Zelandakh, on 2017-July-03, 03:14, said:
1. Because GWB set this up as an emergency fund for the "Global War on Terrorism" and it has continued every year since. The change of name to "Overseas Contingency Operations", often abbreviated to OCO/GWOT, reflects changes in the usage of the fund over time. Whether the fund is still appropriate is another question but you are probably aware that once funds are created they tend to be difficult to shut down.
2. Because it is US policy to hold overwhelming military might over any possible enemy including the ability to fight on multiple fronts. A war against an opponents such as Russia or China would tax the US military even with such spending and there are signs that China wants to ramp up their military, first land and air forces but eventually also to be able to challenge America on the seas. Quite aside from the practical case, the military also holds strong political clout and attempts to rationalise would run into all sorts of difficulties at both local and national levels.
3. If you look at your bank account at the start of the year, get a certain (known) budget/salary and then look at your bank account at the end of the year, you know how much has been spent irrespective of the accounting in-between. You can then know (or estimate) how much more or less then this you need in the following year and take this as your next base figure. It is not necessary to know precisely how much is being spent on ammunition, chicken or washing powder, for budgets you only need to know the end figures. And has already been pointed out to you, those are perfectly correct; it is only the internal accounting discrepancies between the various books that adds up to the quoted figure.
Quote
It is not necessary to know precisely how much is being spent on ammunition, chicken or washing powder, for budgets you only need to know the end figures. And has already been pointed out to you, those are perfectly correct; it is only the internal accounting discrepancies between the various books that adds up to the quoted figure.
This is a very dangerous quote. If the Department of Defense (DoD) paid double the market rate on ammunition, we need to know about it. If the DoD paid double the market rate on chicken or washing powder, we need to know about it. If the military paid an extra $28 million on uniforms, we need to know about it.
Seeing stuff like this,
https://www.usatoday...says/413219001/ makes me wonder what other savings opportunities abound at the Pentagon. If DoD can't avoid a $28 million procurement error like this, what other outrageous procurement purchases are flying beneath the radar? Please note it is a Special Inspector General who uncovered this mismanagement of resources. A normal or periodic management review did not uncover these wasteful expenditures.
See how the Pentagon is hiding up to $125 billion in cost savings===> https://www.washingt...m=.47b4af04c025
I am not questioning IF the DoD spent their entire budget; government agencies are very good at doing that. We need to know if the DoD has responsibly used the resources that were appropriated to them. The devil is in the details NOT in the $6.0+ trillion year-end accounting entry to balance the books.
With a $600 billion ANNUAL budget, the last assurances we need to hear from management is, "Trust us. We spent the money well. You have our word on it." $600 billion is the monetary equivalent of winning a $1,000,000 lottery 600,000 separate times. We need to get a strong handle on exactly what's being spent in that budget. We have a duty to "trust but verify" as Former President Ronald Reagan would say.
What Congress and the public doesn't know is HOW the DoD spent that money; if it's being spent responsibly and with due care; and if procured items are essential and necessary. Perhaps mismanaged or diverted money can be used towards that 2.1% wage increase for the military personnel.
Please do not downplay the fact that the Inspector General has issued a disclaimer of opinion over the DoD's financials for the last 17 years. This is not just some rinky-dink IT problem that is overshadowing the financials. Congress can't control what it can't accurately measure. If DoD management wanted to issue transparent financials, they would have done so within a span of 17 years.
However, being dubious and opaque is good for intransigent bureaucracies. Very few people will question the DoD about being 54% of the discretionary spending of the federal budget. But we needn't argue over the other departments when there is potentially so much low-hanging fruit from the DoD tree.
Procurement and Operations & Maintenance is over 1/3 of $1 trillion annually. We need to review that detail because I am convinced there's plenty of cost savings if only the DoD would provide some reliable financial statements (and supporting schedules) we can sink our teeth into.
Help
