comment: >
  
  I want every. single. penny. earned back from ending waste and abuse to go to the Coast Guard.
context: I think the biggest issue is just getting a proper accounting of how things are spent. They’ve been working on it but it hasn’t been going great. I’m it’s current state we couldn’t do a. Real audit even if we wanted to. >
  
  Given the, uh, current geopolitical climate, I can't imagine US and Russia agreeing to anything, much less nuclear disarmament. >
  
  One easy way to help with the budget would be to get rid of a lot of the military contractors and let military members do that work. When I was in the Navy as an IT when we were out at sea I could do the work but in our home port a contractor was to come on and my job then was to babysit them. >
  
  It would take decades to rebuild that force structure. 
  Add in that recruiting is already having massive challenges in meeting numbers, then add in a need to recruit more recruits into the specialized (high ASVAB, long training time) rates and MOSes and it’s even more a problem. >
  
  Just because it would take decades doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. There are disgusting amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse in military contracting. Should we continue using this model just because any alternative would be difficult? >
  
  Having the same tasks performed solely by "1 and done" 19 & 20 year old E-4s isn't going to really provide better quality or save costs. 
  I've seen what happens when you leave everything to AD sailors, some of it works but a lot is garbage and requires massive rework. Basic PMs, sure depot level maintenance is often better done by a civilian professional that does that job day in and day out. >
  
  My brother, I was a “1 and done” E4 who left the Army at 22 years old and immediately took a job with a contracting company overseas for $100k salary and I don’t have a college degree lol I’m not bragging here, I’m just demonstrating the absurdity that takes place in contracting today.
  These “civilian professionals” you speak of are not so different from the AD sailors you once knew. Often, they are the same people. >
  
  Cool story. 
  I was a “1 & done” E-6 and had to deal with a work center of E-4s & E-5s that maybe 1 in 10 could do much more than the bare minimum 
  PMs without destroying whatever pump or valve they were working. I had, at any given time 2 or 3 people that I could trust to actually run a QA package on an actual repair job. 
  If you’re making that on the back end, good for you. I guarantee you that most of your cohort weren’t capable. >
  
  My point is that the contracting companies ARE hiring many of those 9 idiots who break pumps/valves. I worked with a lot of idiots in my contractor office who never should have been hired in the first place. Certain contracting companies don’t even have interviews for their entry level positions, but those entry positions still pay 90k to 120k. How does that make any sense? >
  
  I’ve heard about these contractors for twenty years, but have never heard of how one becomes one. I’ve got friends that are DoD employees, but they aren’t really paid very well compared to private sector employees. 
  I’m in the commercial world and haven’t ever worked for the feds since I took my uniform off in 2005. 
  I think it could possibly work if we really expanded the reserves. Most AD squids while they have a repair and operational function, and let’s face it, operations is a bigger issue than the ability to maintain gear. Especially for corrective repairs. Hell, if the USN would let me, I’d like to do maintenance one weekend a month, as I never really turn wrenches anymore. >
  
  You just have to reach out to a recruiter at a contracting company. It is stupidly easy to get hired by a company like KBR, CACI, Dyncorps, etc.
  And yes, I agree that it would work if we expanded Reserves, but the DoD can’t even do that. The Reserves in every branch are having difficulty with recruiting and retention because being in the military sucks and the DoD won’t treat its troops fairly. >
  
  Hell, I tried to go in after I got out and was told they weren’t taking any prior service, only new recruits. Apparently the budget is allocated differently between the two pools. Now I’m either too old, to broken, or both, depending on the branch I’ve inquired with. 
  I apparently can work in the civilian sector, doing basically the same thing I did in the USN, but not once a weekend. 
  Anyway, I’m happy enough with my current position. I make plenty of money and get to travel whenever I want and I’m 100% WFH. >
  
  I don’t have direct answers to a lot of your questions, but I want to provide some context that I usually don’t see surfaced in discussions like these. No one fact of these has been overriding on my opinion, but it has definitely helped me see the issues as more complex and nuanced than most of the public discussions.
  
