that’s a stupid title for this article, which doesn’t really talk about Warren’s foreign policy (her weakest area, IMHO). I don’t really like this idea that “foreign policy” = “defense spending”.
However, it’s saying what I was trying to say upthread…you can’t just wave your hand and say “let’s cut defense spending by $xxx” because that is an entirely too simplistic way to approach DoD appropriations.
How would you personally cut a lot of money from the defense budget in a way that’s actually sustainable?
First, acquisition reform. It’s something they try to do every 10 years or so, and it never comes out the way it should. The Federal Acquisition Regulation is a several-THOUSAND page document full of convoluted rules that basically force the military into buying $200 hammers. Yeah, I know it’s an old joke, but it’s only funny because it’s true, and it’s true because of the FAR. I wouldn’t know how much money that would save without an extensive analysis, but it would be a significant amount. Literally every single project the DoD undertakes would cost less across the board in materiel costs, labor costs, and time from cradle to grave.
The FAR and the stupid bullshit rules it imposes in the name of “fairness” is one of the reasons I actually left the Air Force. I got so fed up with having to go around my elbow to get to my thumb that I couldn’t take it anymore.
Anyway, beyond that, a SERIOUS re-evaluation of our systems, from those in the development stage all the way to things that have been in the field for years. Along with this, we should seriously listen to leaders on the ground in regards to what they use, what they don’t use, what is practical, and how it really works in the field. This input should be the majority of the input we take seriously, and we should severely limit the influence of defense contractors. This could definitely tie in with getting rid of citizen’s united and reform of the lobbying system. For example, when the generals tell us they don’t need something, then we shouldn’t fucking build it, no matter if that means a company goes under or not. The F-35 is the most obvious example.
Another example: Back in the mid 90’s, the Air Force really wanted to decommission the U-2R/TR-1. It had been in service since the production line was restarted in 1986, but it is incredibly difficult to fly and expensive to maintain. Trouble was, we had already decommissioned the SR-71, because that was even more expensive to maintain. So the Air Force, having had success with the low altitude Predator drone for spying (it had no weapons at that time), decided that a high altitude UAV was the way to go.
Of course the Global Hawk was late and over budget, and as a replacement for the U-2…it, quite frankly, sucked. It became immediately apparent that the Global Hawk couldn’t hold a candle to the functionality and versatility of the U-2 (based on what payloads it could carry). So they were stuck with a UAV they’d rushed to production that could only be used to supplement the thing they wanted to replace.
So here we are, in 2019, and the U-2 still hasn’t been decommissioned…in fact, it got an upgrade in 2012, because the AF finally gave up and realized their Global Hawk money pit wasn’t going to be able to do what the U-2 does, at least not in the near future. I can’t go into detail, but suffice it to say, the presence of a pilot is NOT the thing that makes the U-2 irreplaceable, and had the AF taken some time to design a true replacement, they would have known that before sinking money into the Global Hawk.
Basically, my ideas are upgrades to efficiency, which would naturally lead to lower costs. I think “greening” the military fits in there, as well.
(edited to add: I love the U-2, and working on programs for it was the highlight of my career. Never got a ride, but I did get to ride in the chase car they use for takeoffs and landings)
Where are we at in the 10 year cycle, and is it actually possible to do the systemic change in that way if we are nearing it? Would lobbyists aggressively fight the efficiency additions to protect the contractors?
Their interests are in keeping the defense budget dollars flowing to their companies. However, they are usually open to acquisition reform, because streamlining the process could actually help them. What they would fight tooth and nail to prevent would be the second thing I talked about, because generals out in the field don’t give a shit about Lockheed’s annual earnings report…they want stuff they’ll use, and they don’t want stuff forced on them that they see no need for.
As for where we are, the latest attempt to reform was in the 2017 authorization. The trouble is, because the cycle is so long (4 years from budget proposal to actual money spent), it takes 8-10 years to see if the reforms had any effect.
some sources:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/248116-lessons-from-a-long-history-of-acquisition-reform
lol, literally you can google “acquisition reform” and find this type of article for every new fiscal year…it’s always a “top priority” and it never gets done right, or at all.
aaaaand…now I’m having flashbacks, and not in a good way.
So it sounds like we’re effed on trying to fix it at least for awhile, though changes might be able to be made in the run up to whatever health care we’re heading for if the Dems win in 2020. How much do you think your efficiency changes, etc. could save per year if you’re willing to take a guess?
