Pentagon budget set to shrink next year

[ProSense]

Pentagon budget set to shrink next year

By Craig Whitlock

The Pentagon budget will shrink slightly next year for the first time since 1998, the Obama administration said Thurs­day, in an attempt to chip away at the federal deficit while reorienting the armed forces toward Asia.

<...>

The Pentagon said it would ask Congress for $525 billion in 2013, which represents a 1 percent decrease from the current year. While the difference may sound small, it represents a new era of austerity for the Defense Department that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, when the military was still accustomed to huge annual raises after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

<...>

The changes are part of a broader effort by the Pentagon to decrease its projected spending by $487 billion over the next decade in accordance with a deficit-reduction deal President Obama reached with Congress in August.

Those cuts could soon swell substantially. If Obama and Congress cannot agree on another package of spending reductions or tax increases by next January, the Pentagon could be forced to slash an extra $600 billion over 10 years. “It basically takes a chain saw to the budget,” said Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-budget-set-to-shrink-next-year/2012/01/26/gIQALpfNTQ_story.html

[mackattack]

1. The Pentagon budget will shrink slightly next year for the first time since 1998

Amazing. Just think about that. First time in almost 15 years that the Pentagons budget shrank........ and its only by a small percentage.

Meanwhile our infrastructure is falling apart and our schools are failing.

[think]

3. These cuts amount to a junk food junky

trying to lose weight by cutting the amount of Twinkies they plan to eat next year based on a predicted increase in the consumption of Twinkies.

The junk food junky currently eats 10 Twinkies per day currently but predicts he will eat 15 Twinkies next year. So in order to lose weight the junky will now only eat eleven Twinkies per day.

Fuzzy math is not a practical solution to our excessive military spending.

[ProSense]

5. Here's

These cuts amount to a junk food junky

trying to lose weight by cutting the amount of Twinkies they plan to eat next year based on a predicted increase in the consumption of Twinkies.

The junk food junky currently eats 10 Twinkies per day currently but predicts he will eat 15 Twinkies next year. So in order to lose weight the junky will now only eat eleven Twinkies per day.

Fuzzy math is not a practical solution to our excessive military spending.

...the way I see it: cutting $500 billion to $1 trillion, including closing bases > that building more bases (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002177891)

Actual math is a more "practical solution" than propaganda.

[think]

6. Here are Obama's words Not mine:

..."Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership," Obama announced during a rare presidential visit to the Pentagon. "I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong -- and our nation secure -- with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined."...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politics/pentagon-strategy-shift/index.html

You can spin cuts in proposed increases as cuts but real dollars being spent on the military will continue to rise. Ask the president...

[ProSense]

7. Did

..."Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow."

...he say this after yesterday's announcement? From the OP:

"The Pentagon said it would ask Congress for $525 billion in 2013, which represents a 1 percent decrease from the current year. "

As for the comment you cited, if the budget is cut, and 2012 is used as a base, it will grow due to inflation alone. The annual cuts will slow the increase, but that doesn't mean there were no cuts.

[think]

8. For what it's worth I appreciate your tenacity and dedication to the Obama admin

and the Democratic cause even if we disagree as to the what actually defines a cut in military spending.

Your contributions are an asset to DU and the Democratic party and I respect your efforts.

The odds are that we agree on more issues than we disagree. But I'm kind of a curmudgeon if I may use that term, in regards to the run up in military spending. And that will only change for me when meaningful cuts are made to our out of control military spending.

We all have issues that are dear to us. Finding more money for our social programs by getting military spending back to realistic and affordable levels is mine.

What is a Curmudgeon anyway?

A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.
Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.

Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor.
- JON WINOKUR

http://www.concentric.net/~marlowe/curdef.shtml

[ProSense]

10. Thanks, but

no need to explain. That's why we're here to discuss the issues (on edit: among other things. LOL).

I'm still holding out hope that Congress will get around to these two pieces of legislation (http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002142217). I'm sure they can find a way to fund them.

FYI, four House Democrats are calling on the President to double defense cuts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002229987

[think]

11. TY for the links :) /nt

[think]

2. "Defense Dollars Would Increase Under Obama Budget"

Defense Dollars Would Increase Under Obama Budget
By MERRILL GOOZNER, The Fiscal Times
January 27, 2012

Offering a military budget designed to head off charges that he’s weak on defense, President Obama on Thursday unveiled a Pentagon spending plan that fails to cut any major procurement programs and calls for spending $36 billion more on the military in 2017 than it will spend this year.

Though billed as a cumulative cut of $259 billion over the next five years, that reduction is based on previous budget proposals that presumed the military spending would continue to grow as fast as it has over the past decade, when spending more than doubled. Total military spending, including $115 billion for the war in Afghanistan and recently-ended conflict in Iraq, totaled $646 billion this year, up from $310 billion in 2001....

Full article:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/27/Defense-Dollars-Would-Increase-Under-Obama-Budget.aspx#page1

[ProSense]

4. Right,

Total military spending, including $115 billion for the war in Afghanistan and recently-ended conflict in Iraq, totaled $646 billion this year, up from $310 billion in 2001.

...last year was 2001.

I also love the reference to 2017 spending and not the entire decade, which shows spending decreasing by 4 percent. It's not a five-year plan, it's a decade. From the link provided:



Oh, and why ignore sequestration? Frankly, that presumes that there will be a tax deal, and one that involves no defense cuts.

Cutting $500 billion to $1 trillion over a decade is a cut, regardless of how one spins it.

A one percent decrease is a decrease.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Thanks for that link. n/t