E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Senate Republican fiscal hawk offered a 74-page menu of Defense Department spending cuts Thursday that could save taxpayers nearly $68 billion over 10 years. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he and his staff had identified several categories of “non-defense spending at the Pentagon,” outlays which he said had “little to do with national security.”
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Sen. Tom Coburn speaks to a journalist at the U.S. Capitol September 19, 2012 in Washington, DC.
At a Capitol Hill press conference, Coburn accused his fellow Senate Republicans of “having a blind eye on spending.” He summed up their approach as “It’s OK to cut spending anywhere except the Defense Department.”
But, he said “to be legitimate and have any integrity on the issue … everything has to be on the table.”
In the fiscal year which ended Sept. 30, defense outlays amounted to $651 billion, 18 percent of total federal spending, which was a decline of about 3 percent from the prior fiscal year.
One target of Coburn’s proposed cuts is personnel. He said there were too many admirals and other high-ranking officers for the size of the military. “We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,” he told reporters.
Despite much dire talk about the impeding spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act – which is part of the “fiscal cliff” at year’s end – there have been “no real cuts yet to the Pentagon,” Coburn said.
Chuck Schumer and Tom Coburn visit Meet the Press to discuss CIA Chief David Petraeus' resignation, the impending fiscal cliff and the aftermath of the 2012 race.
He said members of Congress hadn’t gotten some of “hoped-for, desired increases in spending – and so therefore if we didn’t get the increase in spending, we call that a ‘cut’ in Washington.”
Coburn has also proposed a bill to audit the Defense Department. “One of the biggest problems in the Pentagon is that they have no idea where they’re spending their money – and if you can’t account for it, you can’t measure it and you can’t manage it.”
He said, “I’m a budget hawk, but I’m also a military hawk – I want us to have the best equipment, the best equipped military in the world.” But when the Pentagon buys jets, missiles and other military hardware, Coburn said “we’re getting a whole lot less and spending a whole lot more.”
He also said, “Congress is a failure when it comes to oversight – and beneath that, we’re a failure when we write legislation because we give way too much authority and judgment to the bureaucracies – and the reason we do that is that we don’t know what we’re talking about, so we have to (give authority to executive branch bureaucrats), because we’re not up to speed in terms of level of knowledge … when we legislate.”
Coburn also said $37 billion in cost savings could be achieved by not assigning 340,000 members of the armed forces tasks that could be performed by civilians. He cited an analysis by Defense Business Board, an outside group of veterans and civilians which advises the defense secretary, which found “there is a sizable portion of the active military who are performing what would otherwise be not inherently government work or work that should be more appropriately assigned to DoD civilians. The military are compensated at rates substantially greater than their civilian counterparts….”
Although he’s not a member of his party’s Senate leadership and not a member of the Appropriations or Armed Services committees, Coburn does have some credibility on fiscal matters. He served on the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission in 2010 and voted for its recommendations of spending cuts and revenue increases through limiting or even eliminating tax deductions and other tax breaks, such as the tax-free status for most people of employer-provided health insurance.
Leave a Comment:
Wonder how long it will take before conservatives call him a RINO.....starting in 3. 2, 1.....
Sounds like a good start to me - good work, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
A Repub who actually wants to get stuff done . . . someone President Obama may be able to work with - an actual moderate - WOW! I thought it was an extinct species!
.
FORWARD! :-)
Although this is encouraging, Coburn is no moderate.
I don't agree with all of Coburn's stances, but he's definitely got my support on this issue. How many billions have we heard of that were wasted on ballooning research and development projects?
Let's not kid ourselves, the defense contractors are simply filling up their coffers are our expensive.
In 2010, Obama asked every department to figure out where they could trim the budget. The Pentagon came up with 30 Billion in savings and implemented it. The rest of government didn't bother looking for waste or redundancy.
Why is it only the DoD ever comes up with cost savings? Why have all the other departments grown over 14% since Obama took office? Are they really claiming there is no waste in other departments?
The GOP continues to compromise as shown above. They find and eliminate waste. Obama merely states he wants to eliminate waste, then ignores ever finding any.
Liberalism has become a joke. They believe their rhetoric, but never actually apply actionable direction to their rhetoric.
Alex Le,
Most of that Waste is from apportionment IN THE SENATE from Senators protecting their own little districts from reductions. The DoD states often they don't want what the Senate has appropriated. See the dual engine contracts for the F-35 or various littoral combat ships. The Pentagon never wanted these, the Senators stuck this graft into the Pentagon.
Aw..Geeeez....it's so hard for me to type this....arrrrrrrgh......but I agree with Senator Coburn...oh wow, that hurt.
Senator Coburn is a bona fide nut, but every now and then he comes with an idea that's NOT half-baked.
He's right, the military is fat and getting fatter and it needs to trim down. Even the Pentagon Generals are complaining Congress is making them buy things they don't need to just satisfy defense industry greed.
I think we could easily cut a trillion dollars out of the defense budget over the next ten years and not diminish the nation's defense capabilities one bit.
Coburn also lectured a GOP audience for booing the mere mention of Nancy Pelosi. He said while he disagreed with some of her positions that she was a "nice woman" and a hard worker.
Yeah, you're right, they'll be drumming him out of the GOP pretty soon.
Just caught wind of this:
"Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) confirmed Thursday that she will seek the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee next year but told The Hill that she cannot commit to doing a budget. This opens up the possibility that Senate Democrats will avoiding passing a budget resolution for the fourth year in a row. The last time the Senate passed a standalone budget resolution was in 2009."
YOU HAVE TO BE FREAKIN' KIDDING ME! So Congress can't think to pass a budget for YET ANOTHER year because they are dealing with the fiscal cliff?!?!? Don't they realize that they are about to slam, yet again, into the cap they raised about half a year ago? So, let me guess, we are going to hear that they raised the cap again for another 6 months and that'll be next year's excuse not to create/pass a federal budget, right?!?!?
A good start, but lets be honest, the Federal Government was created for 2 reasons: Defense and Commerce. It was FDR that changed that position by making the government a social government instead of allowing the states to take this roll. I would much rather my State taxes be hirer and allow the federal government to deal with defense and commerce.
Whats good for New Jersey isnt necessarily good for Wyoming. So why should both pay taxes for national social programs?
