Procurement Reform is Sexy, Honest
It seems like ancient history now, but there was a time when Democrats were focused on Pentagon procurement, not just the scandal of $600 toilet seats and blunderbuss calls to cut the defense budget but a serious debate about the weapons systems we really need and how to avoid paying too much for them. Sen. Gary Hart was a leading advocate of this new thinking on defense and so was James Fallows whose book, National Defense, was the Bible of the movement.
My starting home in journalism, The Washington Monthly, long ran articles on topics of why the Air Force placed too small a priority on the small, but effective A-10 Warthog aircraft which is great at busting enemy tanks and was in love with vastly overpriced stealth bombers. Can President Barack Obama put an end to a procurement system that's only gotten worse over the years?
At a time of two wars and a recession, looking for cost cutting at the Pentagon isn't going to be front and center on a president's agenda but it needs to be there. Again, I'm not talking about the obvious cost overruns of a Halliburton or the issues about troop rotations that have disrupted the lives of so many members of the Armed Forces and their families. But the sheer process by which we buy multibillion dollar weapons systems. Hope to do much more on this in the coming weeks. We welcome the thoughts of TPM readers on this topic and any tips they wish to offer.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
You're talking about fighting the M-I-C here, right?
January 22, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so. The defense budget is so bloated :-( Instead of cutting programs like Social Security and Medicare, why not cut some of the defense programs?
January 22, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with this more.
Unfortunately, I think that our best case scenario is going to involve moving dollars from weapons over to veteran's care. If the BHO administration can actually reduce the military budget I'll be really, really impressed.
January 22, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Iraq clusterfuck hasn't convinced everybody of the need to replace high-tech toys for the testerone-deficient with unsexy equipment and support services and pay for boots-on-the-ground troops, then nothing will.
January 22, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you would like to dig into the pressure by boeing, lockheed, et.al. for congress to fund the $62 billion F-22 raptor program, it would be great. It is just to easy to call the program a "jobs benefit" to americans. We need some different jobs! Oh--and i noticed lockheed stock is up this morning...
January 22, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is a good source that explains the questions involving DOD procurement information, as well as possibly related issues?
Years ago I subscribed to the publication produced by the Center for Defense Information and would like to update and continue my edumacation.
January 22, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too!
Time to renew the email updates!
I also like Defense and the National Interest
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/
Not surprising that when I visited the site to copy the link, this was featured
I like the subject but then I've practiced some Fed Acquisition law...always enjoyed the subject of gov contracting...an acquired taste
January 22, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Straus Military Reform Project CDI
http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=37
January 22, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the procurement process needs to be improved. Personally, I question whether weapons systems should be built by for-profit corporations. I think Big Defense should be nationalized. But I doubt that's going to happen.
I work at one of the big defense contractors, by the way.
As a practial matter, I think the best shot at reducing defense costs is to get the MIC working on the "green energy" (or other positive infrastructure) initiatives. Politically as well as economically it won't work to slash defense budgets and force contractors to lay off workers. Instead, we need to "re-purpose" that capability to make things that enhance someone's quality of life, rather than destroy it.
-- ARG
January 22, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The M-I-C has embedded itself is communities spread out across America, at times the jobs they provide are the lifeblood to communities and cities. They've made it political suicide to try and reform/cut defense spending because it will cost a lot of jobs.
January 22, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one had been going on for years by that time
I recall briefing my Senator on the Warthog procurement authorization. The big contractor opponents probably had a point at the time ie that the aircraft could never survive a Warsaw pact war but it did perform very well in the missions it wasn't intended to
January 22, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Procurement has needed attention at least since Rummy announced to the troops that we had to wage unnecessary war with whatever we had on hand... How are the flack jacket improvements coming along?
January 22, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as you give some people hundreds of billions for toys (weapons) they're going to want to use them; that's how we get in trouble at home and around the world.
Madalyn Albright said to Colin Powell (paraphrase) 'What's the use of having this great military if you aren't going to use it?'
Exactly!
Madalyn should grab a rifle and lead the attack.
January 22, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an area where Obama can reach across the aisle to work with his erstwhile rival, John McCain. One of the few areas where I was wholeheartedly with McCain was on his desire to reform the bloated & corrupt defense procurement system.
The following is a great case study on the many things that go wrong in the procurement process:
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/publications/grant_reports/details/index.asp?gid=328
January 22, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sexy?
You betcha!
Saw a Lockheed commercial today extolling the "5th (!) generation fighter which will assure US air dominance for 40 years"
The F-22 Raptor (sigh)
January 23, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink