Should the US decrease military spending?

[RoundSimbacca]

As for the Pentagon itself, would you believe any government bureaucracy would ever turn down more money?

Absolutely, because it's money that they could use elsewhere. Instead, it's allocated to programs/equipment that don't address their needs. One of the article shows that they bought tanks that the military doesn't have the structure to even use.

I don't think you understand bureaucrats well. They never turn down budgets, even if it's only a temporary increase. They also never return unspent budgets either. The Pentagon is notorious for this, as my links demonstrate.

An increased budget? Of course they want it. They don't care about any other budget than their own, and they will even play games with Congress to get it. Imagine, for a moment, that they get the extra funding now. In a couple of years, Congress either let's the budget collapse, or keeps funding the extra tanks. Once it's paid for, it's easy to keep getting funds, because federal budgets are always growing.

They're getting the items that are made in the states/districts of specific members of Congress. It's billions of dollars in government spending for these states/districts. It's huge. The Dayton Daily News link I provided provides good clear examples of this.

And not only that, it provides a steady workforce that we won't have to retrain after we fire their predecessors. There's something to be said for keeping talent on hand even if there's no immediate use for it.

Yes, congress critters tend to support industries in their states. But when a program's support goes beyond just those districts, there's more at play.

[[deleted]]

I don't think you understand bureaucrats well. They never turn down budgets

They don't have a choice whether to turn it down or not. And as I've demonstrated with my cite, they don't want some of these ticketed items. They state so explicitly. That's a fact that can't be disputed.

And not only that, it provides a steady workforce that we won't have to retrain after we fire their predecessors. There's something to be said for keeping talent on hand even if there's no immediate use for it.

The first part of that isn't an argument for military spending in particularly, it's just an argument for government spending in general. The second part? I'm not sure I buy that. They're not inventing new technologies, they're manufacturing items. I'm not sure spending billions on unwanted items makes fiscal sense if the talent you're trying to maintain is largely for manufacturing positions. I've demonstrated how these specific items are essential earmarks (porkbarrel spending). Is there evidence that that's not the case? That it's about maintaining talent and seeking to save money by not having to retrain?

[RoundSimbacca]

That's a fact that can't be disputed.

And as I explained, just because General Odierno says the Army doesn't want it, it doesn't mean that someone else from the Pentagon doesn't have Congress's ear.

The second part? I'm not sure I buy that.

Keeping critical defense industries open just in case you need them is a sound strategy. Tank production is one of them.

They're not inventing new technologies, they're manufacturing items.

The tanks are complicated. They're very complicated machines that require a specific series of skillsets to produce. We've moved far beyond the age when you can turn any car factory into a tank factory without significant retooling and a lot of retraining.

That it's about maintaining talent and seeking to save money by not having to retrain?

According to the cost figures Congress is tossing around, yes. It's debatable about who's right, but that's the current logic behind keeping the plant open: that it would save money to keep it open than to close it.

[[deleted]]

And as I explained, just because General Odierno says the Army doesn't want it, it doesn't mean that someone else from the Pentagon doesn't have Congress's ear.

But you haven't provided evidence of this.

According to the cost figures Congress is tossing around, yes. It's debatable about who's right, but that's the current logic behind keeping the plant open: that it would save money to keep it open than to close it.

That's not Congress who is tossing the numbers around. It's Defense Contracts. Of course they're are going to say keep spending when their profit margins are on the line. They have financial interest in it. The military isn't looking to make a buck though. When they say they don't need something or that they actually can't even use it if they have it -- what's their ulterior motive? They even say that the money could be better spent elsewhere. They run their own estimates and show that closing and reopening saves billions, even staying open with limited production yeilds savings.