Defense

Shifting from Defense to Green Jobs is Easy

Armand Biroonak — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:01:51 -0700

As progressives call for cuts to defense spending, a big challenge in doing so is addressing job losses that come with eliminating weapons programs. The number of jobs at stake can often be a powerful argument for defense supporters that cannot be ignored. The recent fight over the F-22 and its production in over 40 states is a clear example. But there is a remedy. By shifting defense jobs to the green energy sector, we can both save jobs and address climate change –and it is easier than we think.

To be sure, a sizeable number of jobs are at stake with a cut to defense programs. Case in point is the F-22. Although the numbers may be disputed, the jet’s production involves anywhere between 35,000 and 90,000 total jobs.

However, the majority of jobs in defense production are not actually defense specific. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, “Of all aerospace workers, 40 percent are employed in production; installation, maintenance, and repair; and transportation and material-moving occupations. Many of these jobs are not specific to aerospace and can be found in other manufacturing industries.” Also, other related production occupations include: rigging, systems assemblers, machinists, tool and die makers, inspectors, and sorters.

Compare defense manufacturing jobs to employment at a typical wind turbine company – they match up closely:

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2009.

Thus, the value of defense workers is not what they produce, but their skills in production.

Evidence of defense companies making the switch to green technology is occurring. For example, defense powerhouse Lockheed Martin has been moving forward with the research and production of solar and wave energy. In fact, by 2013 Lockheed will open the world’s largest solar energy plant in Arizona. And giant BAE Systems announced this year they will begin development of offshore deepwater wind technology.

So how can this transition occur?

Firstly, the federal government has the ability to redirect and prioritize investments. In 2008 alone, the top 100 defense contractors were paid over $315 billion for their products. With a shift in some of that funding to greater subsidies for green energy companies, boosting public investment and purchasing of green technology, we can speed up the transition to renewable energy.

Secondly, cooperation between government and the private sector can ensure that workers are not left out in the shift. From worker retraining programs both in-house and the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, reorientation of skills can be smooth. Moreover, federal programs to assist affected companies in the switch –similar to those after World War II –should be in place as well.

Overall, this is a win-win strategy. No longer investing in failed, unnecessary weaponry, retaining jobs and making critical investments in green energy, the U.S. again can be on the right track. And considering how military experts agree that climate change is the biggest national security threat, this shift can become a key component to a new 21st century defense policy.

Congress Connecting the Dots? Climate Change is a Security Threat

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:36:38 -0700

Recently reported in the New York Times, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) hopes to win Senate support for climate change legislation by linking global warming with national security. Long time hawk and former Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has also caught on to the idea, testifying on the Hill even, proving it a possible strategy to sway more hawkish conservative Republicans and Democrats to support the Waxman-Markey bill in September.

Military experts understand the threats associated with climate change. A number of reports published from the National Intelligence Assessment and the Defense Department have warned of the possible geo-political strife –caused by events like natural disasters and mass migration –that will likely strain and overwhelm our military’s capabilities to respond, assist and maintain stability.

Recent findings by the Center for Naval Analyses –that includes top retired military officials –brings the problem closer to home by demonstrating the connection between energy, security, economics and climate change.

In summary the report warns:

• U.S. dependence on oil weakens international
leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives,
and entangles America with unstable or
hostile regimes.

• Inefficient use and overreliance on oil burdens
the military, undermines combat effectiveness,
and exacts a huge price tag—in dollars
and lives.

• U.S. dependence on fossil fuels undermines
economic stability, which is critical to national
security.

• A fragile domestic electricity grid makes our
domestic military installations, and their critical
infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to
incident, whether deliberate or accidental.

Most important to national security, America must end its dependency on oil. Beyond concerns of the continued burning of fossil fuels that contribute to the greenhouse effect, America’s energy security is a cause for alarm. The U.S. relies upon foreign oil to meet energy needs. Right now nearly 60 percent of our oil is imported, placing the U.S. in an extremely vulnerable position—we are at the mercy of the world markets.

Secondly, oil reserves are dwindling with greater global demand. The U.S. holds just over 2 percent of the world’s total oil reserves. The solution? Renewable energy can place us on the path to energy independence and security.

