Despite $78 billion cuts in the Military budget, Defense spending will increase over time

The newly elected Republican congress has been handed a mission to save the US from crippling debt and to get government spending under control. Even though raising taxes or even delaying the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is off the table Rebublicans are even more loath to reduce spending on the military. Which is why when Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined a five-year plan to reduce defense spending by $78 billion it raised a few eyebrows within political circles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07military.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Missouri Republican Todd Akin -- chair of the "House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee" -- tried the old "while we support cuts, we can't support these cuts" argument:

"There are certainly wasteful and inefficient parts of the DOD that should be cut," said Akin. "At the same time, I find it stunning that the Obama administration thinks cutting almost $80 billion from our defense budget while we are at war is a responsible course of action. I have a number of concerns about the specifics as well as the overall priorities this action reveals. If Secretary Gates wants Congress to even consider supporting any of these proposals, he must personally ensure that Congress receives the information we need, rather than stiff-arming the Congress as has been the norm for the last few years."

Turns out that Republican hypocracy is alive and well.

But even more baffling is that these aren't even cuts at all. It turns out that these $78 billion savings would in fact be refunneled back into other parts of the military.

The defense budget is actually expected to grow over the next 5 years!



Says Gates, "This is really all about a reduction in the rate of growth, not actual dollars in defense"


But don't try explaining that to Akin who is up in arms about the Obama administration's raping and pillaging of the military's budget.

"The only department undertaking a serious budget cutting exercise is the Department of Defense," said Akin. "Where are the similar reviews at any other executive department? Our military is at war, and our military is the only department asked to seriously tighten its budget?"


I wonder if Akin understands that the US defense budget is currently 7 times greater than that of China, the next largest military spender in the world. In fact the US spends more money on its military than the next 14 countries combined.

Source: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062409/us-military-spending-overwhelms-rest-world

So despite the fact that the US is in a precarious position financially and taxes can't be raised to ease the burden, the military essentially won't be affected either, because only commies or hippies would propose to do that.

Americans feel that we should tax the rich first, then reduce defense spending.

Q: What would you do first to balance the budget?


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027036-503544.html

We'll probably have to do all of those things.

Instead of Welfare we should use F.D.R's work programs that he had pre-WWII. Parts of New Orleans and surrounding areas are still fucked up from the Hurricanes, so we take the people off welfare, give them the necessary training, and pay them to help tear down and rebuild the area. Other states and areas can do the same thing. Detroit is removing whole blocks of houses being used as crack dens, along the East Coast there are shipyards with old Navy ships that need to be destroyed, and we could always use new forest to be planted. That doesn't really cut spending, but it does give us a return for the money that we are spending.

This would be a fabulous idea. The reality of it is, the screams of Socialism and "How can we pay for this?" will just get louder. Plus, we'd still need welfare, because there would still only be so much work to go around.

Also from the link I posted with the data on the world's defense expenditures:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062409/us-military-spending-overwhelms-rest-world


There's really no voice of reason when it comes to the astronomically huge amounts of money being spent on the military right now. Its just too taboo to bring it up in the post 9/11 USA despite the fact that terrorists cant be fought with conventional armies.

We aren't buying a lot of weapons, we are merely buying newer more expensive weapons. Huge amounts of the budget go towards the development and procurement of new up-armored vehicles and body armor that keeps the soldiers safer. We spend more than other countries because of the R & D that we have constantly dumped money into due to the ever changing methods of attack used by the insurgents. China on the other hand hasn't been in a full scale war since The Korean War and all their weapons are duplicates and rip-offs of Cold War era Russian designs and a few new ones they came up with in the early 90's; so they haven't had to pay to replace their weapons like we do whenever we design a new weapon system. Also the other countries that have been active in The War on Terror have either gained from our R & D that we share with them as allies or they have only had to make minor adjustments to already existing systems due to the fact they other countries constantly developed their gear for years while there was no war while we sat satisfied with what we had while it slowly became outdated. First we had to spend a lot to catch up and now it is almost like a dick measuring contest to see how awesome of stuff we can make.
I can't really comment on the squabbling by the politicians because they will always bicker about what the other is doing, even if they did the same thing the day before.

And I do believe it is necessary considering I am alive today thanks to the new body armor that the money goes towards.

It almost sounds like you're saying that we have to spend lots more money than every other country because we fight lots more wars and if we don't fight those wars all the money we spent is just going to go to waste.

I understand that you value the protection that the armor provides but wouldn't you have been safer not going at all?

[another question would be: has War become the U.S.' chief Business?]

I don't know, man, I was watching a show on TV not long ago about US infrastructure, and there seems to be quite a lot of work to go around - decades worth, in fact.

There is a fuck ton of work to be done. It will cost the tax payers billions. While it makes sense to me, the costs will most likely require an increase in taxes. You've seen the rhetoric behind the "how can we pay for healthcare?" and "we already pay too much in taxes". Selling this to the American people would go over like a lead zeppelin.

I was just saying we are spending so much because we are in a war, if we weren't we could cut way back very easily on the extra spending. I don't wish for war or think we should keep fighting just to provide justification for the money that has already been spent. War is just a neccesary evil sometimes and in the case of Iraq it was a necessary evil. The lives of the Iraqi people has improved greatly since we helped them remove Saddam as a dictator. Now if they could only find a honest person to lead them they could very easily become a wealthy oil country like Kuwait or Qatar. Afghanistan on the other hand is going to always be a corrupt country because that is how their basic mentality works over there. Now we are pretty much keeping soldiers there to 1) remove another safe haven for terrorist training camps and 2) draw the radicals like moths to a flame somewhere where the possibility of innocent deaths is much lower. I have no problem having to spend years away from my family in a foriegn country getting shot at if it increases the chances that the people i am fighting are to busy shooting at me to plan terrorists attacks on American soil.

