State Fiscal Rankings


Lol, the United States has the most sophisticated and battle experienced and preparedness of any in the world! And the ships crashing, human error. You do realize that the US is the worlds sole superpower right?? The next closest competitor is China, then Russia, both regional powers hmm.


We have thousands of ground assault vehicles in mothballs that have been used and abused for the last 2 decades… will they even have a roll in any future conflict?


What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) recognizes that more than a decade of conflict, budget uncertainty, and force structure reductions have degraded military readiness, and the department has efforts under way to manage the impact of deployments on readiness. The military services have reported persistently low readiness levels, which they have attributed to emerging and continued demands on their forces, reduced force structure, and increased frequency and length of deployments. For example, the Air Force experienced a 58 percent decrease in the number of fighter and bomber squadrons from 1991 to 2015 while maintaining a persistent level of demand from the combatant commands for the use of its forces. In addition, the Navy has experienced an 18 percent decrease in its fleet of ships since 1998 and an increase in demand, resulting in the deployment lengths for many ships increasing from 7 months to a less sustainable 9 months. DOD officials have indicated that overall demand has been decreasing since 2013, but the department has reported that the ability to rebuild capability and capacity is hindered by continued demand for some forces. To mitigate the impact of continued deployments on readiness, the Joint Staff has focused on balancing the distribution of forces for high-priority missions with the need to rebuild the readiness of the force. Efforts include revising major plans to better reflect what the current and planned force is expected to achieve and improving the management of DOD’s process for sourcing global demands by, among other things, balancing the supply of forces with the minimum required to meet global demands. However, it is too soon to tell what impact implementation of these initiatives will have on DOD’s readiness recovery efforts because the department is still working to complete implementation.

DOD has stated that readiness rebuilding is a priority, but implementation and oversight of department-wide readiness rebuilding efforts have not fully included key elements of sound planning, putting the rebuilding efforts at risk. Key elements of sound planning for results-oriented outcomes include a mission statement supported by long-term goals, strategies for achieving the goals, metrics, and an evaluation plan to determine the appropriateness of the goals and effectiveness of implemented strategies. In 2014, DOD tasked the military services to develop plans for rebuilding readiness. Each service developed a plan based on the force elements that were experiencing a high pace of deployments or facing challenges in achieving readiness recovery. In 2015, the services reported their readiness rebuilding plans to DOD, which identified readiness goals and timeframes for achieving them, but these goals were incomplete and some of the timeframes have been extended. GAO found that the services have also not defined comprehensive strategies, with the resources required for achieving the identified goals, nor have they fully assessed the effect of external factors such as maintenance and training on readiness rebuilding goals. Moreover, the services have not fully established metrics that the department can use to oversee readiness rebuilding efforts and evaluate progress towards achieving the identified goals. Without DOD incorporating key elements of sound planning into recovery efforts, and amid competing priorities that the department must balance, successful implementation of readiness recovery plans may be at risk.


Well, when we take a look at the ASCE’s infrastructure report card, there’s little bragging room anywhere within the 50 states, period. The USA was once number one in all catagories, including our infrastructure. So, while you boys are busy patting each other on the back with your dick measuring contests, both parties are destroying this country. But don’t let me get in the way of this foolishness of both parties blaming the other for all our woes. Maybe someday, if it’s not too late, Americans will realize that the smart ass and the dumb elephant have both failed them, and try something different…maybe.


You know… I don’t know that most here would disagree with your call to open up the field of electable opinion… what I get tired of hearing over and over ad nausium is the “we need a new political party… we need to try something different”… why instead of saying that over and over again, give us some straight forward food for discussion… I mean, my first vote is that we strip the ‘R’ and ‘D’ designators from their titles, ads and ballots…

I agree with you… others agree with you, why don’t you put yourself out there a little and defend your opinions. Arguing over whether we should have dropped the atomic bomb is fine for historical discussion but doesn’t really address many of the problems that exist in the here and now.

That ASCE report card that you talk about… yes it is true that we were number one in just about everything and no doubt both parties are responsible in our decline… the hows and whys are whats important and the who is only relevant in a historical context.


It’s absurd for anybody to believe that we have a crippled military, particularly with the inference that we are somehow not able to defend ourselves. If all of our military (all 4 branches) was standing on our shores, there isn’t a country that could touch us. But if you have them spread about 140 countries and you wish to have them spread about 200 countries then yeah, you may think they’re crippled. So far, Ron Paul is the only political figure I’ve seen that understood this and talked about it.


I agree with that and had he been elected, I would have been thrilled BUT he would have stepped into the same foreign policy reality that Trump has. Regardless of how much you may want to consolidate your defense back home, you still have ongoing defense commitments with damn near half the world… Of course I have heard the very same people who advocate for just what you are saying crucify Trump for telling other countries that we have held the umbrella for that they need to pony up and consider their own defense… Beyond that, you don’t just turn your back on your real or perceived enemies and just walk away…