US Military Cutbacks

[TGS]

What do you all think of the proposal?

For a long time, I've been a big fan of drastic cuts in size to the professional military. I'm strongly in favor of a large (very large) system of citizen-soldiers, as opposed to professional ones, as one system is a direct threat to liberty.

Looks like the era of current era of US military supremecy which has been in place since the 1940s may be coming to an end. It wasn't even until the late 1950s when the American public was okay with the idea of a large standing army, mind you.

Thoughts?

[GardoneVT]

It's bullpucky.

Look at the Federal budget .The largest item of discretionary expenses is Medicare and other welfare associated entitlements.Expenses the current administration has only made worse

And they have the nerve to take money out of the Airmans , Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers' pockets to pay for it ....and then call it a "budgetary victory".

I weep for the Armed Forces if we get another Democrat in 2016. I'm sure folks are pouring out the good reserve in Tehran , Beijing, and North Korea .

[klewis]

I'm highly skeptical of any real impact. The following isn't targeted at you, or anyone here, so let the snark and anger pass over you, I'm just jaded on government...

You can cutback the numbers all you want, but until you fix the "procurement"/bribes-as-pension-plan-for-generals system, you're not going to be equipping or training the men you do have as well as you should be, and as long as you keep throwing them into every third world "kitten" hole in Earth to keep-the-peace/seize-resources/secure-corporate-holdings, I don't see how cutting down the number of them available is going to do anything except leave them short-handed so a higher percentage of them can die from stupid decisions.

Whatever you think about our military, it's made up of us (the people), and often the poorer section of us who just want to go to college. Sure, Senators' kids enlist, but do think they usually do so as NCOs in the infantry? I don't see how cutting down the numbers of them available for backup really gets us anywhere, when the money is being spent on "toilet seats" and multi-billion dollar fighter jet packages that never get built, but get appropriated for so that the Representative from Washington State can talk about "bringing jobs home", while hosting a fund raising lunch on the Boeing tab.

:)

[Spr1]

Do you know what advantage the Boy Scouts have over the USA? ....... Adult leadership.

Our country is being led in the wrong direction on so many fronts I can barely keep track. Correction, I can't keep track because for everything I know about, there are probably 3 things I don't.

[JV_]

I wish the cuts, which are needed everywhere, were coming with a real commitment to fixing our financial issues.

[GardoneVT]

I'm highly skeptical of any real impact. The following isn't targeted at you, or anyone here, so let the snark and anger pass over you, I'm just jaded on government...

You can cutback the numbers all you want, but until you fix the "procurement"/bribes-as-pension-plan-for-generals system, you're not going to be equipping or training the men you do have as well as you should be, and as long as you keep throwing them into every third world "kitten" hole in Earth to keep-the-peace/seize-resources/secure-corporate-holdings, I don't see how cutting down the number of them available is going to do anything except leave them short-handed so a higher percentage of them can die from stupid decisions.

Whatever you think about our military, it's made up of us (the people), and often the poorer section of us who just want to go to college. Sure, Senators' kids enlist, but do think they usually do so as NCOs in the infantry? I don't see how cutting down the numbers of them available for backup really gets us anywhere, when the money is being spent on "toilet seats" and multi-billion dollar fighter jet packages that never get built, but get appropriated for so that the Representative from Washington State can talk about "bringing jobs home", while hosting a fund raising lunch on the Boeing tab.

:)

Is there corruption and excessive spending in the military? Absofrigginlutely.

But that's not what these cuts are about. No, the military is being cut because it's civilian commanders have an idealogical beef with its existence.A large, proud, and capable military force which strikes fear in the hearts of those which would do us evil doesn't fit into the leftist agenda. Further, the media is jumping into the act because our press hasn't meet a liberal idea it didn't like

Bottom line- the military is being cut because it's a political "kitten you" . If our government were so concerned about law and waste of public funds, why in the blue kitten are Obama and Holder NOT in custody?

That's the question the media would ask if it had any stones.

[Spr1]

In round numbers we are spending a trillion dollars per year more in the federal budget than we were the year Bush left office.

Stimulus, base line budgeting, etc. , the last place we need to cut is the military.

We are leaving a power and leadership vacuum in the world. Nature abhors a vacuum.

[JHC]

In round numbers we are spending a trillion dollars per year more in the federal budget than we were the year Bush left office.