Guess we know now who won't get invited to John McCain's next party. Good on ya, Sen. Coburn, refreshing to see someone from your side of the aisle actually looking at realities when it comes to Defence spending.
I agree with Sen Coburn and he is usually a very on-target politician.
It's good to hear a prominent Republican taking a stand like this one - hopefully others in his party will listen. Hopefully this will be the start of both parties letting go of their sacred cows - it that happens, maybe DC can actually get something done!
Translated, we have too many tea party congressmen and women in the Congress who don't have a clue about Science, Technology, Defense policy, and budgeting. They blindly follow what Security hawks like Gov. McDonnell of Virginia, Senator McCain and others say.
kjnc coburn is scared @!$%#l%ss of his own people throwing him out of the senate,hell,i'd do the same thing if i got all the perks he gets,but then i'm not in his shoes,actually the last 4 years he sat on his ass and watched this country fall apart,i guess the next bum to act like he cares is cantor,i hope the people have had enough of their crap and dispose of them at the polls,cya
Actually Jess..it wasn't only DoD...the Coast Guard also cut out 5% in spending. In our office, when we finally got our portion of the new conitnuing resolutoin, we were told, and I quote, we need 10% back immediately.
Travel took the biggest hit but it was workable once the request for 10% back was followed almost immedaitely by Secretary Napolitano saying to work conferences/long-distance meetings via teleconference. Our office was actually able to cut 12% once travel was almost 100% nixed and we had no issues with the telcons.
As for Coburn's comments on high ranking officers, he has to be careful. The higher ranks of officers and enlisted are also the experience. You can't just cut high ranking personnel and go with the newer, inexperienced crew.
my bad coburn says he's leaving on his own,i guess his pockets are full.
Now let's see which Democratic Senator proposes cuts to entitlement spending.
massive defense spending since 1945 ...
yet another massive government giveaways(freebies) to corporations that have made obscene profits and led to many unnecessary wars....
Wow, Coburn is FINALLY listening to the advice of the only good GOPer in the last 70 years. Too bad everyone else in DC and the entire nation has forgotten about Eisenhower's warning of BEWARE THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. That MIC is what runs Congress and this nation, and in many ways the world economy. And yes, the world's bankers are part of that MIC..
Earth to Republicans - The Senate would pass a budget if the Republicans stopped filibustering it......end of story.
In his farewell speech, Eisenhower warned against a military-industrial-congressional complex that will take over American political system. It's prophetic..the US is not a democracy or republic..but a military junta...corporatocracy..or plutocracy..
Eric
Budget Bills are EXEMPT from the Filibuster? Try something newer like HARRY REID doesn't want a Budget.
Remember "We don't need no stinking Budget"?
News flash: How does any department of the military budget? They look at last year's budget and add 20% to every budget item. And if they haven't spent every penny before fiscal year end, they order a bunch of stuff, new furniture, computers, etc. etc. until they have used up every penny of their budget. This is not news. Everyone who has ever worked for DOD knows this much. The question is, "Why doesn't our legislative and executive branch?" Wake up people. This isn't difficult to find in the bills. I bet if someone looks at all invoices. I mean really look at them and delivery dates you'll find the fraud waste and abuse very easily. They may spread out the invoicing but the delivery dates are what they are. I suggest someone goes fishing soon.
Let us see now a Democrat put forth a proposal to cut entitlements. Isn't that how negotiations are supposed to work, each side give up something.
jerry l-1335133,
You are so right! I agree. Let us start with the Tennessee Valley Authority and every program designed to help poor states who refuse to pay enough wages or collect enough taxes to take care of their own citizens and infrastructure. That is a large entitlement program to many states, mostly southern, that needs to go away. They need to start carrying their own water. Once we get that money flowing back into help cut the deficit we can keep looking at states that do not carry their own and keep cutting. That should take care of our budget deficit. Only state I can sympathize with for not carrying their own is Alaska. Way too much land. Very few citizens and they cost the federal governments lots. We should force them to use their oil subsidies to take care of their own infrastructure and welfare first. Then the federal government can step in and help with whats left. But the rest of the states are on their own. The federal government is for the elderly, disabled, veterans and our security. Do I sound like a Republican? Well I'm not but if this is what Republicans insist on then I'm all for it. Only the self sufficient states should have a say in how our money is spent. People who can't help their own aren't worth our attention. Sound familiar? It is your message. Little did you know it applies to mostly red southern and midwestern states did you?
AnaBanana,
So you think the only waste in government is in the defense budget and every other part is running efficient. How about the Post Office that lost $15B last year stop Saturday delivery which would save some money? How about Amtrak losing money on every burger they sell. There is money to be saved in every department not just defense and as the saying goes a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.
Only cuts of $68,000,000,000. The Pentagon's budget should be cut by 50% to help get rid of the deficit that spending $4,000,000,000,000 on bushes two lost wars rang up!
Okay, a Republican has located $68 billion that can be cut without harming defense. Seeing how defense is only How about a Democrat coming forward with say the equivilent kind of savings for the remaining 82% of the total budget without cutting benefits to seniors? That would equal about 400 billion.
DB,
You don't get it! If we cut 50% of the Pentagons budget we don't need to cut anything! We save lives instead of waste them on wars. 7,300 so far in Iraq and Afghanistan lost for nothing and $4,000,000,000,000 flushed down the drain for nothing!
jerry
So you only want them to cut 1% from the other stuff too? I don't think that is enough.
Ana...I agree the end of fiscal year splurge can get ridiculous but there is also a reason behind it. If the military does not use the budget given, their next year's budget request is reduced by what they didn't spend the previous year..in other words, they are penalized for saving money. The budget request made is rarely completely given. If it happens to be a year when more ship/aircraft maintenance is scheduled and needs to be done, losing the additional amount from the previous year due to not spending it, along with the normal cut from the request, can cause issues.
At least there is one republican who isn't a Neanderthal.
Build a better fence you'll get your 68 billion back.
A cut of 68 billion over 10 years is 6.8 billion a year. Doesn't sound like much when you don't stretch it over 10 years does it? Less than 1% cut when we're ending our surge in Afghanistan. There are 10's of billions of military programs that are unwanted by the military but congressmen from both parties fight to keep them for the jobs they create in their district. Military leaders should present what they need and get congress to either agree or not to fund them. There should never be a single tank, plane or ship built solely to create jobs in some congessmans district.
