Romney advisers tout management as bill payer

Romney advisers tout management as bill payer

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s business expertise would allow defense budgets to grow, reverse troop cuts, build up the Navy, and modernize the Air Force without ballooning deficits, a father-son team of defense advisers to the former Massachusetts governor said Thursday.

A President Romney can do all that, and President Obama can’t, because of the superior management skills of the GOP presidential nominee, said Dov and Roger Zakheim.

“It all begins at the top,” said Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller under former President George W. Bush. “What the CEO does reflects down the chain,” he said.


Under President Obama, “you have a CEO who doesn’t know what a bottom line looks like because he’s never been in business,” Dov Zakheim said. “Governor Romney, with his background and experience in the private sector, will absolutely be focused on making the (Defense) Department more efficient.”

Dov Zakheim and his son Roger Zakheim, who is on leave as a Republican aide to the House Armed Services Committee, said the lack of management skills in the current administration played out in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Dov Zakheim said guards could have been pulled out of safer U.S. embassies in Ottawa, London and Paris to bolster security in Libya.

“It was not that they weren’t warned,” Dov Zakheim said. “What you don’t have is management focus or thought” on how to allocate security personnel, he said.

At a breakfast meeting with defense reporters, both Zakheims repeatedly returned to business and management expertise when asked for specifics on how Romney would pay for the proposed defense buildup.

They both scoffed at charges by Democrats and several independent analysts that Romney’s pledge to keep defense spending at four percent of the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years would add at least $2 trillion to the deficit.

Romney can achieve his goals by growing the economy to boost GDP and through entitlement reform, the Zakheims said, but they declined to give overall costs.

“The correct number will depend on GDP. If Romney’s going to turn the economy around, then the GDP’s going to grow” and the 4 percent bite from defense will be relatively smaller, Dov Zakheim said.

The problem with Democrats is that “they don’t want to address entitlements,” and not just on small-ticket items such as public television, Dov Zakhem said.

“It’s not a matter of Big Bird, it’s not a matter of school lunches – you’ve gotta get your arms around health care,” Zakheim said.

Both Zakheims sketched a Navy-centric defense plan that would boost the fleet size, scrap Obama’s goal of cutting 80,000 troops from the Army and 20,000 from the Marine Corps, and speed the process of acquiring a new long-range bomber for the Air Force.

Roger Zakheim said Obama’s vision for a strategic shift of emphasis away from the Mideast and to the Pacific wouldn’t work under the current shipbuilding plan that would add nine ships annually. Romney has proposed boosting yearly production to 15 ships.

“The so-called pivot (to the Pacific) is hollow,” Roger Zakheim said. “That’s absolutely the most eye-opening problem” in the entire Obama defense strategy.

“We don’t have ‘em,” he said, meaning the number of ships to meet obligations in both the Mideast and the Pacific.

Both Zakheims said that major cuts to the civil service workforce in the Defense Department were a certainty under a Romney administration.

Dov Zakheim did not offer figures on the number of jobs to be cut, but said Romney “absolutely will focus on making the department more efficient.”

Currently, “there are almost as many people in suits as there are in uniform,” Dov Zakheim said.  “There’s a need to reduce the size of the civil service.”

Join the Conversation

Quote of the day: “If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.”

Dov Zakheim got handed a truly awful mess when he came in as Pentagon comptroller. There were more than two trillion dollars — that’s trillion with a “T” — unaccounted for in the Pentagon’s books at the time he arrived.

Snarled accounts and missing ledgers and phantom money going back all the way through the previous Administration, that of Bill Clinton, who for eight years did basically nothing to get the military’s troubled accounting sorted out.

I personally would have resigned if someone had hit me with that kind of impossible job with no warning. Zakheim was made of hard stuff. He gritted his teeth and dug in.

By the time Zakheim left, he had worked that backlog of bad accounting down to a few tens of billions. Which is a lot of money, still, but considering where he started from, it’s a tremendous accomplishment.

