Gen Odierno's Brief And Chuck Spinton : The American Power Control System

Defense firms are at the mercy of the defense budget. In times when the budget is maximized and demand increases,

Something that I vehemently disagree on with both political parties is defense spending. In their platforms, both parties seem to favor an increase in funding, even if it is a bit more discretely worded under the Democratic Party’s platform. In my view, we allocate too much of our country’s resources to the military, and neglect many of its other needs in doing so. The United States military is by far and away the most puissant armed organization in the world. Here are some figures that help illustrate just how pragmatic that last statement is. In the 2015 fiscal year we spent 598 billion dollars on the military; that’s over fifty percent of the federal government’s discretionary spending.(1) In 2016, only 19 of 194 nations had a higher GDP than America’s defense budget; that means that the U.S. spends more money per year on its military than the total value of all goods produced and services provided in a country in a year in 90 percent of the world’s nations.(2) According to 2016 statistics the U.S. spends more on its defense than the next eight countries combined.(3) That same year, China was second with a 215 billion dollar defense budget and Russia was third at approximately 69 billion.

The structure of our government is complex. With local, state, and federal levels of government, it can be confusing to understand how the government works. Luckily, Morris Fiorina wrote a document about the structure of the government called The Rise of the Washington Establishment. The Washington establishment simply refers to big government workers such as, included but not limited to, house representatives, senators, congressmen, and party leaders. These legislators and bureaucrats are the ones who run the government and establish laws. In his document, Fiorina argued that these people are in office only for personal gains. He strongly focused on congress, in which he believes they act in favor of their reelection. Power, money, and insurance benefits are the main influences that motivate congressmen to hold their position. Governmental representatives are supposed to reflect the values of the people, but they ultimately act in a selfish manor. The Rise of the Washington Establishment analyzes how congressmen act for their own self-interest.

In the past America has been a dominant superpower in the field of military strength, but for the last few decades, our military has encountered abounding liquidations and sequestrations, which lead to huge budget cuts. Nevertheless, America has faced many politicians planning to cut down on our military by virtue of it is simply cost effective. The Clinton Foundation has been cutting our military for countless years. Also, under the Obama Administration has been enacting laws comparable to the Budget Control Act or (BCA) which has been siphoning our military for the past 8 years. For countless years, defense officials remain silent due to the Obama Administration, vaguely America could keep its budget under control. Consequently, all four

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down and that will help lower the defense spending by almost $1 trillion over the next decade. The congress is realizing that they need to do some restructuring and have already begun rearranging the military budget in response to austerity. Congress conjured up a $630 billion defense appropriations bill that made plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years and in return ramp up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles says The Washington Post. The American Conservative

The United States spends far more than any other country on defense and security with no end in sight to their expenditures. The total military spending by the United States is nearly equal to the combined military spending of every other nation combined. This unreasonable amount of spending hinders the capacity to provide basic needs, as well as eliminating money that can be used to resolve other domestic issues, while at the same time allowing for short-term economic prosperity and increasing our national defense capacity.

The United States is spending huge amounts of money on military defense when there are other problem areas in our society that are in need of more funding.

The relationship between the president and the Congress is described as a “perpetual tag of war”, which can be attributed to system of checks and balances at the heart of America’s governmental structure. However many argue that the power of the presidency has expanded over

The realistic comparison that connects to monopolistic and oligopolistic structure of defense contractors resulting in reason for shutdown for cost efficient purposes rather than competition (Hayden et al., 2010). This cost efficient purpose then turns to intergroup relations between Congress, the President and the leading large-scale power-bloc defense contractors while during government shutdown continued to run while other DOD agencies suffered from furlough (Brass, 2014; Hayden et al., 2010; McPhail, 1991; Sy (2013). In perspective, the top five defense contractors awarded DOD contracts for year 2007 were Lockheed Martin Corporation - $27B, Boeing Company - $22B, Northrop Grumman - $14B, General Dynamics - $14B, and Raytheon - $11B respectfully (Hayden et al., 2010). Based on McPhail (1991), individual-group discontinuity is explicit contrast between intergroup relations, where Brass (2014) and Sy (2013) debated on intergroup relations distinction between government shutdown and debt limit impasse. According to Brass (2014), government shutdown is the lack of group performance, intergroup relations, and communication

