Commentary on Demand

                                    Editorials by Request

                                             Fuel your discussions

 

Budget Deficit and the National Debt

 by Thomas F. McMasters   

  Article originally appeared as part of 2010 Primary Run which culminated 5 May 

Some in Washington talk about reducing the deficit.  But they limit the discussion to cuts on social programs.  Even there they exempt the big ones of Social Security and Medicare.  I don't believe we can significantly reduce the deficit unless we consider all areas of government.  The place where we could be looking for savings but falsely believe it can't be done is military spending.   Of course, some savings will be realized if we reduced Medicare fraud. 

I'll let others propose the social adjustment cuts.  It seems we've got quiet a few representatives already in this pursuit.  

Let me start the discuss about military spending.  Certainly there is justifiable military spending.  We should pay for efficiently acquired weapons and personal protection equipment.  We should pay for family support services that actually mitigate the effects of the present combat environment.  We need to improve the transition services from the combat zone.  We definitely need to ensure we support those individuals maimed in the service of the country.  However, that doesn't justify the country issuing a blank check to pay for poor management, greed and jealousy.  In the next paragraphs I outline some systemic waste of resources I personally witnessed during my 26 years in the military.

Fraud, waste and abuse is taken seriously in the military.  Let me tell you how seriously.  We had a commanders call one time and during this meeting the representative of the Inspector General came in to give us a briefing on Fraud, Waste and Abuse.  During that meeting he asked the audience "Are there any concerns you would like to bring up where you are concerned about possible fraud, waste and abuse?"  He didn't pause a second when he continued "SMSgt XXXXX, you don't need to stand up, we've already determined spending end of year funds does not constitute fraud, waste and abuse."  You see SMSgt XXXXX was also an activist and he was distressed at some of the utilization of money that happens at the end of the year.  The reason given for spending this money is it has to be spent because if you return it, Congress will think you don't need it and they will reduce your budget next year.  In order to ensure you get a bigger budget next year you must show you ran out of money this year.  This practice is considered waste by a majority of service members and definitely would be by the American tax payer, but for upper management this is the proper way to spend money.

Examples of end of year spending:  One year while I was at Altus the 1st Sergeant came around and gave all the squadron members a pen and pencil set.  Each piece had our names on them and a little medallion with our squadron patch.  Rumor was the cost was over $100 per person, there were 120 people in the squadron and these pens cost about 10% of the year's original operating budget.  Why did we end up with them - because two weeks prior to the fiscal year the money was there and giving it back to the American tax pay is not an option.

The next year the end of the fiscal year was approaching and higher headquarters noticed the number of training hours flown was significantly lower than what they had approved.  If the cargo airplanes continued to fly at the same rate over $1 million dollars of hours would not get used by the end of the year.  The generals came down with a dictate - fly those hours.  Fly them no matter what the other costs.  In this case we only had to waste about $300,000 before the Generals realized the F-16 were short on hours and the money could be used to fund a real need.

Both these examples occurred before the start of the wars.  There still is no excuse for this thought process but I would have hoped the military leaders would have recognized we needed to be frugal once the conflict began.  However, when I was at Edwards, I was sitting around with 3 or 4 people that worked at the clinic.  The clinic had some financial problems so a premier council of officers was put in charge to handle the finances.  According to the group I was talking with one of the requirements of the council was that all the funds from every month had to be spent during that month.  In the assessment of the group this led to end of year spending at the end of every month.  In this system the base medical group couldn't buy any large pieces of new equipment because there wasn't enough money in the monthly budget to make purchases that big.  But since the monthly budget was based on 1/12 of a yearly budget, a budget that was meant to purchase these items, every month the special council had to figure out what to do with all this extra money.  According to the speakers this resulted in at least 20% of the budget being wasted on useless equipment.  Of course at the end of the probation period the council was praised for correcting the financial problems of the medical group and putting into place new policies.  Then the medical groups budget was raised to a level that if done a year earlier would have prevented the initial financial problems.  

Another post 9/11 spending spree concerned the Edwards base housing renovation.  While at Edwards I lived in a 1470 sq ft house that was built in the 1950's.  There were a lot of complaints because of the age and because these houses were cooled by swamp coolers instead of air conditioning.  But a large majority of these houses were perfectly fine to live in and they were already paid for.  The base received $100 million for housing renovation.  For that $100 million they ended up tearing down 435 perfectly fine 1470 sq ft houses and replacing them with about 200, 1650 sq ft houses.    I asked at the time why bother?  Why spend the money for what amounts to nothing more than a $100 million paint job?  Here is an ironic tid bit.  Last year I was trying to stay on active duty and one of the positions the AF personnel department looked into was at Edwards.  The personnel rep asked if I would consider going back to Edwards.  I said, "Of course, I just hope I can get back into base housing".  I didn't want to make the 20 to 40 mile drive required of the people who live off base.

He told me his last assignment was at Edwards and he had lived in one of the new houses. Without him knowing my background of attempting to prevent the waste of money he continued saying if he got another assignment at Edwards, he would live downtown because, "the houses are small and poorly constructed". ---- To upper management a $100 million paint job is an appropriate war time expenditure.  

This leads into another area where significant military savings can be achieved - payroll.  Currently, the ratio of upper management to worker is way out of proportion.  The Air Force and probably the other services as well could easily achieve the same accomplishments if two thirds of the positions now designated for Cols and Generals were re-designated as Lt, Capt or Major billets.  There is no experience or technical expertise reason for the ranks to be so top heavy.  It developed that way because the system is set up so if a person doesn't progress in rank they are not allowed to continue to serve.  In a system like that you need to have more and more higher ranks to put people so you don't lose experience.  What happens is these people end up doing same jobs as Lts and Captains they just end up with a higher rank and the higher pay that goes along with it.

Continuing on payroll.  I wonder what the outcome would be if you did a secret poll of all military members and asked if they would be willing to forgo next year's cost of living or other proposed salary increase and apply the savings to reducing the national debt?

Entitlements:  No serious discussion on reducing the national debt can occur without also addressing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  On that note I put a challenge out to those special interest groups that represent the elderly to go out and ask their members where significant savings can be achieved.  I believe the best real solutions can come from the group that actually benefits from the current system.  Those involved in the system can best identify the problems and formulate the solution.  And I believe the majority of this group believes in responsible benefits.  For instance most of the people who I've talked with that benefit from Medicare understand it is basically unfair for a family of four with an income of $35,000 to be required to pay $1,000 toward their healthcare while that family goes without health insurance.  Also, it is the people in the system that can suggest a method for getting those people that need items like scooters a scooter, while preventing the scooter company from convincing others they need something they don't.

Another example of the world catching up to me:  Gates: runaway military spending may affect war plans  Yahoo 7 May 2010

If you believe I will make a good Representative I need you to pass my name and this site to your friends because

 I don't ask for or take campaign contributions.