It’s really, really, really difficult to be optimistic about cutting Pentagon waste. There are a massive amount of entrenched interests — in the services, on the Hill, among the hordes of defense firms just across the Potomac — that exist to ensure the safe delivery of defense contracts to well-heeled and politically-connected companies, with the protection of national security a secondary interest. Then there’s the demagoguery and jingoism that comes along with attempts to cut through that waste. So even before President Obama started saying he would "eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use," it was probably inevitable that people would start floating the meme that his defense budget is irresponsible.
But Obama might have actually taken a significant step today to take on that entrenched apparatus.
This morning Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of all the executive departments agencies directing them to restrict no-bid contracts; to rein in outsourcing of "inherently governmental activities"; and to, if necessary, cancel wasteful contracts outright. The crucial paragraph, even if it’s written in bureaucratese, particularly calls out the Defense Department:
I hereby direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of General Services, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of such other agencies as the Director of OMB determines to be appropriate, and with the participation of appropriate management councils and program management officials, to develop and issue by July 1, 2009, Government-wide guidance to assist agencies in reviewing, and creating processes for ongoing review of, existing contracts in order to identify contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, or not otherwise likely to meet the agency’s needs, and to formulate appropriate corrective action in a timely manner. Such corrective action may include modifying or canceling such contracts in a manner and to the extent consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policy. [My emphasis]
Clearly this has applications far beyond the Pentagon. But the list of big-ticket defense items that have experienced huge cost overruns is a long one. Future Combat Systems in the Army; the Littoral Combat Ship in the Navy; the Joint Strike Fighter in the Air Force — all of these programs, near and dear to the services, have run massively over budget. If I was a lobbyist for Lockheed or Boeing, I’d be dialing my contacts in the Pentagon and the Hill to figure out what the prospective damage to my company was. And then I’d come up with a strategy to fight this forthcoming OMB review.
Obama went further in remarks at the White House, calling it a "false choice" to say that protecting the country requires acquiescence Pentagon waste. "In this time of great challenges," he said, "I recognize the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich." He also lent support to Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and former presidential rival John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) legislation to create new procurement oversight positions at the Pentagon. "The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over," Obama said.
This effort hardly seems perfect. One of the people Obama specifically tasked to work with OMB for procurement reform is Bill Lynn, the deputy secretary of defense whose last job was lobbying for defense giant Raytheon. Perhaps Lynn is here because he knows how defense lobbyists work, and can come up with strategies to beat them at their own game. Or perhaps Lynn will find it difficult to overcome his background — and the sure-fire job waiting for him in the defense-lobby sector when he leaves government. And, of course, the defense lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington.
But Obama has now placed defense-contracting reform at the center of his efforts at cutting wasteful spending, and he’s put cutting wasteful spending at the core of his deficit-reduction approach; and both the press and the Republican Party will watch that deficit-reduction approach as a test of his presidency. That line from his YouTube address on Saturday about being ready for a fight with lobbyists over his budget? He might mean it.
Crossposted to The Streak.



22 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Wow.
I don’t often agree with MoDo, but I will now: When she said earlier this week that POTUS “has the nerves of a riverboat gambler”, she was spot on.
I listened to Obama’s speech and I’m like, “am I really hearing this? Is this finally happening?” I was thrilled. It was awe inspiring that he is willing to take on the whole third rail of defense spending, and potentially expose the frauds whose “fiscal responsibility” really just means “more for me.”
*clutches pearls and fans self* what! No more defense contract profiteering! It’s unamerkkin, i tell ya! /s
This would be wonderful if our POTUS can cut out the waste and greed. Sadly, defense of our nation under neocon guidance has turned into a giant scam to line the pockets of cronies, crooks and profiteers.
I have always said that the place to look for a ton of wasted (stolen?) dollars was the Pentagon — particularly after I learned that the Pentagon NEVER passes an audit (in fact, it has been declared “unauditable” by auditors).
For decades, the GAO has been investigating and issuing reports about how incompetent the Pentagon was at managing money and assets. The Pentagon always says it’s working on a new computer system, but that it’s complicated. The last report I read from the GAO said the Marines thought they would be in compliance by 2010, but as pointed out the Marines is the smallest service and thus the “easiest” to fix. If WalMart can track every item it has, I find it hard to believe the Pentagon can’t: Being suspicious by nature, I assume there are people in the military who benefit from the organization NOT being able to track $2 trillion in assets (the figure Rumsfeld gave in 2001 for unaccounted assets).
Rep. George Miller used to call for a fraud audit of the Pentagon (usually in response to the Republicans demanding one of the Department of Education). Of course, Miller never got one. Perhaps President Obama should insist on one.
Wow. A President takes on war machine welfare. Somewhere I hope Ike knows the road to defeating the military industrial complex led through Little Rock.
I never thougt I’d see this: great news.
You mean we DO have the money for VA hospitals and veterans’ benefits?
But only if we’re heartless enough to take it from the starving weapons suppliers?
