Building on a Budget
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning that made me laugh - not a full out "ha" kind of laugh, but more like a wry smile and a "hmm" kind of laugh. What was the headline? "Pentagon Toils to Build a Bomber on a Budget" (You can watch a video based on the article here.)
Anyway, the article talked about the kind of budget cuts the Pentagon is being forced to make these days since their allowance was cut back. Forced to watch their budget, and wary of "a publicity nightmare in the making", a kitchenette with a fold out bed, nice refrigerator and microwave that was proposed for a new long-range strike bomber was nixed (cost: $300,000 - about 3x what my entire home is worth, but only 0.00055% of the budget for the entire bomber project). Col. Stevenson is one of a small group of men assigned with the task of guarding against "improvidence and any untested technologies that could lead the grand project... down the path...of cost-overruns and blown deadlines."
For the first time in years (or decades), cost has become a factor, and they are working hard to try to stick with their plan, not adding unnecessary extras, using existing technology rather than loading the new bomber up with the latest (untested) technology, doing what they can to keep this project within its budget and time schedule. This bomber (which is still in early planning stages) won't be everything that everyone wants it to be, but they are designing it in such a way that will allow for future upgrades. Maybe the budget restrictions will be eased later on and they will be able to expand their project, and it may still end up over budget and past deadline, or it could be shelved entirely at some point, wasting all the money put into it so far, but according to the article, an effort is being made now.
You're probably wondering why this article caught my attention. To begin with, how many households in the U.S. have had a time recently that their spending money has been cut back due to increased taxes, increased costs for health insurance, loss of employment, or whatever? How many of us know exactly what it is like to have to tone down our expectations and hopes to a level that we can afford? In a small way, it is nice to see people in one government agency dealing with similar concerns that the average American has to deal with, and looking at it in a realistic way: money doesn't grow on trees. Spend it wisely; prioritize; eliminate the unnecessary. Of course, the military is dealing with a $55,000,000,000 (that's $55 billion) budget for this project. I'm feeling kind of guilty for having spent all of $75 on two pairs of jeans last week. In my defense, I did need them.
What would it be like if government in general saw money in the same way? What if the government realized that money doesn't come easy? What if the answer to money shortages wasn't raising taxes or raising the debt ceiling, but rather spending what they already have more wisely? What if congress and the president figured out real priorities that the American people need to survive (think defense, highways, communication, things that naturally cross state boundaries and bind the nation together as a whole) and eliminated or at least cut back on all the "fluff" (health insurance, among other things) that states, companies, or individuals could take care of themselves (a lot more efficiently than the national government bureaucracy ever could)?
Anyway, the article talked about the kind of budget cuts the Pentagon is being forced to make these days since their allowance was cut back. Forced to watch their budget, and wary of "a publicity nightmare in the making", a kitchenette with a fold out bed, nice refrigerator and microwave that was proposed for a new long-range strike bomber was nixed (cost: $300,000 - about 3x what my entire home is worth, but only 0.00055% of the budget for the entire bomber project). Col. Stevenson is one of a small group of men assigned with the task of guarding against "improvidence and any untested technologies that could lead the grand project... down the path...of cost-overruns and blown deadlines."
For the first time in years (or decades), cost has become a factor, and they are working hard to try to stick with their plan, not adding unnecessary extras, using existing technology rather than loading the new bomber up with the latest (untested) technology, doing what they can to keep this project within its budget and time schedule. This bomber (which is still in early planning stages) won't be everything that everyone wants it to be, but they are designing it in such a way that will allow for future upgrades. Maybe the budget restrictions will be eased later on and they will be able to expand their project, and it may still end up over budget and past deadline, or it could be shelved entirely at some point, wasting all the money put into it so far, but according to the article, an effort is being made now.
You're probably wondering why this article caught my attention. To begin with, how many households in the U.S. have had a time recently that their spending money has been cut back due to increased taxes, increased costs for health insurance, loss of employment, or whatever? How many of us know exactly what it is like to have to tone down our expectations and hopes to a level that we can afford? In a small way, it is nice to see people in one government agency dealing with similar concerns that the average American has to deal with, and looking at it in a realistic way: money doesn't grow on trees. Spend it wisely; prioritize; eliminate the unnecessary. Of course, the military is dealing with a $55,000,000,000 (that's $55 billion) budget for this project. I'm feeling kind of guilty for having spent all of $75 on two pairs of jeans last week. In my defense, I did need them.
What would it be like if government in general saw money in the same way? What if the government realized that money doesn't come easy? What if the answer to money shortages wasn't raising taxes or raising the debt ceiling, but rather spending what they already have more wisely? What if congress and the president figured out real priorities that the American people need to survive (think defense, highways, communication, things that naturally cross state boundaries and bind the nation together as a whole) and eliminated or at least cut back on all the "fluff" (health insurance, among other things) that states, companies, or individuals could take care of themselves (a lot more efficiently than the national government bureaucracy ever could)?
Comments
Post a Comment