NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label generals flotillas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label generals flotillas. Show all posts

04 April 2013

Hagel warns of deep, new cuts to defense budget 3APR13

THE Pentagon budget must be cut, we spend way to much on defense through waste, mismanagement and pork projects that contribute nothing to national security or to the national recovery from the recession. Sec of Defense Chuck Hagel must meet the challenge from the politicians owned by the military-industrial complex head on and assert his authority of the operation of the Pentagon and it's budget. See my earlier post on the our defense spending and the warfare state our country has become at 

The U.S. Warfare State and Evangelical Peacemaking & A Heart for Peace from SOJOURNERS FEB 2013 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-us-warfare-state-and-evangelical.html and 10 Companies Profiting Most From War: 24/7 Wall St.9MAR13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war.html and 7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our.html


Video: During his first major speech as defense secretary, Chuck Hagel addressed the escalating threats coming from North Korea against the United States and its’ allies in the region.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Pentagon on Wednesday to brace for further cuts in defense spending and said the military needs to make fundamental changes in the way it operates to cope with new fiscal realities.
Noting that the military has “grown enormously more expensive in every way” over the past decade, Hagel said the Pentagon will have to tackle soaring personnel costs, reexamine how it buys billion-dollar weapons systems and “pare back the world’s largest back office” as it shrinks the size of the armed forces in the coming years.
Hagel’s two most recent predecessors,Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta, made similar vows as they tried to tame the vast military bureaucracy. Neither had much success, however, as they struggled to persuade Congress to cut pet projects or scale back health and pension benefits for future generations of military personnel.
The difference now, Hagel said in his first major policy address since taking office, is that the Pentagon is staring at the increased likelihood that it will be forced to slash nearly $1 trillion in projected spending over the next decade — roughly double the level confronted by Gates and Panetta.
In the past, military leaders had treated the $1 trillion figure as a worst-case possibilityand assumed lawmakers would find a way to soften the blow. But the automatic spending cuts that were triggered last month have made the outcome more likely; Congress and the White House have shown little inclination to spare the Pentagon.
“A combination of fiscal pressures and a gridlocked political process has led to far more abrupt and deeper reductions than were planned,” Hagel, who took over as defense secretary in February, told an audience at the National Defense University at Fort McNair, in the District. “We cannot simply wish or hope our way to carrying out a responsible national security strategy.”
Unlike Panetta — who regularly predicted that a failure by Congress and the White House to exempt the military from automatic cuts would result in “doomsday” scenarios — Hagel spoke in a more resigned and pragmatic tone.
“The United States military remains an essential tool of American power but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits,” he said.
Thomas Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said President Obama specifically selected Hagel to run the Defense Department so he could be “the frontman” for trimming the defense budget.
“This is the next step, putting the Pentagon on notice that they intend to make more serious and very substantial cuts,” Donnelly said.
Hagel said the biggest challenge facing the Pentagon is not its shrinking budget overall but that disproportionately large amounts of it are being consumed by unaffordable weapons systems, as well as health care, troop pay and retirement benefits.
Gates, who served as defense secretary from 2007 to 2011, warned of the same problems. Although he managed to kill a number of expensive weapons programs, he failed to persuade Congress to rein in troop compensation levels or health-care costs, which he said were “eating us alive.”
On Wednesday, Hagel alluded to the inherent difficulty in overhauling military operations and the defense budget. He said the Pentagon needs to examine some basic questions about its operations, including whether it has too many uniformed personnel doing administrative jobs that civilians could do just as easily — and more cheaply.
“It could turn out that making dramatic changes in each of these areas could prove unwise, untenable or politically impossible,” he said. “Yet we have no choice but to take a very close look.”
Hagel also said “the size and shape” of the armed forces needs to be scrutinized again, a hint that the Army and Marine Corps, each of which beefed up its ranks for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could face further troop reductions.
The Army is officially projected to shrink to 490,000 active-duty soldiers, down from about 540,000 today. But Army planners are preparing for the possibility that the size of the force might dwindle to 440,000.
Similarly, the Marines last year were directed to cut 10 percent of their active-duty force, leaving it at 182,000 personnel by 2016. But that might not be the bottom, either.
Hagel said the military also needed to reform its command structure. He noted that the number of three- and four-star generals and admirals has generally remained “intact” since the end of the Cold War.
Command staffs, however, are especially hard to scale back. Two years ago, Gates pledged that the Pentagon would eliminate 65 billets for generals and admirals by now and 102 slots overall by 2016. But only 28 jobs had been scrapped as of Jan. 31, according to Defense Department figures.
Gordon Adams, an American University professor of foreign policy, said Hagel had correctly identified the basic spending problems afflicting the Pentagon. That’s the easy part, he added.
“It’s a good start,” Adams said. “Can he pull it off? Don’t know. Honest answer is that the jury is out.
”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-warns-of-deep-new-cuts-to-defense-budget/2013/04/03/d2ebdc5e-9c85-11e2-94d6-bf62983d455b_story.html?wprss=rss_politics&wpisrc=nl_wonk

