It is Manic Monday. Today's subject, the national budget. Recently a friend pointed out that the first thing the government seeks to cut is the defense budget. I wonder why. The fact is that the defense budget is less than a quarter of the entire national budget. This means that three quarters of the budget is considered secondary when it comes to cuts. The pentagon was instructed to cut 600 billion from its budget. If all of the rest of government were to cut the same amount, it would amount to 2.4 trillion dollars in savings. Yet, it is only the defense budget that is facing these type of cuts. Now, add in the fact that, of all the programs on the budget, only Defense is named specifically in the constitution. I know that some of the other expenditures are implied, but only defense is actually named.
So, why is defense always targeted? Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money. We would drop in millions and what did we get out? Some new weapons, maybe a new building. Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats. While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise. The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items. Why? Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress. Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents. The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can. Let's take a look at a simple valve. That part may cost $20 at Lowe's. But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why. That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage. They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business. Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned. Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran. Then another 10% because she is a minority. After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract. This is a small example. There are hundreds more like it and it adds up. As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world. Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business. They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract. This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
That being said. I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street. The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military. This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget. That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned. They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years. We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service. Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it. How is this right? We have a welfare system that is broke. A government that is dysfunctional at best. Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe. Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better.
Am I a bit disappointed? Yes. Am I bit angered? Who wouldn't be? The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain. They don't see the need for it. there is a need. The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests. We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries. We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us. We do this by protecting those who would be our allies. We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there. Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. I beg to differ. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support. Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region. Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us. For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action. Did we use a bad excuse? Maybe. We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it. It doesn't watter now though. Remember that last thing I said we did? The one about leaving a place better than we found it. This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy. This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself. Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists. If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild. By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region. This is what we do. To do any less would be un-American.
Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this. It is your turn. Tell me where I am wrong. Let me know what I have said that has upset you. I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have. I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings. But maybe I am mistaken.
Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day.
No comments:
Post a Comment