The President and the Defense Secretary want to stop wasteful military weapon programs, but thus far they have not reduced overall military spending. Tom Coburn and John McCain tried to offset Afghanistan war spending today (they were unsuccessful), but not with military spending already budgeted but other programs they deem wasteful. People talk about the costs associated with war, but they have shown no willingness to actually lower the appropriations.
But Coburn, a member of the bipartisan budget deficit commission, actually did move in that direction yesterday with his call for an audit of the Pentagon to get a clearer picture of their spending.
In a detailed, wonkish and occasionally fascinating 10-page letter sent to commission Chairmen Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles on Wednesday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) laid out a host of areas where the Pentagon’s fat could be trimmed.
“The single most important step,” however, he concluded, “is to better understand how the Pentagon spends its money.”
Without an accurate grasp at the start of a spending program as to its most likely cost, schedule, and performance, how can decision makers understand the future consequences of their actions? Today, an ethic continues to predominate in the Pentagon that consistently paints an inaccurate picture – one that is biased in the same, unrealistic and ultimately unaffordable direction. The errors are not random: actual costs always turn out to be much higher than, sometimes even multiples of, early estimates. The reason is simple; the Pentagon doesn’t know how it spends its money. In a strict financial accountability sense, it doesn’t even know if the money is spent. This incomprehensible condition has been documented in hundreds of reports over three decades from both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department’s own Inspector General (DOD IG).
If there’s at least some Republican support for a top-to-bottom review of the DoD, Democrats ought to jump at it, though I’m not sanguine that they will. People have a recognition of the history of Pentagon spending, the $800 hammers and all that. There’s no question that the people have a right to know if money is being mismanaged and funneled to defense contractors in an irresponsible way.
Yet this nibble around the edges does miss the point, in a way. You can and should monitor spending at the Pentagon to ensure prudent and responsible activities. But to truly get military spending to a legitimate level, America must change their policy of global policemen, spending as much on the military as the rest of the word combined. That would require a change in thinking that sadly doesn’t exist, not even among the likes of Tom Coburn.





9 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What I sent to Stein who hasn’t answered: “You may have read in the newspapers that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has refused to provide an opinion on
the fiscal year 2009 consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government.
This is now for the 13th time in a row that such an opinion has been refused.
The GAO can hardly be accused of not being consistent! Not providing an opinion
is similar, but technically not exactly the same, as not certifying the
accounts.
The GAO notes three major impediments that prevented it from rendering an
opinion (see also http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009financialreport.html).
First it notes serious financial management problems at the Department of
Defense (DOD) that have prevented DOD’s financial statements from being
auditable. In addition, the financial statements of the Department of Homeland
Security and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years
2009 and 2008 were determined as not being auditable. Second, the U.S. federal
government was unable to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental
activity and balances between federal entities and the Department of Treasury’s
(Treasury) records of disbursements. Third, the federal government’s process for
preparing consolidated financial statements is seen as ineffective due to a
number of important issues, including having inadequate systems, controls, and
procedures to ensure that the consolidated financial statements are consistent
with the underlying audited entity financial statements, properly balanced, and
in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). ”
From here: http://blog-pfm.imf.org/pfmblog/2010/03/gao-critical-about-us-governm
ent-financial-reporting.html
Why do these politicians think such dog and pony crap is not going to be seen
for what it is?
Coburn: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Ironic, no…?
Not in the Military or Europe…! ;-)
I hope it turns out better than last time,
9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU&feature=PlayList&p=59F4F9AF75F08BE9&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=11
That was a motive for doing 9/11.
If anyone wonders how Rummy and Cheney talked some military hot shot into bombing the Pentagon, there you go, it was to prevent the audit. It was wonderfully effective too, I hope they don’t do something as dramatic this time. And if they do, I hope no one will still be believing them and all their lies.
Auditing the Pentagon has been tried many times before.
It cannot be done.
Military folks who have tried to supply necessary information to auditors in past audits have commonly voiced the opinion in the aftermath that they and their quartermaster units have no idea what lies in acres and acres of warehouses in locations nobody seems to know about except the folks who work there, and one level above, that shows a government facility on a map somewhere.
The most failed audits all come from the late- and post-Reagan years.
Republicans know nothing about running businesses or anything else.
The whole deficit discussion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and a real distraction from what the real priorities are. Deficits do not create liabilities. Deficits grow the economy if they are well spent. The only adverse impact of deficits is inflation and there is no chance of that in this economy. The nation is not a family with a budget. Anyone who talks about cutting the deficit is either ignorant about economics or is disguising their real agenda.
Any discussion of the deficit by progressives should start by explaining that the deficit is not a problem and does not create a liability that needs to be paid in the future.
See Especially: this.
Until we as progressives understand this we will buy into a fundamentally wrong argument.
I agree with Coburn for the first time ever.
“People talk about the costs associated with war, but they have shown no willingness to actually lower the appropriations. But Coburn, a member of the bipartisan budget deficit commission, actually did move in that direction yesterday with his call for an audit of the Pentagon to get a clearer picture of their spending.”
I call bollocks. Coburn is not willing to lower the appropriations because he is not willing to challenge the consensus that the Pentagon budget as such is necessary in its entirety and magnitude. This is kabuki: studying waste of a bureaucracy that has never managed to run reliable accounting (and that, by design, is permitted to hide, mislabel and mis-use funds for “secrecy”) is simply playing for time.
Lo and behold, the shiny object worked. In the unlikely event waste will be found after the fact, there will be stern words to get more “bang” for the taxpayers buck, and the DoD/DHS/National Security budget will continue to increase.
No audit is needed to recognize, state clearly, and reduce, excessive spending, esp. monies spent on offensive (in every sense) capabilities and “operations”. Any call for “investigation” and “review” is just cobwebbing.