  
  To start, it’s important to recognize that even with a high absolute level of military spending, the relative amount is not unreasonable. Before the Ukraine crisis, we were already at the lowest military spending as a % of GDP since pre WWII. The last projection I know of had it falling to 2.7% by 2032 and we have commitments to allies to keep that above 2%. Certainly one of the easiest paths forward is to simply continue the slow relative draw down which would see us hitting our obligatory minimum by perhaps 2050. That’s not a terrible “baseline” result for essentially no extra action required.
  
  
  For all of the extremely valid criticisms of the military industrial complex, there is less awareness of the defense production advantage. Essentially, there is a significant value to the economy/country just in keeping the US at the top of the world in so many different areas of the defense world. For one, the direct costs of spending are actually lower than the headline numbers because spending within our own economy results in clawbacks through taxes of both profits and salaries. It’s a pretty unique and advantageous position in the world to be able to buy locally and get some of the best equipment in the world. 
  
  
  Furthermore, having so much of our own spend essentially subsidizing that industry in the US brings in massive economic benefits in having many/most other countries buy our equipment too, further cementing our production advantage and also giving the US extra political capital in being able to pick and choose where we allow our top of the line weapons to be exported. Granted, we don’t always make the best choices there, but the political leverage does enhance our negotiating position relative to what it would otherwise be without such a strong and dominant defense industry. These are benefits that are hard to buy/replace at any cost if we were to dramatically decrease our defense spending priorities. >
  
  Wow thanks for the detailed post. This is a tough issue for me to wrap my head around. Like seemingly everything else, it’s become hugely politicized. Super interesting to see a more nuanced perspective on military spending in regards to long term ROI and not immediately apparent benefits. 
  What I’m thinking as of now is we probably have much bigger problems to deal with that don’t (possibly) interfere with national defense/global advantages. In order to even form a very strong opinion, I’d need to really sit down and synthesize a ton of studies and pick an arbitrary budget number that represents some kind of sweet spot. Seems like there are more important issues to vote on. >
  
  You must also look at the aspect of this being a works program. 
  It provides a lot of high paying jobs that people might not otherwise have and why representatives do so much to protect the spending in their districts. >
  
  This is one of the more compelling points I’ve read in the affirmative for military spending. >
  
  He was such an understated success. Military leaders in general are really problematic and dangerous when put in charge. Washington was a risk that worked. Eisenhower could have been an absolute tyrant and goddamn was he wonderful. Laid such foundations for commerce and diplomacy that literally built our modern world. We got lucky in that man >
  
  Kind of hilarious that the last Republican president (who cheated on the draft to  avoid service) turns out to be the wannabe tyrant, not the military guy.  Quite honestly, it would be good for the commander in chief to have military experience. >
  
  I was an active duty accountant. 
  Part of the problem, and trust me, there are more parts than you can imagine is how the military y funded. 
  Let's take it from the squadron level and work up. 
  If I as a squadron resource advisor get a budget, there are sub constraints within the budget that make it hard to make fiscally responsible decisions. 
  First, let's say I need to buy printer paper. Because of the rules, I can only buy from a specific business. They have no competition. I legally cannot buy paper from the local office supply store. Is it cheaper, more accessible and smarter, yup. Can't do it. 
  Now magnify that to so many other commodities. GSA approved suppliers are often the only suppliers and they know it. Just ramp those prices up. (To be fair, getting GSA approved can be a long and sometimes costly experience). 
  Also let's say they sub-divide a budget into specific pots of money. Some, like education have floors (minimum to be spent in a fiscal year), ceilings (maximum spending amount) and fences(can't borrow from it for the light bill or whatever.) At the end of the fiscal year, any unspent monies from this year will be rolled up to your parent units and can be redistributed to your sibling units or rolled up to higher headquarters. Also, if they fail to spend it, that are too threatened that next year's budget will be reduced by that amount. 
  So every year on September 30th, government accountants stay up all night reconciling accounts and buying anything that will set them up for the upcoming year or God forbid, sending money back. 
  This results in what I would call wasteful spending. The whole last quarter is spent buying things, making lists of what you want and making wish lists in case some other unit can't spend their money in time and you get a windfall of cash at 1145 pm and have 15 minutes to spend 75k on new furniture for the customer service lobby.  
  So back to that education spending. I am specifically thinking of not military training, rather the college degree access programs mostly for enlisted people or dependants.  Every unit I ever managed always returned money in this category because it isn't well utilized for a whole bunch of logistic and cultural reasons. On Sep 30, this money can be unfenced by higher headquarters. So they redistribute for supplies you need.  But... When it is reported up above, it appears as though spending wasn't necessary so they cut it. But they don't increase next year's budget for supplies you needed, so the game continues on.   
  When I became a civilian, learning to rewrite my resume was tough. In The military a 99%+ execution rate (my record) means you spent almost all of your budget as prescribed. But most corporate entities are interested in profits and I could not point to how I could be a good steward because the motivation was opposite.  In the military my job was to spend and follow the rules. I. The corporate world, my equivalent job would be to find ways to curb or cut spending. 
  I was at my highest in charge of a 38M budget and my crowning glory is that I spent all but 24K. It was a whole crazy thing, but that's besides the point. If I was doing that at my relatively low level, then you can see how fraud waste and abuse happens as part of the rules, not despite them. >
  
