« | »

Pentagon Says: Cut Our Spending, Please

From the DNC’s handmaidens at the Washington Post:

Pentagon officials: Spending is bloated

By Walter H. Pincus
Wednesday, September 29, 2010; A19

Top Defense Department officials told Congress Tuesday that Pentagon overspending must be curtailed in order to maintain the current size and strength of the armed forces.

Explaining the reasons for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’s ambitious program to reduce costs, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "headquarters and support bureaucracies, military and civilian alike . . . have swelled to cumbersome proportions, grown over-reliant on contractors and become accustomed to operating with little consideration of costs."

This is the payoff from that series of articles that the Washington Post did a few weeks ago, "exposing" the supposed overlaps in ‘Homeland Security’ and intelligence agencies since 9/11.

Luckily, this problem seems to be entirely limited to the defense branches of government. No other government bureaucracies seem to have "swelled to cumbersome proportions."

Still, remember when outsourcing to private contractors was supposed to save money? Whatever happened to that?

To decrease what Lynn described as the "department’s massive overhead costs and structure," he said that task forces are at work to find $100 billion in cuts over the next five years by "targeting unnecessary excess and duplication in the defense enterprise." Reaching that goal would enable the money to be spent on warfighter [sic] needs and reduce funding increases, he said.

Well, as long as there is a "task force" at work on the problem we can be sure it will be solved very soon. But why stop at cutting the Defense Department by a measly $100 billion? Why not a $1 trillion, as the security expert Barney Frank suggests?

Expanding on statements by Gates, Lynn said contractors had grown to 39 percent of the Pentagon workforce from 26 percent since 2001 because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the availability of supplemental funding. "Many of these recently outsourced service support and advisory contractors are actually carrying out functions that should be performed by government employees," he said

And, of course, ideally, these would be unionized government employees. They make the best workers.

Gates has already ordered a 10 percent cut in intelligence advisory and assistance contracts for this year and froze the number of senior executives in defense intelligence positions

Because one thing we have learned over the years is that you can scrimp on intelligence. Social welfare programs are sacrosanct.

But intelligence? Who needs it?

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, September 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “Pentagon Says: Cut Our Spending, Please”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    Bureaucracies………..Obamaos’ idea of ‘Shovel Ready’ jobs. Look what a monster of many heads has become.
    Layer upon layer upon layer………………..

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      You got that right, LD. A socialists answer to anything is more overseers. Committees, panels, management and the people will then naturally fall in line. Ran into that in the military as well. No wonder we used to refer to it as “reinventing the wheel”. There were those commanders who loved bureaucracy and those who did not. The ones who did not had more efficient, streamlined operations. They also had the tendency to not micromanage. Each entity had its responsibility and problems were dealt with at the lowest level when possible.

      Given that most socialists in our government, if not all of them have no military experience, they have not had the benefit of observing such things firsthand and instead, think that brain-trusts and think-tanks are the way to get things done. History has shown though, that even with minimal management of even dubious intelligence, given a motivated mass of heavy-lifters, good things get done. There does need to be a voice of reason and in many cases a technically wise individual who would prevent the obvious cascade of failure but other than that, too many cooks spoil the broth.

      Which leads me to the conclusion, again, that critical thinking, by not being taught in our school system, instead produces a plethora of soon-to-be bureaucrats who don’t really know how anything works, who have never applied nut-to-bolt, etc. That is a very dangerous situation when a nation cannot see for wanting to know how to light a candle.

  2. U NO HOO says:

    As the red light in the traffic signal said, “Kill me before I stop again.”

  3. Petronius says:

    Deputy Def Sec’y Lynn testified that, “Many of these recently outsourced service support and advisory contractors are actually carrying out functions that should be performed by government employees.”


    Under Federal procurement regulations (OMB Circular A-76, and implementing DoD regs), all work that is not “inherently governmental” must be contracted out to the private sector. Such work includes “support and advisory” services, including information technology, facilities maintenance, transportation, and weapons repair and maintenance, as described in the underlying Wash Post article.

    And once contracted out, the business remains in the private sector indefinitely. There are a few extremely narrow exceptions, but as a practical matter it is virtually impossible to return work from the private sector to be performed by the government in-house.

