Cutting the Defense Budget
Nov 19, 2010 Updates
When we talk about the budget cuts that need to be made to help Congress balance the federal budget, the Department of Defense has many expensive programs that could and should go on the chopping block. You must remember that because of acquisition and procurement costs of weapons systems, the Department of Defense budget is set and mapped out years in advance. This month, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a multipage report which will radically cut many items from the present defense budget. Because many of their recommendations are wise and sensible, I will include them here:
(1) Reduce military personnel stationed at foreign bases in Europe and Asia by one third. This sensible move would save $8.5 billion per year, commencing in FY 2015.
(2) Replace military personnel performing commercial activities with civilians. This includes installation support functions such as trash collection, fire prevention, supply and transportation, and communications services. This would save $5.4 billion per year in FY 2015.
(3) Reduce spending on research and development by 10%. This would save $7 billion per year by FY 2015.
(4) Reduce spending on facilities maintenance. This would save around $1.4 billion per year by FY 2015.
(5) Consolidate the DOD’s retail and commissary activities with the various services worldwide. This would save around $1.7 billion per year by FY 2015.
(6) Cancel procurement of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter which was planned for the US Marine Corps; cut the planned orders in half for the F-35A and the F-35C ordered for the USAF and the US Navy. The F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced fighter plane in the world. It is also the most expensive to develop and produce. The U.S. plans to purchase 2443 aircraft for $32.3 billion. This makes this program the most expensive defense program ever. To date, Lockheed Martin has built 13 test aircraft, and 15 aircraft are now under order, at a cost of $96 million per unit.
On March 11, 2010, the General Accounting Office (GAO) projected the overall cost of one F-35A to be around $112 million per aircraft. In today’s budgetary environment, that cost is unacceptable. The Commission recommends canceling procurement of the F-35B aircraft altogether. This was a fighter that was planned for the US Marine Corps. That would save $3.9 billion in FY 2015, and $17.6 billion from FY 2012-FY 2015. It also recommends halving the order of 369 F-35A aircraft planned for the US Air Force, and halving the planned order of 311 F-35C aircraft planned for the US Navy. The Commission further recommends that half of the monies used to acquire the expensive F-35 aircraft be spent to acquire other aircraft instead. In lieu of 185 F-35A models, the Air Force could instead acquire 185 F-16 aircraft at one third of the cost of 185 F-35A model aircraft. Instead of buying 155 F-35C aircraft, the Navy could acquire 155 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet aircraft at two thirds of the cost of the F-35C aircraft. Production lines are currently open for production of the F-16 and the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet aircraft, as opposed to the F-35 aircraft. This allows for the acquisition of the older aircraft at a decreased cost to the taxpayors.
This move would save $2.3 billion in FY 2015, and $9.5 billion from FY 2011 to FY 2015.
(7) Cancel the V-22 Osprey program. The V-22 Osprey aircraft is a multimission, tiltrotor aircraft with short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability and vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability. It has had a long and storied history of failures, crashes, and cost overruns. The 4th and 5th prototypes of this aircraft crashed in 1991 and 1992. In 2000, there were two fatal crashes that killed 19 US Marines. The developmental budget for this aircraft was $2.5 billion in 1986, and increased to $30 billion in 1988. By FY 2008, $27 billion has been spent on the acquisition of the Osprey aircraft.
In 2001, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman was relieved from command at a naval air station in Maryland after falsifying maintenance records to make the Osprey appear to be more reliable than it actually was. The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is unable to safely land in helicopter mode if both engines fail. There is currently an order pending for 458 Ospreys, with 300 going to the USMC, and 48 to the US Navy, and 50 to the US Air Force. The unit cost is $110 million per aircraft.
A recent study by the GAO (General Accounting Office) in January of 2009 from deployments in Iraq yields the following data: A mission capable rating of 57% to 68%, with an overall mission capable rate of only 6%. This program should have been killed years ago, and it is nothing short of unbelievable that the DOD ever agreed to acquire any of these unsafe and unreliable aircraft in any significant numbers, period. Canceling this program will save at least $2.8 billion per year from the DOD budget.
