Political Engineering: Bad leadership, bad economics or a necessary Evil?

2015-03-06T23:54:46-05:00

Being a business minded individual I always like looking at the numbers to see if the benefits of a particular something truly outweigh the costs in acquiring it. When I began looking at the financials relating to the demise of the A-10 Warthog I began to understand perhaps the real reasons behind the dynamism coming from both the Air Force and the legislative branch, political engineering.

It seems that senior leadership in the military has figured out how to advance their careers in conspiring with politicos cutting off the military’s nose despite its face. Now to be fair I’ll present two narratives of political engineering. The first perspective is avarice in nature where senior leaders look for rank by satisfying the political needs of Senators and Representatives in delivering lucrative government contacts to their states or districts. The other logic is this is necessary in order to acquire the latest and greatest in military weaponry.

An example of this trend is with the B-2 bomber. In the late 1980's, a financially conscious coalition in Congress tried to cut funding for the B-2 bomber. They failed miserably after realizing work for the project was being carried out in 46 states with no fewer than 383 of the 435 congressional districts being beneficiaries of B-2 contracts. The end result was an overly complicated supply chain driving costs to a staggering $810 million per unit resulting in an operational expense of $135,000 per flight hour.

I know it was the 80’s. The economy was doing well and hammers cost $500 bucks back then. However one would think that we would be wiser and more frugal with the money, especially now with the recent government shutdown due to raising the debt ceiling and all the sequestrations. Well the truth is it seems to have gotten worse as in the case of the multifaceted F-35 that has unsurprisingly failed to excel at any of its future roles. This boondoggle is sourced from over 250 locations around the globe, spanning 11 countries and, in the U.S., from more than 90 congressional districts. You don’t have to have an MBA from Harvard to understand the associated manufacturing cost in maintaining such an elaborate supply chain. The result is an under performing platform costing $101 million with an additional $100 million for its weapons system. Ironically the original concept of F-35 project was to lower operational cost but with over runs in the 50 percent range an internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project reviled that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar".

To play out all the possibilities a third narrative is that both parties are guilty and are happily scratching each others backs and profiting from this relationship; Senior leaders landing jobs with companies where they once managed projects and the politicians getting financial support via campaign contributions from the companies getting the contracts.

So who is to blame for this new trend in political engineering and what is the fix for these c suite shenanigans that are taking money out of the average Joe's retirement pay, medical benefits, and other financially constricted resources?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 6:36 AM

2015-03-07T06:36:51-05:00

This is a problem, SPC David S., but it's also a fact of life. No matter how strenuously a politician might rail against this sort of spending, when it comes to his/her district and his/her constituents (and his/her reelection), nearly all will take some. There might be the odd exception here or there, but for the most part, our political system and these large contracts sit squarely on (maybe even in) a pork barrel.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 7 at 2015 6:56 AM

2015-03-07T06:56:41-05:00

I think its a case of the system having the ability to runamuck with all these shenanigans, everybody wanting a piece of the pie "for their district" without regard of what is best for the bigger group.....where is the oversight committee?

How do we stop it, by continuing to demonstrate those involved and get the word out....its apparent most are trying to steal a cookie from the cookie jar (to appease their constituents?), but the narrow focus is not right. My kids used to sing that song when they were real young about the cookie jar....and everyone would point the finger at someone else saying it wasn't them....

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Mar 7 at 2015 8:20 AM

2015-03-07T08:20:07-05:00

We have allowed the foxes to guard the hen house! Politicians are no longer accountable to constituents.Just write one, you will get a form letter on whatever the Subject of your concern was, but will never get a specific answer to your concern. I would also say that money talks, and politicians listen to money. When it costs 1 Billion dollars to secure a job that pays $400,000 plus perks, there is a reason.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 7 at 2015 9:31 AM

2015-03-07T09:31:11-05:00

There's a couple of mindsets I'd like to just point out. They're "historical" or "institutional" but they need to be kept in mind.

U.S. Senate. Traditionally, Senators vote YES on any bill that doesn't affect their state. Sort of a "benefit of the doubt" mentality. If it doesn't directly affect them, don't vote against it. Their job in Congress is specifically to represent their State's (as a whole) interest, as opposed to the People (as individuals). So think of it as Good for the state, Bad for the state, Neutral for the state. The only no vote would be bad for the state.

U.S. House of Representatives. They represent their districts. The people who voted for them, as opposed to the state. Yes, they are in the state, or from the state, but their district is what they really care about. They live and die by how well their district does in the 2 year stretch they are in office. The House is also in charge of the purse strings. So.... it is in their best interest to keep the money flowing.

The B2 issue highlights this. Spread the wealth as far and wide as possible. But we do the same thing with other programs. Port of NY, Navy yards, Air Force bases, Army Posts, etc. No one wants to be the Congressman who have a BRAC closure on their watch. That's why we had so many mergers as opposed to actual closures.

I'm from San Antonio. I remember when we had Lackland, Kelly, Brooks, Ft Sam, and I want to say one more base there. How many did we actually close down? How much footprint did we really give up? Or did we just call it something else.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 7 at 2015 10:34 AM

2015-03-07T10:34:48-05:00

I completely understand respect the research you have done and this is a great topic SPC David S..

I voted both because senior leadership is responsible for their subordinates but they are also have to look out for themselves in future endeavors. For example, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force will eventually retire and may want to enter the political world and will need help of the politicos or he may choose to enter private business and work for say Lockeed-Martin but they may be hesitant in hiring him because he fought them tooth and nail or it could be an advantage.

Now for the politico they are responsible to their constituents and although they do not always remember that they do not want to lose too much of the votes. They also have to build allies within their respective house of Congress so if that means getting into bed with some who has a bigger dog in the fight they might do that.

Bottom line the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are the losers in political engineering.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 7 at 2015 12:33 PM

2015-03-07T12:33:26-05:00

Neither. We have met the enemy, as comic strip artist Walt Kelly said, and he is us.

We have the government we deserve.

They give us the weapons we deserve.

You want better?

You need to elect better representatives to Congress.

That's a tall order to take in one gulp, isn't it?

Why not start locally?

Pay attention. Get involved. Vote. Vote your self-interest. Look past immediate benefits. Consider the second and third tier consequences of your decisions.

How can you expect your representatives to be more considerate than yourself?

Bottom line: You won't turn anything around, you won't get a more frugal or efficient government with the leadership we have.

Change it.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Mar 7 at 2015 4:04 PM

2015-03-07T16:04:22-05:00

Wow, only 9 votes with 88 views and 7 comments. And all nine say both.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 8 at 2015 10:52 AM

2015-10-08T10:52:08-04:00

Sadly, this type of inefficiency tends to be the cost of democratic representation. In an ideal world, the most efficient supplier would be chosen regardless of where he was located or whose state/district would benefit but Utopia is Latin for nowhere.