Agriculture and National Security

 January 15th, 2017

Several weeks ago while driving through some woods I noticed a sign that identified the land as part of the National Forest Service. I’ve seen those signs hundreds of times before, but for the first time it struck me: the National Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture.

Previously, my understanding was that the Department of the Interior managed all federal lands. In fact, the Department of Agriculture manages 25% of federal lands. There isn’t anything nefarious about that, but it raises a simple question: why?

Meanwhile…

Several of the prospective secretaries of the next administration were on Capital Hill last week taking questions from Congress. It’s a good process and the republic benefits from the give and take.

One of the issues that’s come up in the hearings, and the commentary that surrounds the hearings, is the proposition that the next administration wishes to expand our Navy. This invariably leads to discussions as to whether the nation can afford additional spending on defense, and where to ‘find more money.’ I’ve read a number of statements asserting it’s impossible, that there’s simply no more money to be had. After all, the nation still faces a $20,000,000,000,000 debt (that’s trillion, with a T), having added more than $1 trillion to the debt just last year. At current projections (if no changes are made to the budget) the debt will grow another $3 trillion in the next 4 years.

True, DOD is already trying to cut various staffs, civilian offices, and those military forces that neither deploy nor directly support those that do deploy. All well and good. No one can deny that the military is top-heavy, and that there are legitimate savings to be found in some serious ‘trimming at the top.’ But that’s not enough.

How then can the US afford to buy more ships and planes?

During the 1980s President Reagan commissioned an independent study – the Grace Commission – to look at waste in government. What they found was that approximately 30% of federal spending was wasted, a result of bloated organizations, confusing and redundant programs, and a vast array of processes and regulations that did little, but cost a great deal. During the 1990s Speaker Gingrich forced through certain budgetary changes that reflected recommendations from the Grace Commission. Some money was saved, some sectors of the government grew marginally more efficient, and perhaps now the waste is on the order of 20% vice 30%. But the waste is still huge.

As an example, recent reporting suggests DOD wasted tens of billions in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade; some estimates running into hundreds of billions.

Yet, while it is commonplace to excoriate DOD for waste around every corner, and to expound on the need for DOD to become ‘lean,’ what about the rest of government? In fact, every indication is that the rest of the government is as bad, if not worse, than DOD. In 2015 the Heritage Foundation reported that government auditors identified $123 billion in annual spending that “failed to show any positive impact.”

But before we even begin with the waste inside various programs, consider the various federal departments themselves, such as the Department of Agriculture – and its $105 billion budget. Why do we have it?

Why not, for example, take the Food and Nutrition Services (food stamps – formally SNAP), which accounts for perhaps 75% of the Department of Agriculture budget, and move it to Health and Human Services? Move the Rural Housing Service (about 10% of the Agriculture budget) to Housing and Urban Development, then merge Interior and Agriculture into one department. Then merge the departments of Commerce and Labor, with combined budgets of approximately $20 billion.

Four departments where there had been six. Certainly there must be some manpower savings from simple efficiencies. Combined, the 6 departments employ more than 320,000 people. Might it be possible to shave 6% or 7% in manning in the combined departments? Perhaps more? That alone would free some $2 billion annually.

The point is this: we have a huge federal bureaucracy. Across the board it suffers from both inefficiencies and waste. If Congress is willing, we have an opportunity to address those problems. And use some of that money to improve our national security.