    That a deputy secretary of defense could spout such nonsense is highly suspicious. Clearly there is something fishy going on here.

    Lynn is an attorney and therefore should know better. However, he is also a former legislative counsel and advisor to Sen. Ted Kennedy, which explains a lot. He received an appointment to DoD from Pres. Clinton, then returned to Raytheon as a lobbyist. His current DoD appointment by Nerobama violated the Federal 2-year ethics rule against conflicts of interest, but Nerobama granted Lynn a special waiver — a waiver over the objection of Sen. John McCain.


    One wonders how many of these ethics waivers have been granted to Democrat Party lobbyists by Nerobama’s regime, by this paragon of ethics and transparency?

  4. proreason says:

    You have to wonder why, for probably the first time ever, the DOD is recommending to eviserate itself.

    Might it have something to do with a president who views himself as more global than American, more socialist than capitalist, more communist than constitutionalist, more muslim than judeo christion, more black than white?

    2 years of gutting defense and national security will require a decade to undo. Once R&D is halted, it simply cannot be re-started as if there was no halt in operations.

    This is a much more dangerous issue than the amount of money involved.

    The man is a traitor.

    There is no other explanation.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I’ve lost count of what phase of the master plan this is.

      But it’s the one where our security is undermined and our people are permanently chained to the bondage of taxation.

      In other words, the one we have to stop at all costs to save freedom.

      He’s bluffing or has a hidden ace up his sleeve if he thinks they’re gonna get any of this. I don’t think his regime or the party can be saved from the coming ethics and corruption charges, personally. That’s what has me on edge. Heh.

    • Milissa says:

      Curious. I heard that if the tax cuts exprire we will be at the same level as Regan era taxes?

      Frankly I could do without all the miltary spending. I would rather have my taxes go to schools and programs that help the poor.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      “Frankly I could do without all the miltary spending. I would rather have my taxes go to schools and programs that help the poor.

      I’m falling over dead with not surprised.

    • Milissa says:

      Hey Rusty,

      Just trying to learn here. I was reading Anne Coulter’s site a while ago. I have never been very politcal.

      My Mom is a Democrat and my Father a Republican. My father was in the Air Force for twenty years.

      I am just on the site trying to understand what everyone is upset about.

    • JohnMG says:

      If you do without the military spending, that will be just the advent of the things you will do without–beginning with your own personal freedoms. I’m appalled at your naivete.

      Rusty isn’t nearly as mean as you suggest. He, like me, just can’t brook stupidity. In other words, we don’t suffer fools well. You’ve made the list without half trying.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      I think one reason for the sudden shift in Pentagon rhetoric is that the Democrat appointees are reaching a critical mass at the upper ranks. That’s one possibility.

      Also, the reality is that the military’s tired. I’ve been blogging a bit about this on my site. Asking for a draw-down in spending is a way of asking that there be no more surges or orders for enhanced fighting overseas. We can’t compare this situation to World War II or Vietnam; this is truly uncharted territory, since this is the longest we’ve remain engaged in hot war continuously, and we’re doing it with a volunteer army. One article I posted on my site is about the huge cost of recruiting and retaining people — which is partly the result, yes, of an in-power party that has so thoroughly downplayed the honor in serving. http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com

      It also doesn’t help that with the myriad of problems faced by us in the military, the public only wants to talk about the fruitless and irrelevant debate on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

    • Milissa says:

      Sorry I am a fool and stupid as you suggest. I was just trying to learn.

      You are going to turn people away from your cause if you insult everyone that may not completely understand where you are coming from.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Well. Melissa, with all due courtesy and now that I understand, perhaps you should’ve opened with that.

      I get it now and look forward to a better discourse.

      It does pay to read here for a bit before jumping in but you’re right about putting people off. However, we already know that the left can’t stand us anyhow. We thought you were a left “operative”. (that’s a friendly poke)

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”Frankly I could do without all the miltary spending. I would rather have my taxes go to schools and programs that help the poor……”

      Enough with the ‘I’m-only-trying-to-understand’ innocence act.

