First Shot Fired In Defense Budget Battle

No one in politics ever looks bad vowing to "take on the lobbyists," and in his latest YouTube missive, President Barack Obama got downright bellicose, vowing: "I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I." The problems come when promise meets practice and you realize -- all those interconnected entanglements between corporate America and powerful influence peddlers? YEAH. THEY EXIST. And on the defense side of the budget, things can get downright Kafka-esque, because you have to account for a bunch of different layers of obstacles, such as the need for secrecy, and misdirections -- such as the relative ease by which Defense budget proponents can wield the "soft on security" fear-monger card. It's not for nothing that significant tax dollars go into propping up boondogglicious spending programs like the F-22.

But in precisely the sort of report that deserves to not fall through the cracks, the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman has drilled down deep into the wonky language of a budget memorandum sent out by the White House today, and has found its sweet, nougaty center:

Obama today issued a memorandum to the heads of all the executive departments agencies directing them to restrict no-bid contracts; to rein in outsourcing of "inherently governmental activities"; and to, if necessary, cancel wasteful contracts outright. The crucial paragraph, even if it's written in bureaucratese, particularly calls out the Defense Department:

I hereby direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of General Services, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of such other agencies as the Director of OMB determines to be appropriate, and with the participation of appropriate management councils and program management officials, to develop and issue by July 1, 2009, Government-wide guidance to assist agencies in reviewing, and creating processes for ongoing review of, existing contracts in order to identify contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, or not otherwise likely to meet the agency's needs, and to formulate appropriate corrective action in a timely manner. Such corrective action may include modifying or canceling such contracts in a manner and to the extent consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policy.

Does this mean the fight is on? Ackerman says, "If I was a lobbyist for Lockheed or Boeing, I'd be dialing my contacts in the Pentagon and the Hill to figure out what the prospective damage to my company was. And then I'd come up with a strategy to fight this forthcoming Office of Management and Budget review."

As the kids these days say: This shit's about to get real.

RELATED:
If You're a Defense Lobbyist, It Might Be Time to Panic [Washington Independent]

Comments

[freedomitchy]

The president is prepared to support lavish wasteful spending for social welfare programs and bailing out his wealthy investor buddies while he cuts needed defense spending. What defense industry workers don't need jobs. Our soldiers shouldn't have needed equipment?

[westreal]

Dude, how many billion dollars did the Pentagon want to spend on the President's helicopter? Talk about wasteful. Yeah, those social welfare programs are needed in this economy YOUR president (Bush) created. And it was George Bush who presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in the history of our country, the $700b November 08 bailout that Bush doled out to his wall street friends without government oversight and to which the recipients will not reveal what individuals received the cash. I bet six months from now we'll learn some of those billions found their way back into the pockets of George Bush and Dick Cheyney.

As for the defense. Your president, George Bush allowed our military to go without armored vehicles in Iraq since the beginning of the war. When it came to defending our soldiers this is one place where Bush was thrifty with the budget. He could have saved thousands of lives. But no, he couldn't find the money for them but he could find billions for no-bid contracts for Halliburton.

Dude, you are delusional.

[DMEEPhD]

I couldn't have stated it any better. Freedomitchy needs to break out the powder!

[American04]

The cultural of corruption, fraud, and waste in the DoD has become so bad, that good people are afraid to report it because of retaliation. He’ll need a complete shake down of all his upper level staff and they will need to shake down their staff, cycle, until it reaches the bottom. At all levels of leadership they need to be in fear of their job and their next promotion. They know if kick to the street they will be jobless like everyone else.

[JoeTheBlogger]

thanks ...

[wasim ali]

thank you for interesting article.

[Wilsonv]

Anyone else getting a bit nervous that we could be poking a stick in too many hornets nest at the same time?

Obama is doing all the right things, and I support 100% his comments so far.

But i'm a bit nervous that there is so much money against him now. Man if i was him, i would be scared and double up on my secret service crew.

[JoeTheBlogger]

yep, me too

[ktal]

The one good thing about the recession is that a large number of rich folks and companies have lost 40-50% of their wealth. Less disposable income for them to throw at the "Obama problem."

[raechel]

There is a window of opportunity here, and Obama wants to take full advantage of it. The window closes in 6 months, a year, whatever, and we'll have to wait decades for another opportunity. We have to take on the military-industrial complex now while it's reeling from the economic meltdown, or we'll never win. (When asked the same question by Leno, Rachel Maddow said "you can't tackle these things separately, because they are all interconne­cted.")

Why not evolve slowly? Because incrementalism is innovation's worst enemy. Try to change gradually and you won't. I know it's scary, and it has to be like rolling in a boiling pot of water at the White House, but I say go for it, Mr. President. You will have the "people's army" behind you.