The F-35 program is many times more expensive than any fighter program in history and can’t seem to field an adequate and reliable fighter. That’s not a problem that can be fixed through marginal efficiency improvements, it’s a systemic problem where the point of the program is the program and if by some miracle a functioning weapon system comes out the other end of the decades-long process, hey, that’s just a bonus. The F-35 would have been canceled long ago in any functioning political/military system. Well I shouldn’t say the system isn’t functioning, it is, just not for the public’s benefit. The F-35 is the worst example but it’s far from a unique case.
There are too many people in the military too. We have too much capability for everything and that causes us to use it. No telling where, but in another generation, after people forget things like how we invaded Iraq in 1991 and set the Kurds up to be murdered and then did it again in Syria in 2017, we’ll put another 100000 troops somewhere where they are securing oil or protecting slave states or aiding both sides in a conflict or something.
Excellent point that highlights a very problematic higher education system. I don’t think I want it to be like single payer health insurance. For those who have the money and/or are willing to borrow it, I think they should be able to attend an Ivy league or any private school they want. And I suppose private schools should be allowed to make money. But why is it that Oxford, supposedly one of the best universities in the world has a fraction of tuition costs of a middle of the road university here? Then there’s also the problem of it being like public education now where lower income neighborhoods don’t get the same quality of education
Just kicking this around in my head because I don’t understand it either. I know football programs, which are huge money makers for a lot of private schools have something to do with it and can be discriminatory against women athletic scholarships. Maybe if government didn’t give out grants for private colleges and schools were made to pay their athletes, they’d have to lower tuition. I honestly don’t know and would love to hear from someone who does know more about the process
My only rebuttal about the Green New Deal is that it isn’t just about clean energy. I believe it encompasses infrastructure too, which currently is embarrassing considering our overall wealth. I think you might be underestimating the number of jobs that could be created if we put the appropriate effort into developing a state of the art infrastructure. Ours is really a mess
This is not something I’ve thought a ton about, but it seems like our solution for college has largely been to pump money, mostly in the form of loans, to students. There’s basically an insatiable appetite for perceived quality, which is largely influenced by price.
Is problem.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but building more public universities maybe and having them be free.
It’s like the real estate market in highly impacted areas only the factor limiting supply is college rankings. A lot of people will pay whatever they can scrounge up and borrow.
I agree that a big infrastructure deal needs doing, but I don’t see it as being part of a jobs guarantee or a green new deal. I don’t think lumping stuff that is already incomprehensibly big together makes any sense. We’re talking about a multi trillion dollar project changing our economy over from primarily burning fossil fuels for energy to primarily going wind/solar/nuclear. That’s a big enough thing on its own without lumping the desperate need for mostly transportation infrastructure with it.
Let’s be really clear here, we are going to eliminate hundreds of thousands of good middle class jobs that are geographically concentrated in the shift to green power. There is no world where we are going to make up the difference in those locations, because the entire economies of those places revolve around extracting oil/natural gas and some of them aren’t going to even make sense anymore. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about that, it just means that it’s crazy disingenuous to say that the Green New Deal is going to replace the jobs they used to have. There will be a lot of people working on green industry, but they won’t be the same people and they won’t live in the same places… and those places aren’t going to be able to justify much of the infrastructure spend either because honestly there’s no goddamn reason for human beings to live in Odessa, TX if the oil demand drops by 75%+ because of carbon taxes. They are going to have to move. We don’t need to build 12 lane highways into and out of Odessa to reduce the pain, we need to give them money.
SenorKeed college plan:
I would totally listen to a Williamson podcast if it was free.
This is why I support Warren. Policy innovation to solve problems.
https://twitter.com/gabriel_zucman/status/1191744179388350467?s=19
Not bad. I went to UC in the late 80s/early 90s and it was pretty affordable aside from housing and I found ways for that to be affordable too. Something has to get at the problem that, left to the market, people will pay an insane amount for private college and the solution is just to give or lend them that crazy amount of money.
But, I don’t think anyone’s “free college” plan is to just pay for people to go to Oberlin or Harvard.
Bernie wants to forgive all student loan debt. That imo is very unfair – a big subsidy from people who never went to college to those that did go to college.
It’s a subsidy from people with money to people without. Other recent bailouts have gone the other direction. Bailouts are not done because they are the right thing to do in terms of fairness necessarily, but because there are huge problems which are hurting everyone, hurting society as a whole, and student debt is probably at that level.