Anyone NOT drinking the Kool-Aid on Sequestration? Must we always spend MORE?

MAJ Jim Steven — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:38:25 -0500

Dont get me wrong, I am not a fan of the way this was implemented - by its scope and design, a fail safe, so bad that it was supposed to force Congress to work together??

BUT...I like the concept of the military (and preferably the government as a whole) becoming more efficient and cost effective.
Every article I read leaves me with the impression that the military can never operate with less than the previous year's budget.
I am not a fan of being directed to do MORE WITH LESS...but what I hear is that we cant even do the SAME WITH LESS by implementing some cost saving measures.

The 'kool aid' is that there is no fraud/waste/abuse in the military, at all! There is no useless TDY, there is no one deployed that really doesnt have a job, there are NOT too many GO's or E-9's, we dont have any civilians sitting around with not much to do (protected by a union), no office is creating most of their own work, there is no equipment just sitting in storage, we shouldnt slow down the PCS rate as a cost saving measure...etc etc etc

Do we fire off excess rounds at the range, do we go on a spending spree at the end of an FY....
Are we operating as efficiently as possible?
Thats just the military, dont get me started on Congress and DC.
After all, when we waste the taxpayer's money (IF you feel that we ever do), then arent you wasting my money, and yours...and our children's?

another way of putting it....when certain factions talk about how gay marriage is threat to the institution of marriage, as if rampant divorce and infidelity were not. On the same logic...some people say that sequestration is bad for the economy, as if government corruption, fraud (construction projects in Afghanistan) and being the world's policeman are of no threat to the economy...

what am I missing?

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Jan 29 at 2015 1:53 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:53:46 -0500

Good points, I think we need to revamp our spending system overall. The fact that you have to spend money or lose it is something I think they need to get rid of. There is no incentive to save money.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2015 2:06 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:06:03 -0500

Sir,

That was a great read. I was actually thinking about this the other day when I was trying to explain to a wrong Soldier straight out of AIT why he didnt get TA until he was in a year. I get it; the Army wants to get a little something out of you before you get everything you can out of them.

You brought up some great ways that we could save money. As you pointed out for a few of them it is like we will get ourselves in trouble if we admit that we dont need those vehicles that never move, or we can handle a deployment with 50 even though the roster says 100, or that would could even do without that position.

Like you said it seems like a lot of offices are creating jobs and using supplies that don't need to be done. We have computer systems out there that make things completly digital yet we still assign a Soldier to a job that doesn't exsist to print, sign, scan, and carry around paper that we cant afford while using that system to half its ability.

We don't need a budget that we had when we were running to full scale wars but no one wants to tighten thier own belt just alittle they want everyone else to tighten thiers.

Response by SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA made Jan 29 at 2015 2:31 PM

SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:31:31 -0500

You are spot on...I stopped drinking the Kool-Aid years ago...it is unfortunate the Gov. is not worried about efficiency or cost effectiveness at all, they need to line the pockets of those who got them elected.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 1:58 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:58:56 -0500

I talked to a therapist once. The military is what's called a complex adaptive system . It is when the macro structure consist of several micro structure evolving and forming to react to each other. The PLs, COs, budget analyst, congress, the IRS, and the Chiefs of Staff are their own player with their own agenda and mission. They act in the individual interest rather than the whole. This is common for government or non-profits because we don't follow the corporate stakeholder theory in that our mission is to maximize taxpayers value. Therefore, any decision to save money may not trump the interest of another group.

Even the Kool aid itself was a necessary mechanism to motivate soldiers and maintain accountability and care of equipment. The government in the 1950s did not have the resources to conduct mass inspections and mass inspection was not conductive to good morale. Rather, we needed employees to align themselves with the values of the organization to attain efficiency.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Apr 17 at 2015 4:43 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:43:14 -0400

Sir my experience in Afghanistan tells me that they certainly is waste in the Army, and at a financially untenable level. Flat screen tvs, printers, laptops, vehicles, projectors, etc. I could go on and on about other equipment that I witnessed being shredded because "it is cheaper to destroy them than to ship them". I'm only a CPT but I can figure out some way where that false choice can be avoided. I'm pretty sure that if the Army sold it to Soldiers they'd find a way to take care of the shipping. Even at a reduced price, the Army will still make some of that money back.