[Islandtime]

We could start a drinking game with Jason's typos.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

Can we categorically stipulate now that there is no valid reason to continue contracts with Halliburton?

[HonorJusticeTruth]

Could we have an investigation into how each and every contractor in Iraq got their contract and whether it was the best choice or had some other nefarious reason for having been given to the company that got it? There actually might be a small handful of good guys over there, but I'd like to see the proof.

Meanwhile, would anyone like to find out how much Dick Cheney's wealth grew while he was in office? He'll probably get a delayed BONUS check from Haliburton sometime this year.

[mortrefuge]

The 1st thing Obama should do is intitute a new rule that retiring generals cannot get defense related jobs until 10 years after they retire. If they can't live on their pensions they should be forced to get regular jobs just like everyone else.

[JoeTheBlogger]

good idea, that should extend to all military officers, not only the generals.

[kw7777777]

Finally we have a President who will stand up to these lobbyists(the bad ones...not the Melody Barnes/voting rights advocate type) and its up to us to have his back so that the lobbyissts­/republica­n talking points don't drown out our voices.

[JoeTheBlogger]

yep, agree. we need to fight the "socialist­/marxist," "tax and spend" labels. these people are masters at the smearing game. remember the campaign when the republicans tried to throw everything at prez obama? this is gona be the same game.

[magen]

Doesn't something like 95% of every tax dollar go to the Pentagon?

Right now in this country there's other things that need attention.

How 'bout some balance, military guys??

America needs to manufacture and export other things besides war, guns, planes , bombs, tanks, etc.

[CaptainObvious]

"Doesn't something like 95% of every tax dollar go to the Pentagon?"

In fact, I think it's 100% (or more) of every personal income tax dollar collected.

This country didn't start collecting personal income tax until the beginning of the Spanish-American war - which by the way is the first time in our history we kept a standing army during peacetime.

[RedneckDem]

The biggest problem for defense contractors is that they are making record profits off of tax payer money. There is no control on profit limits and over-runs, or dowright fraud for that matter. Plus, just like in the health care industry, once a company goes public, their loyalty lies with their stockholders first. When you are ripping off the taxpayer to pay a fat dividend to a stockholder when national security is on the line, you are about as un-patriotic as one can get. And anytime someone calls them for what they are, they are the ones who are called unpatriotic and soft on the military. We cannot allow these people and their supporters to wrap themselves in the flag or threaten massive job losses to get us to give in. Just the simple act of enforcing the laws on the books and hiring a few more gov't negotiators, combined with the elimination of no-bid contracts will cut the budget 20%. Oh, and to receive a new contract one must guarantee no mass layoffs without proving serious hardship. Also, no foreign investment in defense contractors and only a limited amount of stock available to the public.

[horsey]

you could cut 40 percent of defense and still spend as much as the rest of the world combined.

[JoeTheBlogger]

yep

[layman]

May the righteous and scrupulous prevail !

[JadedAggie]

Everyone on CNBC was throwing a fit over the F-22 being cut yesterday. The only person that was a voice of reason was Donny Deutsche and he started to bend after being beaten down by everyone else for an hour.

[sweepstop]

The thing is, cutting the F-22 is financially idiotic. They've already designed the thing. The planes they want to cut are the cheap ones to build. They are going to have to come up with a new design at some point, and that costs a LOT of money. And the less F-22s we buy, the sooner that new plane will be needed. Canceling the F-22 is a much bigger example of Ford developing the Fusion, and then immediately deciding not to sell any. The difference is, the government has to pay the cost of development for aircraft. We the taxpayers should get as many F-22s as we can, as they are now the cheapest option for a new plane we have.

[marinade]

The F-22's cost $351 million each. It seems like the defense industry took a page from the auto industry. Why design a fighter jet that only costs a measly $50 million? There's a much better profit margin on $350 million.

The F-22's are a boondoggle. The defense industry should be able to design a decent aircraft for a billion dollars, which is the cost of a mere three F-22's.

[marinade]

Instead of making F-22's, the defense contractors could make automobiles!

Except that would be like nationaliz­ation.....­.

Essentially, the defense industry is a big blob of government supported communism. We saw the consequences of it in the Iraq War with the inferior equipment that cost the government a huge price.

[KillTheMessenger]

Oh, come on, Reagan had one thing right: one could use the intimate ties between the military-industrial complex of the USSR and its leadership to bankrupt the country. Where Reagen was wrong was to not see that the same thing is true for the US.

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

Amen to that.

[CaptainStormfield]

http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/america_defense_meltdown_exec_summ2.pdf
America's Defense Meltdown. Essential reading.

http://www.cdi.org/ Winslow Wheelers web site.

[JoeTheBlogger]

seems like a good read, thakns