Cumulative savings. These cuts recommended by the Commission as indicated above would save around $33 billion from the DOD budget in FY 2015. That is a significant savings of taxpayer dollars. These common sense proposals by the Commission should be lauded and embraced by the American public, in a time of budget crisis.
Cutting the Budget
Nov 19, 2010 Updates
Now that a Republican majority has been elected in the U.S. House of Representatives, a new priority will be implemented concerning the federal budget. We must remember that under our Constitution, all appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The newly elected GOP members have pledged, when seated, to repeal Obamacare, and to not enact any new taxes to balance the federal budget. They also believe they have a mandate to scale back the size and the outreach of the federal government. The Bush era income tax cuts will in all likelihood, remain intact.
If you cannot enact any new taxes, and you have interest in balancing the federal budget, what can you do? Well, your next priority will be to look for ways that you can make cuts in the existing federal budget. Here is a list of some cuts that could be made to the federal budget:
- Do away with Earned Income Credit. Earned Income Credit began under the Nixon Administration as the Family Assistance Plan. It is basically a reverse income tax for some low income wage earners. In essence, some individuals that pay little or no federal income tax anyway, are allowed to file a federal income tax return and receive an income tax refund, even though they did not pay income tax into the system. It is a form of income tax redistribution by the IRS. The IRS is essentially taking away income tax monies from medium and high income wage earners, and giving money back to low income wage earners, even though they did not pay that amount of tax into the system. This would save $54.1 billion from the budget each year.
- Repeal No Child Left Behind Act. This feel good piece of federal legislation was enacted in 2001. It places onerous reporting requirements and other requirements on the states and local school systems, yet the federal government only pays for around 9% of the costs for the implementation of NCLB. This law is essentially an unfunded and an underfunded federal mandate that is hypocrisy writ large. Uncle Sam basically tells local school systems and the states what they must do to implement different programs in local schools, yet sends out little funding from Washington to help implement those same programs. Local school systems are forced to teach students to perform well on standardized tests as a result of this NCLB Act. Instead of teaching school subjects in a traditional way, local schools are forced to teach students how to pass a test. That has the effect of warping the main reasons why children are sent to school in the first place, which is to learn in accordance with their grade level. This would save about $23.4 billion per year from the federal budget, and at least $161 million per year from the budgets of the states and local school systems.
- Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. This federal agency has an annual budget of over $77 billion, 787 million dollars. I need to break down this budget for you, to show the programs administered by this agency:
Grants to college students constitute over $6 billion, 597 million dollars each year. This particular program could be handled by the U.S. Treasury if the Department of Education is abolished by statute. Over $4.6 billion is for so-called concentration grants and targeted grants. Over $545 million is for school turnaround grants to local school districts. Over $394 million is for migrant student education, and over $50 million is for education for delinquent children. Over $10 billion is for grants for education for the disadvantaged. Over $1.2 billion is for impact aid to local school districts in areas with military bases. $308 million is for education improvement programs, and over $178 million is for math and science programs. $222.2 million is for programs for effective teaching at the local level. The implementation of local educational programs is not a federal function in our country. Local school programs are paid for by local property taxes, and by the state governments. The elimination of this agency altogether would chop at least $67 billion per year from the federal budget. Considering the fact that this agency performs no essential governmental function at a national level, the Congress should put this agency on the budget chopping block.
4. Greatly Reduce Funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior administers U.S. Government programs to Native Americans. These programs are left over relics from the federal policies of the 1880s and the 1870s. The policy of Uncle Sam in those days was to get the nomadic Plains Indians off of buffalo hunting, and onto reservations, where the government wanted them to become ranchers and farmers. These programs were originally designed to transition Native Americans into a new way of life, but they have become high maintenance welfare programs that have lasted for many years. The original recognition of the Native American tribes by the U.S. Government was one of dealing with the tribes as separate nations, rather than the assimilation of Native Americans into our own culture. These programs goals are now outdated.