  The people who are arguing for a lower military budget so the funds can be redirected to social programs heavily overlap with people who want the United States to stop being the world's policemen and focus more heavily on internal issues.
  If you want the u.s to keep it's current levels of capabilities. You probably can't lower the budget all that much. I'm sure there is a substantial amount of waste just like there is in every large organization, but if you want the biggest navy in the world by tonnage by a mile, to be around a decade ahead in most fields of military application when compared to your peers, to be able to project power anywhere, anytime and be able to send hundreds if not thousands of troops to a battlefield anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours, the biggest and most advanced air force by a mile, and the most highly funded and best staffed R&D departments in the world. All while maintaining dozens of bases all over the world and the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Yeah, it's gonna cost a boatload of cash.
  The argument that we should reallocate military funding and that the United States should lessen it's commitments abroad are the same argument just worded different ways. The U.S proper is arguably the most militarily secure country on the planet.
  We have no hostile neighbors, our rivals are all thousands of miles away across massive oceans, we have one of if not the most resource secure economies on earth, with basically everything we need being made by us or our neighbors, and we have an armed population that would literally be any invaders nightmare should they get here somehow anyway. It's not surprising that citizens of the United States look at these facts and wonder why we burn so much money on defense when we really don't need it.
  Unless you care about global stability, globalization, combating authoritarianism, American military prestige, American dominance etc, more than you care about funding new domestic programs in America, or just think the money for those programs can be found somewhere else, then you are probably against the budget being so high. >
  
  
  How do we achieve a responsible budget, without losing too much capability to strike/defend around the world?
  
  What's a responsible budget?  In 1960, defense was over 50% of the total federal budget.  Today that number has fallen to 14% and still falling.  We had a balanced budget in 1960, but we run huge deficits today that are piled on top of an unpayable debt.    
  Regarding capability, military spending has a very long ROI.  We had air superiority in 2003 because we developed ($$$) the F-15 in the 1960s and 70s.  We have air superiority now because of spending in the 90s to develop stealth planes.  The money we spend today will give the US military the advantage in 2050 and 2060. 
  
  Where would the freed up capital be deployed instead?
  
  We would just be printing less money. >
  
  Simply reducing the number of people in the military would be a huge step forward. As others have said, a significant portion of the current budget is for veterans. Over time, a smaller military would require less for retirement and medical.
  The second thing would be to end the war on terror. We are fighting wars that have absolutely no benefit for Americans. We are aiding genocide of entire populations and arming warlords. The cost of these wars is astronomical and will have lasting effects on those who come home and the families of those who don't. >
  
  The War on terror feels to me like an exercise in futility, not to mention fiscally irresponsible. How do we even define victory? This seems like a clear cut example of the military industrial complex. My only alt theory is it’s all a ploy to keep presence in the Middle East to defend Israel and Saudi Arabia from Iran, while conducting what essentially amounts to training exercises for military readiness/effectiveness.
  If we cut down the Force numbers, do we scale back the militaries global mission into a regional one? If so, would it be possible to ask our Allie’s to increase spending? I would be down for all of that. Australia immediately comes to mind because of the growing Chinese threat. Can they defend themselves? >
  
  The War on Terror is fundamentally an extension of the Cold War, mainly focusing on residual blowback from that era. Both of these exercises are extremely futile because nation building doesn’t really work. Stability has been kept through modified martial plans or permanent occupying forces. We need to transition to utilization of soft power and diplomacy rather than military strength. Ideally the DoD could have a paired back budget without sacrificing global security through strengthening the State Department. >
  
  
  How do we achieve a responsible budget, without losing too much capability to strike/defend around the world?
  
