Defense vs. Food Stamps—What Would You Choose?

[Valin]

WSJ:

The president has made no secret of his desire to gut the military, even before the current budget showdown.

MACKENZIE EAGLEN

8/7/12

 

Washington is battling these days over "sequestration," the $500 billion additional cut to the defense budget looming in January. The White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill insist that intransigent Republicans are risking cuts that no one wants. This is a charade. By his own admission, President Obama has always wanted to cut the defense budget dramatically.

 

(Snip)

 

As the largest employer in America, the Department of Defense should not be off the hook for belt-tightening. Everyone loves to hate the Pentagon's broken acquisition system, for good reason. The emphasis on contractors often masks the government's contribution to spiraling costs and schedule delays. And this takes the pressure off leaders to change the way the Pentagon buys not weapons but services. Of the roughly $400 billion the military spends on goods, services, information technology and commodities each year, more than half goes to services. A reformed process would emphasize competition, reduce congressional regulations, restore the authority of service secretaries, and accelerate programs for completion in seven years or fewer.

 

(Snip)

 

There is a generic hope in Washington that funding will eventually be restored to the national defense. But any fix or delay to sequestration—let alone a rational debate about Defense Department reform—will be complicated by the difficulty of negotiating new debt-ceiling arrangements under the cloud of another possible sovereign debt downgrade.

 

(Snip)

 

WSJ Video