This is a sort of adjoining piece with yesterday’s post outlining the problems regarding the development of the F-35 fighter jet, i.e., the costliest weapons system in U.S. history and the single most expensive item in the 2013 Pentagon budget. The article explains how the project will not be cut due to “political engineering” (having as many states as possible involved in the production of the plane) and the “buy-before-you-fly procurement” (the branches of the armed forces are receiving planes before they are even fully tested and safe to fly). Some shocking stuff here.
According to this article in the NYT, the sequestration cuts in defense spending could lead to further, more surgical cuts in cold war-era military spending by the Obama administration such as closing bases and reducing nuclear stockpiles. Since the sky didn’t fall, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse stayed at home when sequestration took place, it showed that some cuts in military programs could survive overhauls.
So if Obama and the anti-cut Congress could work together (which is so rare these days), useful reduced spending in programs like the F-35 development and the military’s insurance policies could have the fat cut off of them. Very interesting in light of our bloated defense spending trends.
We spend more money on our military more than the rest of the world combined. You cannot believe that this isn’t more than just “the sky is falling” rhetoric by coddled bureaucrats and their associated industries. Our military budget is bloated and though blunt sequestration cuts may not be ideal, I cannot be convinced that we will be any less safe in the U.S. if it the sequester goes through.
How could anyone support this plan? That’s all I have to say…