2. Who would decide on defense spending?

To decide whether the political parties or the people would make the best decisions on defense spending, we can look at the last 20 years. The war on terror was used to justify the large defense budget. William D. Hartung wrote the following on military expenditures and the associated corruption throughout the war in Afghanistan. [16]

Since the start of the war in Afghanistan, Pentagon spending has totaled over $14 trillion [as measured in 2021 dollars], one-third to one-half of which went to defense contractors. Some of these corporations earned profits that are widely considered legitimate. Other profits were the consequence of questionable or corrupt business practices that amount to waste, fraud, abuse, price-gouging or profiteering.

According to Hartung, $4.4 trillion of the $14 trillion was spent on weapons procurement and for military R&D. Only 5 contractors received between 25% and 33% of all such Pentagon contracts. [17]

Hartung provides 20 pages of specific examples of fraud, corruption, waste, abuse, and contracts awarded by revolving-door government officials during the war in Afghanistan. Here are a few of the many examples. [18]

A U.S.-appointed economic task force that spent $43 million on a gas station that was never used, another $150 million on lavish living quarters for U.S. economic advisors, and $3 million for patrol boats for the Afghan police that were also never used. Perhaps most disturbingly, a Congressional investigation found that a significant portion of $2 billion worth of transportation contracts to U.S. and Afghan firms ended up as kickbacks to warlords, police officials, or payments to the Taliban, sometimes as much as $1,500 per truck, or up to half a million dollars for each large convoy of 300 trucks. In 2009 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that "one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money" paid from U.S. transportation contracts.

Military equipment needed for defense

China is now the primary foe that justifies the proposed Pentagon budget of $813 billion for fiscal year 2023 (as of March 28, 2022). Part of the new budget is to modernize the military to compete with China and Russia. [19] That sounds like a noble goal. Unfortunately, much of the money spent in the past has not achieved the goal and has been wasted. Here are a few examples.

To compete with China, the Navy had commissioned 23 new Littoral Combat Ships out of 35 that had been contracted from Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics as of Feb. 2022. [20] However, the Navy now plans to decommission 9 of the Littoral Combat Ships (that's 40%) along with 5 cruisers and 10 other ships. CNN explains the problems with the Littoral class ships. [21]

The embattled littoral combat ships have faced perennial problems, including repeated breakdowns and questions about their limited armament.

The ships were hailed as part of the US deterrent against China, since they were designed to operate in shallow waters like the South China Sea. But the decommissioning of so many in one year appears to be an acknowledgment that the expensive surface combatants have failed to live up to expectations.

Other problems with new technology and cost overruns have occurred as well, such as the additional billions of dollars per new aircraft carrier. The F-35 fighter aircraft is another clear illustration of issues with defense contractors, new technology, and cost overruns. Former Defense Secretary James Mattis said the F-35 is "critical" for US air superiority. On its website, the manufacturer Lockheed Martin states, "The F-35 serves as the backbone of allied airpower for thirteen nations and counting." [22] The new $813 billion Pentagon budget includes $57 billion to purchase 65 F-35 aircraft and additional F-15-EX aircraft. Last year, the Pentagon purchased 85 F-35s. [23]

However, Dan Grazier reports many F-35 failures in an exposé on the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). He summarizes the F-35 program in this way. [24]

More than twenty years into the F-35’s development, the aircraft remains in every practical and legal sense nothing more than a very expensive prototype. The simple fact that the contractors and the program office haven’t been able to deliver an aircraft whose effectiveness has been proven through a full operational testing program suggests the original Joint Strike Fighter concept was flawed and beyond any practical technological reality.

Some illuminating examples in Grazier's article of the issues facing the Pentagon are the following.

1. The Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) is now creating two reports, one public and one non-public, to hide the serious issues of the F-35. The non-public report demonstrated that the F-35 program had "significant regression in 2021" and "will remain in its current stagnant state for the foreseeable future."

2. About $62.5 billion has been spent on research and development alone for the aircraft over 20 years, which is more than double the original estimate in both time and dollars and the program is not complete.

3. Due to continually missing deadlines, the remaining work is being renamed as "modernization," to secure additional funding. However, in reality it is an "F-35 initial development do-over."

4. F-35 fleet availability has been 61%, well below the standard. There are many replacement parts supply issues. The most serious is that the manufacturer cannot supply replacement engines fast enough to meet demand and the US must compete with other countries for engines and replacement parts even though we paid for the R&D!

5. According to the DOT&E, the F-35 program has 845 unresolved problems. Six are classified as Category I, meaning a design flaw so serious that it "may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or result in a production line stoppage."