Source: BP's 2009 Statistical Review of World Energy

The catastrophic effects of global warming place the U.S. at definite risk. Not even the strongest military in the world will be able to handle the pressures induced by what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon states “is the greatest collective challenge we face.” This is why Congress must pass cap-and-trade legislation in September to begin to tackle climate change; but surely many in the Senate will stand in the way. Reframing the argument with a national security bent may be the last chance for opponents to warm in support of cap-and-trade or it's toast.

F-22 Fight Unveils a Broken Policy

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:32:26 -0700

As I’ve written prior, the very expensive F-22 fighter jet program will likely end when Congress passes the defense authorization later this year. Its demise though came only after a hard fight between the Obama administration and Congress. Despite all of the F-22’s faults, many members of Congress still saved the jet in order to preserve jobs – a reason they cannot be completely faulted for. That is why the F-22 saga is a prime example of our broken system; we lack a government strategy to make sound investments and create jobs. Instead, Congress is often forced to fight for programs that nobody wants.

Just to kill the F-22 was difficult. With production in 44 states, 200 members in Congress pleaded with the Obama administration in a letter earlier this year, stating the jet was invaluable to the economy. And when the defense funding bill moved through Congress, Republicans and Democrats, voted against killing the F-22, including more liberal senators like Barbara Boxer (CA), Diane Feinstein (CA) and Chris Dodd (CT). Even Sen. Kerry (MA) questioned ending the F-22 until the administration assured him that Massachusetts’ job losses would be mitigated with production of the alternative F-35 jet.

And although the end of the F-22 is a victory for defense reform advocates, Congress has funded other programs that Secretary Gates called to cut. To preserve thousands of jobs, programs such as the F-35 alternative engine and the VH-71 presidential helicopter will continue at a cost of nearly $1 billion next year alone.

But despite advocates’ claims that weapons generate jobs, defense spending is actually among the least productive investments. According to a study by the Political Economic Research Institute at UMass Amherst, per $1 billion, defense only produces 8,600 jobs, compared to infrastructure’s 12,800, education’s 17,700, or mass transit’s 19,800.

And over the long term, economist Dean Baker found, “military spending drains resources from the productive economy. For this reason, it will typically lead to slower economic growth, less investment, higher trade deficits, and fewer jobs.”
Not to forget, defense products yield little utility, serving military purposes, as opposed to broader benefits that come with a bridge built or solar panel installed.

Though of course there are many, many other programs that present a clear choice between logic and lunacy, which Congress must bankroll solely for jobs. This is why it is important for the Obama administration to get serious about an industrial plan to redirect defense investment to underserved areas such as clean energy and infrastructure. Such a plan not only gets more bang for the buck, but also can serve as a foundation for sustained job creation, particularly to revive our manufacturing sector.

Look for my upcoming posts on how a transition from defense to alternative investments is easier than we might think.

Congress Breaks with Administration, Protects Defense Lobby

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:57:34 -0700

Ignoring earlier recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, the 2010 defense bill throws funding lifelines to failed weapons systems slated to be cut. Resisting the call to reform, the House Armed Services Committee showcased their protection of the defense lobby instead. Already Obama has promised to veto their bill moving through the Senate, making for quite a fight if cuts are not restored.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House and now in the Senate provides $680 billion in 2010 for defense related activities—of which $180 billion is set aside for weapons acquisition. Members of the House Armed Services Committee—responsible for the bill and voting unanimously in support of it—asserted their reasons for opposing key cuts outlined by the Obama administration:

Chairman of House Armed Services, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), painted a rosy picture of the bill’s objectives by affirming:

“This year’s defense bill promotes our main policy objectives: restoring military readiness; eliminating waste and recovering savings through acquisition reform; and maintaining robust oversight of the Department of Defense.”

Yet, provisions in the bill shun expert military opinions. Gates opposes the bill’s continuation of the F-22 program and the Navy’s Top Officer criticized the bill’s plan to alter the development of the already delayed, expensive F-35 jet program.

Ranking Member, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD):

“The Administration is gently slapped in this bill for its failure to provide Congress with the standard analyses required to justify significant changes in several major programs. In addition to ballistic missile defense cuts, these include cuts in the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA), Future Combat Systems (FCS) and the F-22.’”

However, Bartlett only needs to go as far as the numerous GAO reports that point to the ballooning costs and unproven design of programs to understand why the Administration called for cuts or reduced funding. The Future Combat Systems is conservatively estimated to cost $160 billion and faces significant deficiencies in development.

