| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Pentagon looks for 100 billion in cost savings | |
| 2010-06-29 | |
| Pentagon officials said Monday that they plan to try to cut as much as $100 billion over the next five years out of the billions of dollars spent annually in buying weapons systems and other services from outside contractors. The Pentagon spends about $700 billion a year on defense -- $300 billion of which goes toward salaries and benefits for military and civilian employees. The rest is for weapons, including airplanes and ships, and for service contracts to keep computers running and facilities maintained. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he wants contracts scrutinized more closely for inefficiencies and unneeded overhead starting in fiscal 2012. He said the savings could be shifted to support U.S. troops around the globe. Pentagon officials said they're looking for annual savings in the $400 billion spent on goods and services. Gates said the effort is part of his plans in "reforming the way the Pentagon does business." He said he has asked Pentagon officials over the past month to "take a hard, unsparing look at how the department is staffed, organized and operated. . . . As a matter of principle and political reality we must do everything possible to make every taxpayer dollar count," he said.
Over the past few decades, the number of government employees overseeing contracting has shrunk as defense budgets have rapidly grown. That led to little oversight on the costs of weapons systems, industry experts say. The Obama administration has pushed for hiring more contracting experts to help improve the acquisition process. Gates dropped plans for a new long-range bomber and fired the head of the F-35 fighter jet program after the costs skyrocketed. "The savings we are seeking will not be found overnight," Carter said. "It has taken years for excessive costs and unproductive overhead to creep into our business processes, and it will take years to work them out." | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 newc, thank you for keeping things running as they ought. You and those like you are one of the treasures America produces. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-06-29 23:51 |
| #15 $20B/year |
| Posted by: ed 2010-06-29 23:18 |
| #14 $20B is just the first drop. Candidate Obama advocated a 30-40% reduction in military spending to divert to the dependent class. He and his Marxist gang can still do a lot of damage in the 2.5 years they have left. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-06-29 23:18 |
| #13 Well lotp, at least I had the trust and confidence of my command then. I always worked two levels up and was given demanding jobs. Proud to say I got to take care of lots of Commanders, First Sergeants and troops while in that position. I was a liberal - as far as charging people for equipment. I made them purchase some off post and sometimes contacted friends that had extras to cover some kid that had three kids and a tiny paycheck. I usually could find what was missing with a Commander and a pair of bolt cutters. Nothing really gets lost, just misplaced. There is a difference between needless spending and keeping what you need to work with. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-06-29 23:05 |
| #12 That bathroom was paid for through operational funds. I started to type boggle, but unfortunately I'm not entirely surprised. Sigh. And running the 4 shop is, well, ..... not uplifting. |
| Posted by: lotp 2010-06-29 18:06 |
| #11 Yes, the appropriations process is a pork filled jamboree set up for the murthas in congress. I had to field their junk numerous times. It never came in right and was always missing parts but with optempo, we rarely had time to file all of the report of discrepancies to get those parts from the issuing company. OP is correct. Soldiers can pick equipment they need far better than the lazy congressmen but no joy. Many times we would have a table of allowance change that would require the local Commanders to purchase out of operating budget some force fed junk we did not need. That also hurt us. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-06-29 16:44 |
| #10 One major problem is that Congress spends so much money the military doesn't ask for. We keep buying things nobody wants, keep bases open long after they've outlived their purpose (although BRAC is changing that, it hasn't been completely successful), and build buildings no one needs or will use. "Operational" money also has a major problem as changes in mission may require additional money, or that money be spent in a way not previously approved. That results in incredible delays and cost overruns. Been in that situation, and know from first-hand experience. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2010-06-29 15:17 |
| #9 That bathroom was paid for through operational funds. I do not even think DPW was aware of the refurbishment. He was a good COL, but the push for furniture when we had equipment rotting on the line was a total Charlie Foxtrot. I was running the 4 shop back then. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-06-29 15:14 |
| #8 Yup. Toilet paper = Operations & Maintenance money. Bathroom = capital / facilities money. If the service is the Army, the latter falls under the Installation Management command, which was formed to keep installation commanders from diverting money for troop housing etc. into other uses. As P2K says, the budget process up through Congressional approval is organized by 'colors of money'. That is Congress' only means to set defense spending priorities, which is their constitutional responsibility. But it does lead to an unwieldy process. And it can be misleading to observers, because different colors of money are allocated for different periods of time. For instance, O&M money is allocated on a year by year basis. But facilities work is allocated on a 5 year basis IIRC and ship building money goes for decades. newc, chances are that that bathroom upgrade was approved 5 years prior, took a year to get into the POM budget plan and another year for the budget to be approved. Then the RFPs for the work were put out, a contractor selected etc. And only then did you see it being executed. Meanwhile your troops' TP must be bought out of current O&M monies. So the colonel might not be responsible for that inequity. |
| Posted by: lotp 2010-06-29 12:47 |
| #7 The problem is the procurement and finance LAWS established by Congress that codes monies for expenditures and prohibits movement from one area to another. You can trash the officer corps and administrators all day long, but if they so much as try to transfer a farthing without all the proper papers signed and staffed through every mother-may-I bureaucrat, they go to jail or get cashiered [unlike Congresscritters who get their buddies on the Ethics Committee to waive their constant Hollyweird bookkeeping]. Those laws require processes that give the taxpayer those 100 dollar hammers because you can not go down to Sears or Walmart and pick one up. Those laws dictate you must buy from a local who only will carry the big fancy wooden desk rather than a direct order through Amazon. If you have a problem with those processes, make sure you have the right target - Congress. They're good on the show for evening TV playing these blame games, but somehow get the SCM [State Controlled Media formerly known as MSM] to cover their sorry rears about the real rules of engagement for procurement. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-06-29 10:54 |
| #6 There is always waste and other redundant things which need cut. The problem is the people at the top will cut what we need to win and keep the $3 million dollar golf course for the officers. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-06-29 09:25 |
| #5 Split the budget between the troops on the ground and let them spend it! See how much they spend on admin... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-06-29 08:39 |
| #4 My beef is and always has been with the idiots at the top buying office furniture, desks, new bathrooms, carpet, paintings, and all that BS when we have no batteries for NVG, training ammo, or proper basic load. I have been at issue for inappropriate funds since they sent my nice wooden desk away. Given it had a drawer full of cigarette butts nailed shut, I may have survived with the big heavy metal desk. My men suffered from those cuts - ON THE LINE. The A-holes spent in the chain as if they were living on campus with daddy's money. I resorted to stealing toilet paper from the COL's bathroom that he spent $120,000 on refurbishing. If my troops can't have it, nobody can. The money filters down folks, and the idiots on the top of the chain do have no idea how they ruin the line with their largess. This is one reason why you have a bitter Sergeant out here unemployed. I used to run budgets, ufers, and projections. Never again shall I give the "superiors" the ability to fraud troopies out of basics for pictures and carpets. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-06-29 03:35 |
| #3 Ain't gonna happen after Obama starts printing money like crazy. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-06-29 03:32 |
| #2 Are those "Democratic Party" savings? IE Pulled out of either thin air, or your ass? And bearing no shred of thruth. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-06-29 02:12 |
| #1 they could quit giving/selling our fighter plane technoloby to our enemies. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-06-29 00:06 |