      Nothing is stopping you from writing a check. There are plenty of charities and school programs that don’t exist on the government dime. And I’m sure your brother wouldn’t complain if you were to buy groceries for him this week. Try using your own money instead of that which is forcibly extorted from the taxpayers’ incomes.

      You liberals are all alike. You ascribe to the theory of doing good thusly: Republicans want to do good with “their” money. Democrats want to do good with their (Republican’s) money too. Try giving away some of your own for a change.

      Lincoln did away with slavery, but the democrats are doing their damndest to bring it back through punitive taxation. As to your point on military spending–ironically, that is THE ONE THING that the Constitution mandates the government do. The rest (ie. Dept of Ed., Dept. of Energy, EPA, and all the other alphabet soup departments) is a liberal whore’s dream.

      But in your youthful innocence, you’ve probably never considered that.

    • Milissa says:

      I do give to charity. $65 dollars a month. And I do get them groceries.

      I didn’t know that it would stir the pot to say I wanted my tax dollars to go schools and poor.

      I think it would be great if I could decide where my tax dollars go.

      So what do you all think about the D.E.A? A couple of people I know, say it sound be dismantled because it is a waste of tax payer dollars. Is that part of the liberal dream you are talking about?

      I am in no way saying it should be or have an opinion on it. I am just asking your opinion.

    • JohnMG says:

      As a self-proclaimed libertarian, you seem woefully uninformed as to what they think, feel, believe, and/or advocate.

      In answer to your question about DEA–yes, do away with that and all the other specialized enforcement agencies. The whole arguement of Holder/Obama vis-a-via Arizona’s law is that the state shouldn’t, or isn’t capable of enforcing federal law. Bullcrap! Enforcing law isn’t rocket science.

      As for DEA or any of the other myriad agencies, please cite constitutional authority for any of them. Or for that matter Social Security (yes, I’m a recipient) Medicare, SCHIP, the department of education, the national endowment of the arts, (whose “piss Christ I find particularly offensive) abortion on demand, mandated sex education, and particularly health care………oh, the list could go on into the night. Please cite by whose authority this all came about. But save yourself a lot of time and trouble. You won’t be able to do it.

      Apparently you are a product of public education since you have a fundamental lack if knowledge when it comes to our form of government. This isn’t to say it’s your fault, because education has been dumbed down to the point it is almost irrelevant. But to be critical of those who understand, and who can see what is happening, and basing that critique on emotion rather than fact IS inexcusable.

      Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can do that in a relative few minutes. You can’t say that for the health care bill….or the federal tax code.

      I prefer this present gang of fools were absent from my life. But unthinking or ignorant people insist on re-electing them. Hopefully, November 2 will change that.

    • proreason says:

      As you may suspect, Milissa, many who post here have endured our own economic hardships recently and we aren’t so brain-dead as to blame them on Bush or Thomas Jefferson.

      In our views, the Moron is deliberately doing everything he can to destroy the economy and the country.

      We aren’t in a mood to be patient with the state of affairs and aren’t shy about saying how we feel about the situation, including someone who isn’t as contemptuous as we are of the criminals who have now turned their attention to ruining the lives of people three generations in the future.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Hi Milissa, welcome to the fray and just some thoughts –

      1. Don’t support an argument without a factual basis or one of personal expertise. (Libs love to come here and throw talking points at us – and we love tearing them apart as you found out).

      2. You’re confused about why a simple statement about education and entitlement spending could make us so indignant. Well the grassroots has a slogan: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not informed.” But don’t take it personally or paint the Conservative philosophy with the brush of one simple impression; you have questions – research! Don’t take ours or anyone else’s word for anything. Discover what you believe, and discover what everyone in power believes – not what they say but DO – and then discover what the effects of those governing actions and styles historically have been. Discover what this country’s politics have become, how our system is supposed to govern and how it currently does. Discover how politicians (every Democrat but of course a lot of establishemnt Republicans too) use straw-man arguments – irrelevant to anything they intend to do most of the time – and emotional appeals to the public to peddle their sinister ideas to accrue power and engineer society. Discover all this – and all the citizen groups that’re impugned and maligned in the media, everyday people who are fighting for true reform, whether it be taxes, education, immigration – then come back and tell us that anything government does other than keep us safe actually helps people, especially the poor, especially minorities, especially children. They even suck at keeping us safe for the most part, at least at the management level. It’s hard-working, hard-sacrificing Americans that do that.