No more returning to the Bush disaster. In a little more than three weeks, we’ll send the Career Campaigner in Chief back to the private sector. Take Lyin’ Ryan with you.

No more dismantling of America, take Smilin’ Biden and crawl back into your hole!

I’m not sure which would be scarier — if the Zakheim’s actually believe this stuff, or if they don’t.

See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.

Companies believe that the government has a bottomless pocket and therefore over charge for their products.Case in point, when I work on the old F8 Crusaders a common that I could have gotten at the hardware store for a buck,it cost the government $150. Whoever is in charge of buying supplies needs to pay more attention to the cost.

My previous comment covers both parties that had control.

I had to laugh at the following quote:
“They (Zakheims) scoffed at charges by Democrats and several independent analysts that Romney’s pledge to keep defense spending at four percent of the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years would add at least $2 trillion to the deficit”.

$2 Trillion over 10 years = $16.67 Billion per month.
(Ignore the fact that no budget item has ever lasted that long.)

Compare this to Bernanke’s “indefinite” $40 Billion per month mortgage purchase.

Why aren’t the “Democrats and several independent analysts” screaming about Bernanke’s wild spending ?

With the National Debt just under $16 Trillion, Bernanke’s plan will add another $1 Trillion every 2.5 months.
That’s $4.8 Trillion per year … a 30% increase in the National Debt per year.

And since this money is created from thin air, every dollar currently in circulation is devalued significantly.
(Expect all living costs to rise dramatically.)

Romney’s plan at least has money flowing through the economy because of people working, instead of simply creating money from thin air and causing high inflation.
And, if the government follows the normal path, they will “fudge” the figures to hide the true inflation rate trying to keep the population from revolting.

Wake up, people.
Bernanke and the Fed are out of control and leading the US to disaster.

Bernanke claims he is trying to re-inflate the housing bubble but there is no bubble in history that has ever been re-inflated.

It sounds too good? It sounds like the right thing. Don’t be fooled by media and it’s agenda. You get your news from people who are heavily opinionated and it bleeds through their journalism.

“the superior management skills of the GOP presidential nominee“
So the numerous Pentagon higher ups and contract support staff are so incompetent that Romney is going to mind meld them into uber management professionals. Instant MBA powerhouses. Wow.

Romney won’t fix anything. If he gets in office the national debt will swell. Of course his corporate sponsors will win big contracts.

You talkin’ about Hope and Change?

It’s called “traceability”. An assload of necessary paperwork is what goes into making a lot of that stuff so expensive. You would think someone who “worked on the old F8 Crusaders” would know that.

Oh My God… I can’t imagine the national debt swelling.
Swelling faster than it has under Obama that is.

“you have a CEO who doesn’t know what a bottom line looks like because he’s never been in business,”
Um… G.W. Bush — failed in business, Clinton — never in business, G. H. W. Bush — never in business, Gipper — never in business, Carter — moderately successful in business, Ford — never in business, etc.

As was arguably proven by Sec Def McNamara, our government really can’t be run as a business.

These twits were in government long enough to know the idiocy of their premise

Forgot about Mac, the CEO of Ford.

Additionally, Mitt’s line of work is more of the finance/investment kind of business, if it makes any difference to anybody. In Mitt’s case, he was tasked by his boss at Bain & Company to recruit capital (from non-Bain clients to avoid conflict of interest) and build the analytical machine to identify good companies and bad ones, then build a separate machine that tries to remediate the bad ones, either by implementing changes in business practice or laying people off. And to top it off you need to manage the company.

So what part of being a “businessperson” is so important to government that we’re supposed to be falling over our feet for it? Is it managing people? Is it making profit? Is it cutting costs? Is it the big picture vision that you’re supposed to have for your company?

What was it that Lockmarts Ben Rich said about his MBA?

2/3 of HBS == BS?

So why didn’t that apply to Obamacare?

impressive and just what we need!