Stimulus, base line budgeting, etc. , the last place we need to cut is the military.

We are leaving a power and leadership vacuum in the world. Nature abhors a vacuum.

+1 We and our allies will pay dearly someday if this isn't reversed in a few years. Dinesh D'Souza was quite correct I think. This is according to a vision and a plan.

[rsa-otc]

It's bullpucky.

Look at the Federal budget .The largest item of discretionary expenses is Medicare and other welfare associated entitlements.Expenses the current administration has only made worse

And they have the nerve to take money out of the Airmans , Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers' pockets to pay for it ....and then call it a "budgetary victory".

I weep for the Armed Forces if we get another Democrat in 2016. I'm sure folks are pouring out the good reserve in Tehran , Beijing, and North Korea .

Medicare is not welfare, there is a specific tax/premium associated with that benefit for Srs. It's Medicaid that is the issue, unfunded aid to the poor. SS & Medicare are benefits that is the idiots in Washington had left the funding streams alone and not robbed Peter to pay Paul when Peter had money they would not be in the situation those programs are in today. Just like NJ who when the times were good robbed the excess unemployment funds and then when the economy took a dump the politicians were caught with their pants down and had a shortfall in the fund. Now it's up to businesses through increased taxes to resupply the funding.

Of course Bush's prescription program didn't help because there was no corresponding increase in premium to cover the new cost associated with it.

[Spr1]

And when we pay, it will be with our children's blood.

[Chemsoldier]

I have no issues with cuts in the military budget in theory, however, that cut must be accompanied by a change in national policy and priorities. If our leaders, and to an extent, our people want us to intervene all over the world and be ready to fight everything from counter-terror, counter-insurgency and major regional conflict than defense spending must be robust. Even if we eliminated much of the fraud, waste and abuse in the military and in the procurement system, a military with the needed capabilities is still going to be comparably priced to what it is now, it might be cheaper but it will not be a LOT cheaper.

Now if our leaders and people are willing to greatly curtail our foreign policy ambitions and appetite to help everywhere, we could potentially reduce force structure and size but a lot of it will depend on missions still assigned. For instance, brushfire conflicts and counter-insurgency does not require the same super expensive weapons systems but can be manpower intensive and the more professional the Soldier the better (and more expensive). However, major regional conflict can be a "break glass" force that is rarely used and is relatively small...but generally requires very high tech weapons systems.

I think a more constitutionally aligned force, with an armed citizenry as its key component is intriguing but I am not convinced it meets the needs of a high tech, globally connected nation. The citizen soldier of the type invisioned as I read the founders in things like the federalist papers is very good at defending against external invasions and deterring internal tyrants. But no one is in the intercontinental invasion game anymore (except us, sort of) so I don't know how useful that will be and as for tyranny, I think and armed citizenry is already some deterrant and life in the US is pretty dang good and pretty dang free even under the worst leadership we have seen so far. Disruption of the US economy and way of life is possible by elements that never come anywhere near CONUS, and these are the most likely threats, not the least. Piracy, terrorist disruption, "sanctions" imposed on us by nations in strategic locations, general resource competition and unrest in nations that we rely on to produce certain goods and resources can be plenty disruptive to our way of life and there is not a dang thing a militia can do about it. Bear in mind I LIKE the idea of an involved armed citizenry and think we should definitely expand the concept above what we have now, just looking at practical application.

[TGS]

So, it's great that ya'll are getting out some political frustration and all about them damn liberals....but can we discuss the cuts specifically?




You can cutback the numbers all you want, but until you fix the "procurement"/bribes-as-pension-plan-for-generals system, you're not going to be equipping or training the men you do have as well as you should be, and as long as you keep throwing them into every third world "kitten" hole in Earth to keep-the-peace/seize-resources/secure-corporate-holdings, I don't see how cutting down the number of them available is going to do anything except leave them short-handed so a higher percentage of them can die from stupid decisions.

I would argue that the bribes-as-pension-plan-for-generals system is a direct result, or at least magnified, by having a large standing professional military. It's just one of the few beginnings of how a large standing army is dangerous to liberty, which is what our founding fathers warned of. Another telltale sign of how a large standing military is dangerous would be the sense of superiority by a special class who have earned their keep more than a lowly civilian.