It's hard to believe that a politiciian from Oklahoma is actuallly making sense. I'm going to look at the Eastern sky for the sunset tonight.
Ok is it just me? I read that he want to shift the pay from the D O D and pay civilian contractors. I am all for cuts in spending on both sides. The only way we will take care of the problem is to cut the spending and raise tax's, it's that simple. But from the way I read it this is not going to cut spending just pay it to different people and I don't trust the defense contractor's either. There are so many accounts of them double billing, overcharging ect . What should be done is putting in place a law saying that defrauding the government is treason and violators caught will be hung ( would have happened 200 years ago) and the budget would drop like a rock.
Coburn can propose anything he wants. He will never get a chance to vote on it. Nothing is going to be accomplished in the couple of weeks that House ans Senate are meeting between now and the new Congress on January 6. McConnell has to earn his money from the Koch brothers, and Coburn is retiring.
Defense should be cut by at least 50%, to the already bloated pre 9/11 levels. Like we need these stupid wars or like we need to keep tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan. Russia spends on defense less than 6% of what we do.
The most notable item in the article is that defense spending is 18% of the federal budget. You hear liberals screaming all the time about a bloated defense budget, or how defense spending is bankrupting the country, or if we could only reduce defense spending all our problems would be solved. Well if you cut out the entire defense budget we would only reduce the annual federal deficit by half and our 16 trillion national debt would still be increasing. Eliminating the defense spending entirely is not a possibility, so the question remains how much of a reduction is reasonable? Liberals are just going to have to rap their heads around the fact that raising the Bush tax cuts on the top earners and cutting defense by even 20% is still going to leave an annual budget deficit at or above a trillion dollars. So how do liberals propose to close that gap?
Anyone seen the chest of medals worn by Petraeus? Cut back on those things, however there is one that he well deserves "got snatch under fire." For those who haven't seen it, it looks like this "/*\" The design is so you can keep adding *'s.
I agree with the comments that the proposed cuts are minuscule compared to our deficits, but we have to start somewhere.
What I'd like to see now is something from Democrats on entitlements. If each side shows a willingness to make cuts in their sacred cows, it can lay the foundation for significant changes.
I feel like it's the Twilight Zone - A republican making sense.
Wow, pigs DO fly.
Dick-2100935:"Anyone seen the chest of medals worn by Petraeus? Cut back on those things, however there is one that he well deserves "got snatch under fire." For those who haven't seen it, it looks like this "/*\" The design is so you can keep adding *'s."
One thing we know for certain, you are a Dick.
Don't get carried away with your fascinations, it's just a nick name.
I listened to this speech on the radio and, as much I as I try to keep up with governmental issues, I was stunned when I learned that our tax dollars for medical research filter first through the Pentagon! Why? They are funded to research breast and prostate cancer for goodness sake as well as other "public" illnesses. Stupid.
I really hope the other republicans will take Mr. Cs lead and start to work with our president for the good of our nation. We need to find a starting point and move forward from there.
"We estimate it would require an additional $1.1B for about a quarter of the original scope to continue and fielding would not be until 2020…” emphasis mine, after already spending $1B. And yet the Republicans insist it would be a disaster if the military budget is cut
WTF?
We are running deficits of approx 1 trillion a year now. You're saying that if we cut a huge chunk of defense and raise taxes - we still would be at 1 trillion in deficits?
Math is hard.
And 18% of the federal budget is approximately 1/5 th. Thats a good start. We cant pick one magical item that will miraculously close the deficit. Its going to have to be a whole slew of itemized cuts.
68 billion - over 10 years?
Thats pretty much NOTHING.
I dont understand why this is so damn complicated.
AUDIT THE ENTIRE GOVT - find the waste, find the fraud, and ELIMINATE IT.
once we've done that...then lets have a real conversation about budgets.
short of that, you all are just jokes...fakes...partisan hacks looking to b!tch about the other side.
like it or not republicans, "entitlement spending" is what makes us a 1st world nation...you might think it's socialism, but it's what keeps 1/2 our nation from living in slums the likes of which America has never seen. The military is rife with waste and fraud, and there are LOTS of private contractors feeding at the govt trough...we just dont call it "hand outs" like we should. lots of private companies have ripped the american tax payers off, and you're just as unwilling to see the forest for the tree's on miltary spending/hand outs/fraud as democrats are when it comes to welfare.
like it or not democrats, we spend more on welfare than we should be spending - why not offer WORK instead of HAND OUTS? i'd bet the people who dont actually need the help wouldnt be so quick to reach to the govt for free crap if they were required to WORK in exchange for housing and food, just like THE REST OF US HAVE TO! I have friends who work for DHS, I hands down KNOW that abuse is occuring, freeloaders exist...women ARE having babies and calling them paychecks! Ignoring reality wont make it better...things need to change, and fast. I'm tired of defending a program that I absolutely KNOW needs to exist, because at any time ANY ONE OF US can fall on hard times and need help...but it wont be there if we continue to turn a blind eye to those who've figured out how to work the system to their maximum gain while doing NOTHING in exchange for that help. we're fools to let it be this. anyone who's struggling would be more than willing to volunteer at any number of businesses or charities as a means of "paying back society for short term assistance" - whether it be for housing, food, or assistance with energy bills (electric or gas).
GROW UP EVERYONE!
My two cents...
Lets be careful what we "privatize" within the military. It was stated that outsourcing (to KBR, Parson's, McKinsey & Co., Blackwater, etc.) would save the US millions of dollars. Instead what we got for our money was electrocuted soldiers, destruction of viable equipment to boost the bottom line, $500 hammers, mercenaries putting US soldiers in danger, incomplete medical facilities, poisoned US soldiers, female US soldiers being raped by private contractors, KBR outsourced workers from India/Pakistan, a pallet with $6 billion simply disappears or grows legs and walked away (no one knows what happened), etc.
@Jessica, if you are proposing to Democrats another WPA, CCC program for out of work people in our current Depression, the vast majority of democrats and the President SUPPORT this. It is often referred to in the news as "Infrastructure spending", "Shovel-Ready Projects" or "Stimulus". Anytime you hear one of these buzz-words being thrown around, most likely, they are referring to this very thing!!!!
We still have tremendous spending on OFF BUDGET stuff that needs to be addressed. Secret spending should end. Most of the world except Americans know what's going on where we have interests abroad. Why are we left out of the knowledge? There is an easy answer to that one .... If we know what's going on much of it will not be allowed.