    03 January 2013

    Excess-profits tax on defense contractors during wartime is long overdue 31DEZ12

    NOT only should an excess-profits tax be levied on all defense contractors, but the military should also go back to training troops to be cooks and medics, truckers and tank drivers, supply troops as infantry and mortar teams. It is ridiculous to pay the outrageous rates military contractors charge for the services to the troops that the troops could perform with the proper training. AND the bloated officer corps needs to be reduced to the level where these men and women actually have to work for their rank and pay and benefits. At least 2/3 of the generals, the leaches of the pentagon, need to be reduced in rank and put to work or let go from the military and their "flotillas" eliminated, the remaining generals need to have their "flotillas" reduced from costing the pentagon approximately $1,000,000 each to approximately $100,000 each. If they need more pampering than that they can pay for it, just like enlisted men and women have to pay for essentials they need but not provided by the pentagon. There's more on budgetary waste by the pentagon at my earlier post 7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our.html
    This from the Washington Post.....

    By

    No one can safely predict what will happen in 2013, but here are a few things I would like to see occur when it comes to national security.
    My most radical idea — and it should have been done 10 years ago — is for an excess-profits tax on defense contractors while we have troops fighting overseas. As I have often noted, Afghanistan and Iraq are the first U.S. wars in which taxes were not raised to pay for the fighting. Instead, the cost has been put on a credit card.
    In World Wars I and II and the Korean War, Congress approved new taxes, including one directed at defense contractors. In introducing his request in 1940 for a “steeply graduated excess-profits tax,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt said the government should make sure that “a few do not gain from the sacrifices of many.”
    Since 2002, profits of the five largest U.S.-based defense contractors have “increased by a whopping 450 percent,” said Lawrence J. Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
    Profits of the five rose from $2.4 billion in 2002, adjusted for inflation, to $13.4 billion in 2011, according to an August study co-written by Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense for manpower during 1981-85 and an expert on Pentagon spending
    “This success applied both to companies with large civilian sections of their businesses and to those almost wholly dependent on defense funding,” Korb wrote. He noted that defense profits faltered at the beginning of the recession but “rapidly recovered, rising over 40 percent between 2008 and 2011 and nearly returning to their 2007 peak.”
    “In short, the largest defense contractors have prospered to a degree that would have looked very unlikely just eleven or twelve years ago,” he said.
    General Dynamics was one of the companies that grew during this period. Its earnings went from $5.08 a share in 2001 to $6.87 in 2011, while its stock price rose from $38 a share in September 2002 to $66 in September 2012. GD stockholders also benefitted from increased quarterly dividends, which rose from 14 cents a share in 2001 to 51 cents a share in 2012.
    GD has a monopoly on nuclear submarine building, owning for years the Electric Boat Division and buying Newport News Shipbuilding in 1999. In 2001, it bought Motorola’s electronic defense business and two years later General Motors’s defense division, which made armored vehicles and fit well with GD’s division that makes M1 Abrams tanks.
    The company, like many of its competitors, hired former Pentagon senior officers and officials to be top executives and board members.
    Jay L. Johnson, a former company president who retired Monday as chairman of the GD board, is a retired admiral and was chief of naval operations from 1996 to 2000. After retiring, he joined the GD board in 2002 while he was an executive of a Virginia gas and power company. Six years later, he became GD’s chief executive.
    Johnson’s successor as chairman, GD President Phebe N. Novakovic, worked at the CIA in the 1980s and from 1992 to 1997 at the Office of Management and Budget. Her last position there was as deputy associate director for national security, responsible for managing and submitting the president’s budget for the Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies.
    The GD board includes Paul G Kaminski, who joined in 1997, shortly after he left the Pentagon following three years as undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology; retired Gen. Lester L. Lyles, who was Air Force vice chief of staff and commander of Air Force Materiel Command until he left that service in 2000, three years before joining the GD board; retired Gen. John M. Keane, who served as Army vice chief of staff until 2003 and joined the board a year later; and most recently, in 2011, retired Gen. James L. Jones, former commandant of the Marines, Supreme Allied commander and national security adviser to President Obama from January 2009 to November 2010.
    The Defense Department revolving door has been spinning at an unusual rate the past 10 years, mainly because the Pentagon has contracted out activities that in the past were normally carried out by service members. Difficult to track but in need of reform are consultant firms created by former service personnel that helped get companies the inside track on Pentagon contracts.
    Inevitably, as fighting in Afghanistan winds down, there are going to be calls for more defense spending reductions. Contracting out services should go down. A military compensation and retirement modernization commission has to be established, a new effort to raise Tricare fees needs to be made, the $200 million-plus earmark for congressionally mandated research on cancer and other non-military generated illnesses should be ended, and, I hope, some reductions in the $388 million spent on military bands.
    Larger amounts could be saved by buying fewer than the now-planned 2,440 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters and reducing the future strategic nuclear force by cutting the number of new $4.9 billion strategic submarines, new heavy bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
    No one is more qualified than Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to shepherd the fiscal 2014 defense budget through its introduction to the new Congress. Therefore, I hope Panetta stays on through at least April to handle what is bound to be a difficult transition for his successor.
    Former senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who became co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board after being considered for top positions in the first Obama administration, met with the president to discuss him replacing Panetta in the second. No rush needed, but if Hagel is Obama’s choice, the president should get on with it and not be deterred by a handful of objectors.
    Another nomination that should not be delayed is for CIA director. In this case, Acting Director Michael J. Morell, a veteran agency intelligence officer, should be named. After going through four non-agency directors in the eight years since 2004 when George Tenet resigned, the agency needs one of its own to provide some leadership stability.
    Looking at today’s world, it’s difficult to welcome 2013 with a “happy new year.” How about toasting “a better new year” as we look to the future?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/excess-profits-tax-on-defense-contractors-during-wartime-is-long-overdue/2012/12/31/c8f03416-513f-11e2-950a-7863a013264b_print.html

