Gates seeks big cuts in military spending

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Gates seeks big cuts in military spending

The Defense secretary invokes Dwight Eisenhower as he calls for spending reductions in military healthcare and the command structure. He wants to cut $10 billion to $15 billion from a $547-billion Pentagon base budget.

By Julian E. Barnes, Tribune Washington Bureau
1:40 p.m. CDT, May 8, 2010
Reporting form Abilene, Kan.

Defense secretary targets expenditures on armed forces healthcare and departmental overhead as part of an effort to tame runaway Pentagon spending.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Saturday that he wants to sharply cut the military bureaucracy and rein in expenditures on armed forces healthcare and departmental overhead as part of an effort to tame runaway Pentagon spending.

Speaking at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Gates presented a roadmap for what might be his last months in office and his final major Pentagon reform push. Gates said his priority is to flatten a hierarchical military command structure and eliminate military offices and agencies that have little direct role in fighting the nation's wars.

Outlining the case for sharp cuts in the number of admirals and generals, Gates repeatedly invoked former President Eisenhower's admonishment to spend what it takes to defend America's interests, "and not one penny more."


Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-gates-20100509,0,7072143.story

[Yeahyeah]

1. That's big?And healthcare?

2%?

[bhikkhu]

2. Wow, 2 - 3%!

What austerity! I don't even know what I'd do if I had to cut 2 or 3% from my own budget!

[Yeahyeah]

5. Let's cut 2-3% of the Obama administration.Oap!That's Gates!

Goodbye,Gates,don't let the gates hit you in the ass.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. What happened to the S1.3 Triillion that Rumsfeld 'lost' just before 9/11

anyone find it?

[UpInArms]

23. it was $2.3 trillion and here's the link

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

(CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."

The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of Minnery's allegations but could not prove officials tried "to manipulate the financial statements."

Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Thank you I didn't realize it was so much. Congress should ask again where it went?

and can we have it back.

The GOP worry so much about the cost of healthcare but they don't care where $2.3 trillion went?

[UpInArms]

26. the GOP is completely hypocritical - and no, they don't care that the Pentagon

"lost" $2.3 TRILLION - they only hoped that it "trickled" into their pockets.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. Did Congess ever do an audit?

[UpInArms]

30. link to article from 2006 - seems like it's a "can't be done" kind of thing

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-pentagons-broken-bookkeeping-01945/

Defense reform critics like Chuck Spinney, and government organizations like the GAO, have complained for years that the Pentagon’s accounting system is broken. Considerable amounts of money are still being spent trying to improve the services’ systems in order to realize a “clean audit,” but the DoD’s books are such a mess that its accountants aren’t wasting any money by trying to run comprehensive audits. Last year, Managing Director Gregory D. Kutz of the Government Accountability Office told Congress that these accounting problems would cost taxpayers approximately $13 billion in 2005. Indeed, the GAO has classified the Pentagon’s accounting systems as “high risk” since the 1990s.

Now the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer has a report that details the extent of the problem, and the troubles these systems are causing for some troops in the field. But why do the problems persist, even after all of these years?

In a word, scale.

The News & Observer notes that the Pentagon has 4,150 different systems, including 713 different human resources systems. Rep. Todd Platts was quoted as saying that

“The for more than five decades has just kind of layered system on top of system on top of system, and not been serious until recent years that this is not an efficient way to protect against waste, fraud and abuse or in assuring the most effective and efficient systems are in place for those serving in harm’s way.”

Almost all large firms also suffer from this “spaghetti systems” problem. In response, many have attempted to standardize on huge ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) software implementations. Even with pre-built software behind them, these attempts to centralize tracking and standardize data formats and codes can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years. Yet even some of these implementations have been known to fail, sometimes after 7-figure or even 8-figure sums have been spent. Or they are successfully installed, but prove irrationally expensive to customize for the unique needs of that enterprise in ways that affect its functioning. Without naming names, the author is personally aware of one case where a chemical firm’s new ERP system had to go live without environmental reporting; and another in which a university had to abolish course pre-requisites after installing a new ERP system (and putting the project manager on long-term stress leave).

Now, consider that even these firms’ Herculean efforts are trying to address organizations that are orders of magnitude smaller and less complex that the US Department of Defense.