We all must know that the Military Industrial Complex is an out of control CASH COW for way too many factions. It is way past time to get tough with entities like Halleburton that flagrantly overcharge for stuff and have a history of crappy work in Iraq that we pay for.
Most stuff made for the military is supposed to be bid on but even some of it that is, they always seem to go over budget and we let them get away with it.
One more thing among many more: Why are we arming much of the world including enemies we are currently fighting????????? There are definitely times when EXCESSIVE profits should not take the place of good sense and patriotism.
The military has been doing that for years and it has had the exact opposite effect. Private contractors always comit fraud, pad bills, rig the process for non competitive bids, etc etc etc. Iraq was full of SUVs driven by contractors and charged to the government at 250K apiece. Soldiers quit the military and go to work for the contractors making many many times more money for doing the same job. Time to stop occupying 100+ countries.
Colburn hit the nail on the head, but he shouldn't have just singled out admirals. Any idea how many generals we have? Any idea how many people are in the entourages of generals? Any idea of how many useless military bases -- Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force -- we have around the world? We have thousands of men and women in uniform, and civilian support people, for every person actually filling crucial military functions.
As others have said, the republicans are for looking at increased revenue through taxes and a cut in defense spending. If demoncrats want comprimise, its your turn. Find some entitlements to eliminate. Increase the tax rates on the top 2% and cut the entire defense budget, and you would still have a deficit and growing debt. The ball is in your court now demoncrats. Stop being obstructionists to getting out of this debt.
The military is a huge operation to manage. It has a lot of wasted tax dollars through bad price controls, bad inventory management, redundancy, and fraud and theft. Consider all those billions that disappeared in Iraq. "The GAO found the Defense Logistics Agency often double ordered spare parts, wasting about $7.1 billion over three years; while a Congressional report showed fraud and waste among military contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq siphoned off up to $60 billion since 2002."
One of the biggest problems is systemic: When the time to file for for funds for the new budget, the bank account has to emptied before the cutoff date so as to justify the need for the present amount budgeted PLUS the automatic increase deemed necessary to keep up to inflation. This forces a splurging mindset and lots of items go to auction that are new and unused, just to be replaced later.
These examples are just a tip of the iceberg. Its time for the U.S. military to really get lean and mean as the rest of us must do.
A cut of 68 billion over 10 years. Wow, so he actually wants to cut 7 billion a year. Wow. Good job. Don't break your arm patting yourself on your back.
650 billion spent on defense a year and the only fat he can find to trim is 7 billion? From the branch that buys $100 hammers? Please.. At least look like you are trying here.
Cutting the pay of our troops that train and put themselves in harm's way to defend this country isn't the solution.
skip Nicholson...as my grandma used to say "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
Perhaps if we didn't make so many enemies "spreading democracy at the point of a gun" and "protecting our interests abroad" which are code for "forcing capitalism down the worlds throat" and "protecting our corporations while they plunder poorer nations natural resources and enslave their people"then maybe we wouldn't need to spend more than every other nation combined on our military. We don't have a "defense" we have an "offense".
The man who is constantly looking over his shoulder in fear of being stabbed in the back does so because he has spent his life stabbing others in the back. We are afraid someone will invade us and force their way of life down our throat because we have invaded others and forced our way of life on them. We fear someone taking what we have because everything we have we have taken from someone else.
cut the fat and not the people
why can't both sides agree to find every bureaucratic waste 1st before destroying this nation for agendas
there is no reason to cut social security or medicare, but there is lots of waste in there that can be trimmed
there is waste in every department
It is interesting that now..since the election some of these diehard republicans are begining to change their tune..wonder how many more will follow?
Gil,
Wow, I find myself agreeing with you on the military cuts. It must be the first time I'm proud of your name. However, I feel a 50% cut would be easy for the military if they get us into another war. I fear being drawn in into the Gaza-Israel mess or Israel going after Iran as long as they are at it. What would you do if we took Israel's side if they attack Iran? I pray you think before you answer?
Gil,
Wow, I find myself agreeing with you on the military cuts. It must be the first time I'm proud of your name. However, I feel a 50% cut would be easy for the military if they get us into another war. I fear being drawn in into the Gaza-Israel mess or Israel going after Iran as long as they are at it. What would you do if we took Israel's side if they attack Iran? I pray you think before you answer?
Gil,
Wow, I find myself agreeing with you on the military cuts. It must be the first time I'm proud of your name. However, I feel a 50% cut would be easy for the military if they get us into another war. I fear being drawn in into the Gaza-Israel mess or Israel going after Iran as long as they are at it. What would you do if we took Israel's side if they attack Iran? I pray you think before you answer?
Thank you for your kind comment. And please, I hope that you do not confuse me with another "Gil" on NV--we are polar opposites .
To answer your question-- a very good question, the crux of the matter:
As Israel represents our interests in the Mideast and is considered our greatest ally in that neighborhood, we are in a very difficult situation. The United States was party to the advancing of the idea of Israel being created in the ME and designating Israel as the Jewish homeland. Since then, we have been publicly backing them in whatever they do. However, the standoff with Iran could very likely become a dire no-win situation with all-out genocide as the byproduct--unacceptable.
How many times will Israel fight wars and how long (decades, centuries, millennia?) will Israel and Iran and the Arabs be able to forestall the conflagration that those peoples wish to bestow upon each other? These countries are acting as if they are playing a game instead of a very deadly serious prelude to a world war--a war that no one will win--everyone will lose. And, the U.S. is supposed back Israel in this insanity with the lives of our young men and women and our financial ruin just to appease the warmongers. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, NO WAY will I support the U.S. in such an endeavor.
The American citizens need to get past the propaganda spewed by Israeli lobbyists, ALEC, et al. and put pressure on our Congress and President to cease this absolute support of Israel above all else. Hopefully, our government is still enough of a functioning democracy that the will and safety of the American Citizens takes precedence over undue foreign influence emanating disaster for all of us.
You ask: "What would you do?" Although I am a veteran, my only recourse would be limited to publicly speaking out against this foolishness. Unless one has the distinct power prevent this, what else can one do?
First of all, we have to get some numbers straight here.
You can find the numbers here.
Total federal spending in 2012 was $3.528T. Defense represented $0.902T. A little simple math shows that is 25% of federal spending!! Not 18% as the article says. I don't know where they get their numbers but it doesn't add up! 18% is too much, but 25% is way too much!
