A while back I wrote suggesting that a major, but unappreciated, management “tool” was taking no action. I apparently should have added what I figured readers would presume: that no action would result in a better position, from management”s view, than if a specific action was attempted.
How this is interpreted depends on one”s viewpoint. A point illustrated by Mac McKay in his letter.
To illustrate I chose the result of the total inaction of the super committee. To the vast majority who feel that much defense spending would serve the country better if it were applied to positive things as infrastructure improvement, the actions of the six “Nordquist” committee members who literally forced committee failure (i.e. no action) proved my point.
Probably in no other way could even an insufficient 10 year reduction in defense spending be accomplished at this time. To those whose management goal is not to reduce defense, the result of the inaction was not desirable, even if their own people made it possible.
In his reply, McKay, feels that such a defense reduction would be “catastrophic” even though the U.S. already spends more than double the defense spending of all other countries in the world and almost nine times the amount China spends.
As far as I can see, the U.S. simply does not need more than five times the number of ships of all the world”s navies combined; more troops in Germany and Japan than the Japanese and Germans themselves, and so on.
The defense department has already noted that it should re-evaluate our nuclear weaponry and establish what will be needed for their estimate of the future.
Prominent officials have noted that there will never again be the open field battles last seen in the Gulf War, nor will there be major naval engagements as in WWII and we need to modify our staffing, equipping and operations planning to fit the small scale, local eruptions that are forecast.
I think Teddy Roosevelt had it right. Let”s tell the world (in a soft voice) not to screw up badly or we will use our long-range weaponry (our big stick) to make restitution. The insurance premium for paranoia is fearsome.
Mr. McKay suggests that we should cut 10 percent of spending across the board, including freezing wages and benefits. While I do not agree with the philosophy of a general 10 percent cut, there are surely many areas where it could and should be considered.
What I also don”t agree with is that revenue increases are not mentioned (big mistake) nor is the known fact that too many arbitrary cuts result in increases in welfare outgoes.
Whether the government is too big is a good question and should be questioned, as do the fairly obvious disparities between public and private wages and benefits.
Mr. McKay notes that the country has a lot of work to do. He is correct. How could anyone argue with that?
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