      3. You heard letting the Bush tax cuts expire would return us to Reagan’s margins. That’s a factual manipulation peddled by politicians who know large quantities of people will believe it because they don’t bother to find out the truth. Once again – research. You’d find out the Bush tax cuts returned us to the Reagan margins after Clinton had slightly raised them. By 2012, the hidden taxes and tax subsidy eliminations in Obamacare kick in, effectively raising the the top marginal rate above Clinton! Of course impulse might tell you “well that’s just on the greedy rich, they can afford that” but research further and you’ll find that there’s hidden fees, regulations and taxes which make everything grossly expensive for well.. everyone! That’s just one of many massive debacle pieces of legislation to come out of this regime in the past 20 months, and it’s their goal to have that type of reach into all aspects of everyone’s lives, from energy consumption to food consumption to transportaion choices. And that’s without even letting the current rates expire! That’s without hearing about how we’re going to need a Value Added Tax applied to all goods at all different levels of production to pay off the debt incurred by all these entitlement programs! All of it kills the job creating, wealth creating, thus tax creating engine of this country. It’s all a farce and history has proven it over and over and over. It was supposed to be such common knowledge at this point that we’re convinced over here that the only reason they’re doing it – and employing such tyranny to make sure it gets done – is because it’s their explicit intent to destroy and remake this country in their image.

      I’m sorry that you got pummeled here, Milissa, but consider it your WARM welcome to the frontlines of the Battle for America (I encourage you to try and take some Conservative arguments to a Liberal site and see if they’re anywhere near as tempered in their criticism). It’s getting uglier and more dire everyday. You see, to us this isn’t just an interest, hobby, or a debate about some relevant issues to the country and world. This is a cause, and it’s literally for our future and yours too. And as we fight our enemy, a very deceitful and harmful one, it can be unnerving for us this late at the game to be reminded that individuals, voters, as yourself – who we like to endearingly say are part of the “Peasant Class” – still think the role of our government is to provide services, benefits, and entitlements to people who need to be taught how to support themselves, especially when the state FAILS so MISERABLY in administering what programs the taxpayers do fund.

      Hopefully today is a first step for you into a new world. Persistence, diligence, and critical thinking are the wheels to your continued journey. Good luck! Oh and lesson #2 – you can trust the tea party.

      Oh.. and as untrainable wisely responded, come November 2nd – vote! This year (R) stands for three things other than wanting you to keep what you earn: Reform, Responsibility, and the Restoration of this great nation to as it was founded!

    • Petronius says:

      Memo for Milissa.

      I hope this introductory explanation may be helpful. Other S&Lers have their own ideas, but this is my basic take on how things stand.

      Liberalism is an ideology; it is essentially Marxist and Utopian. For the ideologue, the purpose of politics is to maximize the power of government and then use that power to transform the social order and human beings into the ideologue’s vision of the ideal state, without regard to reality, without regard to the damage that will result, including loss of freedom, and without regard to the country’s existing constitution, traditions, customs, practices, laws, or institutions.

      Conservatism is an opposition to ideology in politics. Conservatism holds that a healthy political society reposes in the enjoyment of inherited traditions and customs, and the art of politics is to preserve these arrangements and, when it becomes absolutely necessary to modify them, to do so only by application of the principles already inherent in the country’s existing constitution, traditions, customs, and laws.

      Libertarianism is an ideology that shares much common ground with Conservatism, because individual liberty is extremely important to both. But Libertarianism also shares some common ground with Liberalism. Moreover, it is still an ideology, and so you must approach it with great care.

      When I say that Liberals have no respect for the constitution of a country, I mean constitution in the broadest sense. A constitution is more than a piece of paper that provides a blueprint for government.