If the Native Americans want to have a separate and secure status as independent tribes, they should get off the payroll of the U.S. Government. The annual budget for the BOIA is $2.2 billion. In terms of annual appropriations, welfare assistance takes $151.3 million; tribal government programs takes $374.7 million, tribal education services takes $637.7 million, tribal law enforcement takes $199 million, economic development takes $52.7 million, and administrative and personnel services takes $224.5 million each year.
Many of these tribes, such as the Crow and Blackfeet, control vast amounts of western lands, where they could issue hunting and big game licenses and fishing permits. Many tribes also have their own gambling casinos. What Congress should do is enact legislation similar to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which would be directed at the various Indian Tribes. The act should be used as a template for the formation of tribal governments and the establishment of tribal courts and law enforcement systems. Who can do a better job of taking care of Native Americans than Native Americans? If the tribes could raise their own revenue and implement their own law enforcement systems and governments, the amount of federal assistance could be drastically reduced.
President Obama has also appointed a budget commission to study ways to reduce the federal deficit. They have released a report this past week, which I am reviewing. I will comment on their findings next week.
A New Mandate
Nov 4, 2010 Updates
The people of the United States have spoken in this mid-term election, and the GOP has picked up a number of seats in the next U.S. Congress. MSNBC reports that the GOP now has 46 seats in the Senate, compared to 52 Democratic seats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. In the House, the GOP now has 239 seats, compared to 185 Democratic seats. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio (R ), will become the next Speaker of the House. Democrat Harry Reid won reelection in Nevada, and he will continue as Senate Majority Leader.
Most of the GOP and Tea Party candidates were swept into office by a mandate of less government. What does this mean? Well, it means that we do not need to have U.S. forces stationed in over 120 countries around the world. It means that we do not need to fight open ended Wilsonian type wars in the Middle East. It means that the Obama health care law will probably be scaled back, or repealed and replaced with a series of smaller bills by the new Congress. It also means that there will probably be another round of base closures, and several weapons systems will be scrapped. Less government also means that things that the government is doing today, may not be done by the government in the future.
Less government also means that we will probably have to work longer before we can draw Social Security retirement benefits. It means that the Congress must now get by without enacting any new taxes, but must also figure out a way to bring a multitrillion dollar federal budget into balance.
If you can’t enact any new taxes into the mix, then less government must mean that substantial cuts must be made to the federal budget. There is a dirty word that has been spoken in the halls of the Congress, and in the federal agencies for the past 50 years. That word is incrementalism. Over the past fifty years, once an item makes its way into the federal budget, it stays there. As each budget cycle proceeds, most of time, that particular appropriation never gets chopped out of the budget, but instead the line item appropriation grows and grows in increments with each budget cycle. Agencies don’t want their budgets cut, and they don’t want to kill specific programs, so Uncle Sam throws more money at a particular problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it. Congress and the federal government have become a giant money sucking vacuum cleaner that robs us of our hard earned money in the form of income taxes and excise taxes. They then throw our hard earned money at various problems, at their discretion.
I once heard that if someone had the power to take all of the money in the world way from the rich and the poor alike, and then redistribute the funds in equal installments to all people, that everyone would end up with around $2200.00. That means beyond all doubt, there is a finite supply of money in the world, and in this country. Our Congress and the federal government, though, have been operating as if there is an infinite amount of money in this country that they can obtain through taxation. In reality, that is not the case at all, and this recent election has been a wake up call to the Obama Administration and to the Congress that the federal government must live within its means.
One of the first pledges of Rep. John Boehner and the Tea Party candidates is the repeal of Obamacare. They will probably have to override several presidential vetoes to make this happen, but they now have the votes to get it done. I believe they can get enough Democrats to vote with them, to get Obamacare overhauled or at least partially repealed. President Obama got this legislation passed without decent and sufficient input from the people, and the process he used to ram the bill through the Congress has cost him all of the political capital he brought with him in 2008. What this mid-term election tells me is that Obama was not elected president because of things he himself had done, but he was elected because his predecessor had angered the American people by leaving this country in one mess after another.