I remember the last time I watched the News Hour in 2001, a two Pundit debate on DoD budget was not whether it was too big, but was it big enough. Fair and Balanced as only Jim Lehrers team could do with a straight face.
With all the auditors and accountants displaced on Wall St and related businesses, Obama could hire them to oversee DoD, Corporate welfare programs, SBA loans etc, etc. It’d be a twofer.
For years not only have ridiculous contracts been issued but also the Nunn-McCurdy act has been ignored. This legislation called for penalties on overruns and late delivery. It stated that there would be no bonuses paid unless certain conditions however frequently bonuses are paid even when a project is over time and over budget.
…starting with
BlackwaterXe and Halliburton.To take on the Pentagon AND Big Ag? At the same time? When even taking on ONE of those interests is like walking up to a hot subway rail and French-kissing it? Ai-yi-yi!
The light of day shown upon “defense corruption” will expose corrupt defense contractors and the enabling politicians. Given the people’s feeling towards financial institutions at the moment, it would be fuel on the fire and a great way to purge entrenched corrupt politicians…
Might as well mention that Israel isn’t absolutely wonderful. Y’only die once.
New post—>
Anyone seriously interested in reducing the defense budget
shouldmust read America’s Defense Meltdown, a collection of essays written by veterans of the early 1980s military reform movement, as well as some of their younger colleagues. It is now available in a Dead Tree edition recently published by Stanford or downloadable to a Kindle but, sadly, it appears that it can no longer be had as a free PDF download as it was for six months. The authors build a compelling case that our military would be much more effective and our country more safe at much less cost if we effected the ideas they present.… and BigOil/Energy Giants and signaling the upcoming Health Care overall …
By any chance did Obama mention Eisenhower’s warning about the Military-Industrial complex? Would’ve been fitting, and “bipartisan,” too!
Bob in HI
The missile defense system is the largest item in the procurement budget. If it goes, then maybe this will mean something. As it is, this might, might be bad news for KBR and Blackwater with their heavy Republican connections, but I will wait to see where the cuts really land before passing judgment. Obama gives a good speech but so far the substance has proved small.
Is this one reason why Obama wants to increase the size of the army? Because he wants soldiers to be doing things that are currently being done (more expensively) by contractors like Xe?
How far in debt is the nation? And, we’re wasting how much on “defense” stuff that didn’t help us on 9/11?
Seems like we need to cut spending on wasteful things. The Republicans and New Democrats (whatever that is) will cheer for sure.
President Obama better make sure his protection is good. If he is going to take on the Big Boys he needs to play for keeps. I hope he wins. This is great first step.
To be fair, WalMart may say it can track every item. It may even believe it. But if I were a betting man, I’d bet that it can’t.
In fact, chances are that the Pentagon buys its asset tracking systems from the same people WalMart does. Or maybe from WalMart.
Reducing waste is not enough. We need to revisit the requirements that have driven military procurement and radically re-prioritize. I don’t pretend to know what we should do overall. But i can give a couple of examples that I know a little about.
Consider the F-22 fighter. Our almost 30-year-old F-15 and F-16 fighters are so good that they are still in production and are still a match for the most likely foreign opponents–the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29–in most real-world combat scenarios. With a larger wing–a relatively inexpensive development–the F-16 could be even better.
So what does the military-industrial complex do when faced with no need for an expensive new jet fighter after so many years? It is used to getting a new fighter every 10 years or so. So the procurement generals and the contractors invent the need for stealth. When it could be made to work (a big limitiation) and when likely enemies had large, integrated air-defense systems, stealth made some sense for bombers and fighter-bombers. Attack aircraft try to hide from enemy defenses. But stealth makes no sense for fighters that are tasked with finding and destroying enemy aircraft. Fighters broadcast their presence with radar and powerful IR-emitting engines. Moreover, in the real world, they have to close to visual range before firing for a whole range of reasons. Since stealth reduces the amount of ordinance and fuel carried–everything has to fit inside the radar-defeating airframe–the fighter is less flexible and has less range. Bottom line? All a stealth requirement does is generate profits for the contractors.
Cancelling the F-22 and keeping one or both of the older fighters in low-volume production for awhile longer thus better addresses the real-world military requirement AND saves money. We get a better return on the development costs by spreading them over more years and more airframes.
Need another example? Consider the infamous Stryker armored vehicles, which have proved vulnerable and immobile as well as expensive. We had lots of moth-balled Vietnam-era M-113 armored personnel carriers that were more mobile, roomier, at least as well protected. Moreover, they were already paid for. But Rumsfeld and the Bush clan and the Saudis had an investment in an old, over-priced, Canadian-built, Swiss-designed armored car that no one wanted. Hence “Transformation”, Rummie’s theory of 21st-century war, which just happened to call for lots of wheeled armored cars. A “requirement” was born.
Similar analysis can be applied throughout the defense budget. We can save enormous amounts of money and at the same time improve our defense. We just need to address real threats, rather than defense industry marketing ploys.