1
1
0
Every year it seems that there is a debate over what cuts should be made to government spending. Recently, a bill has been passed to reduce the COLA for retired military and veterans under the age of 62, which could have service members losing thousands of dollars in benefits they have earned. It seems that the military is always the first to get the knife, or at least the sharpest part of it in my opinion. With that being said, what government expenses, to include military, do you think we should look at cutting/reducing/replacing in order to help mitigate the government spending/waste, without losing our mission readiness? Please keep your comments as professional as possible.
Posted in these groups: 
Benefits
Benefits
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
I'd start with foreign aid and our sending money and supplies to countless other nations. I get that other nations are sucking worse than we are, but we can't have it both ways. We can't complain about how broke we are and still send money to other nations.
I'd also recover the vast majority of our armed forces overseas and bring them back to their home stations - and ideally back to CONUS. We have not been tasked by anyone to be the world police, and its not something we should be jumping on by ourselves. We need to enter a period of national regrouping and recovery where we focus on education, production and trade - not "defense."
Another area we can save money is by not buying a whole new "set" of the latest and greatest war machines. Do we really need 2000+ F-35s or F-22s? No, we really don't. I'm all for continuing R&D and making more better fighters and other systems, but we don't need to fully field each iteration. Let's save some of that $$ we don't spend buying a new fleet and put it back into making the next system better. There is no other nation on the planet capable of going toe to toe with the US in the air, on the ground, or in the water - what is the purpose of increasing that disparity? The trade off is that we are losing the race in education, cyberspace, and space exploration. We're trading long term benefits for short term security. That will be what puts the US at the mercy of other nations in the next century.
(2)
(0)
SGT Thomas Sullivan
I couldnt have said this better.
Foreign aid costs us billions every year, to countries we receive little to no tangible benefits from in aiding. Call me heartless, but we cant afford to give right now, we need to focus on our own country. Thank god other countries havent called in their debts.
Foreign aid costs us billions every year, to countries we receive little to no tangible benefits from in aiding. Call me heartless, but we cant afford to give right now, we need to focus on our own country. Thank god other countries havent called in their debts.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I'd rephrase your statement just a smidge - "We can't afford to give to other nations right now." Charity begins at home. Once we get our own people on a financially secure and productive path, we can worry about other nations - otherwise we are just dooming everyone.
(0)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
Nothing heartless about your comments SGT Sullivan, we send far too much money to far too many people that couldn't care less about the average civilian. I get sick and tired of us being the world's police and counseling service to many a country that hate us for our just being us. We give by far the most amount of money to countries around the world for disaster relief, AIDS relief, etc and these people, the UN included turn around and tell us we do not do enough, or condemn us because we support Israel or democratic change around the world. This money would be better spent here at home and we would have far less issues to deal with than we do today!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Some may not agree with this, but there's a spot in Military spending that I think would benefit... Civilian contracting, DOL and some DPW services. There are jobs out there being performed by civilians that plenty of Service Members have been trained to do, and paid by taxpayers (the training, and for the Service Members to do other superfluous things other than their job). Just a thought...
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I completely agree with you, the military needs to get back to doing the things they were trained to do. There are some jobs that a civilian workforce can perform more efficiently, but those services are usually at the strategic level and not the unit level.
(1)
(0)
SGT Thomas Sullivan
Although I am a contractor now, I must agree with this statement. We have overly done the outsourcing of jobs to civilian contractors.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
First I'd like to tie political office holder's pay to the median wage of the American worker this way the better the average American does, then and only then will they be able to receive a raise. Second echoing what Cpl Fittizzi stated cutting Congressional benefits and pensions, the idea of the office that they hold was never meant to be a path to wealth and power, it was meant to be a tempoary service to the people after which the people would return to the private sector and return to being productive members of society instead of being parasites.
I would then look at changing how the government conducts business in general. I would look at contracting to private companites to handle the delivery of services to the people. It would actually be cheaper and more efficient to hire companies that would have a profit motive that would reduce fraud and provide the people with better service where someone who is terrible at their job can actually be fired instead of lingering around and collecting a pension just because they waited out the clock (For example it is possible to conduct many DMV services here in California through the AAA and they are friendly and helpful, with much less waiting).
I would then look at changing how the government conducts business in general. I would look at contracting to private companites to handle the delivery of services to the people. It would actually be cheaper and more efficient to hire companies that would have a profit motive that would reduce fraud and provide the people with better service where someone who is terrible at their job can actually be fired instead of lingering around and collecting a pension just because they waited out the clock (For example it is possible to conduct many DMV services here in California through the AAA and they are friendly and helpful, with much less waiting).
(2)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
Sgt, you can contract out and still save costs over government provided services. First the government will keep throwing good money after bad because they have no need to reduce costs since they have little to no incentive to improve performance. Any wonder why the private sector can produce a website that works and is secure versus the millions wasted by the government to create a poorly planned website to provide health care choices? If we privatize we can still save money and make things more efficient.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/ [login to see] 001/stossel-11072013-privatize-everything/
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/ [login to see] 001/stossel-11072013-privatize-everything/
Stossel and guests compare the efficiency of privately and publicly run institutions
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
I'd rather give the power back to the people and allow them a chance to do things better than the government can. The true power of this country isn't and should never be in the hands of the government. The genius of the people and the ability to solve problems is where our true strength lies. People always say they could do it better than the government can so let's allow that to make our lives better and easier.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I have been a COR (Contracting Officer Representative) for the government over several large government contracts, and I can insure you that the report that you referred to has several holes in its logic. As I mentioned you have to understand government contracting laws before you can understand the complexity of the issue. What you have seen with the health care website is a prime example of what can happen when you contract something out. You do realize the health care website was created by a private sector contractor and not a government agency? I am not saying that the government does everything better than the private sector, what I am saying is that you have to be very selective in which functions you contract out. Because once the contract is awarded, the government has very little control over how and what the contractor does. And the cost savings you allude to are seldom found.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
Sgt you're looking at it from the wrong idea, or I haven't clarified how you can make it work. Instead of having one contractor providing all services, allow multiple providers for the same sector. If you have only one company having the sole contract you might as well leave the government in charge since they will have a monopoly as well, but if you allow companies to compete you improve service and you reduce costs since they have to compete with each other for your business.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google