6. The F-35 has not passed full operational testing and it cannot enter full production without passing according to federal law.

Along with these reports, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) who is required to report on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements reported, "Three major impediments continue to prevent an audit opinion. … 1. Serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense." [25]

The cost to "modernize" the military

CNN quotes a defense official regarding the new Pentagon budget, who stated, "It's about modernizing the force to compete with our near-peer adversaries." The new budget contains $276 billion for procuring new arms and for research and development of new systems, including new bombers, drones, and systems for cyberspace and space. Part of this amount includes $41 billion for the construction of 8 battle force ships and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines and $13 billion for upgraded Army and Marine Corps combat equipment, in addition to the $57 billion to purchase F-35 and F-15EX fighter jets mentioned previously. [26]

The cost of protecting and controlling the world

Part of the budget of the Pentagon is to maintain 450 to 500 military bases in the US and 750 military bases abroad in 80 countries. For comparison, the UK has 145 bases abroad, Russia has around 36, and China has five. [27]

According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the total US cost for defense for fiscal year 2020 was more than the combined military expenditures by China, India, Russia, UK, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia. [28] China spends about one third as much as the US. However, that's not a straight apples-to-apples comparison as market exchange rates can skew the numbers for other countries downward. In addition, for the salary of one colonel in the US Army, the People's Liberation Army in China could hire between 2 and 4 colonels because they pay their soldiers less. [29] Regardless, in 2022 China had about 2,185,000 active military or 1.6 per 1000 people and the United States had about 1,388,100 or 4.2 per 1000 people, close to 3 times as many per capita. [30]

Congressional decisions are subject to intense lobbying

A mutually beneficial relationship exists between top military officials, weapons manufacturers, Congress, and friendly foreign governments. If everyone benefits, no one wants to rock the boat. When gross failures become known, everyone strives to give the appearance that problems will be addressed, but nothing changes.

Weapons manufacturers and foreign governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying Congress for the production and sales of arms. According to an Open Secrets report, "Over the last 20 years, defense companies and their affiliates have spent more than $2.6 billion on lobbying politicians and $300 million making contributions to support and influence their campaigns." Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates spent over $300 million on lobbying and US influence between 2015 and April 2022. [31]

Defense management and budget decisions

What is the correct level of military spending? What military hardware and software should be purchased? Who should approve and supervise the spending of our massive military budget? I imagine that continual development of complex software-controlled technology will be necessary making updating our processes a national security issue, not just a spending issue.

Our Collaborative Democracy with Federal Councils would be implemented in the US Department of Defense (DOD) just as it would in the other executive departments. At a minimum, Federal Councils would replace the Secretary of Defense and the executives over the departments within the Department of Defense as shown in Figure 16-1. No Federal Councils would be implemented in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, or the National Guard who report to these departments. They would remain as they are now. 

Figure 16-1

Administration would be performed by the respective Federal Councils. Policy, programs, military hardware and software, and their related costs would be proposed as issues on Citizen Governance Websites by the Federal Councils or any other citizens and solved by the citizens rather than Congress or politically appointed department executives. Military project solutions such as the development of new military hardware would have their own budgets. Issue solutions for ongoing expenses would permanently increase or decrease the existing annual military budget just as with issue solutions for other government departments and agencies.

Classified programs and budgets

Unlike the President and current members of Congress, members of Federal Councils in the Department of Defense, the Presidential Council, the Legislative Council, and those over national intelligence agencies would be required to hold the appropriate level of security clearance through the normal vetting process after being selected from their candidate pools.

Federal Councils would decide what information was appropriate for the public and what was classified regarding their Citizen Governance Websites. In keeping with our goal of transparency, classified issues, programs, and potential solutions would be described generically, allowing citizens to participate using conceptual information and approve costs without the need to know classified information.

In special cases, where the Council of Defense deemed it necessary due to the classified nature of a project, combined legislative sessions would be held with the Council of Defense, the Presidential Council, and the Legislative Council to approve classified programs and their budgets up to a combined maximum amount. At least this would provide the combined intelligence of 27 independent civilians without political party or special interest influence to discuss the options, decide on solutions, and approve the associated costs. However, where information is public such as the military hardware development described previously in this chapter, the information and the solutions would remain in the domain of the citizens as rulers.

Appointing military officers

The law and tradition has dictated that the President appoint all military officers over a certain rank. [32] About 110,000 officers must be appointed to their positions in the military per year. The President has delegated practically all of this to the Secretary of Defense. Under Federal Councils, military officer appointments would be an administrative matter for the Council of Defense.