We spend almost twice as much on defense a year, than the next 11 countries with the highest budgets, PUT TOGETHER! It's completely unnecessary to spend that much on "defense". It is time we shut down our overseas bases, and protect our own, and only our own, until we get asked to help.
this shows true leadership and character -- whether you like his statements or not, they are thoughtful, researched, identify both plusses and minuses in both himself and the senate, and then talks about solutions, and explains why they would work.
Let's hope that those who disagree with him can be as respectful and thoughtful as he has been.
defense spending has been one of a few Republican Holy Cows - untouchable... so much money in play for some core GOP supporters (forever)..only because Coburn is leaving the Senate?
Hmmmm......a measly 68 billion. Oh well, it's a start.
I am with you Eric....everyone posting here is acting like Coburn is a revolutionary...he is just smart enough to try and get ahead of things and make the Republicans(and many Democrats) look flexible. What are we talking about here a 1 percent cut in yearly expenditures? Wow!
I just want to mention that OK is a great state and many of the people there are down to earth. I am very impressed with the way they manage things there.
Yes, I agree that there could be major cuts in defense without jeopardizing national security. A good start would be doing away with weapons and programs that the military services don't want or need, but are forced to fund because they are in some Congressperson's district.
When I served between 1960 and 1980, we had several million on active duty. Even during Vietnam War, we did not use a lot of reserves or national guard personnel, but mostly used active duty personnel. Even with the Vietnam War lasting about 10 - to 12 yrs, depending on when one starting counting, there were not a lot of 2d or 3d tours, except for those of us that volunteered to go back a 2d or third time. The biggest mistake we made was doing away with the draft, which was done for political reasons and not military necessity.
Hope his words are met with action instead of the usual Republican blockage and "No" reaction that the rest of the deadheads typically have. And I agree with sfcret above that ending the draft was probably not a great idea and modifying it could have been a better option. Although I did not have the opportunity to serve because of medical problems, those who did probably have much better solutions than the deadheads in Congress who have no experience in most thing in life in many but thankfully not all cases.
With Republicans like THIS guy I would gladly vote for members of the party. Sadly, he is in a very very small minority of people who think rather than just aim for reelection.
It is not just republican supporters that profit from military spending, democrats use it to. Remember John Murtha? California is overwhelmingly democrat and they hit the ceiling everytime there is a cut or scheduled base closure or downsize.
Pigotry is blindly partisan, and not interested in solving our nations problems, sort of like obama. Obama only worries about the $40 billion in revenue that we would gain by doing away with tax break for 1%, the remaining $960 billion of our annual deficit means nothing to him, because of partisanship and class warfare.
Another place where Congress won't let DOD cut waste is in the number of unneeded bases around the country and the world. The military would like to close many current bases and combine functions with others but each base is in someone's Congressional district and is a source of jobs, therefore, Congressmen fight to prevent closures.
sfcret: We have a different military than the one that fought the Vietnam war. Vietnam was a low-tech war fought largely with draftees. The military today does not want a draft. It wants people that it can train up on high-tech equipment and then hold onto so they don't have to just train a new bunch.
Please stop calling it "Defense spending"!!! lets call it what it is, "Offense spending", if we spent $700,000,000,000 a year on "defense" and 9 Arabs with box cutters could kill 3000 people then we wasted a whole lot of money. We have no defense, what we have is a Military "corporation" who's only purpose is to make a profit, they are just another arm of our corrupt corporate system and their sole purpose is to subdue smaller countries so we can loot and plunder their natural resources. The word "defense" is used simply to make the easily manipulated (conservatives) feel all warm and fuzzy about throwing trillions into the black hole that we call the Pentagon.
FINALLY--you can't just cut what your party hates.
While I commend the initial premise of Sen. Coburn's less-than-detailed concept, I can't help but wonder if a 1% average cut over the 10-year duration of his plan is the most we can hope for.
Ending profligate spending and waste by the military, while keeping it strong, vital, and viable, ought to be an achievable bipartisan effort, especially in light of the winding down of two wars, one of which was unnecessary and extremely wasteful (Iraq) .
How about it, Congress? Are you up to the task, without the usual rhetoric, flag-waving, and protect-my-pork mentality?
America will be watching; bank on it!
maybe not "the most we can hope for," gcooper, but seems like a good start - this guy must be really courageous!
.
FORWARD! :-)
Something is better than nothing. These cuts shouldn't be the end all, they should be the beginning. I expect our politicians to build off of it, or they should be voted out.
Keep in mind that not wanting to cut defense spending is a bipartisan problem. Defense contractors are not stupid - they intentionally spread their production/services over many states so the politicians in those states fight cuts to their programs. (as an example, look at how many politicians from both parties fought to keep the latest fighters that the military didn't want)
Hopefully this is the spark that's needed to start talking about real defense spending cuts.
Judging from the overall tenor of the remarks, let me offer a slogan for the overwhelmingly popular consensus regarding the need to rein in excessive military expenditures:
"Defense Spending: The Other, Other White Meat!"
I hate it when they claim huge savings over 10 years. $68 billion over ten years or $6.8 billion per year which roughly is 1% of the defense budget.
A 1% cut is much better than a 1% increase...........It's a start and could reveal just how much more is wasted..................Whatever did happen to Georgie's star wars program anyway...........how many hundreds of billions is/was that BTW???
Lets see demoncrats bring an entitlement that they are willing to cut to the table. To many welfare rats running around for America to come out of debt.
This is true leadership. Find solutions, regardless of your party affiliation, because you're doing it FOR THE COUNTRY, not your party!
Now lets see a liberal do it. I wouldnt hold my breath though.
Finally, someone with common sense.
Don't get too enthusiastic. $68B = about 30 B2's. $68B = about 200 F22's. $68B over 10 years in the War Department budget means just a few less rolls of toilet paper.
If you want to get all sweaty in the shorts about War Department cuts, you need to start at $100B a year. Then I'll think they're serious.