The F-22 Raptor has been called “an expensive weapon in search of a mission.” Designed for a Soviet threat that no longer exists, the jet has constantly been re-modernized for decades. Facing cost overruns of over 200 percent, it is the most expensive fighter jet ever made. The Undersecretary of Pentagon Acquisitions even stated that its mission capable rate is “troubling.”

Ranking Member, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO):

“This bill is a decent one, given the fiscal restraints that President Obama and the Democrat Congress have imposed on the Department of Defense. We should be spending more on the defense of our nation, but this is a reasonable start.”

Spend more on defense?? Akin must have missed the facts; the U.S. spent more in 2008 on defense than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined. And accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending. Or that defense spending consumes over one-third of total government spending.

As shocking as it may be that Congress so flagrantly ignores the facts—it is no surprise. The defense lobby heavily finances some of the most ardent defenders of these weapons programs. Skelton enjoys hefty financial support from nearly every top defense company. One of Lockheed Martin’s top congressional recipients is Rep. Saxby Chambliss—among the most vocal for continuing F-22 production.

LOOKING FORWARD:

Gates’ call for cuts may be a small step to curb immense Pentagon spending, but even this tiny reform may be squashed. A few battles are sure to take place both within and outside Congress this month as the defense bill moves through the Senate. Obama issued a veto threat against the legislation—a first for his presidency—while defense reformers Sens. Levin and McCain affirmed they will “fight on the floor” against the F-22. Of course those in Congress whose priorities fall with big industry rather than reality will be ready to battle as well.

2044: Big Brother Inc.

Eric Lotke — Fri, 22 May 2009 08:13:26 -0700

I just finished a new novel, 2044.

2044 starts where George Orwell’s 1984 left off. The problem isn’t Big Brother and the leviathan government. The problem is Big Brother Inc., and the all-powerful marketplace.

Orwell was right for his time, of course. Europe lay in smoking ruins, and the statist Stalin peered over the wall with his Big Brother mustache. Orwell sounded the alarm.

But history didn’t unfold that way. The government didn’t take over. It got taken over. Nowadays the commercial sector is in control. Everything is produced en masse and for profit, from clothes to music to political campaigns. Amazon.com knows what I read. Microsoft makes me write with Windows™. ToysRUs tells my kids what they want.

Check out the fights over the new federal budget. Look what the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are doing to health care reform, and how the good old Military Industrial Complex grows the defense budget. Watch giant agribusiness conglomerates dress up like family farmers and milk the government for subsidies. 2044 follows the pattern to the endpoint.

The heroes of 2044 are two overworked professionals who spend long days at the office and short nights in tiny apartments. Malcolm Moore is an engineer who designs security devices for the titanic Tentek Corporation. Jessica Frey is a lawyer who defends such corporations in court. Both are single and both are lonely — though Jessica has a six-year-old son, her sperm-banked answer to isolation.

The story begins when Malcolm discovers a cheap, easy way to take the salt out of seawater. Fresh water is scarce enough right now. By the year 2044, people will die and countries will go to war for water. A microorganism that takes the salt out of seawater could benefit literally billions of people.

But it also threatens business interests who are happy the way things are. Malcolm’s effort to persuade Tentek to sell his discovery gets him fired. His effort to strike out on his own gets him branded a terrorist. People who assist him are harassed, jailed and even killed.

It’s an exciting ride. The action scenes are fun and the politics of terrorism are haunting. There are even touches of humor and occasional references to 1984 — like the corporate merger that creates the new Big Brother Inc., with its happy slogan, “Big Brother is looking out for you.”

I like it, anyway. But then I wrote the thing.

It started some years ago with the idea of a private sector sequel to 1984. The idea didn’t go away, and eventually I stopped waiting. I decided to do it myself. My precise inspiration: “You’ve read a lot of crappy books. You can probably write one that’s no worse.” So I did. And it turned out pretty good.

Publishing it was a different story, though. A story about consolidation in the publishing industry (someone could write a novel about that!), the devotion to proven authors, and the aversion to unhappy endings (true to the original, I’m sorry to say).

So I took the self-publishing route around industry bottlenecks. Now you can buy 2044 direct from the publisher or at Amazon.com, of course. You can read Chapter One for free on my web page or, if you ask me nicely, I’ll send you a PDF (though I kept the purchase price almost as low as the printing costs). If you have any other ideas for outreach or distribution, I’m all ears.