My proposal is about the spending of the United States discretionary spending (money the Federal Government can allocate to areas that government officials see appropriate) on its military. Military expenses in the United States reaches over 596 billion dollars a year, which is roughly 60% of the disposable funds available to the United States Federal Government. This report will determine reasons as to why the United States military receives such a high percentage of the disposable revenue, and how the military budgets the government funds that they receive. Also, this report will discuss areas lacking in government aid.

Robert McNamara directed a disastrous, failed war that was very costly. He visioned an “active management” approcah. He wanted a Pentagon where the secretary would have his own large staff that would provide civilian advice. This advice would only allow the secretary to be the only one able to assess alternatives. This would also allow him to be the only one making choices when it comes to defining budgets, foreign policy, military strategy, and integrating forces and weapons. Budgets in the 50s were done by services instead of missions and used estimates that had an unclear validity. There was no way that duplication nor functional gaps could be identified. Concerns arose from discrepancies about the defense posture on whether it had rational basis for the allocation of resources. McNamara also proposed a system analysis that calculated the defense needs, but it had its limits. The military was caught off guard with this and programs that he did not agree with were seen as not to be cost-effective. McNamara’s agenda also included acquisition reforms. This

Meg Greenfield was a well-known editor of the Washington Post and wrote her own analysis of the way government officials in Washington interact. This analysis was written in the final years of her life. The book, was titled Washington. Greenfield offered an interesting perspective having been a witness to decades of activity with many of the nation’s political leaders, and her book offers readers a look at what actually goes on inside the government. The book was published in 2001 by PublicAffairs. It is 228 pages but has an additional 30 pages describing Greenfield’s personal background and career written by one of her colleagues. This gives readers understanding of Greenfield that is imperative to understanding her book.

The Department of Defense takes up the majority of the US budget; it not only pulls in over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money yearly, but it also is unable to accurately account for the exact whereabouts of those funds year after year. The DoD does, of course, offer its own budget, however, due to the byzantine and ineffective nature of the Federal Bureaucracy, it is impossible to verify if the money is even so much as used for its intended purpose. Looking at this budget, two sections stand out as bloated, which is a statement in a budget that is packed with Pork-barrel spending: Procurement, and Maintenance. Ultimately, should these two areas of the budget be reasonably downsized, and the others thoroughly audited, the DoD’s operating expenses could be reduced drastically, much to the taxpayer's benefit.

Budgeting is a familiar term to most American families. To define budgeting, we see it’s an estimate, often itemized, of expected income and expenses for a given period in the future. In order to avoid debt, bankruptcy, or overspending it is common to create a spreadsheet of some sort tracking your spending and income. On a grander scheme, the United States has to budget money and distribute it to the different sections in order to function as a democracy. History denotes government and military budgeting did not always exist. From describing today’s budgets and historical flaws, exploring the United States budget and how it affects the military is a lengthy, dynamic, and incredibly interesting matter.

The activity associated with redefining developmental cost growth thresholds is untimely, bureaucratic, and contrary to the direction established by 10 U.S.C. § 2433 (Nunn-McCurdy). To enforce a different performance standard after the acquisition strategy was set, the contract awarded and work begun, ensures that the carefully established business plan will become mired in reporting delays and unprecedented, redundant certifications. Indeed, the Secretary is called on to certify that funding additional costs on the program is a priority over other programs, a situation completely fabricated by this act and a situation the Air Force took steps to prevent by properly preparing their budget in accordance with the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009. The current cost growth thresholds are consistent with both congressional and defense guidance and are backed up by two independent cost estimates done by the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office. Those plans support efficient and