A rare enlightened Republican Senator. Contrast him to the dishonest compatriot from the same State: Jim "anti science, anti environment" Inhofe. Mr. Inhofe is ethically challenged and is a king of pork. Inhofe rails against the Federal government but every chance he gets he grabs Federal Tax dollars for his backward state. He does this while pretending he is a Conservative. Dr. Coburn has NEVER sent a single pork dollar to Oklahoma. Their state is a net welfare dollar recipient state getting $1.37 for every $1.00 they pay into the Federal Tax system. They have a lot of people on Medicare. More than 25% of their people are on Medicare. They grab every dollar for Tinker AFB or other lucrative Federal contracts. They have defense contractors who use their staff who were former military officials to get affirmative action quotas reserved for Veterans.. Dr. Coburn is a rare gem in a corrupt party.
I do hope he has the courage to tell American people that Republican President George W Bush is the one who cut taxes and WASTED 3.7TRILLION on two wars he bungled.
And the money Obama has spent on Afghanistan has been a wise investment? And by the way, Obama has cut taxes as well.
Roger.............agree totally with your comment and wish I could give you more than just one agree checkmark............too many in Congress who only care about reelection...........seems like we need to give these guys and women something else to think about............perhaps the country's future and the welfare of the people in the US for a change rather than their incomes and level of power in government, you think?
Quick...give the Senator his kool-aid as he is thinking to rational!
Roger:
*applause* Well said ... well said!
rob - heck yes! we invaded to stabilize the area. it's a work in progress but when we leave, the area will be able to support and defend itself, as well as operate as an ally for us in the future. republicans and democrats agree on this. you're the only one who isn't realizing the importance of the hold we have on afghanistan.
It sounds great at first, but at the end of the article where he talks about jobs that could be done by others for less, he is really talking about privatization. This is a big part of the problem! Just because someone will do a job for less pay and benefits doesn't make it a good thing. The military does need better oversight, like buying fighter jets from private companies that are junk, or purchasing rifles which are not prone to fail, but we do not need to privatize the military. Get rid of corporate lobbyist from defense contractors, and senators who support bills because the company is in their state, and then you've begun to get to the beginning of a true solution.
The work will be done by civilians working for the Department of Defense. I fail to see how that is "privatization".
It also depends upon experience. What people fail to remember is that most federal civilian workers are retired or separated former military. Why, because they have the field experience. The government can't just go out and hire some new GS-7 to manage a department dealing with something like, oh, counter terrorism. GS-15s make plenty on their own..there wouldn't be much of a savings but possibly a loss of needed experience on the active duty side of things.
And that is called double-dipping when a federal employee retired from one branch of the government goes to work in another branch and still draws that federal retirement money.
Don't worry Lynn, it's good news, most DOD Civilians being hired will be Veterans. With the hiring preferences it will be a very good thing. There are plenty of MI vets looking for a job, don't worry.
Antitrust...this from the Federal Personnel Handbook...As an aside, Pres Clinton repealed the "no concurrent pay" issue back in 1999 so no, there is no double dipping for a military retiree to also work federal service while drawing military retired pay. Start reading from page 13: http://www.federalhandbooks.com/fedbooks/Personnel.pdf
Military Retirees
Retirees of U.S. Uniformed Services are now treated as other retirees (see next heading). Prior reductions in military retired pay were repealed by P.L. 106-65 in October 1999.
Other Retirees - Private Sector, State, and Local Government
Generally, when other retirees become a federal employee there is no reduction in their federal pay or in their retirement pay or annuity. However, paid work may reduce Social Security retirement, survivors or disability benefits if earnings exceed the established limits.
Right Lynn, double dipping as it was known doesn't exist any more, but it would still reduce vet unemployment. My problem is that a lot of this jobs are being filled by military personnel on rotation back to the states. Under this proposal I can see increased optemp for active duty personnel or more use of reservists overseas. We all know the personal cost that brings. Not sure the over all cost will be reduced. I always asked if these civilians were going to go to war with us. The Navy replaced military staff with civilians in many of their hospitals. One of the results of this was reduced training for the military. Can not speak to other communities. The real waste is in Washington and the purchase of unneeded equipment to keep the civilian voter working. We will see how they back it when it cuts their jobs.
Also a admiral for each ship? Have we reduced the fleet that much since I retired? The other day when they were talking about Petraus (sp?) they said there was only 50 4 stars in all four services. Not saying it isn't true, just questioning it. Maybe even included the Coasties. When are we going to cut Washington's wages?
@HMCFarmer ... good points!
Our representatives in congress & the senate receive over $177,000 in annual salary plus their benefits; medical, dental, prescription, vision, expense allowance, housing allowance, travel, entertainment, etc.
They voted to make the cost-of-living increase to their salaries automatic, so they don't have to vote for it - it allows them to save face by being able to say, "I know I got a raise in January, but I didn't ask for it and didn't vote for it, they just gave it to me - what could I do?".
After five years in office they can leave office with 100% of their pay and all of their benefits for themselves and their family for life.
What happened to the idea that representing your fellow Americans was a duty and an honor, not a high-paying and lucrative career? We need to overhaul the system and we desperately need term limits!
Steve,
The DOD has repeatedly failed to get private contractors to provide a good product at a reasonable cost. They buy $100 hammers rather than going to Home Depot and paying $17.95. These guys don't care what it costs because they aren't the ones paying for it. Military contractors are one of the biggest pork consumers we have.
I would propose an immediate 1% in funding, followed by an additional 1% every year for the next ten years. I would also propose that auditors come in and cost out the real value of what is being purchased and tell the contractors that this is what they will pay and not one dollar more. It is not that the defense of the US isn't important. It is that the defense industry wraps itself in the flag and refuses to be held accountable. I believe that we need less privatization, not more.
We are paying mercenaries $3000 a week to do what the army could do for $300 a week. Where is the sense in that?
The military industrial complex is the single biggest waste of tax dollars in the country because it is so lucrative for the contractors and there is so little accountability. The legislators get jobs as "consultants" and lobbyists when they leave their legislative careers and are paid millions. This is payback for the contracts they got their boys while they were in office.
Every state believes that they should be the exception to the rule when it comes to cutbacks in military spending. California screamed bloody murder during the last round of base closures. Were there job losses? Yes, most definitely. But should the military be a job provider? I would rather spend money on infrastructure that we actually need than on military bases that we don't need or tanks that the military doesn't want or use.
As for cutbacks to other programs, that was put on the table two years ago. The Republicans rejected the package. But I assure you that Obama still has the list. If Republicans will get serious about tax hikes for the rich and cutbacks to the military budget than Democrats are prepared to be serious about cutbacks to the entitlements budgets.