  IMO the first thing that can be cut is advertising. The US Army spends $400 million to $600 million on advertising and sponsorships alone. The military-sponsored Esports, UFC (PPV) events, made a video game and a Super Bowl ad. I can understand social media/tv ads but those big-ticket items can be cut. The US military is one of the most well-known brands in the country and gets plenty of free airtime. Holidays are dedicated to the military, every sports game, news segment, etc. >
  
  The budget starts to look a lot better when you take out the money that is going simply to service medical and benefits for retired veterans. 
  The changes that occurred in the Trump era to redo the military retirement into something more like a 401k (while potentially screwing the retirees—likely a feature and not a bug) should have a significant impact on costs in the future. >
  
  It has. This change to the retirement system is one of the reasons listed for why recruiting is down. >
  
  I can imagine. 
  Defined benefits versus a market based matched contribution fund isn’t really a good selling point. 
  I’d much rather have an actual pension. >
  
  Step one: An honest audit of the Pentagon and the Fed.
  Step two: Dramatically reduce the amount of military aid we give to other NATO nations.
  Step three: ????
  Step four: Profit >
  
  I mean nationalizing the MIC would be a GREAT start since a lot of that waste spending is in the form of middle men taking their cut between US soldiers and their equipment. >
  
  Defense contractors exist precisely because the federal government cannot manufacture things like jets, tanks and ships.  Congress lacks the knowledge how to do it, and they lack the incentive to spend money in any way besides frivolously.
  
  waste spending is in the form of middle men taking their cut 
  
  Its a necessary evil.  Cost plus contracting is the only way to pay for something like a billion dollar fighter jet that takes a decade to develop.  It leads to some terribly wasteful things, because it incentivizes contractors to inflate their costs.  Higher costs equals more profit.  One of my clients is a defense contractor and they deliberately setup their facility to cost a lot to operate. For example they put the sewage treatment plant on top of the highest hill, so everything must be pumped up, which adds complexity and cost.  The famous $1000 toilet seat from the late 80s was manufactured there, and they still make stuff like that and charge exorbitant prices for it.  But its their actual cost plus a modest profit margin, and the profit margin is contractually set.
  Congress could not do a better job though, they would be worse. >
  
  My friend works at Raytheon as an engineer. He tries to stall as much as possible on every project, billing as many hours, working as much overtime as possible, flying as much as possible, maxing out every per diem meal. How are you supposed to stop that? >
  
  I’ve seen this too unfortunately. When I worked with the federal gov’t as an aircraft maintainer, we were told to milk every. single. task. Then 3:00pm would hit and we were to drop our tools and walk off the site immediately. Everything was infuriatingly slow paced to rack up hours >
  
  We need to spend smarter not harder.  That would probably free up cash. Problem is too much benefit from the system as is for too many players......
  Also, broken rules that incentivise just throwing money away for sake of doing so (use or lose funds). 
  Fixing our contracting system. I have seen too many contractors that blow timelines and budgets costing way more than it should. I am not convinced it isnt on purpose half the time.
  I may be wrong but this is my take on it. >
  
  Reduce the size of the standing army, expand the navy - an army can be expanded in wartime, the navy has much greater lead time.
  Lean heavily in to UAV's, manned aircraft are much more expensive per unit of ordinance delivered.
  Some might try, but if we clearly define our interests the likelihood will be reduced.
  Reduce the size of the federal government so it can concentrate on its core function of defense. >
  
  In the maintenance world I can tell you the issue is we overpay by a huge amount for everything.
  $2 rubber seal? That'll be $150.
  All the defense contractors that political members have stock shares in are allowed to get away with it because of the 1%'s corruption. >
  