Quite right, you stick something from the local hardware shop on a Boeing airliner and you could end up going to jail. Maybe an old plane used as a Museum piece can be fixed up like a 68 Mustang , but dont try it at work

This is a reason NOT to vote for this twit Romney he spen spend spend like the Bush years and bankrupt the nation again.For crap the Army and USMC dont need. the blank check strategy Bush and this moron want has lead to more cancellations and failed projects than ever. This blogger is so in bed with republicans this is nothing more than a GOP spin blog. Fact is out side of the Navy and USAF no upgrades of major weapons are not needed for another decade.

starterup — Get off this Page and Go Home and drink some more Bama Kool Aid.

Changed “d” to “t” so you can “Move On”

You mean like the situation described below?

“”””””””””“For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

That’s 19 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.””””””””””””””””

Like that?

Like the Obama spending frenzy that added 6 TRILLION to the deficit within four years and nothing to show for it? That’s what you’re saying?

You must suffer from multiple personality disorder since you think there are many like you.

I could care less what you think.

Spending on medical and domestic spending is one thing on military pork which the Army thrives on is another.

“They both scoffed at charges by Democrats and several independent analysts that Romney’s pledge to keep defense spending at four percent of the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years would add at least $2 trillion to the deficit.”

That’s because the $2 trillion figure is not an estimate of any independent analyst — it is a fabrication of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security (which is staffed by former Obama Admin bureaucrats). IIRC, it was CNAS’s Travis Korson who first made up the $2 trillion blatant lie, which the media now uncritically repeat. But it’s still a blatant lie.

As stated above, Gov. Romney proposes to raise the base defense budget to 4% of GDP.* As stated above, America’s GDP is currently $15.29 trillion, so 4% of it would amount to $611.6 bn, or just $86.6 above what Obama plans for FY2022.

How the base defense budget would grow thereafter would be determined by how fast the US economy would grow, since Gov. Romney pledges to peg the defense budget to the economy’s size. If the economy doesn’t grow, neither will the defense budget; if it grows slowly, so will the defense budget.

Even if it grows at a fast pace like 4% per year, the defense budget would, as a simple mathematical consequence, also grow only by 4% per year under Romney’s plan.

Let’s assume, for example, that next year, the economy grows by 4%, from $15.29 trillion to $15.9016 trillion. Assuming even such luck with economic growth (i.e. a rapid recovery), the base defense budget, as a 4% fraction of GDP, would still amount only to $636.064 bn in FY2014. But that’s totally dependent on the economy growing rapidly. Even then, under such optimistic economic growth assumptions, the FY2014 base defense budget would still be only $103 bn per year higher than Obama’s plan for FY2014 (which is 533.6 bn, see Figure 1–3 on page 1–3 of this DOD document).

And remember, they claimed Romney wants to increase base defense spending by $200 bn on average! Which only shows how badly wrong they are.

But let’s assume optimistically that within the next five years, by 2017, the economy grows to $17 trillion (a highly unlikely scenario). Even if that happens, that would still leave defense spending, as a 4% of GDP item, at $680 bn in FY2017 or FY2018. By comparison, Obama plans to spend $567.3 bn in FY2017 on defense. (See this DOD document, page 1–3, Figure 1–3.) The difference is $113 bn, far short of the $200 bn difference the Obama camp and its liberal allies claim.

All of these figures – even those based on very optimistic assumptions about future US economic growth – are also far short of the $830 bn annual average that Romney would have to spend if he were to spend $8.3 trillion on defense on the next decade as his detractors falsely accuse him of wanting.

This means that either they can’t do simple math or they are deliberately lying to distort Mitt Romney’s plans (or both). In any case, such blatant lying out to be a disqualifier for anyone who engages in it.

I explain this issue in more detail here: http://​zbigniewmazurak​.wordpress​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​9​/​27/

Defense is the #1 Constitutional duty of the federal government. Healthcare is an issue reserved exclusively to the states and the people.

