Military leading again...in cost-cutting

[BrianFromWA]

I'm pretty sure this is out, but couldn't find it online so I typed in the cover letter. It's the SECDEF showing that the DoD is implementing cost-saving initiatives aside from any detailed in the President's Budget.
It's pretty odd to see the 349 generals/admirals/civilian executives cut, (almost all of the military ones by name) in the appendices. \
Enjoy. I look forward to the rest of the cutbacks that I'm sure are coming across the rest of the government's board.

Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Mar 14 2011
MEMO FOR DISTRIBUTION
Subject: Track Four Initiatives Decisions
As part of the Deptarment's efficiencies effort, on August 15, 2010, I directed a series of initiatives designed to reduce duplication, overhead and excess, and instill a culture of savings and cost accountability across the Department of Defense.
I have approved the recommendations resulting from the following Study Groups and direct their immediate implementation:
-Office of the Secretary of Defense, Combatant Command, Defense Agency, and DoD Field Activity Baseline Organizational Assessment efficiencies that save over $4B across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
-General/Flag Officer efficiencies that impact 140 of the departments 952 general and flag officer positions.
-Civilian Sector Executive efficiencies that eliminate 176 civilian senior executive positions and 33 Highly Qualified Experts
-Reports, Studies, Boards and Commissions (RSBC) efficiencies that save over $1B across the FYDP.
-Intelligence Review efficiencies that save over $300 million across the FYDP
-Joint Forces Command Disestablishment that saves nearly $2B across the FYDP
-Business Transformation Agency Disestablishment that saves over $300M across the FYDP
-Reducing Reliance on DoD Service Support Contractors that saves over $6B across the FYDP
-Consideration of Costs in DoD Decision-Making that instituationalizes our requirement to provide a cost estimate for any new proposal or initiative and every report or study
-Cost Cutting initiatives that achieve efficiencies across the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Agencies and Field Activities
-Approved Track Four Efficiency decisions are incorporated into the Resource Management decision 700A3 and 703A2 and decisions related to the Baseline Organizational Assessmnts, G/FO, CSE, RSBC, Intelligence Review and Cross Cutting Initiatives are in the enclosed attachment. You are to assume that all dates for completion in the enclosed attachment are September 30, 2011 unless otherwise stated. In the near future, I will issue follow-on guidance establishing the governing process by which these decisions will be tracked and reported, as well as decisions for the remaining Track Four Efficiency initiatives.
...I expect and appreciate your full support, leadership, and personal engagement as the Department implements these decisions.
/s/
Robert M. Gates

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The world's top 5 largest military budgets in 2009.

 

[Denny Crane]

The world's top 5 largest military budgets in 2009.

Compare to GDP though...

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'd like to see the figures for that on Medicare and Social Security Spending, as well.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Compare to GDP though...

2008 numbers

US - 4.3%

China - 2.0%

UK - 2.5%

France - 2.3%

Russia - 3.5%

Just for shits and giggles

Libya - 1.0%

Iran - 2.7%

Saudi Arabia - 8.2%

Canada - 1.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[BrianFromWA]

I like how the Stockholm Institute for Peace doesn't have North Korea on there. But they do have those warmongering Saudis.

And China's is MUCH higher than 2.0%. If you count military subsidies to places we don't want them subsidizing militarily, it's even higher than that.

 

[Denny Crane]

2008 numbers

US - 4.3%

China - 2.0%

UK - 2.5%

France - 2.3%

Russia - 3.5%

Just for shits and giggles

Libya - 1.0%

Iran - 2.7%

Saudi Arabia - 8.2%

Canada - 1.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Exactly. We historically spend about 3%, but since the war on terror, we've been spending a bit more.

As a % of GDP, it's tiny. As an absolute number, it's big because our GDP is 1/3 that of the entire world.

 

[Minstrel]

As a % of GDP, it's tiny.

Half a trillion here, half a trillion there...eventually it adds up to real money.

 

[Denny Crane]

Half a trillion here, half a trillion there...eventually it adds up to real money.

Well, the Feds spend 26% of GDP overall. The states spend on top of that.

 

[maxiep]

Well, the Feds spend 26% of GDP overall. The states spend on top of that.

And that total needs to be under 20% to maximize economic growth.

 

[jlprk]

Wow, posts actually claiming that America is less militarized than other countries.

It's pretty odd to see the 349 generals/admirals/civilian executives cut

The reason isn't that the generals suddenly got unselfish. The reason is that the President is a Democrat. Under a Republican president, they'll return to budget expansion.

Compare to GDP though...

As a % of GDP, it's tiny. As an absolute number, it's big because our GDP is 1/3 that of the entire world.

Ever heard of economy of scale? The bigger an organization, the smaller of a percentage that a given function should eat up. Bigger countries should have a smaller %, not bigger.

