# A simple way to reduce the federal budget deficit. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323 "2010-04-07T20:24:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/81 "2010-04-08T21:27:40Z")
[“Really, there is only one area of federal spending — national defense — that is sizable and that even a modest fraction (22%) is willing to cut.”](http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/04/why_its_so_hard_to_cut_the_fed.html) ---
**Author:** ![OrvilleWright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e57/32.png) [@OrvilleWright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OrvilleWright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/82 "2010-04-08T21:47:29Z")
Those who do not recall history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana Unfortunately so too are those who recall history. - Orville’s Corollary How many reading this have any clue of how ill-prepared America was for World War I? Raise your hands. Now how many reading this have any clue of how ill-prepared America was for World War II? Again FDR. Nothing at all. Quite to the contrary. Our Founding Fathers and in particular James Madison wrote again and again that if you cannot find specific authorization in the Constitution, it is illegal. And “provide for the general welfare” is emphatically NOT specific authorization. Liberty should be our guiding principle, not socialist dependence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/83 "2010-04-08T22:00:08Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > A better solution would be to rotate the troops back home and station them on the border to shoot people trying to cross illegally. It will cut down on both the problem of illegal immigrants sucking down the USA’s social services and drug smuggling. And while we’re at it, post them on the streets and shoot all users of drugs. Hell, start with Lindsay Lohan. Lots of them are welfare recipients anyhow, think of how much we’ll save. We can close most of the jails also. Once we’ve done that, we can shoot anyone receiving more money from the government than they pay. There will be no one left but you and me, and I’m not sure about you. \ ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/84 "2010-04-08T22:17:36Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > FY10 DOD budget was [533 billion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces#Budget), not the fantasy land $900b **Rick** suggests. As I explained, $900 billion in a midline estimate of 2010 expenditures including special spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit, you just cited Wikipedia. From Wikipedia: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense’s budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than Obama had requested. [3][4] Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expected an additional supplemental spending bill, possibly in the range of $40–50 billion, by the Spring of 2010 in order to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [5]Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010. [/QUOTE] If anything, I picked a number in the low range. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/85 "2010-04-08T22:18:55Z")
> [@OrvilleWright](#): > > Liberty should be our guiding principle, not socialist dependence. If we completely dropped our military after WW II then I believe there’s a good chance we’d be speaking Russian right now. How do you protect against USSR nukes without some sort of standing military? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/86 "2010-04-08T22:18:58Z")
[QUOTE=OrvilleWright] How many reading this have any clue of how ill-prepared America was for World War I? Raise your hands. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Now how many reading this have any clue of how ill-prepared America was for World War II? Again FDR. Nothing at all. Quite to the contrary. _Raises hand_ I’m also aware of how ill prepared the US was for just about every other war we’ve ever been involved in. It’s one of my pet peeves… -XT ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/87 "2010-04-08T22:25:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The F-15 and F-16 have lasted a long time. _Most military aircraft do not._ The F-14 was in service for only 30 years, and in front-line service for only 20. 1. 30 years isn’t a long time? 2. According to a multitude of sources I can find, the F-14 was the U.S. Navy’s primary interceptor for 32 years. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/88 "2010-04-08T22:28:09Z")
