7 ms·

All fine and dandy until one realizes that the pentagon's budget is measured in the trillions, and this sort of deal probably doesn't even deal with mission cri

All fine and dandy until one realizes that the pentagon's budget is measured in the trillions, and this sort of deal probably doesn't even deal with mission critical stuff. That said, we do waste a ton of money on consultants, and the pentagon needs to trim its budget. Should also be noted that Pete Hegseth is a fucking moron, and some of these cuts probably hurt our national security readiness.

ibejoeb 2y ago
The '24 budget was $842 billion.
- bgilroy26 2y ago
  The term of the contracts were longer than 1 year
- PaywallBuster 2y ago
  0.61% with just a few contracts
  - supplied_demand 2y ago
    Were these one-year contracts?
    - btucker 2y ago
      I'm sure PaywallBuster has reviewed these and confirmed they were one-year spending before making their statement.
  - josephg 2y ago
    It might be a small percentage of the pentagon’s budget. But it’s still $5.1bn of taxpayer money being reigned in here. It’s $13 per person in the country. You could do an awful lot of good with that kind of money - from space programs to science funding.
    - cma 2y ago
      The article doesn't say the length of the contract or really anything about what it was for.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > from space programs to science funding. ... which have also been randomly cut.
    - dagw 2y ago
      But it’s still $5.1bn of taxpayer money being reigned in here That's assuming that all those consultants were not providing any value and that they don't need to be replaced by hiring more staff.
      - shusson 2y ago
        What if they are providing negative value?
    - jghn 2y ago
      > You could do an awful lot of good with that kind of money Or given to billionaires
      - 3D30497420 2y ago
        Exactly. Most of these "savings" will be fed into significant tax cuts that are almost certainly going to benefit the rich more than anyone else.
    - r00fus 2y ago
      DOGE is involved - do you think anything is going back to useful programs? More likely they'll just buy more SpaceX and Tesla.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      > You could do an awful lot of good with that kind of money - from space programs to science funding. We sure could. Will we?
  - ajross 2y ago
    Those are surely the total contract sizes, not yearly billing.
- cma 2y ago
  Department of Veteran's affairs budget was $328.1 billion and should probably be counted along with DoD since it's commitments made for former DoD recruits.
itsoktocry 2y ago
>we do waste a ton of money on consultants I bet the median skill of a Deloitte consultant is higher than that of the average government office worker.
- Drunkfoowl 2y ago
  [dead]
- dwater 2y ago
  The trend for decades has been shrinking the public workforce and replacing them with contractors, because Republicans have said that the private sector is more efficient. So the average government office worker is not a tech, they are a contract officer. The government does not have these skills internally at the level necessary, if they want this work done they have to contract it out. And if these contracts get cancelled that money will get spent with another contractor, and given how this administration has been acting it will a contractor that bends the knee and not one that the president has publicly voiced animosity for.
  - atonse 2y ago
    Yes but do you really believe Deloitte isn’t showering them with bribes and bending the knee to keep these contracts? It’s not about who bends and who doesn’t. They all will. Even Tim Cook who famously wears his politics on his sleeve has completely bent the knee to Trump. Money talks.
    - dwater 2y ago
      Yes, the president has made it clear through his actions that $1m will make him reconsider who's an enemy and who's a friend and any corporation that hasn't made a donation yet is probably calculating what the ROI would be and how big a donation to make.
      - seanicus 2y ago
        Wait are you telling me that Dana White was put on the board for Meta as a favor and not his incredible social media acumen?
pjc50 2y ago
The peak of this was probably flying pallets of dollar bills into Baghdad and "losing track of them". Honorable mention to running air conditioners in Afghanistan using gasoline that had to be trucked several thousand miles through loosely-held territory at the cost of several service member's lives over the years. It's one of those situations where the roles have been briefly reversed, the left complaining about military spending and the right promoting it. Except the new budget is apparently going to spend MORE on the military, which is almost certainly going to be wasted since there's no clear justification or plan for it. Since Eisenhower and before everyone has known that a lot of military spending was pork-barrel jobs programs for various states, plus a certain amount of overt corruption (see "Fat Leonard"). But the media environment and right-wing prevented any serious questioning of military spending.