And China's is MUCH higher than 2.0%. If you count military subsidies to places we don't want them subsidizing militarily, it's even higher than that.

You're simply saying that there's a civilian side to the military-industrial complex. The same can be said about the U.S.

I'd like to see the figures for that on Medicare and Social Security Spending, as well.

The U.S. will have a much lower percentage of GDP for that than most countries, since the others are more socialist.

I like how the Stockholm Institute for Peace doesn't have North Korea on there. But they do have those warmongering Saudis.

You do know that last week the Saudi military invaded Bahrain and shot unarmed protestors who were going to overthrow the dictator, while N. Korea never invaded anyone, unless you count movements within their own country 60 years ago in the vacuum after Japan left (legally, Korea was and is one country). Last week is more recent than 60 years ago, and Bahrain is recognized by most countries as a nation, which the separate Koreas were not.

And that total needs to be under 20% to maximize economic growth.

Therefore, you want big cuts to military spending...

 

[MARIS61]

Exactly. We historically spend about 3%, but since the war on terror, we've been spending a bit more.

As a % of GDP, it's tiny. As an absolute number, it's big because our GDP is 1/3 that of the entire world.

As a % of our total tax dollars, it's obscene.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You do know that last week the Saudi military invaded Bahrain and shot unarmed protestors who were going to overthrow the dictator, while N. Korea never invaded anyone, unless you count movements within their own country 60 years ago in the vacuum after Japan left (legally, Korea was and is one country). Last week is more recent than 60 years ago, and Bahrain is recognized by most countries as a nation, which the separate Koreas were not. ..

I didn't see the Bahrain thing, perhaps because I was too busy in Korea for the last month. You know, the place where NK artillery has bombarded SK islands, sunk one of their frigates, and landed special operations forces -- in just the last year. You may not have seen the news that they fired off a slew of missiles towards Japan on the 4th of July...because CNN and MSNBC were showing all-Michael-Jackson-funeral, all-the-time that week.

 

[BrianFromWA]

As a % of our total tax dollars, it's obscene.

So is how much we subsidize old people in a ponzi scheme. I showed proof that the military is cutting back. So far, no one has shown anyone else doing so, which was kind of the point of the OP.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So is how much we subsidize old people in a ponzi scheme. I showed proof that the military is cutting back. So far, no one has shown anyone else doing so, which was kind of the point of the OP.

When will you ever learn- don't start a thread you want people to stay on track.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So is how much we subsidize old people in a ponzi scheme. I showed proof that the military is cutting back. So far, no one has shown anyone else doing so, which was kind of the point of the OP.

Cutting a $650 billion budget to $640 billion isn't really leading the way in much of anything. If the rest of the government is going to dig this deep we're fucked.

 

[agoo]

Cutting $10 billion isn't doing much of anything but cutting the millions (note the m at the start of that word) to NPR is routinely categorized as "a good start."

 

[Denny Crane]

Cutting $10 billion isn't doing much of anything but cutting the millions (note the m at the start of that word) to NPR is routinely categorized as "a good start."

Cutting $10B is cutting $100B over 10 years. If we cut $10B for every $600B we spend, we'd save $600B over that same period. Chump change.

It's a stark contrast to increasing spending while we have huge deficits. Like the president's proposed budget is $200B more than last year.

 

[jlprk]

I didn't see the Bahrain thing, perhaps because I was too busy in Korea for the last month. You know, the place where NK artillery has bombarded SK islands

A few shells. The reason was that the U.S. insisted on playing war games out of islands whose possession is disputed between North and South Korea. To remind us of that, the North shot into them before the American war games shot out of them.

You may not have seen the news that they fired off a slew of missiles towards Japan on the 4th of July...because CNN and MSNBC were showing all-Michael-Jackson-funeral, all-the-time that week.

I missed all those Japanese cities going up in smoke. Or did I miss it because the media considered it unimportant, like when the U.S. tests 100-mile range artillery off the California coast.

I showed proof that the military is cutting back. So far, no one has shown anyone else doing so, which was kind of the point of the OP.

After the excesses of the Bush years, Gates ordered generals to submit to him a tiny budget decrease. Congressional Republicans will adjust it right back.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So to recap...a few shells is the same thing as sinking a warship of another country?
Missiles launched, but that didn't hit their targets, doesn't mean anything? Especially b/c the media considered it less important than the funeral of a singer?
Shooting missiles at another country is the same as shooting them into a declared weapons range in our own territorial waters?
The military is firing 300 generals and senior executives, cutting costs by the billions of dollars, and no big deal b/c it won't cover very much of the President's 1.4T projected deficit?

Let's just say that maybe you should do a bit more research on military topics. Increase the fund of knowledge a bit.