemetery must be registered along with his/her gravesite; the remains of every person buried in the ANC must be identified; any identification problems or questions must be reported up the chain of command; the ANC must be reviewed and audited; the burial records of the ANC must be computerized, but at a lower cost than the cost so far incurred by the government; the ANC should be managed by personnel of the Department of the Army rather than contractors; the ANC must be reserved exclusively to military veterans and their families; all graves at the ANC must be properly marked, and must be properly labeled on cemetery maps. The chain of command at the ANC should run from the superintendent of the ANC to the commander of the MDW and then directly to the Secretary of the Army. Alternatively, the ANC should be transferred from the DOD to the DVA, as some people have suggested. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38467878/ns/us_news-life/)
83) Except the official website of the DOD, all DOD websites must be in secure networks (the HTTPS protocol). The operative systems of DOD computers and their anti-virus programmes and “firewalls” must be updated daily. The NSA should establish a partnership with the US Cyber Command and develop active defense programs that will enable military IT specialists to track down and fight enemy hackers. America should forge a collective defense cyber alliance not only with Britain, Australia and Canada, but also with the Czech Republic, Georgia, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Estonia, Colombia, Romania and the Philippines. The time it takes for an IT program to become operational after it has been funded for the first time must be reduced from 81 months to 12 months. Some protective programs against rogue code, including so-called “logic bombs”, and against remotely operated “kill-switches” and hidden backdoors (which can be written into the chips and physical buses used in military hardware) must be developed and installed on all computers of the DOD. Operators of critical infrastructure, and critical industries such as the defense industry, shall be legally obliged to join secure computer networks, i.e. government-sponsored, government-protected computer networks. (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1477) The DOD must also develop a strategy of how to prevent hackers from disrupting anything important in the US, and a strategy of what to do if they do manage to disrupt something important. Any cyber attack (no matter how severe and how disruptive) MUST be classified as an act of war, and a military response of any kind is justified for any cyber attack. The DOD should retaliate against anyone who attacks American cyber networks. Also, all defense contractors must be obliged to join the DOD’s protected computer networks, and all of their websites and email accounts must be in the https domain. A wide range of protective programs, including Dr. Web CureIt! and Kaspersky’s Virus Removal Tool, must be tested against a wide range of malware (not just viruses, but also spy devices, backdoors, dialers, trojans, worms, macros, VB scripts, rootkits, exploit tools, flooders, etc.) on various systems (DOS, various Windows versions, Linux, etc.) and by various means (the Internet, local networks, IRC, email, internet communicators, data storage devices, etc.), and must also all be tested on already-infected computers, as must be malware removal tools such as Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware. The DOD should avoid using the Q-squared Free, which often makes false alarms. The DOD must also install good firewalls and good anti-spy devices on all of its computers. One of the firewalls that should be considered for installation is Outpost Firewall Pro; there is a good free version of it, and the DOD could also buy a license for an even better version. The DOD should test firewalls on its own computers and review monthly the results of firewall tests on this website. The DOD should, whenever possible, acquire and use free protective programs (including antiviruses and firewalls), and use non-free programs only if necessary (i.e. if no free programs are available or if free programs don’t offer a sufficient degree of protection). In the case of whatever protective programs are installed on computers, DOD personnel should change their configurations to increase detectability and reduce the workload on operational systems.  All sensitive issues left unresolved by the DOD must be resolved. Also, the DOD must make its computer access cards tamper-proof and malware-proof, install malware-from-access-cards-detecting software on its computers (those that require access cards), and install keypads and access card readers on the doors to important rooms at DOD buildings, including all rooms where sensitive information and sensitive technologies are stored. The Chinese virus that targets DOD access cards, called Sykipot, must be diagnosed and purged from DOD IT systems, which should be immunized against it. The DOD needs to install software capable of detecting and defeating this virus on its access-card-reading computers. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/21st_century_warfare.html;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html; http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php; http://bigpeace.com/nmachiavelli/2012/01/19/new-chinese-virus-targeting-dod-access-cards/)