    14 December 2012

    7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money 11DEZ12

    I have 2 nephews in the US Army, one has been to Afghanistan once (and I thank God He came back alive and physically unscathed). It is disgusting they have to buy much of the equipment they need to do their job of protecting our lives, our civil liberties, our human rights, OUR NATION. Much of the equipment they are issued and have to use is inadequate and puts their lives at risk. IT IS NOT due to lack of Defense Department funding, rather it is lack of oversight of Defense Dept spending, misappropriation of Defense Dept funds, the greed and selfishness of a top heavy officer corps and Congressional protection of expensive, wasteful, over priced private military contractor's profits. Some in the military-industrial complex recently called for cuts in Defense Dept spending, see my earlier post Top Two Percent To GOP: Tax Us & Defense Execs Say Deeper DoD Budget Cuts, Higher Taxes OK 5&3DEZ12 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/top-two-percent-to-gop-tax-us-defense.html
    This from AlterNet....

    Hint: none of them have anything to do with national defense.
     
    The David Petraeus scandal has shined a light on the luxurious, subsidized lifestyle of the U.S. military's top generals. But so far, what the media has uncovered only scratches the surface of the abuses. Here are eight absurd ways the military wastes our money--and none of them have anything to do with national defense.
    1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles “general” or “admiral” sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, "so what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal treatment--particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most powerful military in human history." The reality, however, is that there nearly 1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces, and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.
    According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror--and polishing the boots of senior military personnel --became Washington’s number-one priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)
    Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.
    Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”
    It’s sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a “partner” but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a caramel macchiato per shift).
    As Rasor writes, “the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one- and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper.”
    But the skyscraper model doesn’t mean that the armed forces are democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they’re gaming the system to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S. military to aid their personal lives--whether their actual work justifies it or not.
    2. The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”
    So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries, and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.
    A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million--per general. That’s not even including their own salaries--which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation--and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”
    In Petraeus’ case, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.
    3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a general, there is a limit to the military’s (taxpayer-funded) generosity. That's led some senior officers to engage in a little creative accounting. This summer the (formerly) four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and travel costs, as well as his family’s stays at luxury hotels.
    In November, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers’ misused money. The debt shouldn’t be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual retirement salary of $208,802.
    Panetta may have been tough--sort of--on now three-star general Ward, but he’s displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor, Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks, Panetta has so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an “ethics training” after the Petraeus scandal.
    4. Warped sense of reality. After the Petraeus scandal, the million-dollar question was: Did the general who essentially built the world’s most invasive surveillance apparatus really think he could get away with carrying on a secret affair without anyone knowing? Former Secretary of State Gates has floated at least one theory at a press conference in Chicago: “There is something about a sense of entitlement and having great power that skews people’s judgement.”
    A handful of retired diplomats and service members have come out in support of Gates’ thesis. Robert J. Callahan, a retired diplomat who served as U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua, wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune explaining how the generals’ perks allow them to exist on a plain removed from ordinary people:
    “Those with a star are military nobility, no doubt, and those with four are royalty. Flying in luxurious private jets, surrounded by a phalanx of fawning aides who do everything from preparing their meals to pressing their uniform trousers, they are among America's most pampered professionals. Their orders are executed without challenge, their word is fiat. They live in a reality different from the rest of us."
    Frank Wuco, a retired U.S. Naval intelligence chief, agrees.