Everyone's ox is going to be gored if both sides are genuinely concerned about cutting government spending. Your ox and mine. But if we combine cuts with spending on infrastructure and tax code changes that incentivize job creation I believe we can eliminate deficit spending. It won't all happen the first year, but we can make a good start.
But the Republicans must negotiate in good faith without demanding the inclusion of their religious and moral programs.
A story where the moonbats and republigoons can't fight with each other. Boring.
I gotta say for a Republican,
I LIKE this guy!
To bad the rest of the TeaPublicans will not listen to him .....
Coburn? He's a crackpot. Not because of this, but many other ridiculous shenanigans. He's as bad as Akin and Murdock, but just hasn't attracted as much attention lately.
So maybe there are some realists left in the GOP. But $68B is still small potatoes over 10 years.
starting somewhere is better than not starting at all. the important first step is to get the ball moving.
Lets see if Pelosi will propose cutting $68B in entitlement programs. Now that would be a shocker.
Yep it's less than 1% per annum cut. Not nothing, but certainly not much. Quite frankly I think we would do quite well to cut military spending drastically and change the mission of the military to the defense of the US instead of world domination.
TooMany: You're exactly right! We outspend the next 30 nations combined on our military, try to police the world--like trying to lead a 9-headed hydra in a waltz--and the result is, everybody hates us!
We need to quit policing the world, grow a lean, mean, & technologically incomparable, small defensive force--focused on our being the best at computer intel-- and get to nation-building right here at home. We can train all citizens to be watchdogs, as New Yorkers have become, as Israelis have always been, because terrorism happens where people are.
Meanwhile, the Paul Ryans in Congress insist we cannot feed our hungry children--1 in 4--because we must feed our private defense contractors! We really don't need private contractors building tent cities & peeling spuds at $45/hr when our own guys can do that for $15/hr.
And watch out, private defense contractors' personnel are often included as DOD civilians, so Coburn is, in fact, talking on both sides of his mouth, tossing in a bit of privatization there at the end.
Defense has always been a sacred cow of the GOP, as mentioned above. You can bet that's not going to change.
As for those here who claim "entitlements" or what are really earned benefits should be left to the states, here are a few of the problems with your proposal:
1) States quickly fall prey to corporations who promise parochial politicians campaign funding in exchange for statewide monopolies that hurt their constituents,
2) Even worse, states are too small to have the kind of leverage, or any leverage at all, the fed has to lower costs--and
3) Why should earned benefits be different every time you move from one state to another? The paper burden on citizens would be burdensome, and southern states that pay workers zip yet have an exponentially burgeoning diabetes epidemic, for example, would continue to sink at the expense of people who can't afford to move and/or are eating themselves into early graves.
Look to Europe with its unstable currency and the struggling, drop-footed European Union first, when you want to contemplate balkanizing our own nation. That war was already fought, and the fed won.
Now let's all give RobScan a little pat on the head for being such a good Limbaugh-ite. Good Rob. Whatever Rush says....
Bravo, Dee! Excellent points. Wish I could have voted for your post three times!
Maybe the TeaThuglicans won't, DrWho, but I sure hope the Progressives will - finally, maybe somebody we can work with! what a brave guy, making a great start!
.
FORWARD! :-)
The Pentagon has no idea where they're spending their money? In other words, Congress is throwing money at them without regard to how and where it's spent. That's isn't fiduciary responsibility, and it's entirely unacceptable.
Part (but not all) of the problem is that Congress is throwing money at the Pentagon for programs it has insisted it doesn't want or need, all in the name of bringing home the bacon for their district.
I agree with most of these posts. I am a lifelong Democrat, but this guy is right on.. The over-riding problem is that when we (the goverened) insist on cuts, we will also cut the corporate infrastructure that suports so many of us. It is a very slippery slope.
No, I am DEFINITLY NOT defending the DoD squandering their money, BUT w/o that cash flowing to whomever (and the thousands of jobs that the flow creates) where will we actually end up???? Hmmm. We could be lean, frugal and all unemployed..
Just look at the tank issue... we have more tanks than we need, the Army says they don't need more, but congress mandates the building of new tanks just to keep some people employed. If that's not welfare for the military-industrial complex, I don't know what is.
And hundreds, if not thousands, of them sitting in huge fields going to rust and ruin, totally unfit to ever be put into military use.
EquityforAll: It's unacceptable, but nothing new. I well remember the $400 toilet seats and $600 hammers of the DOD in the early 1980s. Bet those same toilets seats cost $2 grand apiece these days--we all know 2% inflation is a crock.
Coburn is correct on one huge point--Congress is increasingly stupid & uninformed. Our forefathers were all people with PhDs from impeccable, ancient universities, with 24 years of schooling. All were lawyers. The average reading level of the House today is 10th grade--only one-third are lawyers today.
People who write laws should be lawyers.
For the last 3 decades, the only people actually writing law at the federal level have been corporate lobbying lawyers--which is why every law has so many loopholes, they're all just so much Swiss cheese.
We need a constitutional amendment requiring:
1) that all members in the House & Senate be licensed attorneys subject to continuing legal education requirements, and
2) that only Congressional members be allowed to draft bills.
We'd certainly have no more 900+ page laws! (the real length of the Affordable Healthcare Act, however, is 940 pages or so, not 2400 as reported by the GOP)
The best laws, like Glass-Steagall, are short: Glass- Steagall, enacted in 1933, which protected us from economic collapse until it was repealed when Newt Gingrich was House Speaker in the early 1990s--and which ought to be re-enacted--is just 37 pages in toto.
Drafting legislation is, after all, what we elect Congress to do--they are the legislative branch.
BTW--It's because they cannot realistically fulfill required annual continuing legal education courses, at least half of which must be done in person in real classes, that our President and First Lady have filed as inactive attorneys for the duration.
The Secret Service personnel needed for such classes would completely disrupt them!
(In California, the requirement is for 36 hours/year. They would be required to attend classes where they're licensed--in Illinois--or find classes acceptable in IIlinois.)
No ethics violations, no problems, as some have dreamed up--
for real! i cant think of ANY job in this country where employees just spend without having to do an expense report or report to someone about where that money went.
Good to Senator Tom Coburn. Maybe he could lead the GOP to a better place. We need Fiscal conservatives leading the party not Social conservatives, as America has spoke out about that and the Social conservtives were defeated nearly across the board.