> [@OrvilleWright](#): > > Our Founding Fathers and in particular James Madison wrote again and again that if you cannot find specific authorization in the Constitution, it is illegal. And “provide for the general welfare” is emphatically NOT specific authorization. > > Liberty should be our guiding principle, not socialist dependence. Not that this has anything do with the thread topic, but if the Federal Government can’t do anything without specific authorization in the Constitution, then the phrase “provide for the general welfare” is meaningless, as it about three quarters of the rest of the Constitution. Very little of it is “specific authorization” for _anything_. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/89 "2010-04-08T22:38:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > _Raises hand_ I’m also aware of how ill prepared the US was for just about every other war we’ve ever been involved in. It’s one of my pet peeves… Let’s add the war against terror. The reason the U.S. military was so overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it had just finished a major reduction in forces on the theory that now that the USSR was gone there were no real threats to worry about. Five years after the ‘peace dividend’, the U.S. military was again overextended. Not only that, but the state of the U.S. military before WWII was one of the causes of that war. Hitler’s calculation that America would never enter the war was a significant factor in his decision to start his hostilities, and part of his decision-making revolved around the sorry state of the U.S. military. When Germany was flying the Bf109 and other advanced aircraft, America’s best fighters were biplanes. When the war started, American soldiers had to train with wooden rifles because there weren’t enough real ones to go around. Americans were fighting with Bolt-Action WWI era rifles in some cases, while the Germans had modern machine guns and submachine guns. But the U.S could ramp up for war quickly in WWI and WWII because wartime industry wasn’t much different than civilian industry. The airplanes could be welded and riveted together by people with a few week’s training. Auto factories could easily be converted into tank and aircraft factories. And the airplanes themselves were simple enough that they could be designed and built amazingly fast. Take the P-38 lightning. The army announced the competition for a new fighter in February of 1937, and Lockheed won with its finished design by June. Four months to design the aircraft. The prototype was started in July of 1938, and was flying in January 1939, six months later. And during the war, the U.S. managed to make TEN THOUSAND of them. Compare that to the decades-long design and manufacturing process for modern fighters. The same is true for ships, tanks, and other military hardware. It’s all gotten much more complex, takes much longer to design and build, and costs a lot more money. Training is the same. In WWII, training a soldier involved some marksmanship, conditioning, and training in small unit combat tactics. A few months, and the soldier was ready. Today, it takes much longer, because a soldier has to learn to use all the complex systems involved. Today’s military also requires smarter, more educated people. The days of raising a million shock troops in a couple of months are long gone. Because of these things, America cannot simply downsize its military and expect to be able to rapidly build up again if a new threat arises. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/90 "2010-04-08T22:39:32Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 1. 30 years isn’t a long time? > 2. According to a multitude of sources I can find, the F-14 was the U.S. Navy’s primary interceptor for 32 years. Not as military aircraft go. The B-52 has been in service since the fifties, and is projected to remain in service until 2040. The Panavia Tornado entered service in 1980 and will probably still be in front line service in 2020, although two thirds will be replaced with Typhoons. The F-14 entered service in 1974, and the F/A-18 entered service in 1983, and assumed about half of the F-14’s primary role. The F-14 did remain in service as an interceptor and occasional fighter-bomber, but only because of the F/A-18’s limited range (and the F-14’s superior speed). For much of the 90s the Navy only maintained a half dozen F-14 squadrons. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/91 "2010-04-08T22:44:42Z")
Quoth **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > You don’t plan a modern military based on the threats you see today - you plan it based on threats you might face in the future. We have no idea what the world will look like in 40 years. You just contradicted yourself. If we have no idea what the world will look like in 40 years, then we can’t plan based on what might happen in 40 years. If, in the 1930s, the US had tried to prepare in advance for a worldwide naval war, we would have built a whole bunch of battleships. Which would have promptly gotten sunk by carriers, and left us in the same place as if we hadn’t prepared so much, but with a bunch of extra money and lives lost. We can’t prepare for a threat until we know what the threat is, which means that, in practice, we’re forced to delay our ramp-up until the threat reveals itself. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/92 "2010-04-08T23:01:27Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > The F-15 and F-16 have lasted a long time. Most military aircraft do not. Not true. Where did you get that idea? I didn’t even mention the longest-lived aircraft: - The B-52 is still in service. It was designed in the late 1940’s, and first flew in 1952! - The C-130 Hercules is still in production. It first flew in 1954. - The C-135 Stratolifter first flew in 1956, and it’s still in service. - The C-5 Galaxy first flew in 1968, and is still in service. - The first prototype of the A-10 Warthog flew in 1972. It’s currently planned to be in service until 2028. Lifespan: 56 years. - The AC-130 gunship first flew in 1966, and was used extensively in Vietnam. Not only is it in current service, but there are no plans to retire it. It’s getting upgraded in this decade. - The AV8B Harrier 2 is still in service. It was introduced in 1978, but the basic airframe dates to 1967. The _average age_ of the airframes in the U.S. military inventory is 22 years. That’s not the age of the models - it’s the age of the physical examples currently flying. The average design age of U.S. military aircraft is significantly older. And if you look at other country’s forces, you’ll find even older aircraft. Hell, the C-47 is still in service, and it was designed in the 1920’s. Canada just retired the last T-33 about five years ago, and it first flew in 1948. So the point remains - when you’re designing a modern military aircraft and planning its production run, you’d better be thinking at least 40 years ahead. And the way things are going, it’s possible that some of these things will last 100 years. The C-130 and B-52 may hit the century mark before they are finally retired. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/93 "2010-04-08T23:08:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Sam Stone** :You just contradicted yourself. If we have no idea what the world will look like in 40 years, then we can’t plan based on what might happen in 40 years. If, in the 1930s, the US had tried to prepare in advance for a worldwide naval war, we would have built a whole bunch of battleships. Which would have promptly gotten sunk by carriers, and left us in the same place as if we hadn’t prepared so much, but with a bunch of extra money and lives lost. We can’t prepare for a threat until we know what the threat is, which means that, in practice, we’re forced to delay our ramp-up until the threat reveals itself. Let me be more specific - you plan for all the various threats you think may arise. You wargame things like, “What if Europe turns against us?” “What if China invades Taiwan?” “What if Turkey moves into an axis with Iran and Pakistan and becomes hostile?” “What if there’s a nuclear exchange betwen Iran and Israel?” “What if Russia invades Georgia and threatens Czechoslovakia?” “What if China decides to create an empire like Japan did?” “What if Russia starts a war in the north over the Northwest Passage?” You think up all the scenarios you can, you apply probabilities to them. You wargame them. You hire people to work out other factors - technological change, demographics, economic collapse, you name it. From all of that you come up with your strategy for your multi-role military going forward. Another thing you can do is develop generalized strategies, such as the two-front strategy. For the longest time, the U.S. policy was to maintain the ability to fight wars on two major fronts at the same time. There’s a good reason for that - if you don’t have that ability, then every time you fight one war you leave your flank open. This is how world wars start. You get bogged down with one enemy, and your other enemies see an opportunity to engage in the aggression you’ve been deterring. That concept applies regardless of technology or where the threats come from. Is it perfect? Nope. Hence the old adage, “The generals always plan to fight the last war.” But the fact that planning is hard is not an excuse to give up on it and put your head in the sand and hope no threats materialize. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/94 "2010-04-09T00:08:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not as military aircraft go. In your previous post you said **most military aircraft don’t last a long time** , and used the F-14’s 30-plus-year lifespan as an example. Now you’re saying that the 30-year run of the F-14 isn’t long as military aircraft go. Well, if that’s true, then aren’t you saying most military aircraft last a long time, e.g. longer than the F-14’s 30+ years? Which is it? Do military aircraft last a long time or not? If your position is that the F-14’s lifespan of over three decades is NOT long by military aircraft standards, then surely military aircraft do last a long time? I mean, 30 years is a long frickin’ time. > [@](#): > > The F-14 entered service in 1974, and the F/A-18 entered service in 1983, and assumed about half of the F-14’s primary role. The F-14 did remain in service as an interceptor and occasional fighter-bomber, but only because of the F/A-18’s limited range (and the F-14’s superior speed). The F-14 was introduced as an interceptor, so if it was still an interceptor in 1983 then it was still doing 100% of what it had been doing all along. Fighter-bomber variants of the F-14 were not introduced until the 1990s, and the plane was still in front line service 30 years after its introduction. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/95 "2010-04-09T00:16:29Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Of the military spending, how much of it is actively paying the personnel? I’d be for giving up a few foreign base camps or cutting them way down if they are that strategically important. > I’m all for getting the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan as well. If we can do the two latter things how much do we stand to save? Go read my post #39 for your answer. You’re asking about the budget for MILPERS. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/96 "2010-04-09T00:25:54Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Absolutely. I think generational change (a 20-year timeframe) is what we should aim for. That’s probably the only conceivable way this sort of thing could be done without sending the U.S. economy into an even more ludicrously messed-up state. Heck, there are major corporations who’ve already spent the money they anticipated getting from military contracts over the next twenty years. ---
**Author:** ![OrvilleWright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e57/32.png) [@OrvilleWright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OrvilleWright)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/97 "2010-04-09T00:31:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > _Raises hand_ I’m also aware of how ill prepared the US was for just about every other war we’ve ever been involved in. It’s one of my pet peeves… > > -XT No, I said raise your hand if you HAVE NO CLUE. I’m asking for the honestly clueless. You seem to be the honestly clueful. Si vis pacem parabellum. If you wish for peace, prepare for war. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/98 "2010-04-09T00:36:44Z")
[QUOTE=OrvilleWright] No, I said raise your hand if you HAVE NO CLUE. [/QUOTE] Did you? Well, that’s not how I read it. I will gladly raise my hand as having an inability to read and comprehend others posts, from time to time, however… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/99 "2010-04-09T00:38:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The reason for _continuing_ to order them is that we’ve already paid the (staggering) development costs, not to stay ahead of the Chinese. Anyway. we’re not continuing; Obama axed any additional airframe purchases last year, after the initial delivery of 183. > > Their capability is pretty much just conjecture, at this point - we only know they’re in service because the Chinese told us, and no Western observer has actually seen an operational J-10 in flight, as far as I can tell. > > Still, considering that the current iteration of the F-15 is at least equal to and probably superior to the Su-27 (though perhaps not the Su-30), and the Russians obviously have vastly superior fighter development experience and existing technology to draw on (vs. the Chinese), it’s a pretty safe bet that the F-15 could still easily outfly the J-10. > > The Russians will probably have the Sukhoi T-50 in service within 10 years, which on paper looks like it will be comparable to the F-22. Chances are, though, that it won’t; Western observers have _always_ overestimated the capability of new Soviet/Russian fighters, at least since the MiG-15. > > The F-35 is designed to be twice as good as any fighter it might encounter. The F-22 is designed to be virtually infinitely better than any fighter it might encounter (lone F-22s can shoot down 6 to 10 F-15s in simulations) and while it’s a phenomenal technical achievement (and lovely, to boot) we don’t need it and won’t need it until 2040. It’s actually 187 airframes, not 183. And based on the lousy recovery those things have (they are incredibly maintenance intensive), that probably means 130-140 available for missions at any given time. As I said before, the only mission that really requires them is if China starts some shit with Taiwan. At that point, their vastly superior numbers means we absolutely must have air superiority. For those who want to see what those things look like, you can see them [here](http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-07/president-convinces-congress-scrap-additional-f-22-order) (or not… they are stealth planes after all 😃 ) This article recounts how Congress tried to order 7 more planes, at a pricetag of $1.75b, in order to bring home some pork. To Obama’s credit, his veto threat forced Congress to pull them out of the bill. Looks like they’re planning on building 2400 JSFs, in addition to these 22’s. (or maybe not, since they are [$38 billion over budget](http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3418567) out of the total spend of $950 billion. And it’d be tough to cancel that program, since Britain, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands all chipped in to help design it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323/100 "2010-04-09T00:50:52Z")
The F-22 is essentially done, though; 99% of the development money has already been spent. Now, the Navy, Air Force or Marines might not (actually, almost certainly won’t) buy 2400, but pulling out at this point wouldn’t be that big a deal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-simple-way-to-reduce-the-federal-budget-deficit/535323.md?page=6)