    “With the senior guys and the flag officers, this is like the new royalty,” he said on his weekly radio show. “We treat them like kings and princes. These general officers in the military, at a certain point, become untouchable... In many cases, they get their own airplanes, their own helicopters. When they walk into a room, everybody comes to attention. In the case of some of them, people are very afraid to speak up or to disagree. Being separated from real life all the time in that way probably leaves them vulnerable (to lapses in moral judgement)."
    Sounds like a phenomenon that’s happening with another pampered sector of society (hint: Wall Street). Given the epic 2008 financial collapse, do we really want to set our security forces on a similar path of power, deception and deep, crisis-creating delusion?
    5. Military golf. Of course, generals and admirals aren’t the only ones who get to enjoy some of perks of being in the U.S. armed forces. Although lower ranking service members don’t get private jets and personal chefs, U.S. taxpayers still spend billions of dollars a year to pay for luxuries that are out of reach for the ordinary American.
    The Pentagon, for example, runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed.
    According to one retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, who also just happens to be the senior writer at Travel Golf, the very best military golf course in the U.S. is the Air Force Academy's Eisenhower Blue Course in Colorado Springs, CO.
    He writes, “This stunning 7,000-plus yard layout shares the same foothills terrain as does the legendary Broadmoor, just 20 minutes to the south in Colorado Springs. Ponderosa pines, pinon and juniper line the fairways with rolling mounds, ponds and almost tame deer and wild turkey.” (The Department of Defense did come under fire a number of decades ago when it was discovered that the toilet seats at this course cost $400 a pop.)
    And the number of golf courses is often undercounted, with controversial courses in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Mosul, Iraq, often left off the lists, which makes assessing the total costs difficult.
    Yet some courses rack up staggering expenses as they become far more than mere stretches of grass.
    According to journalist Nick Turse, “The U.S. Army paid $71,614 [in 2004] to the Arizona Golf Resort -- located in sunny Riyadh, Saudi Arabia... The resort actually boasts an entire entertainment complex, complete with a water-slide-enhanced megapool, gym, bowling alley, horse stables, roller hockey rink, arcade, amphitheater, restaurant, and even a cappuccino bar -- not to mention the golf course and a driving range.”
    DoD's Sungnam golf course in the Republic of Korea, meanwhile, is reportedly valued at $26 million.
    For non-golfers, the military also maintains a ski lodge and resort in the Bavarian Alps, which opened in 2004 and cost $80 million.
    6. “The Army goes rolling along!” Vacation resorts aren’t the only explicitly non-defense-related expenditures of the Department of Defense. According to a Washington Post investigation, the DoD also spends $500 million annually on marching bands.
    The Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps all maintain their own military bands, which also produce their own magazines and CDs.
    The bands are [pun intended] “an instrument of military PR,” according to Al McCree, a retired Air Force service member who owns Altissimo Recordings, a Nashville record label featuring music of the service bands.
    The CDs are--by law--distributed for free, but that doesn’t mean the private sector can’t profit off these marching bands. According to the Washington Post article, “The service CDs have also created a private, profitable industry made up of companies that obtain the band recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. They then re-press and package them for public sale.”
    As if subsidizing the industry of multibillion-dollar arms dealers weren’t enough, the record industry is apparently also leeching off the taxpayer-funded military spending.
    7. The Pentagon-to-Lockheed pipeline. While the exorbitant costs of private planes and hundreds of golf courses may seem bad enough, the most costly problem with the entitlement-culture of the military happens after generals retire. Since they’re so used to the luxurious lifestyle, the vast majority of pension-reaping high-ranking officers head into the private defense industry.
    According to William Hartung, a defense analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington DC, about 70 percent of recently retired three- and four-star generals went straight to work for industry giants like Lockheed Martin.
    “If you don’t go into industry at this point you are the exception,” Hartung said.
    This type of government-to-industry pipeline, which he said was comparable to the odious Wall Street-to-Washington revolving door, drives up the prices of weapons and prevents effective oversight of weapon manufacturing companies--all of which ends up costing taxpayers more and more each year.
    “I think the overspending on the generals and all their perks is bad enough, but the revolving door and the ability of these people to cut industry a break in exchange for high salaries costs more in the long run,” said Hartung. “This can affect the price of weapons and the whole structure of how we oversee companies. It’s harder to calculate, but certainly in the billions, compared to millions spent on staff per general.”