Now it’s onward, back to my nonfiction life (and the outline of a new novel, uplifting with a happy ending). Meanwhile, enjoy the book.

Defense Reform Bill Marred by Lobbyists

Armand Biroonak — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:52:57 -0700

The Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) was intended to improve the Pentagon’s acquisition process, fraught with nearly $300 billion in cost overruns on 95 major weapons systems. By establishing an independent overseer, improving organization and strengthening accountability to manage costs, this legislation was the first (refreshing) sign of defense reform. Yet, the latest efforts by the defense lobby have weakened the bill significantly.

Although the bill will not reach the Senate floor until next week, hints of a watered-down version are reported by Congressional Quarterly. According to CQ:

“The committee changed a provision that would establish a director for independent cost analysis, limiting his role to programs managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and excluding those managed by the military services, cutting his portfolio by about half. Also, under the bill, his estimates would not be verified by outside groups.”

With the remainder of oversight in the hands of the Pentagon, the chances of improving the acquisitions process are slim. For years the GAO has made recommendations to DOD, producing little success. Research and development costs have increased 40 percent from initial estimates, with average schedule delays of close to two years.

“The committee expanded the Pentagon’s ability to bypass a new requirement that programs include competitive prototyping. The original version allowed a waiver for “national security” considerations, but the committee added the option of a waiver if the cost of competitive prototyping is too high.”

Besides avoiding complete competition, the Pentagon’s ability to grant exemptions to programs will not control costs. Take the Missile Defense system—it was exempted from standard baselines and traditional oversight to allow for flexibility in development. What occurred were delays and skyrocketing costs at $10 billion annually, with nearly every missile system failing in testing. Furthermore, the language of what constitutes an exemption is so vague, there is a risk that it is applied to numerous programs.

And there is more:

“A third provision altered by the committee would change the bill’s ban on one company providing “systems engineering and technical assistance” for a weapons program while also being involved in the development or production of that weapon, a potential conflict of interest.”

This is a root cause of the failed acquisition process, contractors too often have a hand in every part of a program’s production, knowing that 1) in the absence of strict oversight, there is more incentive to continue program development than meeting cost and delivery targets; 2) lax testing and performance measures allow for even failed products to move forward from development to production.

The Acquisitions Reform Act will not solve every problem, but does lay the groundwork for institutional change in the future—but not in the bill’s current form. The defense lobby has been ready for this fight against reform, and if they get their way, the current system of astronomical waste and inefficiency will surely continue. The bill should be on the floor of the Senate by next week at the earliest, whether amendments are added to strengthen the bill remain to be seen.

CQ article by Josh Rogin, "Amendments May Delay Acquisitions Overhaul," 22 Apr. 2009.

Read my blog about the failures of Pentagon reform here.

Media and Conservatives Exaggerate Gates' Plan

Armand Biroonak — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:21:14 -0700

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released on Monday a proposal to reform the Pentagon budget by modestly cutting a few weapons programs, but stopped well short of slashing the bloated Pentagon budget. Though when surveying the reaction among mainstream media and conservatives, one would think radical change was coming—a sort of Pentagon doomsday.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, far from drastic budget cuts, Gates’ recommendations chart the Pentagon on a slightly different course. DOD spending for FY 2010 will be increased and later years maintained at current levels. Obama and Gates warned of Pentagon reforms and greater oversight (a good step in the right direction), but little savings will be yielded from the current proposal.

Contrary to reality, here is a look at some deceptive media headlines:

“Gates Takes Knife to Pentagon Budget” reads Time Magazine
“Gates Unveils Sweeping Defence Cuts” states the Financial Times
“Gates Seeks Sharp Turn in Spending” prints the Washington Post

Conservatives exaggerated too; they wasted no time to lambaste Obama as weak on defense—even though defense spending is at an all time high since World War II.

From Heritage's Blog:

“Should the defense budget Obama submitted to Congress be implemented along with the many ill-advised cuts outlined by Gates, America’s ability to project power throughout the global commons and maintain its military primacy across the spectrum will be doubted by friend and foe alike...This path will ensure America becomes a declining military power.”

Townhall writes:

“The military he [Obama] is meeting with needs the weapons of the next generation to remain capable of winning on the battlefields where it fights. Americans are right to worry that a hollowing-out of the military has begun.”

