Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Guns or butter . . . or lobster tails? Pentagon spent $7 million on them in a single month. (Use it or lose it budgeting).



Photo above - In September the Pentagon spent $26,000 on "sushi prep tables". Their location is classified. This table is probably NOT one of them.

I’m guessing the $7 million worth (September alone) of lobster tails didn’t wind up in enlisted service members’ mess halls. Neither did the $15 million in ribeye steaks, or the $26,000 spent on “sushi prep tables”. It’s possible a few of the ice cream machines totaling more than $100,000 found their way onto sultry southern military basses Fort Bliss (Tx) or White Sands (New Mexico).

In total, the pentagon blew through an unbelievable $93 billion at the end of the 2025 budget year. (See link below). They operate under a “use it or lose” budget rule. If they hadn’t bought those lobster tails and king crab legs, there might be no budget money for luxury shellfish in the upcoming year.

For reference purposes, the Pentagon could have purchased 9 aircraft carriers ($10 billion each), or - more to the point - 25,000 Patriot air defense missiles ($3.7 million each). I bet some of our generals are looking at their sushi tables and ice cream machines right now, and wishing it had been missiles instead.

At this point I’m going to ask the obvious question: Where was the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) while all this was happening? DOGE was either told to look the other way, or is incredibly inept. Or got some of those lobster tails.

The article seeks to place sole blame for this fiasco on Pete Hegseth, former Fox Network news announcer, and current US Secretary of Defense.

Hegseth certainly had an opportunity and an obligation to speak up. He probably would have (during his time at Fox) if the Obama or Biden administrations were bulking up on lobster tails and sushi prep tables. But apparently buying exotic food which you don’t need - simply to preserve your budget baseline - is standard government policy across the years.

(note to self - Insert snark here about America’s $38 TRILLION national debt. And whether or not finding new things to tax will “fix our budget”.)

Those of us who have worked in the private sector are familiar with “use it or lose it”. This is how major corporations operate. If you have unfilled headcount and unspent salary dollars in your budget at year end, those get subtracted from next year's baseline funding. This explains why almost half of all corporate hiring happens in the first 90 days of the year. Insurance against both “use it or lose it” and mid-year budget cuts.

So this is a shared problem. Generals, congress, and the White House. Going back decades. Use it or lose it. We spent $93 billion pentagon dollars in September 2025, and on the very next day (October 1st) started a 6-week government shutdown where many federal workers weren’t paid, and normal government services were interrupted. And presumably pentagon officials dined on lobster.

And when the shutdown took effect, nobody held a press conference about the Use it Lose it budget rules. Nobody – democrat, republican, independent, Pentagon official or news network. A confederacy of dunces.

I’m just sayin’ . . .


Pentagon Pete blew a fortune on crabs in multibillion-dollar spending frenzy


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pentagon-pete-blew-a-fortune-on-crabs-in-multibillion-dollar-spending-frenzy/ar-AA1XV8gz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=69b13523dd25410589bd9ba5e10684d0&ei=54
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Yes, "use it or lose it" is an insane budgetary rule introduced by the corporate world. Just imagine if large government departments had the autonomy to plan years, rather than months, in advance and did not face the constant threat of funding being cut altogether . . .
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@SunshineGirl planning "years in advance" is what the soviet union tried. it led to decades of shortages and misery.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@SusanInFlorida I think the quality of economic policy, rather than the timescale of budgets, led to shortages.
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@SunshineGirl economic forecasting is like weather forecasting. the further out you go, the less likely it will be accurate.

in the soviet union, it became a "supply oriented economy". citizen/consumer demand played virtually no role in the production of automobiles, food, clothing, or housing.