While the people I served with were awesome people, there was a sense of entitlement....very strong among a minority, but across the board everyone (including myself) had some amount of entitlement. I'd danger that this is a natural effect of having a small portion of a group who does all the dirty work for the rest of the group. Understandable, and justifiable......and exactly a reason we shouldn't have a large standing military, IMO. One of the common catch-phrases used by members on this forum is, "Having skin in the game," and how everyone should have skin in the game (most often accompanying a discussion on taxes). Then, why shouldn't we have a citizen-soldier base, where a much, much larger segment of society would have skin in the game? The idea of mandatory service is sometimes brought up, which surprises me, given these same people often cite personal liberty and freedom of self-determination as a reason that ObamaCare and whatever liberal hot-topic at the moment is a travesty.



Whatever you think about our military, it's made up of us (the people), and often the poorer section of us who just want to go to college.

Actually, the notion that the military is made up of poor people who couldn't do any better is proven to be a bunch of bull....especially within the recent decade.


...when the money is being spent on "toilet seats" and multi-billion dollar fighter jet packages that never get built, but get appropriated for so that the Representative from Washington State can talk about "bringing jobs home", while hosting a fund raising lunch on the Boeing tab.

Another great point about how a large standing military is a threat.

So, what is it that you should be vectoring your frustration against? Everything you wrote is what I would consider to be the ramification of having a large standing military.

[TGS]

I have no issues with cuts in the military budget in theory, however, that cut must be accompanied by a change in national policy and priorities. If our leaders, and to an extent, our people want us to intervene all over the world and be ready to fight everything from counter-terror, counter-insurgency and major regional conflict than defense spending must be robust. Even if we eliminated much of the fraud, waste and abuse in the military and in the procurement system, a military with the needed capabilities is still going to be comparably priced to what it is now, it might be cheaper but it will not be a LOT cheaper.

Now if our leaders and people are willing to greatly curtail our foreign policy ambitions and appetite to help everywhere, we could potentially reduce force structure and size but a lot of it will depend on missions still assigned. For instance, brushfire conflicts and counter-insurgency does not require the same super expensive weapons systems but can be manpower intensive and the more professional the Soldier the better (and more expensive). However, major regional conflict can be a "break glass" force that is rarely used and is relatively small...but generally requires very high tech weapons systems.

I think a more constitutionally aligned force, with an armed citizenry as its key component is intriguing but I am not convinced it meets the needs of a high tech, globally connected nation. The citizen soldier of the type invisioned as I read the founders in things like the federalist papers is very good at defending against external invasions and deterring internal tyrants. But no one is in the intercontinental invasion game anymore (except us, sort of) so I don't know how useful that will be and as for tyranny, I think and armed citizenry is already some deterrant and life in the US is pretty dang good and pretty dang free even under the worst leadership we have seen so far. Disruption of the US economy and way of life is possible by elements that never come anywhere near CONUS, and these are the most likely threats, not the least. Piracy, terrorist disruption, "sanctions" imposed on us by nations in strategic locations, general resource competition and unrest in nations that we rely on to produce certain goods and resources can be plenty disruptive to our way of life and there is not a dang thing a militia can do about it. Bear in mind I LIKE the idea of an involved armed citizenry and think we should definitely expand the concept above what we have now, just looking at practical application.

Great level-headed post.

I definitely think there is a practical application for it. FWIW, the Phillipine-American War was largely fought with citizen-soldiers, so I think brushfire wars are still a possibility to be addressed by having a citizen-soldier system.

Also, by having a smaller military, we would be able to focus more on competency. I made this comment before and caught some flack for it, but why do we pay for entire divisions of full-time mediocrity? We're paying for many divisions of troops which are held to the lowest possible standard just to say they're qualified troops. It's quantity over quality. Why? All chest-thumping "Spartans, what is your profession!" aside, they're doing what reservists and national guardsmen can do after a workup.

[Kyle Reese]

I'd like to roll welfare back to 1940 levels.

[TCinVA]

It's bullpucky.

Look at the Federal budget .The largest item of discretionary expenses is Medicare and other welfare associated entitlements.Expenses the current administration has only made worse


Entitlement spending is, by definition, not discretionary.

Military cuts are one thing.

Military cuts as a result of refusing to reform entitlements or even consider the possibility of cutting back on non-mandatory transfer payments (farm subsidies, food stamps, etc. At the moment we have more people on food stamps than Germany has people full stop.) are quite another.

