Posted on Oct 16, 2015
How can the military become more fiscally responsible?
9.3K
43
42
4
4
0
I had a discussion today with a friend where I vented about wasteful spending. I have a major issue with the processes and procedures that lead to huge wastes of taxpayer money. With our national deficit through the roof and our budgets restrained, our management of spending is now more important than ever. What areas can we improve upon to maximize the resources we are given? If anyone can show the break down of where the spending goes, I would love to see it.
Navy
Finance
Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
0
0
0
I think I know one way we could put a dent in wasteful spending. Organizations are allocated funding based off of previous FY spending. I saw so many commands spending every last penny they had in their accounts to guarantee like funding in the upcoming FY. Top that and you save a lot of taxpayer dollars. Why should a unit spend 1500 bucks for a sidewalk artist to draw a unit picture on a public street?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Already getting better according to the cartoon. When I enlisted a hammer was $700.00
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTJG Cowart...to answer your question, the military has eliminated many mil standards, which is why we spent so much money on stupid items. The program offices can request a waiver on current standards still in existence. You won't see 500 toilet seats anymore. That was an old argument by politicians in the past.
(0)
(0)
LTJG (Join to see)
Haha, that picture was only a visual. I'm more so interested in why we pay contracted companies to conduct repairs, give poor quality work, and then pay them again to fix their poor work. Shouldn't they have to fix their own mistakes on their own dime? WE could possibly save millions this way. Or why I must go through supply to purchase a part that is 3 times the market value, takes a ridiculous time to make it out to the ship, and was "quality assured" after being refurbished, only to then have it fail immediately upon optest and cost $80,000 in additional parts. I just feel the system is still broken and there are actions that could save us money for important things like personnel or materials.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is a thing that needs to be reset. A lot of the budget is under cover so to speak. Hammers at that price just funds secret weapons and science to build such weapons while .50 cents of the hammers cost is the cost. A lot of the budget feeds the brains and material we need for future weapons and technology. Lets just say. a new car today may cost $10,000 to build in materials but would cost you $25,000 to purchase before you have it financed. This money goes to designs and retirement plans (Union). The same process works to fund military technology without retirement benefits. I would love to know the true cost of the F-22 or F-35 without all the hidden cost. To me a company should charge the minimum to build due to it being to keep them safe and secure.
Just my 2 cents on this.
Chuck D
Just my 2 cents on this.
Chuck D
(0)
(0)
PO2 Angelika Laist
I haven't seen a hammer for that price in forever! The tools are bought on the economy on contract these days, unless it is a specialty item. "Secret weapons are usually funded by private investors.
Here's the price for the raptor
http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/174/Lockheed-F-22-Raptor
Here's the price for the raptor
http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/174/Lockheed-F-22-Raptor
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTJG (Join to see)
For instance, uniforms. The Navy has wasted so much money on uniforms for shipboard use. After realizing the NWU burns vigorously and that traditional coveralls aren’t much better, they introduced the fire retardant variant coveralls (FRVs). To begin, it’s about time they thought about fire safety and should have thought about it sooner. My issue is the fact that they were not field tested prior to signing the contract. They are terrible and the Navy now realizes they made a mistake. To fix it they are designing a new version (either a revamped FRV or a “flight suit” style). This is extra money being spent on uniforms. Meanwhile, many navy engineers continue to wear the bulwark coveralls that they use for fire protection. Why weren’t these good enough for every other sailor? The Navy could have saved so much money by just requiring the whole fleet to switch to bulwarks or a similar brand. No need for testing and the saved money could have gone to much needed parts or additional sailors to ease burdens on the crews.
(0)
(0)
1stSgt (Join to see)
I never understood why they left from dungarees and khakis to always newfangled uniforms that they were on ship. I did not realize that the Navy was doing the same thing as the army and redesigning uniforms all over again for like the third time in the last 15 years.
(1)
(0)
LTJG (Join to see)
Yeah, it's ridiculous. We have a uniform that engineers wear because it provides fire protection, yet we need to design new uniforms for everyone else to protect them from fire... It blows my mind.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google