84) The DOD should create a single payment system for all members of the military (just like the single payment system for all civilian employees of the DOD) to replace the separate payment systems of the separate military services that exist now, while reforming and graduating it. (http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1321)
85) The US military should train all of its personnel by itself, at its own bases, rather than pay private corporations to train them. The DOD should stop staffing and funding think tanks. The DOD should also reduce the retirements of admirals and generals, at least those who are still employed by someone. (http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1321)
86) All websites of the DOD, including the http://www.defense.gov website, and all DOD and USCG accounts and the USCG’s website, should be moved to the .mil domain.
87) As AT rightly wrote, “There must be a partnership between the government and industry where they share information capabilities. Since every six months, the cyber industry is evolving, with the infrastructure quickly becoming obsolete, solutions must evolve as well.” Google and key industries must be protected by the DOD’s Cyber Command. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_new_generation_of_security.html)
88) As AT has suggested, the US government should start “expanding the national biosurveillance integration center, established in 2008. This center integrates clinical data, regular intelligence information, and Biowatch data so that decision-makers have an early, immediate, and comprehensive picture of the dangerous pathogens. Since in the U.S. alone, there are approximately four hundred research facilities with 15,000 people approved for working in these labs, there has to be more regulatory oversight. There is ongoing research on microbiological forensics, in which a pathogen can be traced to the user. Some government officials argue that this could be used as a form of deterrence.” (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_new_generation_of_security.html)
89) The US should stop leasing any Russian aircraft (to save $840 mn per year) and should resume buying C-17s to do the job Russian An-124 Ruslan aircraft have been leased to do: transport American military equipment to Afghanistan and other theaters. The USAF should buy C-17s (or new An-124s from Ukraine) not only to meet this demand for airlift aircraft, but also to replace its oldest C-5s (C-5As). It should buy at least 4 C-17s every year. This will cost only $800 mn per year, which means a net $40 mn per year saving for the DOD. Similarly, NATO should stop leasing Russian aircraft and should resume buying C-17s. (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/14/defense-insanity-u-s-military-is-dependent-on-russian-pilots-and-planes/)
90) Every service must establish a TF on troopers’ suicides and implement every policy necessary to prevent troopers from committing suicide; American troopers and veterans should be told that they shouldn’t be ashamed if they’re suffering from TBI or PTSD and should be encouraged to go to DVA hospitals. Social spending on consultations with troopers should be reduced, however, not increased.
91) The role of transporting members of the US government (including the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries and military leaders) by helicopter should be assigned to a single helicopter squadron, either the USMC’s HMX-1 Squadron or the USAF’s 1st Helicopter Squadron, and the exquisite squadron should be disbanded or transferred to the winning service (together with its aircraft). The total cost of these two squadrons combined must be reduced by 50%; the USAF’s plan to increase the budget of the 1st Helicopter Sqdn must be cancelled. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Two; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Helicopter_Squadron)
92) To preserve expertise and maintain needed experts, the DOD should establish an Office of the Special Investigator General to supervise contracts awarded in relation to any war or Contingency Op the US might be waging, as suggested by Sen. McCaskill during a SASC hearing on Sept. 28th, 2010.
93) Electoral ballots must be sent to American troopers stationed abroad on the first available plane; if necessary, USAF planes should be reserved for that purpose; all states must be obliged to send ballots to the DOD no fewer than 50 days before the election to which they pertain; no state’s Secretary of State shall be allowed to certify any putative winner of any election unless all ballots (including all ballots returned by American troopers stationed abroad) are counted; no state should be granted a waiver from the MOVE Act (the legal provision authorizing such waivers shall be abolished); a pilot electronic voting program should be established for American troopers stationed in the US and abroad; the DOD and the DOJ shall sue any state which refuses to comply with this. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/end_the_military_voting_scanda.html)
94) No less than 40% of every annual DOD budget must be devoted to equipment procurement accounts and to equipment RDT&E programs. Personnel costs and HC costs must not be allowed to grow nor be financed at the expense of equipment programs.