The mention of military cutbacks when we're running serial trillion dollar deficits and haven't passed an actual budget in almost 5 years communicates very dangerous things to the rest of the world. A less interventionist foreign policy by deliberate choice is worthy of debate. Spending at pornographic levels until the point where our economy is so wrecked we can't actually project power is a damn foolish thing to do. And we're doing it.

There is likely some fat to trim at the Pentagon...but those complaining about the fat at the Pentagon are fulfilling the old adage of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. Entitlements are unsustainable, and the worst orgy of spending in world history combined with a series of policy decisions that are strangling future economic growth are our major problems. When we've solved those issues then it makes sense to debate whether or not we need a new series of high-tech stealth fighter planes. Until then we're splinting a broken finger while ignoring a massive arterial bleed.

[oldtexan]

What do you all think of the proposal?

For a long time, I've been a big fan of drastic cuts in size to the professional military. I'm strongly in favor of a large (very large) system of citizen-soldiers, as opposed to professional ones, as one system is a direct threat to liberty.

Looks like the era of current era of US military supremecy which has been in place since the 1940s may be coming to an end. It wasn't even until the late 1950s when the American public was okay with the idea of a large standing army, mind you.

Thoughts?

I'm fine with it. IMO it's overdue. IIRC US military spending is still roughly 40% of the entire world's total. The Federal treasury is borrowing money to pay for a defense establishment that is unnecessarily large and expensive; our children and grandchildren will have to repay this debt. A more realistic assessment of our actual national security needs based on actual existential threats would point toward far smaller forces than we have now. I say this as a retired Regular Army officer. There will be lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the cuts from the companies that build and sell equipment and weapons to our services, from Congressmen whose districts have a large DoD footprint, from local school districts that get DoD money to offset lost property tax revenues, and also from companies that build housing, headquarters, motor pools, range facilities, dining facilities, medical facilities, etc, etc, on our posts and bases. Likewise, the neocons will be apoplectic about us not being able to pick fights with as much of the world in future as we can now.

[GardoneVT]

I'm fine with it. IMO it's overdue. IIRC US military spending is still roughly 40% of the entire world's total. The Federal treasury is borrowing money to pay for a defense establishment that is unnecessarily large and expensive; our children and grandchildren will have to repay this debt. A more realistic assessment of our actual national security needs based on actual existential threats would point toward far smaller forces than we have now.

As Chemsoldier pointed out, the problem is we still have this self-imposed mandate to intervene in the worlds problems. But we're cranking the printing presses for more then just the .mil stuff. And , unlike the Department of Family Services, the Department of Defense provides a basic and necessary service.

Consider the problem on a personal level. Think about a guy who shoots weekly and owns three premium pistols with holsters, mags, etc. Bam, he gets hit with a layoff. Should the first thing to go be all the handguns-and thus his means of self defense? Or should he start with the TV, game console, the stereo in his truck, the cable subscription, and the premium Internet plan first?

Ive been "that guy", and I didn't sell my guns. There were weeks I had to eat sardine crackers for dinner, but selling the guns wasn't an option. Im wondering why it is one on a national level when we're still paying for overpriced cable, premium insurance, and so forth. Cut the fat, then hit the essentials.

[Spr1]

For everyone arguing that the cuts are needed, please note that 0bama was out campaigning for more spending on useless stuff the same day.
We are spending a trillion dollars per year more now than we were six years ago when we were spending more than is now proposed on defense.
A trillion. And nothing to show for it.

[BLR]

I don't support the cuts.

I do support huge rebudgeting within the DoD though.

Most of that being in the non combat positions.

[TCinVA]

For everyone arguing that the cuts are needed, please note that 0bama was out campaigning for more spending on useless stuff the same day.
We are spending a trillion dollars per year more now than we were six years ago when we were spending more than is now proposed on defense.
A trillion. And nothing to show for it.

I think the position of most here would be that the whole of the DOD budget isn't sacrosanct or necessary and that there's probably room for some reforms and savings. They're likely considering that as a distinct issue rather than an endorsement of Mr. Obama's slapdash approach to cutting the military budget so he can hand more money out to people who don't deserve it.