      In the broader sense, a constitution includes the whole way of life of the state, its particular set of religious, social, cultural, economic, military, and political traditions, its values, and even its music, art, literature, and architecture. In the ancient world, every state had its unique constitution that identified it and distinguished it from its neighbors. Think of Sparta, Rome, Athens, Carthage, Judea, Egypt, and Persia.

      Nerobama is an extreme ideologue. When Nerobama denies American exceptionalism, when he says that America is “exceptional” only in the same way that Britons believe Britain is exceptional, or Greeks believe that Greece is exceptional, he is in effect saying that America has no special identity of its own, no traditions, no customs or institutions, no way of life worth emulating — in other words, no constitution in the broad sense that is worth preserving.

      For Nerobama and his robber gangs, America is a blank slate upon which they may draw anything they choose, destroying and changing willy-nilly as they think best.

      For an ethical analysis of Nerobama as an ideologue, see my post of 23 May 12:36 pm.


      For some further thoughts on Liberalism as ideology, see my post of 28 Feb 4:16 pm.


    • proreason says:

      Adding to Petronius’ post a bit, you may have noticed lately that one of the most aggressive attacks on Conservatives has been to denigrate our belief in the Constitution. The libwits love to portray Tea Baggers, in particular, as blind adherants to a document that was written 235 years ago. Only idiots, they proclaim, would make anything dependent on a document written by people who couldn’t possibly even imagine what the world would be like two centuries later. They don’t particularly criticize the founding fathers, they just consider them obsolete and their thinking of no use in the modern world.

      But there are fundamental flaws in that line of reasoning, if you want to call it that. If not the Constitution, then what is the political basis of our country? Obamy? Bush? Reverend Wright? Mrs. Palin? The answer, of course, is that with no agreed-upon basis, chaos is inevitable. The Constitution is the precise reason that the US has prospered. We are really the only country in the world that has a set of written principles that masterfully establishes a framework for government and protects essential freedoms. Of all the Moron’s many outrageous proclamations, the most obscene of all is his slurring of our foundation principles as a set of “negative rights”. Negative to whom? To himself of course. The Constitution only limits HIM in his arrogant desire to control our lives and live in splendor for doing it.

      Moreover, the Constitution was not written in any way to direct the lives of people centuries in advance. Only liberals would be so stupid as to imagine such a thing. Instead of describing water rights in some future geography, the Constitution defines a governing structure. Water rights are left to the political bodies that the document describes. That’s why the Constitution can be so short. The lucicrous European Union Constitution that was recently rejected had thousands of pages. Imagine trying to govern with that framework in 2210. Or rather, don’t try. If it had passed, it would have been obsolete in 2 years. It wasn’t a Constitution; it was another example of liberal wet dreams about total power.

      I could go on, but one thing is absolutely clear. There is nothing that reveals the utter lunacy of liberals, particularly the Moron, more than their pitiful slander of the shining triumph of this country. THEY are the fools. We are the ones who will have to correct their foolishness.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Poetry…….pure poetry!
      Well said S & L ers!!

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      “Frankly I could do without all the miltary spending. I would rather have my taxes go to schools and programs that help the poor.”

      If you are trying to learn, I recommend looking the Constitution over again. You will find that providing for the common defense gets a bit more mention than social welfare and education as roles of the federal government. If you are in earnest and trying to learn a few things about alternate viewpoints, good for you, and no sarcasm intended.

      I do take issue with your mention of wanting to decide where your tax dollars go. First, when it comes to federal taxes, the people do not get that say constitutionally. What I mean by that is the fed is severely limited in what it is ALLOWED to spend that money on, and just because certain people don’t like that, does not nullify the constitutional restraint on the federal government, At your state level, you may have an argument, and that, being at the state legislative level, is where you must seek your satisfaction. The problem is that when you demand the money at the federal level be spent “as you see fit” then you are also determining where my money, and citizens from other states in the country’s money goes, and they may not approve. That is why the extreme limits (largely ignored these days) on what the federal government may spend tax dollars on. Education requirements and social welfare requirements (if there are any from a legislative standpoint) will vary from state to state, town to town, and this is exactly why there is no need or legal authority for the fed to regulate and allocate money for those purposes. Protecting the US soverign borders through diplomacy and/or military action are the roles of the federal government, and the only area where the sovereignity was given to them and not the states. I am not sure if this argument may be wasted on this discussion or not.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:


  6. untrainable says:

    “I think it would be great if I could decide where my tax dollars go.”
    That’s why you vote!
    That’s why you pay attention to politics.