ibejoeb 2y ago

The '24 budget was $842 billion.

bgilroy26 2y ago
The term of the contracts were longer than 1 year
PaywallBuster 2y ago
0.61% with just a few contracts
- supplied_demand 2y ago
  Were these one-year contracts?
  - btucker 2y ago
    I'm sure PaywallBuster has reviewed these and confirmed they were one-year spending before making their statement.
- josephg 2y ago
  It might be a small percentage of the pentagon’s budget. But it’s still $5.1bn of taxpayer money being reigned in here. It’s $13 per person in the country. You could do an awful lot of good with that kind of money - from space programs to science funding.
  - cma 2y ago
    The article doesn't say the length of the contract or really anything about what it was for.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > from space programs to science funding. ... which have also been randomly cut.
  - dagw 2y ago
    But it’s still $5.1bn of taxpayer money being reigned in here That's assuming that all those consultants were not providing any value and that they don't need to be replaced by hiring more staff.
    - shusson 2y ago
      What if they are providing negative value?
  - jghn 2y ago
    > You could do an awful lot of good with that kind of money Or given to billionaires
    - 3D30497420 2y ago
      Exactly. Most of these "savings" will be fed into significant tax cuts that are almost certainly going to benefit the rich more than anyone else.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    DOGE is involved - do you think anything is going back to useful programs? More likely they'll just buy more SpaceX and Tesla.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    > You could do an awful lot of good with that kind of money - from space programs to science funding. We sure could. Will we?
- ajross 2y ago
  Those are surely the total contract sizes, not yearly billing.
cma 2y ago
Department of Veteran's affairs budget was $328.1 billion and should probably be counted along with DoD since it's commitments made for former DoD recruits.

itsoktocry 2y ago

>we do waste a ton of money on consultants I bet the median skill of a Deloitte consultant is higher than that of the average government office worker.

Drunkfoowl 2y ago
[dead]
dwater 2y ago
The trend for decades has been shrinking the public workforce and replacing them with contractors, because Republicans have said that the private sector is more efficient. So the average government office worker is not a tech, they are a contract officer. The government does not have these skills internally at the level necessary, if they want this work done they have to contract it out. And if these contracts get cancelled that money will get spent with another contractor, and given how this administration has been acting it will a contractor that bends the knee and not one that the president has publicly voiced animosity for.
- atonse 2y ago
  Yes but do you really believe Deloitte isn’t showering them with bribes and bending the knee to keep these contracts? It’s not about who bends and who doesn’t. They all will. Even Tim Cook who famously wears his politics on his sleeve has completely bent the knee to Trump. Money talks.
  - dwater 2y ago
    Yes, the president has made it clear through his actions that $1m will make him reconsider who's an enemy and who's a friend and any corporation that hasn't made a donation yet is probably calculating what the ROI would be and how big a donation to make.
    - seanicus 2y ago
      Wait are you telling me that Dana White was put on the board for Meta as a favor and not his incredible social media acumen?

pjc50 2y ago

The peak of this was probably flying pallets of dollar bills into Baghdad and "losing track of them". Honorable mention to running air conditioners in Afghanistan using gasoline that had to be trucked several thousand miles through loosely-held territory at the cost of several service member's lives over the years. It's one of those situations where the roles have been briefly reversed, the left complaining about military spending and the right promoting it. Except the new budget is apparently going to spend MORE on the military, which is almost certainly going to be wasted since there's no clear justification or plan for it. Since Eisenhower and before everyone has known that a lot of military spending was pork-barrel jobs programs for various states, plus a certain amount of overt corruption (see "Fat Leonard"). But the media environment and right-wing prevented any serious questioning of military spending.