  Implement lean programs to eliminate unnecessary waste. Units will horde ammunition and other disposable supplies until it’s time to ask for money when they’ll suddenly go ahead and spend it all in a very wasteful manner because of they don’t use it then it gives them less leverage to be able to ask for it again in the future. There should definitely be a need for using this stuff for actual training and to cycle through older stock but wasting it after a fiscal cycle just so you can keep asking for it and keeping the same budget is absolutely wasteful >
  
  Our defense budget spending is ridiculous...we spend approximately 4-5 times what Russia, China, Iran, and N. Korea combined spend annually.  But the bigger question should really be 'what constitutes US national interests'?  Sadly...ask any American how much is enough to spend on defense and you'll get an I don't know.  Confront them with the numbers compared against adversary nations and they'll say wow...that's a lot.  Suggest we cut defense spending and they'll gasp and say never.  Americans vote pro big defense budgets out of fear...not rational planning.
  Do you know how to get elected in too many American districts?  You say we need to raise defense spending then the guy to the 'right' of that person will say no, we need to raise it more than that 'snow flake'.  Representatives are ALWAYS going to fight for more spending if the work is being done in their district because that's jobs.
  So what should those defense dollars go to?  We have many under-funded social programs...programs mandated by federal law but aren't properly funded.  But even those would be a drop in the over-all federal budget...so maybe, just maybe chunks of that money should come back to us as taxpayers.
  Adversarial/Rogue states...who are they and more importantly, why should the US care?  We have a treaty to come to the defense of Taiwan, notably to protect them against China.  Aside from the semi-conductor economy why should we care?  Historically, Taiwan has always been a part of China and only became a nation because Communist China forced out the far right wing ruling elite in China and they set up shop in Taiwan.  So while many Americans believe we 'saved' Taiwan from China, the reality is that for most of its existence Taiwan wasn't some safe-have of democracy either.  Whether Communist or ultra-right wing, a dictatorship is still nothing but a dictatorship.
  Ask yourself this...with America becoming more and more energy independent, why should we care about the Middle East.  For my entire life I've seen Americans die because of our relations with the various countries there...isn't it time we consider just telling the entire Middle East, to include Israel, make peace -- kill yourselves -- do whatever you want but leave us out of it.
  If the US is attacked then that country deserves a disproportional military response but perhaps it's time the US redefine what constitutes a direct national interest, tell the rest of the world to start figuring out their own problems, and for other countries...maybe the US also needs to consider just being better neighbors. >
  
  Another commenter pointed out that the military budget is quite small as a percentage of GDP. I’m all for making it even smaller but I wouldn’t want to lose too much global capabilities. There’s a sweet spot in there somewhere but I don’t know where it is. 
  The nation states I was referring to as adversarial/rogue were China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. I’d also be wary of Brazil becoming a South American version of Russia with all of the nationalist hysteria going on. 
  I guess I’m ultimately worried about pulling back militarily and emboldening some of these nation states to attack their neighbors. As we’ve seen before it could start a domino affect. I wouldn’t want to be on the back foot against the Chinese or a future “Chinese alliance”. Also, I’d want an outsized military advantage going into any conflict. 
  I only recently started really thinking about the military because of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The US military (along with Ukraine of course) is effectively dominating Russia without even stepping foot onto the battlefield. Although, I’d also like Western European countries and other Allie’s to do what we’re doing instead. 
  Still not sure exactly where I stand but happy to have your input. >
  
  One thing I would do is eliminate all of our ICBM's and carry our nuclear weapons purely in our Boomers and on bombers.
  Boomers can be configured to patrol as SSGN's and bombers can also carry conventional weapons. ICBM's waste money. >
  
  Would that even make a dent in the budget? I could see capping the number of ICBM’s to a relatively low number. >
  
  A Minuteman III ICBM costs about $1 million to maintain a year. The USAF has a few hundred of them. It would be small savings, but it is an easy place to start that does not impact readiness. >
  
  Ah that makes a lot of sense! This is just one example of potentially hundreds of opportunities to bring costs down. Unfortunately, I can’t see Congress ever making this a priority of theirs. >
  
  Cut the military budget in half and insist on the same deliverables. Waste will surface