The people now say through this last election that they want less government, and they want relief from the high levels of taxation they receive from the federal, state, and local governments.
The thinking in Washington must change, and whole programs inside the various agencies should be put on the chopping block come budget making time. Over the next few weeks, I will actually pull up some line-item budget numbers for the federal agencies, and show you where the federal budget could be cut to save the taxpayers substantial money. Instead of throwing out general information, I will get specific and show you specific examples of how the federal budget can be cut, and cut selectively.
Steven Harrell has practiced law in Perry, Georgia since 1989.
He is the author of The Unionist, A Novel of the Civil War and The Rifle Captain, A Novel of World War I. Both are available at Amazon.com, and Barnes&Noble.com. You may email him at sharrell@comsouth.net.
Election Special
Nov 4, 2010 Updates
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion that struck down part of the McCain Feingold Act that would have regulated campaign finance. This bone headed ruling by the judicial branch of our government has opened up the floodgates for insurance companies and other special interest groups to air wave after wave of attack ads on the electronic media before elections.
This mid-term election has seen more than its fair share of negative and vitriolic attack ads. The only groups that really like these ads are the local TV and radio stations, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Ever since political attack ads were perfected by Lee Atwater in the 1988 Presidential election, attack ads have grown more venomous and more frequent. They have become the primary means of running a campaign, and that in and of itself is shameful.
We must learn to communicate our platforms and our vision for America more positively and more effectively to get elected to public offices. We should do that without having to throw stones at our brothers and sisters. A campaign should be more about what a candidate is willing to do to be successful in office, not so much about how our brother or sister has failed in the past.
I did not support Austin Scott for the U.S. Congress. When he was divorced around six years ago in Tift County, a Superior Court judge sealed his divorce file. A Democratic activist, Amy Morton, has retained Macon attorney Carmel Sanders to file suit to reopen Austin Scott’s divorce file, and to make it a public matter. Honestly, the contents of Austin Scott’s divorce file are really not related to public business.
I could care less if he put on a pink leopard suit at 2 A.M., and rode around on a striped zebra in Piedmont Park six years ago. (I am not saying that he did!) His private life is none of my business. Jim Marshall should have had the moral and the political courage to disavow any connection with Amy Morton’s fishing expedition into Austin Scott’s divorce file. He should also condemn her actions as well.
Such venomous tactics are a primary reason why talented and well qualified individuals never seek office or serve in high profile posts. One of the primary reasons that Sam Nunn left the U.S. Senate revolved around the uncivil nature of elective politics, and because Washington had become too polarized.
We can disagree about policies and theories for the implementation of public programs without engaging in name calling, hateful behavior, or low life carping. This nation is the most divided it has been since Kansas petitioned for admission into the Union in 1856. If we continue down the same path of divisiveness that our nation went down in 1856, we are looking at major civil unrest, and maybe civil war.
Winning an election at any cost makes the victor nothing more than a pretender at best. After you get elected to public office, you must lead and lead effectively, or you may be voted out of office the next election cycle. We can do better. We can and we should initiate reforms to reform our election system on a statewide level. The people of this great state and nation should demand more than they are getting from their elected leaders. Some serious changes need to be made in the way candidates qualify and pursue elected offices in this country. If it means that we need to vote out all of the incumbents and start over to change the process, then maybe that is what we should do. There are too many sacred cows in our primary and general election system. Changes should be made. Our children deserve better.
Steven Harrell has practiced law in Perry, Georgia since 1989.
He is the author of The Unionist, A Novel of the Civil War and The Rifle Captain, A Novel of World War I. Both are available at Amazon.com, and Barnes&Noble.com. You may email him at sharrell@comsouth.net.
