Posted on Dec 20, 2014
Civilian Leadership (Congress) influencing defense spending
4.04K
2
6
1
1
0
So, here is another example of defense spending being influenced by civilian leaders in congress that goes against what a service is asking for, in order to save jobs throughout political districts. Although I am for saving jobs, if a service (in this case the Army) says we don't need something, why should congress be allowed to continue to include in in the budget. There is 120 million dollars that could be used for something else that the service needs, or towards the overall government deficit. 120 Million may not put a dent in the deficit, but if this occurs a few more time, the money builds up.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Congress
Budget
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
This is a perfect example of why political rhetoric about "government shouldn't be picking winners and losers", or "crony capitalism", or "stop the wasteful spending", or "moochers" falls on deaf ears for me. Politicians are still perfectly willing to go against their own talking points when/if it keeps them in office.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Because of civilian control. Period. Full stop.
It is up to our political leaders to decide when, if, where, and how to employ our armed forces. They control 95%+ at the strategic level (the other 5% is just the world getting its own vote). As such they control all aspects of our manning, structure, and equipping.
It is our job to give them our best professional advice. It behooves them to listen and at least seriously consider it, but they are NOT under any obligation to do so.
Editorial1: And it seems that they vastly overstate their ability to form independent and valid opinions.
Editorial2: Look at the bright side, at least the Army doesn't have F35s.
It is up to our political leaders to decide when, if, where, and how to employ our armed forces. They control 95%+ at the strategic level (the other 5% is just the world getting its own vote). As such they control all aspects of our manning, structure, and equipping.
It is our job to give them our best professional advice. It behooves them to listen and at least seriously consider it, but they are NOT under any obligation to do so.
Editorial1: And it seems that they vastly overstate their ability to form independent and valid opinions.
Editorial2: Look at the bright side, at least the Army doesn't have F35s.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Couldn't agree more. You know what form of government has a military determine its own budget?a military dictatorship.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
An this is the age old question. Who actually looked at the spending bill that went through congress that averted the government shutdown? I am sure there are more examples of this in there.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Got to keep those production lines up and running. Congress sees this as a strategic investment in our defense sector; it's not so much about a Service needing an item, it's more about our ability to continue to manufacture said item. That's the theory, anyhow. It also can't hurt to secure votes; I've not seen the logistics supply line for a tank, but if it's anything like the F35, it's likely that all or most Congressional districts produce at least one part that goes into making a tank. Makes one realize eisenhower's wisdom in rallying against the defense industrial complex. 60 years later, still a major issue.
As you say, though, 120 million is drops in the bucket compared to the overall budget. Probably also drops in the bucket for what it would cost to bring production up to speed if lines were shut down and we wanted to fight another major ground war in the Middle East, or somewhere else.
As you say, though, 120 million is drops in the bucket compared to the overall budget. Probably also drops in the bucket for what it would cost to bring production up to speed if lines were shut down and we wanted to fight another major ground war in the Middle East, or somewhere else.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google