For instance, the DoD has about 5.2 million inventory items, compared with 11,000 at Wal-Mart or 50,000 at Home Depot stores. Now multiply that by the fact that the same item may have several different order codes in different DoD departments, which do not use the same format. The DoD also has $1.3 trillion in assets (Wal-Mart: $120 billion) and $1.9 trillion in liabilities (Wal-Mart: $20 billion).

Which means their problems may continue for some time. To add to the difficulties involved, the Pentagon only began putting income statements together in the 1990s; before that, it had never needed to put a value on anything. Some believe that overhang will cripple any “clean audit efforts,” which stood at 16% of assets and 49% of its liabilities as of June 2005.

As Winslow T. Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information, puts it:

“It’s not that DOD flunks audits, it’s that DOD’s books cannot be audited. DOD aspires for the position where it flunks an audit.”

...more...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. maybe we should all call our congressmen to ask why

I think they can. Can't be done isn't transparent. Must be covering up something maybe?

[Yeahyeah]

38. Got to find out about that!

[UpInArms]

22. my thoughts exactly! - 2 to 3 percent is nothing - cut that gigantic piece of

taxpayer funded death by 50 percent and we'll be talking real turkey.

This is no really anything but a sop to those who do not know better.

[Vincardog]

3. Cut the Pentagon less than 10% and SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE take it from HEALTH CARE

[Turbineguy]

4. 2-3%?

Hey, don't laugh! That's $12-$18 off on a hammer.

Nothing to sneeze at.

[mike_c]

6. damn! I thought I was going to be pleasantly amazed when I clicked on this thread....

Big cuts? Sheesh. Still, better to go in that direction than the other. But I'd like to see the U.S. military budget reduced by 50-75 percent, not just a few paltry billion!

[Yeahyeah]

7. That is what Eisenhower said,though-"Don't let the military-industrial

compley take 60%(70,80?) of the budget for the next 50 years,cut 2-3% in the 50th year."

[WinkyDink]

8. Health-care. For Americans who might die in service. What an abysmal group of "Democrats".

[WhiteTara]

9. at first I thought he wanted to reduce military

spending. No, just the healthcare of those brave souls who become soldiers.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Good luck, Bob Gates!

I honestly hope that you achieve what you set out to do, and much, much, more in terms of cuts.

Let's not stop there, let's end these wars that are draining our treasure and cut short the lives of so many!

[Kolesar]

17. This *is* a step in the right direction

And those expenditures on Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan are going to decrease in a few years.

[bossy22]

37. actually the FY2012 budget is going to decrease the operating budget

for the 2 wars by about a 1/3

[Baclava]

11. Fuck you Gates you piece of fucking shit

Raising costs for health care is your great big idea? Yeah, fuck over the little guy.

How about closing bases? Too politically uncomfortable for you?

[Wilms]

12. Eisenhower called for spending reductions in military healthcare?

Oh yeah. He mentioned the Military Health Care Complex. :sarcasm:

[HereSince1628]

13. Soldiers will get to buy HC from the high risk pool, I suppose.

not a good headline for the administration.

[chill_wind]

14. Big of you, Mr. Secretary.

And nice timing! That should pretty well help sugarcoat the news of latest $33 billion War`Supplemental he told Reid to get.

[RC]

15. They could cut $500 billion from the defense budget and still

out spend everyone else.

[bossy22]

29. ummm no

that would leave us without about 48 billion...about the same amount that japan spends and about 60% of what russia spends

not to mention it would put atleast 2 million americans out of work

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Hostage-Iran-Contra Gates?

Am I keeping with the script?

[pampango]

19. “The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base bud

over the last decade,” Mr. Gates said. “Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.”

While this may not seem like a significant savings in the Pentagon’s base budget, which stands just below $550 billion for next year, cuts of any size are certain to run hard against entrenched constituencies.

Mr. Gates’s critique of top-heavy headquarters overseas was underscored not only by the date on which it was given but also by the location of the speech: the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum here. In his talk, Mr. Gates questioned why, two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Defense Department “still has more than 40 generals, admirals or civilian equivalents based on the continent” of Europe.

Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II, in his farewell address as president warned the nation of the menacing influence of an emerging “military-industrial complex.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/politics/09gates.html

[bahrbearian]

20. Sart with your salary Gates.

[ipaint]

21. I don't believe a word coming out of that lying criminal's mouth.

I remember iran contra.

[elias49]

24. Cynical bastard

From what I read, soldiers are already getting the shit-end of the stick when it comes to health care.
Now the prick wants to make it the soldiers own shit. Yup. Right up the ass.
I'll say it again: "Cynical bastard".

