There are several problems with this; such an approach has been tried many times in the past. First, there is no way that a "fair" competition can be conducted. Overhead costs are apples and oranges - the government typically does not include the costs for the buildings, utilities, communications, the cost of retirement, etc. Second, such competitions typically discount the differing levels of expertise, simply asserting that government employees can do the job(s) without the proof or justifications required of contractors. Third, why is it the job of the government to compete with private industry? Where is that in the Constitution? "Providing for the common defense, does not mean competing (unfairly at that) with private industry."
Republicans, and many Democrats, are upset by the prospect of so-called sequestration cuts to the nation's defense budget. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is so alarmed that the day before the Senate took up what became the "fiscal cliff" agreement, he called a key Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to express deep concern that the cuts might go into effect. As it turned out, Congress put them off for two months.
Sequestration would force the government to reduce discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Roughly half of that, or $600 billion, would come from defense -- a...
I think you are not at all understanding his post. It is the Job of the Gov to determine how to best meet the demands of the Military. Whether that is by hiring a contractor to work in the Kitchen or using Soldiers, whether using Soldiers to run a technical training site or a contractor.
That is clearly an important and constitutional RESPONSIBILITY of Gov