« Bravo, President Obama | Main | A Rose by Any Other Name »

Comments

Greg

I know John McCain campaigned on Defense cuts.

Defense Spending: McCain v. Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuP8PE_FsW0

Now if Dan had half a clue, Obama is following the recommendations that his Secretary of Defense has made.

Gates Says ‘Hard Choices’ Needed on Weapons Spending
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akaUh0zP9qgA&refer=home

Then there is Admiral Mullen saying the same thing.

Mullen Says Defense Budget Cuts May Target Spending on Weapons
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ar9QVxBv0YIs&refer=us

So now we have Republicans John McCain and Robert Gates saying defense cuts. Then we have Admiral Mullen saying the same thing, and on the other side we have military expert Dan who knows more than they do? Interesting.

Peg

Cutting spending on weaponry is not the same as advocating a large, overall cut in spending on defense.

Search again, Greg.

Greg

So I take it you know more than Defense Secretary Gates or Admiral Mullen? Would not spending less on weapon not decrease the defense budget? Or do you think that weapons or weapon spending not be seen as a decrease in the Defense budget. Cannot the two be seen as going hand in hand. Decreasing spending on wasteful weapon projects would reduce the Defense budget would it not? But let's move from the obvious because you asked me to search, so search I did.

1) The Pentagon’s budget (not including expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan) has grown from $316B in 2001 to $536B in 2009. This represents a 70% increase. So a 10% decrease is funding will take us from $536B to $483B, which is still more than the $463B the Pentagon had for 2007. All Obama is doing is preventing the budget from growing an average of 10% year after year when there’s no discernible advantage to doing so.

2) Obama has said consistently that ALL government agencies will see cuts, but the military budget is the biggest so that has to be one of the first to be addressed.

3) The United States spends more than the next 40+ countries combined in defense spending. How that’s tolerated by our taxpayers is beyond me, but I’d imagine they’d like a little of that money back at a time like this, wouldn’t you? How prudent did you think it was to give no bid contracts to companies like Halliburton which has been found to overcharge the defense department to the tune of $61 billion in 2003 alone?

But to the broader point, I think it would be refreshing to see these cuts being characterized as something other than an ideological win for the Democrats. Cutting back right now makes sense because our current budgets aren’t sustainable. We are in a economic crisis and you oppose a cut in spending. I thought you were a fiscal conservative?

Remember that the declared budget doesn't include supplementary amounts for Iraq and Afghanistan or the defense spending spread around other departments like Energy (nukes), veteran care and Homeland Security. Add it all up and its closer to $1 trillion, or well over half of all government spending.

Also it must be noted that defense spending is not good stimulus spending unless you work for a neocon think-tank. If it were, increased spending since 9/11, almost a trillion a year would have had a far more noticeable effect on GDP. Lets face it, we've had tax cuts for the rich and defense spending. If they were effective as stimuli to rescue the nation from depression, the economy wouldn't be in this state to begin with.

Greg

Just to drive my point home, back in 2001 military auditors admitted the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

Donald Rumsfeld admitted that "according to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"

$2.3 trillion that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Can anyone explain to me how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions? We can consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

So I by no means think that cutting 10% will leave us defenseless or unable to defend ourselves. The military like everyone else needs to live by their means, and these examples just show how this has not been the case.

2.3 TRillion $$ of the TAXPAYER's MONEY IS MISSING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

Peg

You will get no argument from me that the waste, fraud and abuse seems to invade the military, too - as it does almost every other inch of government. A bit of why those of us who endorse small government prefer it; tougher to waste those dollars if government is small.

Greg

Someone needs to tell Dan when he post garbage he needs to check his facts. On this one you and Dan The Man are dead wrong. Proof positive that Dan

A) Knows not what he writes

B) Is a right wing tool passing lies for fact.


I guess this is the type of blogger that Former Bush communications adviser Dan Bartlett meant when he stated this about right wing blogs.

"They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."

Or as Rush would call him a "Ditto Head".

Here is what just has been reported.

$40 Billion Increase Billed as Pentagon Budget 'Cut'

Conservatives howled, when word leaked that the Obama White House might be looking to "cut" the Pentagon's budget request for the next fiscal year. But it's only under the odd rules of Beltway bizarroland that this can be considered in any way a trim.

As CQ's Josh Rogin reports, Team Obama wants an eight percent, $40 billion increase in the Defense Department budget -- from $487.7 billion in 2009 to $527.7 billion in 2010. But this uptick is only about half the size as the one the Joint Chiefs originally requested, in a $584 billion draft budget, complied last fall. So cue the all-too-predictable cries of Obama-as-hippie. "When it comes to the budget it appears that the choices Obama is making are all too reflective of a man who not long ago had the most liberal voting record in the Senate," sniffs Max Boot.

Oh, please. The $527 billion figure is "what the Bush people thought was the right number last February and that’s the number we’re going with," an Office of Management and Budget official tells Rogin. "The Joint Chiefs did that to lay down a marker for the incoming administration that was unrealistic. It’s more of a wish list than anything else."

For more than a year, Robert Gates has been talking about how the Pentagon's bloated budgets are going to have to come to an end. In December, a member of his team said the new fiscal attitude was "going to be more of a Wal-Mart approach than a Gucci approach." In testimony before Congress last week, Robert Gates talked about making "hard choices" in the 2010 budget.

So I guess in Right Wing Bazarro World a 8% increase is a 10% decrease. In your words, search again.

[Source]
OMB Draws $527 Billion Line on Defense Budget Based on Bush Estimate
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003022493

Peg

Actually - I just read this afternoon that the report that Obama wanted a cut was in error.

Of course, Dan - and I and any other blogger rely upon accurate news reporting. Whether on the right or the left - if we are told something inaccurate, then we can be in error.

The comments to this entry are closed.