Since watching these budget hearings until I want to tear my hair out, I can't stop thinking about the sheer absurdity of our defense spending. What strikes me most is how Democrats tiptoe around the issue – terrified to challenge the narrative that questioning military expenditures is somehow unpatriotic. We've been so thoroughly brainwashed to think that criticizing anything about the military is anti-American that no one has the vagina to call out obvious waste when they see it.
The numbers tell a story that should embarrass anyone with basic math skills. In 2024, the US spent $997 billion on defense – that's nearly 40% of global military spending and more than the next nine countries combined. Yet Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker insists we need even more, pushing for defense spending to reach 5% of GDP. His justification? We need to counter what he calls the "axis of aggressors" – China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
But here's where Wicker's own words expose the fundamental problem. He complains that "for over six decades, the Department of Defense has operated a byzantine budgeting system with virtually no modifications or improvements" and describes Pentagon systems as "antiquated." Think about that for a moment – we spend more than the next nine countries combined and still operate with antiquated systems?
If the US doesn't have the most technologically advanced military in the world after spending nearly a trillion dollars annually, then we have an efficiency problem – not a money problem.
The Pentagon has never passed an audit. Let that sink in. An organization that burns through almost a trillion dollars a year can't account for where the money goes. The Government Accountability Office estimated the federal government lost between $233 billion and $521 billion annually in fraud, waste, and abuse between 2018-2022. And yet politicians keep insisting the solution is more money.
There is a huge misconception on the right about people criticizing DOGE efficiency efforts. Let me be clear: wanting the country to run efficiently isn't controversial. Wanting to end fraud and waste shouldn't be partisan. The problem isn't the goal – it's who's doing the work and how they're doing it.
People aren't anti-DOGE because they love government waste. They're skeptical because the whole operation is being run for someone's personal benefit rather than genuine reform. When you have someone with clear conflicts of interest making unilateral decisions about government contracts and data systems, that's not efficiency – that's corruption. Period.
What really pisses me off is we've convinced ourselves that throwing money at the Pentagon equals supporting the troops. But supporting our military means ensuring they have the best equipment and training – not padding defense contractor profits while service members work with outdated gear.
Look – I used to give the military budget a pass because as long as other countries were leaning on us – it gave the US leverage. But, Trump has decided everyone needs to take care of themselves and not depend on us – which should mean a cut in spending – but what it really means is that we’ll end up having to spend even more, to stay ahead of countries that were once considered our allies.
It’s just mind blowing how all of his (or his handlers’) ideas lack any foresight.
First, we need a forensic audit. And we need complete transparency. I understand that there are some parts of the budget that they probably can’t release to the public – but they can tell us how much of the budget that is.
Then – before we build a “Golden Dome” – we need to modernize how the defense budget is overseen and tracked. Then, they can use the money they save from fraud, waste and abuse for modernizing equipment.
Here's a perfect example of why throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it: highway expansion.
For decades, politicians promised that widening roads would fix traffic congestion. The logic seemed bulletproof – more lanes equals less traffic, right?
Multiple studies show that highway expansion actually makes traffic worse through something called "induced demand." When you build more lanes, driving becomes temporarily easier, so more people drive. They move farther from work, take trips they wouldn't have before, or switch from public transit. Within a few years, those new lanes are just as clogged as the old ones.
Houston's Katy Freeway is the poster child for this failure. After expanding it to 26 lanes – making it one of the widest highways in the world – travel times increased by 30% during peak hours. The University of California found a 1:1 relationship between road expansion and increased vehicle miles traveled. Translation: if you build it, they will come.
The US spent $500 billion over 30 years on highway expansion, yet traffic got worse in nearly every major metro area. Smart Growth America called it "The Congestion Con" – we're not solving congestion, we're subsidizing it.
This is the same flawed thinking behind endless defense budget increases. We keep pouring money into a system that produces "antiquated" results, assuming more funding will magically fix institutional dysfunction. But like highway expansion, defense spending often creates its own demand – more contractors, more complexity, more waste.
Both cases reveal a fundamental truth: when the underlying system is broken, more money just amplifies the problem. Real solutions require changing how we approach the issue, not just throwing bigger budgets at it.
Personally, I don’t think having a specialized DOGE office in each department of government is a bad idea. I just think that they should be run by people who have some expertise in what they are overseeing.