95) At all national cemeteries, concrete walls for cremated remains in place of old chain-link fencing, or where no sites for cremated interrees exist, if fiscally affordable, to allow additional people to be buried at National Cemeteries. The Arlington National Cemetery should be expanded, at the cost of Fort Myer if necessary. The Golden Gate National Cemetery should use lands not yet used for burials, including the hills near its main gate. If necessary, the SF Columbarium should also be used. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Rosecrans_National_Cemetery; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Gate_National_Cemetery_main_gate.JPG; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbarium)
96) The DOD should greatly toughen the rules that determine who can access classified information, including a minimum age (e.g. 30 years) and a minimum rank (E-6 or O-3).
97) The DOD should create a list of officials, ranked by category, who are authorized to travel on VIP aircraft. Only Executive Branch officials should be allowed to travel aboard DOD aircraft. The categories shall be as follows:
Rank #1: The President, the Vice President. Not more than one official of this rank should be allowed travel on the same aircraft. (This is already an official policy of the US government.)
Rank #2: Cabinet Secretaries and their deputies, service secretaries and their deputies, the Joint Chiefs, the leaders of combatant commands. No more than 2 officials of this rank should travel on the same aircraft, though they may be accompanied by up to 4 officials of lower ranks.
Rank #3: Assistant and Under Cabinet Secretaries and Service Secretaries, Executive Agency directors. No more than 4 officials of this rank should be allowed to travel on the same aircraft, though they may be accompanied by up to 8 officials of lower ranks (Rank #4).
Rank #4: All officials not listed above.
98) All DOD employees and contractors suspected of buying child pornography should be investigated, and those who have indeed bought, downloaded, or otherwise obtained child pornography should be laid off by the DOD and prosecuted by the DOJ.
99) The DOD’s antiquated 18th century grade and rank systems must be reformed to suit the 21st century world. Because grades are determined by the Congress, Congressional legislation is needed to achieve this goal.
100) The federal government should include only one presidential appointee responsible for biodefense – an an Assistant Secretary of the DHS, who should be reporting directly to the chief of that department. That agency should be exclusively responsible for biodefense, and should have the authority, responsibility, and to oversee America’s biodefense programs. A National Strategy to protect the country against bioterrorist attacks must be devised; technological and operational means to protect the country must be established. The DOD should closely cooperate with the DHS on this issue. (http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/gao-details-billions-in)
101) The DOD should establish a mechanism to track “urgent needs funds”. They’re urgent, but how they are spent must be closely monitored by the DOD. There should be only one offfice to which a warfighter can submit requests for “urgent needs funds”.(http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/gao-details-billions-in)
102) All employees of the federal government (including the DOD) must accept a new contract with the federal government: they will enjoy “secure jobs”, but they will have lower salaries than what private sector workers earn and will not have any of the perks they enjoy now.
103) DOD transport aircraft should be prohibited to land at any underequipped airports, except field airports. VIP aircraft must not land at any underequipped airports, including airports not equipped with an ILS.
104) The DOD must NEVER finance “must-pay bills” from modernization accounts. Modernization accounts must never be raided; they must be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for modernization programs. If operations and must-pay bills cannot be paid for, they must not be undertaken at all. If operations are to be undertaken, they must be financed from separate accounts, and never at the expense of modernization accounts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVhh8gqXSUA)
105) The USAF must redress all the deficiencies found by the GAO in its state of preparedness of 9/11-style terrorist attacks, including doctrine, strategy, guidance, planning, and funding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks)
106) Training/Military Academy Reform: Hazing must be prohibited and actually ended, and the perpetrators must be subjected to appropriate punishment. Also, Mahan’s The Influence of Seapower Upon History and Roosevelt’s Naval War of 1812 should once again become compulsory coursebooks at the Naval Academy. The Black Book of Communism should become a compulsory coursebook at all Service Academies, as well as the VMI, so that all academy students will know the nature of America’s principal enemies. All VMI students should be obligated to complete at least 4 years of military service after they graduate (they are already ROTC cadets, but are not currently obligated to serve with the military after graduation). Military Academies should also offer new majors, such as Russian, Chinese, and Spanish, and abolish useless majors such as Political Science.

