So, one of my last blogs was a mind-numbing, insomnia curing look at where the money the government spends comes from and where they spend it. Assuming you are still awake, this one is more about how I think we should be spending it.
Defense/military: Without a strong national military nothing else will matter. If we can’t defeat an enemy at our doorsteps, they will have run of the house. Having said that, our national leaders have also allowed the cost of spending to outpace the value of what we buy. A single B2 bomber costs $737 million dollars. The entire program cost roughly $44.75 billion and we have 20 planes in the inventory. By “entire program” I include research & development, casting tooling, salaries for engineers, testing facilities, etc. The plane itself is the tip of the spear. The rest of that stuff is the spear handle.
The F35 stealth fighter runs between $114 million and $142 million depending on the variant, per plane. The country plans to buy 2443 of these aircraft. We have about 150 now. The costs are only going up because of delays, many of which were our own fault. In 2009 the Pentagon cried that spies had successfully downloaded several terabytes of data about the plane and that more money would be needed to protect the system from the data they failed to secure. The added costs and further delays make leaders squeamish and anxious to cut future orders. This would cause per plane costs to escalate rapidly prompting even further future order cuts. The plane, as sophisticated and sexy as it is has become too expensive.
Last month the Army complained that the Congress was making them take an additional $120 million in Abrams tanks that it says it does not need or want. Each tank runs about $6 million to make. Most of these tanks are not new however, are refurbished or upgraded older variants. The cost is a little lower, closer to $4 million per tank. The Congressman is trying to make sure the production line in his state does not close. If it all shut down, as many as 20,000 would lose their high paying jobs. Sadly, the tank is so well made, it is too survivable. Nothing on the battle field exists that can destroy one. Certainly the tank can be “killed” albeit usually just a mobility kill. There has been one catastrophically killed by an anti-tank mine, but it was also combined with seven 155mm howitzer rounds—not your standard encounter. The turret was blown off. Another drove onto a bridge collapsing it. The crew drowned. But tank on tank? Only when we’ve purposely destroyed it ourselves when it was abandoned. Most of our current tanks are about three years old. As we continue to cut the size of the military, we do not need more and more tanks—even we if we DO decide to pre-stage some in Germany again.
The Virginia-class submarine runs a hefty $2.65 billion per. We have eleven of them. The Seawolf-class was supposed to run $33.6 billion but was stopped after three were built. Bigger, faster, and quieter than the Los Angeles-class, and also having more armaments. They were just too expensive and were cancelled. The Virginia-class are slated to be in service until 2060 so we are getting our money’s worth.
These four examples all show one thing—our weapons systems, while the best anywhere in the world are too expensive to design, produce, and upgrade—long term. It is a death spiral of the inverse kind. They are effective in combat, kill the enemy, and come home. We place such a premium on survivability that once built, we rarely need another.
Another aspect that is killing our ability to afford the world’s premier military is the assumption that everyone who works within it, primarily the owners of the conglomerate companies, all the way down to the janitors, all have to be incredibly wealthy. After all, that F35—does it really cost $142 million? Remember the $1200 hammers, the $600 toilet seats, and the $40 bolts and washers? That’s how come these weapons platforms are so expensive. The programs that procure them are rife with corruption and price fixing.
All the same…as soon as budget cuts are mentioned, Congress looks to the military. It is as if they think there is no fixed cost for even having one. Having those heavy tank divisions, and mechanized Infantry Divisions, and all those Air Wings, and the 300-ish ship Navy—that is all free. The only costs associated with the military are for payroll and for pensions, right? The first vote held after the elections…the first one, Congress screwed the military again. They reduced the amount of a pay raise, the increased the costs of some medicines if bought at specialized locations, and lowered the rate of housing increases.
See, we need that extra money from the military budget—our peace dividend—in order to make sure Johnny Mcfrymaster makes $15.00 per hour. You think if they make the minimum wage mandatory at $15.00 that the producer, the company is going to absorb that? No, he’s going to pass that on to the consumer. So, your Big Mac and McNugget meal is going to have to go up in price. And once we collectively decide that $10 for a “value” meal is too much, we’ll all cut back on going. That means the businesses are going to have to either lay folks off or—be bailed out by the government. We’ve already established the kind of businesses that are too big to fail. You think the entire fast-food industry fall OUTSIDE of those parameters? Think again.
Never mind that flipping burgers and scooping fries was never a job designed for a 30-year old; unless they are managing other 18-year olds. If you are 30, and your primary work tool is a spatula, you probably still live at home, are divorced, and paying so much in child support you can’t afford anything newer than a 1985 K-car.
And THERE is where we stopped making cars the people could afford with a built in and acceptable breakdown date.