Funding DOD in Inflation & About Replacing Weapons & Ammo Sent to Ukraine ...
...something has to go...
It has been a long time since defense planners and those who write the checks have had to deal with an inflationary environment.
You can increase defense spending, but if it is not more than inflation, it is actually a cut. We have to consider that … and we have to have a plan to replace at a minimum those weapons and ammunition sent from our stocks to Ukraine. If not, we fill not just get weaker in relative terms to the People’s Republic of China - but in real terms.
If we must cut, where do you cut? What are your priorities?
Someone has to answer those questions … and to be frank - I don’t think DC is quite ready to deal with this reality.
A good example of the disconnect - or in this case acknowledge of it without a clear plan - between what is happening and what we are writing checks for is the below pointed out to me below. Came my way by Kurt Weinschenker, long-time local journalist and friend of the blog, and Midrats. It is via a handout from Sen. Capito (R-WV)'s.
You can keep up with him on Twitter @KurtBW_News.
As a side note: we need more local media asking these kind of hard questions when they get a chance. It helps in a whole myriad of ways.
The lady gets it. Good. The problem is that the Senate and the White House are controlled (for now) by a party which will choose to devote available funds to welfare, not defense. As our host said a few days back--if we don't change who is in charge nothing will change--except for the worse.
Realistically, probably cut back on operations. Sorry, but we need to catch up on maintenance and training.
Repeal Goldwater-Nichols, and we might be able to convert a decent hunk of Active Army to Guard/Reserve for a small reduction in personnel costs, but that's a long shot.