107) The DOD must do more to reduce the impact of corrosion (which costs $23 bn). It must invest more to prevent corrosion. (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=98c8b6cf-0f86-4151-a9db-e89ecd020788)

108) The DOD should conduct all of its infrastructure construction and and repair programs competitively and in the same manner that the private sector does, as recommended by Rep. Randy Forbes.

109) To prevent aircraft crashes like the VIP aircraft crash of 1996, in Zagreb, the following rules should be instituted: 1) No USAF VIP plane should be allowed to land at any airport which does not have an ILS, any airport which is in substandard conditions (e.g. has a decrepit runway), any airport where the ground personnel is uncooperative, any one which is in or near a warzone, and one for which American or credible foreign air corridor/air approach route maps are obsolete or unavailable.

110) Fort Ord should be sold to a real estate developer who will build something on that property. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Ord)

111) Obligatory DOD cyber defense should be extended to all key industries, including the defense, space, aerospace, nuclear, automobile, shipping, high-tech, rare earth mineral mining, and biomedical industry. “Obligatory” means that these industries will be obligated to accept DOD cyber defense and DOD cyberprotection standards.

112) All affirmative action programs at the USNA must be abolished. (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/%7B0C878C86-B160-4496-A319-FFAC00CC4F5F%7Dmid://00000042/!x-usc:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202588.html)

How the numbers add up
It is impossible for me to estimate the total savings that my reforms would yield, but some reforms would certainly yield large financial savings for the DOD. The table below outlines those savings (based on the numbers from the President’s FY2012 budget request (http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/) ).

Item Annual saving ($ bn) (in FY2011 dollars)
Dept. Of the Air Force admin halving 4.1005
Dept. Of the Navy admin halving 2.466
Dept. Of the Army admin reduction by 25% 3.59925
Discharging 350,000 military personnel 35
Closing the UHSU 0.085
The merger of the CIA with the DIA 1
The new BRAC round 5
Reduction of the OSD budget by 75% 3.537
Unused flight tickets 0.1
Halving annual DOD printing costs 0.7
 Reduction of the JCS budget by 50% 0.2825
 Closure of the RQ-4 Global Hawk program 1.201
 Abolition of all DOD anti-drug programs 1.2
 Merger of all service medical commands 0.324

Total known annual savings: $58.59525.

The total annual savings would be $58.59525 bn. The unknown savings, which are impossible for me to calculate, would certainly be significant, too. I would spend 100% of the savings every year on equipment (including warships) and on additional USAF wings. $10 bn – $12 bn per year of these annual $58.59525 bn per year savings should be added to the USN’s annual shipbuilding budget ($15 bn proposed for FY2011). (http://www.informationdissemination.net/search?q=buy+more+burkes) $850 mn should be added to the next FY’s missile defense budget to implement certain necessary steps. Some savings should be reinvested in financial auditing and in corrosion prevention.

Any savings resulting from base mergers should be reinvested in corrosion prevention, which saves $57 for every $1 invested.

Any DOD funding for Pakistan should be eliminated and the resulting savings reinvested entirely in corrosion prevention.

Posted in Military issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jack Hunter’s new lies about defense spending

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on November 27, 2011


Ron Paul’s official blogger (and self-described “humble servant”) Jack Hunter, who has been caught lying about defense and foreign policy issues several times before, has not given up and is still spreading lies.

And, as I expected, even the massive defense cuts which the sequester will make (now that it has been triggered) do not satisfy the opponents of a strong defense. They now falsely claim that these will not be cuts at all, merely reductions of the projected rate of growth of defense spending. That is a blatant lie, because defense spending WILL BE CUT in real terms from FY2011 levels WITH OR WITHOUT THE SEQUESTER.

Here’s Hunter’s newest article.

