4 ms·

While Truman was still a Senator, he was head of what's today known as the 'Truman Committee'[0]. During WWII, there were tons of instances of budget bloat and

by txru 8y ago

While Truman was still a Senator, he was head of what's today known as the 'Truman Committee'[0]. During WWII, there were tons of instances of budget bloat and shoddy manufacturing that were both too expensive to taxpayers and put Americans' lives in danger overseas. This saved tens of millions of 1940s dollars, and gained Truman the widespread political appeal that helped him eventually win his Vice Presidency. I think a general point is, the military needs oversight, and we are a democratic country. For now, it might seem reasonable to you that Congress might not make the best decisions about military readiness, but removing the ability from Congress to decide that they should have the ability to investigate and shrink military budgets is un-democratic. I can easily imagine a world where we remove line-item oversight from Congress, and in 50 years, military spend is like it was multiple times in the history of other empires: not up to date, bloated, profitable to those in bureaucratic control, and an unpleasant surprise when we need it most. I think you're totally right, the carriers are still important, particularly if we're not in a hot war. Carriers are second-to-none for establishing land/air/sea superiority. But if the military believes that, it should make that case to Congress, and Congress should do what they do with a recognition that they are beholden to the American public for their decisions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Committee

AWildC182 8y ago
Yea, I agree it's a touchy balance. I was careful to say 'less' rather than 'none' as it's important that the budget stays under control. I think it's a matter of finding a budgetary structure that doesn't immediately lead to conflicts of interest and corruption in a nation that admittedly loves it's military industrial complex. I think it bears mentioning that at the moment the pendulum is somewhat on the side of congressional over-spending. There has been the ongoing issue of congress forcing the pentagon to buy more Abrams tanks to spite their strategic irrelevance (we have more than enough to satisfy our needs) because they want to keep the manufacturing lines running.
- txru 8y ago
  It's definitely principal agent problem all over. During WWII I think it was clearer politically because the military grew over 10x from the 30s to the peak of the war effort, and the massive budget windfalls there were extremely tempting to take advantage of and extremely egregious when called out. Now we're in a society of permanent volunteer military readiness, and we have to deal with endemic problems. The corruption and solutions both look different, and solutions have to have sustainability in mind. I think you might be right, that Congress right now does spur on overspending rather than underspending. It's just about impossible to close a base anywhere, from what I hear. Still, in the long run, I do think it's better that Congress keep control of this and have continual oversight. I think it might be better suited to the Senate, and I think it's better suited to committees, but there does need to be a accountability there that is entirely outside of the military.

by txru 8y ago

AWildC182 8y ago

Yea, I agree it's a touchy balance. I was careful to say 'less' rather than 'none' as it's important that the budget stays under control. I think it's a matter of finding a budgetary structure that doesn't immediately lead to conflicts of interest and corruption in a nation that admittedly loves it's military industrial complex. I think it bears mentioning that at the moment the pendulum is somewhat on the side of congressional over-spending. There has been the ongoing issue of congress forcing the pentagon to buy more Abrams tanks to spite their strategic irrelevance (we have more than enough to satisfy our needs) because they want to keep the manufacturing lines running.

txru 8y ago
It's definitely principal agent problem all over. During WWII I think it was clearer politically because the military grew over 10x from the 30s to the peak of the war effort, and the massive budget windfalls there were extremely tempting to take advantage of and extremely egregious when called out. Now we're in a society of permanent volunteer military readiness, and we have to deal with endemic problems. The corruption and solutions both look different, and solutions have to have sustainability in mind. I think you might be right, that Congress right now does spur on overspending rather than underspending. It's just about impossible to close a base anywhere, from what I hear. Still, in the long run, I do think it's better that Congress keep control of this and have continual oversight. I think it might be better suited to the Senate, and I think it's better suited to committees, but there does need to be a accountability there that is entirely outside of the military.