Today’s must read comes from Bruce McQuain at The Washington Examiner (make sure to also check out Bruce’s posts at Q&O, a blog I have long read)
“There has not been a single soldier or Marine who lost his life in combat due to a threat from the air in over 56 years.”
Let that statement sink in for a minute. The reason we’ve not lost a single soldier or Marine to enemy air is we’ve maintained such a dominant edge in both technology, ability and numbers that no enemy has been able to challenge our dominance of the air over any battlefield on which we’ve fought since Korea.
The problem, as Bruce points out, is that cuts in the Department of Defense could doom our air superiority. I won’t steal his thunder, you need to read the whole article, but, suffice to say, it looks like the F-22 program will be limited to 187, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could be doomed. Bruce ends this way
While it is certain cutbacks in defense spending are necessary, they must not jeopardize our military’s survival or our national security. 5th generation air superiority and strike fighters are critical to both.
The problem with Washington is that they mostly look to cut the wrong way. Instead of looking to cut waste, trim fat, spend wisely, make the money go further, like any responsible company, or family, would do, they simply look to cut programs. I’ve long discussed this problem, even going back to graduate school. Take the case of appropriations.
How do appropriations tend to work in government? Say you have an agency, we’ll call them the Department of Waste. Last year, they received $1.8 billion, and they spent it all. This year, they received $2 billion. For next year, they want $2.2B. In government, if you don’t spend all your money, you will not get more next year, and the DoW really wants to keep up with their competition, the Department of Urban Management of Bunnies. So, they really didn’t need $2B, and, in order to show they need more, they piss $100 million away to hit the $2B mark. Furthermore, they overspend on, well, almost everything. It’s Someone Else’s money, so, why should they worry? The government will get more.
Then they ask for $2.4B. The People In Charge say “well, you’ve been good little boys and girls, and spent your $2B, so, we’ll give you $2.2B.” Instead of being incented to be frugal with the money, they are rewarded for spending like drunks after a bank heist. This is how you end up with $500 hammers (rather an urban myth, but, they sure aren’t spending $50 down at Sears for a hammer with a lifetime warranty) and $600 toilet seats, among other waste, along with surplus. That’s a low level version of appropriations. If it was changed to appropriating what was actually needed, getting agencies to spend wisely, incenting them to save where possible, and having a mechanism for over-budget when needed, you could cut hundreds of billions from the budget.
Then you have contracting. Let’s say you wanted to added a deck out back. The company you contract with says it will take 5 days and cost $4,000. And that is in the contract. Come day 4, they tell you it will take 3 more days, even though it only rained one day, and will cost an extra $1,000. Now, would you pay up? Or, would you tell the company they “can kiss you a**, they’re not getting another dime, and they have one extra day, otherwise, you’ll see them in court”? I’m betting on the second.
But that is not what government does, because it is Someone Else’s money. They contract out to Company X for so much money in so much time. And then the contractor has “cost overruns” (guess who pays for that? Hint: not the company) and adds a lot of time on to the project. It might have rained, say, 20 days, but, they tell you it will take 4 more months. Even more lost “money from time.” (Yes, you saw this in the movie Dave, and, it makes sense.”) Instead, you do it like building a house: you don’t pay up for cost overruns. That is the contractors problem. You penalize for being late, and can reward for coming in early (as long as the quality is there.)
There are many other ways to do way more with less. If government would be sensible, there would be no need to worry about the loss of our ability to be utterly dominant when we have to project power/defend our nation. And there would be more money for other programs, making both left and right happy. To end up, remember this gem from Milton Friedman:
“There are four ways in which you can spend money.  You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else.  For example, I buy a birthday present for someone.  Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.  Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself.  And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!  Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.  And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.  And that’s government.â€