[4dsc]

27. Misleading headline for sure

And here I thought Gates was serious about cutting the defense budget only to find he's not really that serious.

[bossy22]

36. well the defense budget next year is going to be cut anyway

The cut will come from the winding down of the wars and will be taken out of the operating budget. The baseline budget is slated to increase about 20 billion, but the operating budget is set to be reduced by about 80 billion.

I have said this multiple times but Bush and Clinton have F*cked us when it comes to our military. Their procurment and maitnence holiday have lead us to the point that the majority of our equipment is in need of replacement and repair (exacerbated by the two wars also). The truth is over the next 10 years the U.S. will have to spend more money to recapitilize the military until we can reach a sustainable long-term procurment level

[Peace Patriot]

31. Cuts in military health care? Criminy! How could he say that with a straight face?

They just signed a secretly negotiated agreement for SEVEN new U.S. military bases in COLOMBIA, along with "total diplomatic immunity" for all U.S. military personnel and U.S. 'contractors' no matter what they do in Colombia. He would also say with a straight face that this is to stop the neverending flow of cocaine from Colombia into the U.S. And that is as much a piece of bullshit as cutting soldiers' health care to reduce the Pentagon's bloated albatross of a budget.

I'm just flabbergasted. HOW could he say that?! They drag these often falsely recruited, poor young people all over the world, to fight Exxon Mobil's wars, and when they're wounded, cut their health care to save money?

Money for what? For shit like Colombia. $7 BILLION is already being larded on the Colombian military--which has the second worst human rights record on earth. Why are we giving $7 BILLION in military aid to COLOMBIA, and renovating or building SEVEN U.S. military bases in Colombia, and secretly seeking "total diplomatic immunity" for U.S. soldiers and 'contractors' in Colombia? What is it FOR?

And when these soldiers and 'contractors' start shooting, getting shot at and dying in the jungles of the Amazon and in the Andes, in furtherance of Exxon Mobil's goals against Venezuela and Ecuador, will they face health care cutbacks when they return--if they return?

Tell the WHOLE story, Mr. Gates! $7 billion to Colombia. 7 bases in Colombia. The newly reconstituted U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean. U.S. military bases on the Dutch islands right off Venezuela's oil coast. Beefed up bases in Panama; base in Honduras secured by a rightwing military coup. What is it all FOR?

Drug interdiction? Don't make me laugh. And how can you ever pay for it all and also properly care for Exxon Mobil's "cannon fodder" when they are no longer useful to you?

And that ain't the half of it--as to corporate hijacking of the U.S. military, corporate/private 'contractor' looting of the Defense budget and massive corruption and malfeasance everywhere you look, as to U.S. militarism around the world. Yeah, cut the soldiers' health care.

Lord, this makes me sick!

:puke:

[Mari333]

33. asshole.

[Uncle Joe]

34. How does Gates link "military industrial" as cited by Eisenhower to military health care!?

:shrug:

If all our Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen were built like Robocop, I could understand it, but they're human and I don't relate the health care being provided to them for risking their lives to defend the nation to "industrial."

It seems to me Gates wants to sound more moderate than he is, but to the real "military industrial complex," it will be business as usual,
mean while the Class War being waged against the American People will open on another front.

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

[24601]

35. How about instead we cut a few carrier battle groups and then

INCREASE health care for military, retirees, and their family members.

I'm pretty fed up with all the asshats who acknowledge we were promised health care for ourselves & family members and now want to cut it.

Being wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan have nothing to do with it - Military volunteers wrote a blank check to our country, payable in full up to our lives. The consideration was that we didn't have to worry about things like health care. Fine, if you want to close it down, do it - retrain all the military medical folks other than battlefield medicine. Then issue our families a "promises made - promises kept" medical card good at any hospital, facility, pharmacy or doctor's office - just send DoD the fracking bill.

Otherwise, restore my busted body to exctly how it was 38 years ago.

[classysassy]

39. The chicken hawks

in the republican party will never let that happen,I feel a filibuster coming on.The MIC must have their bloody dollars and the blood thirsty,greedy republicans will enable them to pick the pockets of the clueless citizens.

[Mari333]

40. there are plenty of chickenhawks in the Dem party who benefit from the MIC

and Gates doesnt want to cut much out..2 or 3 percent..of health care..from the troops..

he is still an asshole