While we're on the topic, Chris Hernandez (his blog is great if you aren't already reading it) posted the following a little while ago:

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/01/24/ive-never-known-anyone-who-would-rather-live-off-welfare-than-earn-their-own-living/

...which, I think, illustrates the problems nicely. A sizable chunk of our social spending is enabling worthlessness. I've got a boatload of similar personal experiences.

[MDS]

A sizable chunk of our social spending is enabling worthlessness.

This statement belies a naively narrow definition of "worth." Consider: how much does one vote cost? How about a whole bloc of votes? And what if someone else was picking up the tab?

"Worthless." Ha!

[BaiHu]

I think as a country and really as a world we have destroyed the sense of community. Without a sense of community, we lose a sense of self respect and prioritization in favor of individual wants.

The government, on both sides of the aisle, has successfully divided and conquered it's voting base. They have also successfully divided us as individuals; we are no longer Americans. We are hyphenated groups that provide a political purpose. The more we delineate, segregate and hyphenate, the more we are likely to forget what it takes to MAINTAIN what our fore fathers created.

For those of you who are married or in long term relationships: it takes no time/effort to get in the sack (the lower the standards, the easier the return), but it takes a lot more time/effort to maintain a successful relationship. Now, all politics is about kittening each other for fun and not about building anything for the long term.

In the end, I think there is a distinction that must be discussed between declawing the DOD versus cutting the budget of the military versus cutting personnel. As TGS said, a citizen army is a pretty good way to maintain our fore fathers wishes. I still contend that we can have our professional elite and save money as long as we, the American people, are clear on our point of aim and trajectory.

Cutting the military for the sake of political purposes is the most dangerous of moves. Especially where we are in the world today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

The military structure is bloated and needs reform. There are far too many flag officers and staff. Many bases remain redundant. Far too many procurement programs are sucking sink holes of fiscal waste. However, without dealing with these specific endemic issues, arbitrarily cutting military funding will be no different than what occurred under Truman post WWII, under Carter in the 1970's, and with Clinton in the 1990's. Each of those prior episodes of indiscriminately gutting the military led to massive problems just a few years later. For once, let's try to learn from our Nation's collective history rather than ignoring the past as we too often seem to do.

Now if the President and Congress are hell bent on cutting the military to 1949 levels, it is only fair that welfare, medicare, food stamps/EBT, farm and business subsidies, and other social benefits are cut back to those same 1949 levels, as noted above...

[JHC]

The military structure is bloated and needs reform. There are far too many flag officers and staff. Many bases remain redundant. Far too many procurement programs are sucking sink holes of fiscal waste. However, without dealing with these specific endemic issues, arbitrarily cutting military funding will be no different than what occurred under Truman post WWII, under Carter in the 1970's, and with Clinton in the 1990's. Each of those prior episodes of indiscriminately gutting the military led to massive problems just a few years later. For once, let's try to learn from our Nation's collective history rather than ignoring the past as we too often seem to do.

Now if the President and Congress are hell bent on cutting the military to 1949 levels, it is only fair that welfare, medicare, food stamps/EBT, farm and business subsidies, and other social benefits are cut back to those same 1949 levels, as noted above...

+1

Random thoughts:

Our defense spending will still be many times that of any other single nation. So what? Our global responsibilities are a thousand times greater.

Founding Fathers feared a large standing army; threat to liberty and all that. To me this sounds like the argument today that the 2nd amendment only guaranteed my right to a smoothbore musket. America was not the world's only superpower in 1790, in a globalized economy, with nuclear threats. Waiting for "go time" to start building a large military is not a serious.

[JHC]

If I could edit above I'd add; again re a large standing military - if anything I think our large uniformed military is now a guarantor of our liberty and protection of the Constitution in extremis.

[TGS]

Founding Fathers feared a large standing army; threat to liberty and all that. To me this sounds like the argument today that the 2nd amendment only guaranteed my right to a smoothbore musket.

Really? To me, it sounds like the same argument today as to why we should even have a 2nd Amendment! It's simply a limitation on a centralized government, in order to give responsibility and parity to the people.


America was not the world's only superpower in 1790, in a globalized economy, with nuclear threats. Waiting for "go time" to start building a large military is not a serious.

We can still have a large, capable military.....just not a professional one. Sure, we might not be able to mobilize 500,000 troops in an afternoon like the Swiss circa early 20th CE, but we could still maintain a large number of capable troops by way of the reserves/national guard. It's not what the aim of these cuts are, obviously, but as a point of debate it's something that I think is tenable.

