By Staff
record on defense
Last July, a top economic advisor to Republican presidential candidate John McCain outlined for the Washington Post a budget reduction strategy that his candidate would pursue if elected. Included in McCain’s plan was a perfectly sensible proposal to “scrub” the entire Pentagon budget and reduce procurements for weapons such as “Future Combat System[s].”
Future Combat Systems is an ambitious Army modernization program championed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, employing a network of unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles and robotics. The problem is that many of the revolutionary technologies haven’t been developed, although the production schedule has steamrolled along since the post-9/11 spending glut in defense.
When all is said and done, this program will cost U.S. taxpayers up to $160 billion. Just slowing the rollout of FCS to a more realistic schedule could save us nearly $3 billion a year at a time when the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a deficit over $400 billion.
Defense analysts, Republican and Democrat, have been pushing for such a change for years. Simple enough, right?
Fast-forward to Sept. 8, when Sen. McCain used a rally in Lee’s Summit, Mo., to attack his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, for no less than proposing the same thing.
At issue was a video that Sen. Obama made during the Iowa caucuses for a grassroots activist group, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, which sought to educate voters and the presidential candidates from both parties about Pentagon spending. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the chairman of the board of military advisors for the group, so this bit of political news emanating from Missouri caught my attention.
The Army Times newspaper picked up on the story right away, and framed McCain’s attack this way: “Flip-flop or fib?” After looking at the evidence, I’m inclined to think McCain was doing a bit of both.
Back in April 2005, McCain launched an inquiry into the FCS contract with Boeing over concerns of the spiraling cost and demanded that the Army rework the deal. His inquest came on the heels of a corruption scandal involving Boeing and the Air Force over multibillion-dollar acquisition projects for a tanker program, which McCain also helped to uncover.
So, McCain could hardly claim that he was simply misinformed about the details of the FCS program when he attacked his opponent.
What’s most disappointing about this whole affair is that many people have worked hard to educate the public and defend reform-minded leaders from smears by politicians who think throwing money at the Pentagon without asking questions is the only way to keep America safe. But the moment John McCain uttered that attack in Lee’s Summit, he abandoned his reformer record and cast his lot with more of the same.
Defense spending in the United States has climbed to $700 billion a year — the highest since World War II — and consumes half of our discretionary budget. In the meantime, the Pentagon has been unable to audit itself since 1990 and likely will not be able to complete a review of its finances until 2016.
That’s a lot of taxpayer money that can’t be accounted for, and hundreds of billions of it are wasted on weapons programs that are obsolete or unnecessary.
Once upon a time, Sen. John McCain knew this.
If John McCain really thinks we can fight a 21st-century war on terror abroad and face 21st-century challenges at home with a Pentagon run amok under George Bush, he’s free to say so. But that’s certainly not “reform” and it’s definitely not “change.”
McCain abandons
record on defense
Last July, a top economic advisor to Republican presidential candidate John McCain outlined for the Washington Post a budget reduction strategy that his candidate would pursue if elected. Included in McCain’s plan was a perfectly sensible proposal to “scrub” the entire Pentagon budget and reduce procurements for weapons such as “Future Combat System[s].”
Future Combat Systems is an ambitious Army modernization program championed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, employing a network of unmanned aerial vehicles, armored vehicles and robotics. The problem is that many of the revolutionary technologies haven’t been developed, although the production schedule has steamrolled along since the post-9/11 spending glut in defense.
When all is said and done, this program will cost U.S. taxpayers up to $160 billion. Just slowing the rollout of FCS to a more realistic schedule could save us nearly $3 billion a year at a time when the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a deficit over $400 billion.
Defense analysts, Republican and Democrat, have been pushing for such a change for years. Simple enough, right?
Fast-forward to Sept. 8, when Sen. McCain used a rally in Lee’s Summit, Mo., to attack his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, for no less than proposing the same thing.
At issue was a video that Sen. Obama made during the Iowa caucuses for a grassroots activist group, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, which sought to educate voters and the presidential candidates from both parties about Pentagon spending. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the chairman of the board of military advisors for the group, so this bit of political news emanating from Missouri caught my attention.
The Army Times newspaper picked up on the story right away, and framed McCain’s attack this way: “Flip-flop or fib?” After looking at the evidence, I’m inclined to think McCain was doing a bit of both.
Back in April 2005, McCain launched an inquiry into the FCS contract with Boeing over concerns of the spiraling cost and demanded that the Army rework the deal. His inquest came on the heels of a corruption scandal involving Boeing and the Air Force over multibillion-dollar acquisition projects for a tanker program, which McCain also helped to uncover.
So, McCain could hardly claim that he was simply misinformed about the details of the FCS program when he attacked his opponent.
What’s most disappointing about this whole affair is that many people have worked hard to educate the public and defend reform-minded leaders from smears by politicians who think throwing money at the Pentagon without asking questions is the only way to keep America safe. But the moment John McCain uttered that attack in Lee’s Summit, he abandoned his reformer record and cast his lot with more of the same.
Defense spending in the United States has climbed to $700 billion a year — the highest since World War II — and consumes half of our discretionary budget. In the meantime, the Pentagon has been unable to audit itself since 1990 and likely will not be able to complete a review of its finances until 2016.
That’s a lot of taxpayer money that can’t be accounted for, and hundreds of billions of it are wasted on weapons programs that are obsolete or unnecessary.
Once upon a time, Sen. John McCain knew this.
If John McCain really thinks we can fight a 21st-century war on terror abroad and face 21st-century challenges at home with a Pentagon run amok under George Bush, he’s free to say so. But that’s certainly not “reform” and it’s definitely not “change.”