This entire article, just like most of what Hunter writes, is a litany of blatant lies. I’ll respond to only a part of it:

“I stress the word “perceived,” because when it comes to Pentagon spending, too many Republicans still behave exactly like liberal Democrats.”
 Gibberish. What some, if not many, Republicans recognize is that the DOD is NOT responsible for America’s fiscal woes, constitutes just 17% of the total federal budget, and is tasked with the #1 Constitutional function of the federal government: defending America.
“The truth is that we don’t need to spend as much on defense as we’re spending now.”
That is not “the truth”, that is your opinion, and it’s fallacious. My opinion is that the US is spending about the right amount of money on defense.
“We’re spending more on defense than at any time since World War II”
That is a blatant lie. The US is NOT spending more on defense than at any time since WW2. America’s current defense budget amounts to just 3.5% of GDP (defense’s lowest share of America’s GDP since FY1948, excluding the late Clinton years) and less than 15% of the total federal budget (also the smallest share since the late 1940s, this time even INCLUDING the late Clinton years). In real terms, the current defense budget (for FY2012), $513 bn, is vastly SMALLER than the Reagan-era budgets for FY1987 ($606 bn in today’s money), FY1988 ($570 bn), and FY1989 ($573 bn). Even including spending on Iraq and Afghanistan won’t help you, Mr Hunter: the military’s share of the pie then raises to just 4.6% of GDP and 17% of the total federal budget, exceeding Reagan era levels only in raw dollar terms (and only by $24 bn).
“and almost as much as every other nation combined.”
That is also a blatant lie. According to the SIPRI, the US is responsible only for 42.8% of global military spending, COUNTING spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the DOE, even if one accepts understated figures for China and Russia.
“Senator Tom Coburn has suggested that if we are going to start cutting, the Pentagon is the most logical place to start precisely because it is the most wasteful.”
Wrong. The DOD is not the most wasteful government department; the DHHS (which manages entitlement programs and pays $180 bn a year to crooks) is. Moreover, the idea that the Congress should start cutting spending by cutting spending on the government’s #1 Constitutional DUTY is both morally repugnant AND wrong AND against the Constitution.
“But even more importantly, these “devastating” automatic cuts that are supposed to happen aren’t really cuts. As Senator Rand Paul explained on CNN the day the super committee failed:

This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%.”

The only problem with this claim is that it is a blatant lie. Even WITHOUT the sequester, the defense budget will be cut IN REAL TERMS (not just in terms of spending growth) by $17 bn in FY2012 (from $530 bn in FY2011) and further in every fiscal year afterwards. WITH the sequester, the defense budget will be cut by over 20% – a whopping 20% – IN REAL TERMS. The defense budget will NOT see any spending growth for at least the next decade – WITH OR WITHOUT THE SEQUESTER. Meanwhile, GWOT/OCO spending is scheduled to go down in every FY automatically and zero out in FY2015, as US troops withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Proof:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=ab5d8376-1144-409f-b7bf-b8f91f66a9fb