[JHC]

Really? To me, it sounds like the same argument today as to why we should even have a 2nd Amendment! It's simply a limitation on a centralized government, in order to give responsibility and parity to the people.

.

The analogy I am attempting (maybe a poor one) is a that was then, this is now thing. Just as an anti-gunner has argued that our rights are limited to muskets because that was then, a vestige standing military then only had to march to the borders of the territorial US. It didn't need global reach. This is now. Not trying to convince; just to clarify why I think the point of what the Founders feared doesn't convince me of that approach now. And then again, I think the uniformed military is the last thing to fear regarding our liberty vs politicians, activist judges, and certain Federal agencies.

[Kyle Reese]

We either want a quality, all volunteer military or we don't. Perhaps there's some merit to a form of National Service? A lot more people would have skin in the game, and there would be some accountability for our collective national defense.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Spr1]

I think the position of most here would be that the whole of the DOD budget isn't sacrosanct or necessary and that there's probably room for some reforms and savings. They're likely considering that as a distinct issue rather than an endorsement of Mr. Obama's slapdash approach to cutting the military budget so he can hand more money out to people who don't deserve it.

While we're on the topic, Chris Hernandez (his blog is great if you aren't already reading it) posted the following a little while ago:

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/01/24/ive-never-known-anyone-who-would-rather-live-off-welfare-than-earn-their-own-living/

...which, I think, illustrates the problems nicely. A sizable chunk of our social spending is enabling worthlessness. I've got a boatload of similar personal experiences.

TC, your posts are always great.

My point is not that there are no opportunities for savings, but that the last place to look for savings in the federal budget is the defense department given the recent bloating of all other spending.

On the tactical side, we have seen this movie many times, as pointed out by DocGKR above, we are told that fat is being trimmed and what we end up with for a 50b cut is 5b less fat and 45b less capability. You can have more or less capability, but you can't completely remove waste from any government run organization.

Parking 50% of our Cruisers and retiring the A-10 fleet is not trimming the fat, or even a slapdash methodology. I will give the people involved the benefit of the doubt and assume they are making the best of being dealt a bad hand.

On a strategic scale this is way beyond screwing up the strategy = budget vs. budget = strategy logic. What we are seeing is a further manifestation of an over-arching strategy to transform America into a country that is weaker militarily, financially and morally.

So, from a tactical, cost cutting perspective this is a poor approach - no viable business would make such a call.

And, from a strategic, global power perspective - a weaker America will encourage instability.

I don't like either side of this coin.

[DocGKR]

Cost effective, extremely useful, well proven systems like the A10 should NOT be cut; bloated, wasteful, unproven systems like the LCS should have been cut long ago...

[TCinVA]

Cost effective, extremely useful, well proven systems like the A10 should NOT be cut; bloated, wasteful, unproven systems like the LCS should have been cut long ago...

And there is where the idea of military cuts goes horribly wrong. What gets cut and what doesn't gets decided by Congress and other sordid characters. X program is a money pit, but it's a money pit in the district of a powerful congresscritter and so it stays. Meanwhile the guys we expect to go anywhere in the world on a moment's notice to kill bad people have a hard time getting the stuff they need to train for the difficult missions we aren't the least bit hesitant to send them on.

There are likely plenty of ways that the DOD's budget could be trimmed without doing serious harm to capability...but budgeting is politics, and the rational thing to do is rarely the winner in a political struggle. So capability is likely to get hammered. "Diversity" programs will be lavishly funded, though.

I'm still unable to decide whether or not some of the proposals from this administration are the product of malicious strategy or catastrophic ineptitude.

[Spr1]

Cost effective, extremely useful, well proven systems like the A10 should NOT be cut; bloated, wasteful, unproven systems like the LCS should have been cut long ago...

Agreed, that thing is a total turd, with serious structural flaws IIRC. And a turd that is visible to us. So much of what the federal government spends money on is not as easy to see.

[Spr1]

I'm still unable to decide whether or not some of the proposals from this administration are the product of malicious strategy or catastrophic ineptitude.

I think both. Malicious strategy at the top, followed by staff/personnel selections based on idealogical purity (and ethical flexibility) rather than competence as we would normally judge it.

A buddy keeps telling me to watch Obama 2016.