    • preparing4theworst says:

      On the other hand (he says musing…) if we could decide where our tax dollars go the liberals could pay for the social programs they like (which would probably quickly decend into chaos) and the rest of us could pay for the common defense which would be a good thing and anyone not choosing could pay the saleries of the elected elite (which probably would NOT result in the current salary levels of today)…verrrry interesting.

  7. AcornsRNutz says:

    While I can attest that civilian contracting in many aspects has screwed the Military over and cost a lot of money, what bothers me about this kind of nonsense is that the ONLY thing the federal government should be spending money on without any question, from a constitutional standpoint, is defense. Why is it that we always get the shaft?

  8. hushpuppy says:

    “…..”Frankly I could do without all the miltary spending. I would rather have my taxes go to schools and programs that help the poor……”

    “Enough with the ‘I’m-only-trying-to-understand’ innocence act.”

    I’m with JohnMG on this…

    “I do give to charity. $65 dollars a month. And I do get them groceries.

    Why? Giving to ‘the poor’ is now an industry in itself. Why don’t the poor get off the welfare and help themselves for a change by going back to school and upgrading their education.

    We’re inundated with ‘give to the poor’ slogans, food drives, at Christmas etc ad bloody nauseum and ad infinitum. With so many bleeding hearted, empty headed libs like yourself ‘helping’ the poor, that’s supposedly $65 dollars and food less per month that someone needs to work for! It called enabling.

    People who make excuses for alcoholics and drug addicts are called enablers. People like you who stupidly, unthinkingly open your wallets are enabling them to live without working for it.

    I lived in a Co-Op years ago. 42 units and we were only one of 3 unit renters who actually paid full rent. Everyone else had rent geared to income or were on full welfare. including single mother who disproportionately were on full welfare. What makes them so special? Other than being able to lie on their backs with their legs open doesn’t make them special. The more children you have, the more money you get. One single mother bought a new car every year. Another mother and her two adult daughters all lived in the same unit were all on welfare (illegal) each year the 6 of them (the rest of the kids under 18) buggered off back to Tanzaniya for a month’s vacation – they were given a travel stipend so they could go visit the rest of their family.

    An ad for summer camp from last year invited certain age group kids, the cost per week for camp, and a list of supplies they’d need. Same ad said all costs would be covered including supplies if families were on welfare and ‘couldn’t afford’ camp. Welfare also pays food stamps, clothing suppliment twice yearly, medical, dental, pharmaceuticals, eye glasses and more.

    Someone wanna tell me why in hell these people don’t deserve anything other than contempt from hard working people like me who barely make it from week to week?

    Milisa – after reading your posts, I’m convinced you’re a liberal plant, and playing ‘oh innocent me’. And if you’re going to actually listen to Ann Coulter, listen to what she has to say about the multibillion dollar poverty industry and single mothers. Just because you say you listen to her and can spell her name correctly doesn’t actually mean you do listen to her!

    Thanks to idiot politicians who go on and on about redistributing wealth and bankrupting people by the millions, it’s dead wrong to reward lazy sloths and the rest of resources and money year after year with generational welfare with nothing to show for it all except more and more people with their hands outstretched expecting to get something for nothing!

    Maybe these people are poor for a reason by the bad choices they made over the years. Does that mean we should all throw money after them, year after bloody year?

    You need to give your head a shake.


    Note to Rusty: whatever it was that you said before you deleted your comments were probably right to the point – as always.

    Note to Milissa : I’m not going to waste any more of my precious time with you Milissa. I’m convinced you’re just a troll come to sh*t disturb. You’re too vague, too vacuous, your comments are like liberal talking points and you add zero to the conversation whilst actually saying zero. That’s typically lib. And I’m also another person who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

    • hushpuppy says:

      PS: 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

« Front Page | To Top
« | »