Why are Rand Paul and Rush Limbaugh propagating those lies? Paul is a libertarian liar, and Limbaugh is an ignorant radio talk show host. They don’t care about the truth. Yes, El Rushbo, the conservative hero, is in fact an ignorant guy and an abject liar.
“Added Limbaugh:
Defense spending is going up even with sequestration … You understand the current services baseline budgeting, and even you are shocked to realize now that there is no real cut from a baseline of zero in defense spending.
 Again, that is a blatant lie which has utterly discredited Limbaugh. Defense spending will be cut IN REAL TERMS, WITH OR WITHOUT THE SEQUESTER. With the sequester, defense spending will be cut IN REAL TERMS by over 20%. Proof:
“In Graham’s defense, his view on defense spending seems to be the dominant one in the Republican Party today.”
Wrong again. If this was a dominant opinion professed by Republicans, they would not have meekly agreed to the previous 6 rounds of defense cuts nor to the debt ceiling deal which created the sequester in the first place. On Tuesday night’s debate, only two candidates condemned the cuts the sequester will make, while 3 others promised FURTHER cuts ON TOP OF the ones that the sequester will make.
“The problem is there’s simply no way to actually do what every Republican loves to talk about — limiting government, balancing budgets, cutting waste — without reducing defense spending.”
That is also a blatant lie. The budget can be balanced without cutting defense spending. As the Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation have both proven with their budget plans, both of which would balance the budget by FY2020 without any defense cuts. And the claim that limited government can’t exist without defense cuts is also a blatant lie. A strong military and generous funding for it are perfectly consistent with conservative philosophy. They, in fact, irremovable PARTS of conservative philosophy. Conservatism calls for limited government, low taxation, preserving Christian values, and a strong military. None of these parts can be removed from this ideology. You either accept 100% of it or you don’t accept it at all. Furthermore, the Constitution REQUIRES the federal government to provide for a strong defense – although you, as a cafeteria constitutionalist, couldn’t care less about the Constitution.
“After entitlement spending, defense spending is the second largest part of our budget.”
 Technically true, but entitlement spending alone consumes a full 56% of the federal budget, with another 6% being used to pay interest rates on the debt. Military spending amounts to less than 19%.
“You could feasibly gut the entire entitlement system and not touch Pentagon spending, but what politician is going to tell America’s seniors they must do without so Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and God-knows-where-else can have more?””
 The Libyan War is over, and the Iraqi war will be over by this year’s end. Plus, the sequester will make cuts to the CORE defense budget – which pays for defending AMERICA ITSELF – for the feeding, salarying, equipping, housing, maintaining, and training the military, not for wars of nationbuilding. It will make whopping cuts to the core defense budget. And the idea that defense spending should be cut before entitlements is morally repugnant, wrong, un-conservative, and against the Constitution.
“If my fellow conservatives want to know why the GOP has failed to cut government spending, look at Lindsey Graham. Then take a look at all of the other Republicans who agree with him.”
Go to hell. You have no right to call us conservatives “my fellow conservatives.” You are not one of us. You are not a conservative. You are a leftist, anti-defense libertarian and a Ron Paul cultist. You are not a conservative, have never been, and never will be. You are an utterly discredited libertarian liar. A true conservative SUPPORTS a strong defense and robust funding for it, while being mindful that waste in any government department – especially one tasked with defending America – is inexcusable and needs to be excised. Robust funding for defense is perfectly in line with, and constitutes a part of, conservative ideology. CUTTING defense is a tenet of liberal and libertarian ideologies. Go to dailypaul.com and lewrockwell.com and write your libertarian garbage there. You are not a conservative.
UPDATE: Joseph Lawler of the American Spectator, in an AmSpec blogpost titled “Perspectives on the sequester”, has proven that because the sequester will kick in, defense spending will be cut IN REAL TERMS – not just in raw dollar terms, but also as a percentage of GDP – to historic lows not seen in decades, and that it would have been cut IN REAL TERMS to historic laws even WITHOUT the sequester as a consequence of the debt ceiling deal: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/23/perspective-on-the-sequester
Under so-called “baseline budgeting”, military spending would ALSO decline to historic lows. Specifically:
1) Under baseline budgeting, without the debt ceiling deal, military spending would shrink from 4.5% of GDP in FY2011 to 3.0% of GDP in FY2021.
2) Under the terms of the debt ceiling deal but without the sequester, military spending would be cut significantly below the baseline, with the big cuts starting in FY2016 and widening in every successive FY, taking military spending down to 2.75% of GDP (a level not since since the 1930s!) in FY2021.
3) Under the terms of the debt ceiling deal and with the sequester, which was triggered on November 23rd, military spending will be cut significantly below the baseline starting in FY2013, with the cuts widening in every successive fiscal year, shrinking military spending down to 2.5% of GDP – less than what South Korea spends on its military – in FY2021.
The source: the Bipartisan Policy Center, reposted on the American Spectator’s website by Joseph Lawler (http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/23/perspective-on-the-sequester).

Posted in Military issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 432 other followers