Even more to the point, why are people uncritically repeating the “Romney would add $2 trillion to the defense budget over the next decade” lie?

This charge against Romney is utterly false, as proven here: http://​zbigniewmazurak​.wordpress​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​9​/​27/

Exactly! The $2 trillion figure (actually, it was somewhat more than that) refers to the DOD’s assets that could not be accounted for.

This was the mess Dov Zakheim was greeted with when he entered office.

By now, the vast majority of the DOD’s assets can be accounted for.

This is not defense its to protect pork projects and to get euro crap to replace American equipment which doesn’t need replacing. the tanker program in the USAF is key look into Romney s stupidity. Air bus is crap no way should they make a french Tanker for the USAF.

Yeah, sure, because corporate models have done so well for the Navy’s bare-bones crewing models and just-in-time logistics in the military. They just need better management! Golly, why didn’t anybody else think about it before now?

You could always pay servicemen and women less, jack-up their healthcare and turn their military pensions into 401K plans to increase performance (not to mention morale). That will incentivize them to work harder!

Romney would get into office, throw up his hands and pronounce things are worse than we thought, so we can’t deliver on our middle-class tax cuts or military build-up. We can reduce taxes on the richest, however, but don’t worry about increasing the deficit, because we’ll close the loop-holes so they are still paying the same amount.

That will work just like offshoring jobs to China did wonders for our manufacturing sector and buttressing our tax base.

JR from our world not ‚not the thing yall have in DC. Your old bama what is he ?and where did he come from ??their is still no prof .this country will never see life again as we know it. He is EVIL.And the ones who vote for him oldboma. will wake up in a real dark place . that is ok for open your eyes and smile the coffee.Mitt Romney. will prove to the best thing for this country.He can prove where he is from.God bless this great country.

Do you have crap for brains.

I’ve never heard so many crybaby’s on one blog. Leadership and management skills are needed now more than ever and we certainly don’t have that with the current administration. The cynical attitudes expressed in this entire string of comments makes me think that Americans have lost their resolve to tackle the tough problems with a smile and energy. You all can give up if you want, but I won’t.

“You could always pay servicemen and women less, jack-up their healthcare and turn their military pensions into 401K plans to increase performance (not to mention morale). That will incentivize them to work harder! ”

Works for the free market. Our Q3 earnings surpassed last year’s and beat analyst expectations…

Romney, however largely failed in MA as governor because he was under the impression that his answer was the only answer, and found out much to his chagrin that you can’t just “fire” elected officials that don’t agree with you.

He didn’t run for reelection in MA because his numbers were in the tank, and he left Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey with nothing to run on, thereby earning him the dubious distinction of being the first republican governor to lost the corner office of the state house to a democrat in a generation.

And, part of how he balanced the budget in MA was by shutting down the states mental institutions, and tossing the residents out onto the streets (it doesn’t say much for your society if you dump on those who can’t fend for themselves). So he treats those who are defenseless just like he did Seamus the Dog. He’s not much of a man — and my family has known him and his for years.

Also if Romney can get the economy to grow 4% then $15.29 trillion will add $610 billion to GDP and if the government collect its 18% average tax as a percentage of GDP taxes will go up (without actually raises taxes just due to growth) by $110 billion. Defense spending can grow by $100 billion a year with $10 billion left over to reduce the deficit.

More Romney’s more Chinese under Mitt’s administration. Buy cheap to sale a huge profits on their pocket. Romney’s just likely Bush and Carter that did not do much about business expertise.

Obama did not know much about business expertise but he is willing to take advantage for good.

File this article with Romney’s” invisible Tax plan”, Who pays???

If Romney gets in maybe is wife won’t feel the need to use taxpayer money to fund her multiples vacations a year. And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s son and his golf trips?? This may seem small compared to the deficit and so on but fraud and abuse comes in many forms.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.