Coburn already announced he will not seek re-election in 2016. If he's going to lead them to a better place, he has four years to do it.
And that is probably why he is no longer afraid to speak out...and the ONLY reason for it. What has he really done since joining the Senate in 2005? He was also a six year waste in the House before getting elected to the Senate. Remember that his nickname is Dr. No, because he is one of the principal senators who places holds all of the time on bills he can't support, thereby preventing them from even making it to the floor for discussion. Never trust an MD/Baptist Deacon to do anything worthwhile serving in Congress, hehe. And yes, the only good policy that he has politically is that he believes in term limits. Now, how about all of you getting involved in the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampaignreform.us and helping to pass that constitutional amendment? Don't forget to also sign and circulate the Election/Campaign Finance Reform constitutional amendment petition as well.
Aren't we glad we dodged the bullet of having to endure a frickin' Mormon BISHOP in the White House??? hahaha
A little bigoted are we?
Ladies, Tom Colburn has been in Congress for over six years. If this is the first you have heard of him, then you haven't been paying attention. Unfortunately, he will not be running for a third term. He has already said that he would only serve 12 years.
Let the Joint Chiefs of Staff state what they don't want, i.e. tanks, base closures, etc. Keep the politics out of it.
Something a lot of people may not be aware of, because the media doesn't find it sexy, is that the DoD will be able to supply Congress with completely auditable statements by 2014. It is a huge undertaking, but finally happening.
A good start, definitely! Kudos to a man in Washington who actually did some work!
I've always felt that our military was top heavy ever since the end of WWII when this amount of brass was needed but was never culled after the fact.
This is a good start. I applaud Senator Coburn. American defence spending is equal to the next 10 countries combined. It's hard to argue that cuts can't be made without compromising national security.
I only hope he doesn't get crucified by his own party for suggesting this. This is the kind of compromise that's needed in Washington at the moment.
Try multiplying these cuts by a factor of 20-40, and then maybe - but over 10 years, this is only 1% per year cuts.
Still better than nothing at all.
I agree, you have to start somewhere.
What the hell is with all of you people saying "it's a start," "better something rather than nothing," WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! The big scare tactic..."if we cut defense we cut jobs." Defense has done pretty well over the last 50 years or so. How about we reward companies who can build our new infrastructure and invest in America. No country is going to mess with our military on a global basis for the next 50 years. Or are all of you scaredycats worried that China is the the reincarnation of early 20th Century Germany. What a sad joke!
You go, RandogM! China has never attacked another nation; they don't have to--they already own us. But don't call people names, please. We're all in this together, and together is the only way we'll find solutions.
That said, yes, we could cut deeply and still spend far more than any other country in the world.
Policing the world only serves to make us more hated, which in turn causes us to think we need more & more military spending. We only need to step off the merry-go-round, all together, all at once.
We'll be so much happier rebuilding this nation.
Finally a Republican with some sense. I like his idea. The Military has to be cut also.
Well done, Senator Coburn. I undoubtedly share little of the Senator's overall world view, but I definitely share his fiscal conservative view that all portions of the government must share in cost reductions.
How about the 80 Billion $/yr. it costs to run Congress----------anyone considering cutting there?
start with - get rid of the premo healthcare and instead shop through obamacare...
add in, part time work gets part time pay (cap pay)...
plus, if they get paid vacation time (no more than 2 weeks paid vacation time)...
What we really need is a federal pay commission like a couple of states/territories have where an independent commission is appointed, serves just long enough to set the pay scales for the next four years (presidential/governor term depending on state or federal level) and then is disbanded. The legislature (in this case Congress) would have no say in changing the decisions of this commission. The pay scale would be set for all elected and appointed officials in government...all three branches. And they would have the right to reduce the existing pay wherever they deem necessary. Per diems need to be eliminated for starters. Most of the Congressional perks need to go as well. Then we start to work on all other places we can cut...like the number of staff both in DC and in their state/district offices.
Heaveto: Great idea. Do you know it cost the House 43 millions to vote against the Healthcare Act--33 times??
In 2012, Congress has been in session less than any other Congress in history. Why can't we cut their salaries & benefits when they only work part-time, just as happens to us?? Instead, they get huge lifetime pensions, even if in Congress one term--and the best benefits in the nation for life, as well.
People don't run for Congress to serve--they run to get rich. That'd be ok if they actually did the job while in office--but they don't.
We have to pay them well to get smart people into it--but smart people are running FROM Congress, not for it--because of gridlock.
We must prevent all congressional insider trading, maybe preclude them from private investments altogether while in office--maybe stockpiling extra savings for them based on years in office. Term limits are a no-go because we'd lose expertise--look at the mess California's in--nobody feels responsible for anything because of term limits. Anyway, we already have term limits--it's called "voting them out."
We really need to get corporate money out of politics at every level & make lobbying 'gifts' the felony bribes the really are. but--
Does anybody here have other suggestions for limiting Congressional pay somehow to match actual achievement in office??
cutting congress = dictatorship. we don't need to remove any body of government that supports the check and balance system. you guys are ridiculous.....
This is only a start - the Defense Department is the most wasteful, fraud-ridden in the federal government. It's ludicrous that we should be spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense, and a disgrace that a good deal of it is completely unnecessary pork protected by members of congress.
Yup, and WE keep reelecting the porkers because THEY bring jobs to OUR state.
"I have met the enemy and he is me." Cann't remember who said it, but it is true.
The original popular quote is from "Pogo"- and it originally read "We have met the enemy, and he is us!".
Your interpretation is a new evolution along the same path- but it certainly rings true on a lot of levels- after all, most of us suffer more harm at our own hands than at the hands of others.
This has roots in something far older: "Pogo’s quip was a pun based on the famous quotation “We have met the enemy and they are ours” — one of two famous quotes made by American Navy Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry on September 10, 1813, after defeating a British naval squadron on Lake Erie during the War of 1812. Site link:
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/04/we-have-met-enemy-and-he-is-us.html
Several years ago there was an expose on costs in the military. 100+ dollar 16 oz claw hammers, 38 dollar common 3/4 inch stainless steel bolts, 600+ dollar toilets. Walk into any hardware store and buy common 3/4 stainless steel bolts for 50 cents, top flight claw hammers cost you 30 dollars now but the military in their infinite wisdom pays these outrageous amounts. It's pure BS. Cut their arse to the bone.