With Gates’ recommendations laid out, the real battle begins in Congress. The defense lobby is already ready to fight, launching campaigns to save unnecessary weapons programs that cost tens of billions, such as this one.

Some members on Capitol Hill criticized Gates’ plan, Republican Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma outrageously claims, “President Obama is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged the military at a time of war.”

A group of Senators led by Joe Lieberman (Conn.) wrote to the President stating their disapproval of cuts to missile defense. The other signatories include: Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and James Inhofe (Okla.).

Significantly, the misinformation and hypocrisy on this issue must mobilize progressives to continue voicing support for substantial cuts to the defense budget to fund key domestic programs that actually strengthen our nation such as reforming health care and improving the quality of education.

Pentagon Fails Reform at Every Angle

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:45:43 -0700

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced Monday a proposal to reform the defense budget by cutting or scaling back some major weapons programs and strengthening oversight of the acquisitions process. The recommendations made by the Secretary should be applauded, but it is only a small step to curb defense spending. Looking forward the budget for FY 2010 and beyond maintain current levels of funding, without pressuring the Pentagon to make substantial cuts. Instead, it appears the Administration is relying on the Pentagon to trim spending and end waste on its own. If the past is any indicator, this approach won’t work.

Obama’s FY 2010 budget provides a 4 percent increase in defense funding from 2009. To its credit, it does include the cost of war in the defense budget—no longer hidden as off-budget supplementals—but that only accounts for part of the increase.

The increase is hard to defend. Compared to 2000, the FY 2010 defense budget has increased a whopping 78%. While defense spending will continue to represent nearly half of all discretionary spending through 2013.

Secretary Gates has stated the defense funding “spigot” is closing. Adding that the Pentagon will have to reform, make tough spending choices, and expand accountability.

That is a good warning, but without the pressure from funding cuts, the Pentagon’s record of self-imposed reform is dismal. Take DOD’s latest efforts to improve its major weapons acquisitions process. The GAO again this March found their efforts insufficient due to the absence of proper oversight. The system is plagued with nearly $300 billion in cost overruns, numerous scheduling delays and inadequate testing.

The GAO cites in the report common problems of Pentagon management:

“DOD’s processes are fragmented. Once a program begins, it too often moves forward with inadequate technology, design, testing, and manufacturing knowledge, making it impossible to successfully execute the program within established cost, schedule, and performance targets. Furthermore, DOD officials are rarely held accountable for poor decisions or poor program outcomes.”

The problems outlined above are echoed in similar Pentagon cases:

• The Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005 was to save $2.3 billion with the consolidation of duplicate operations, but a recent GAO report questions whether any savings can be yielded at all. Already 88 percent of the Pentagon’s estimated savings with the move are no longer achievable due to mismanagement of funding, lack of interagency coordination and oversight among the Pentagon’s branches.

• The expensive Missile Defense system shows little improvements made in management and cost controls for the $10 billion a year program. A key contributor to ballooning costs is the Pentagon decision to exempt Missile Defense from standard cost and test baselines. The Pentagon reasoned the “exclusion from traditional oversight was to allow for ‘flexibility’ for development.” Not surprisingly, the complete opposite is true—skyrocketing costs, with nearly every missile system failing in testing.

How to Reform?

Secretary Gates’ recent announcement eliminates some major programs, such as the F-22 Raptor jet, but stops well short of cutting the numerous weapons systems costing tens of billions.

Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) are also taking a small step in the right direction. The Reforming Weapons Acquisitions Reform Act is an effort to inject accountability and avoid cost overruns on projects, but much more must be done.

True reform is making cuts in funding to force the Pentagon to make wiser spending choices and curb waste. Less funding will ensure Cold War weaponry and helicopters that kill more Marines in testing than combat are no longer produced. A leaner, efficient Pentagon with healthy contract competition and strict oversight will not only ensure American security, but also free up funds to strengthen domestic programs that face cuts.

See my past blog on defense waste here.

Foreign Policy in Focus of the Institute for Policy Studies lay out specific defense cuts here.

Warfare and Healthcare

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:42:28 -0700

"A country that devotes a vast array of resources to killing capabilities will steadily undermine its potential for healing. For social justice. For health care as a human right." Solomon both highlights the absurd priority of defense spending, and the failure of all presidential candidates to stand for a complete overhaul of the status quo.

Uncle Sam Wants You, But Pays Off Mom and Dad

Bill Scher — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:05:42 -0800