Personally I think that because of the our country's economic standing and increasing deficit we should become a little more like pre-WWII isolationists (spelling?) so we can make the necessary cut backs on the spending. unfortunatly like I said above, if we aren't drawing out the terrorists overseas we have a higher chance of getting attaked here.

The one thing I hate about the budget cuts is that they plan on cutting back on the number of soldiers, but doesn't that just create more people fighting for the no-existent jobs and drawing on welfare? So once again why not keep paying them to stay in the Army so we can continue to get a return for our money.

[answer: Unfortuantly yes (maybe not chief busniess, but definitely our chief export). Due to companies moving jobs and production overseas the only thing we seem to be exporting of any worth to the world are soldiers and the protection that they provide.]

Really? On what grounds? WMDs? Oh wait...

There where WMDs. People automatically jump to the conclusion that WMDs are nukes, but biological and chemical weapons also fall under that banner. We had proof of Saddam using saren and mustard gar to exterminate the Kurds and we also found facotries, labs, and storage facilities for the development and storage of said agents. There were also sites where he was building huge cannons that could fire chemically armed artillery shells in Israel. Even if you don't believe in the WMDs the fact that he was commiting genocide against the Kurds was enough of a reason for me for his removal from power by the UN. In case you didn't notice he wasn't hung by America for having WMDs, he was hung by the Iraqis for several charges including genocide.

XanderJ
The R&D and acquisition costs for body armor and armored vehicles pale in comparison to the cost of the latest generation aircraft and ships.

China has just displayed it's first stealth airplane, has been building a blue water navy for years, has an aircraft carry under construction, and a modified Dong Feng 21 missile for anti-aircraft carry use.

The use of chemical weapons by Iraq began during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's and against the Kurds 1988 - 1989. The Iraqi supper gun ended circa 1990 with the death of Gerald Bull - BTW Iraq has the capacity to hit Israel with SCUD missiles. His chemical and biological weapons were destroyed post first Iraq war and there were NO reports of either weapon type found after the latest Iraq war

Genocide post 1990 include the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Southern Sudan (Darfur). There are also several civil wars in Africa with large numbers of civilians being killed including Congo, Southern Chad, and the ever popular Somalia. Look for Côte d'Ivoire to turn violent again soon.

If you want to go after Islamic terrorists only may I suggest depolyment to Yemen, Thailand, Philippines, or Somalia (again). If you want the most countries for your efforts go after Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb and see Algeria, Mali, Mauritania and Morocco.

The Genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, and the rest of Africa are being perpatrated by so many groups that there is no way for the UN to try and stop them where as with Iraq it was nationwide attack coming from the government. We went after Al-Queda in Afghanistan because they had taken over the government there and was where they felt safest. We do have SF teams in many areas covertly and openly helping foreign governments attack Al-Queda, mostly where large scale operations by American and UN forces would be more harmful than helpful. just because their isn't any news about it doesn't mean we aren't out there helpinJ.

I know Iraq had the capability to hit Israel with SCUDs considering they did that at the beginning of the Gulf War to try and draw them into a fight to infuriate the Muslim world and force them into making it a Jew v Muslim war instead of the attack on Iraq being a punishment for invading Kuwait. I spaced on the timeline for the super gun, I am sorry for mentioning an out of date piece of knowledge. Though there were still madified artillery shells that they had for their regular artillery pieces for use against the Allied forces during the invasion, thankfully the order to use them was never given and the agents were not issued to the units.

Iraq did still have chemical weapons. My platoon sergeant was in the invasion during OIF and when his unit was doing a screen through the desert west of Baghdad they came across a complex where bio-agents were being developed by Iraqi scientist. There were other storage facilities found around the country by other units. I don't think any news agency reported it because it wasn't the nukes that they had the American public hyped up for.

The next gen aircrafts and boats do cost a lot and that is why they are the biggest part for proposed cuts in the new budget. The Armed Forces has already come to the understanding that many of those projects are not needed, hence the end of the Commanche helicopter and Raptor fighter jet within the last few years, unfortunatly thay already spent millions before cancelling. The Navy has planned ahead with the knowledge of coming budget cuts because all the ship they have built for the last decade are made in a modular design so that they can be easily upgradeable with any new electronics, armor, and weapon systems.

The cost for new armor is rather large considering within the last 4 years the Army has researched, tested, and distributed Army wide 5 new types of body armor and different upgrades for each type. Just within the last 2 years we have gone from IBAs, to IOTVs, and now to plate carriers.

I personally wouldn't have any problem with us pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. Iraq has been given all the help it can and now it has to flurish or fail on it's own and Afghanistan is never going to change. The Stan is an old country that's people are still tribesman at heart and i don't think a democracy could ever rule them, Al-Queda used a harsh triabl/religious style of ruling and they couldn't even control the entire country. Pull our troops from those countries, cut the spending that will no longer been in extremely high demand by the soldiers on the front, and only send our troops to help people who actually want our help( that or only send our troops into conflicts that threaten to destabilize the world economy in relation to us; that does not mean I think we should invade and take over oil countries.

Too bad your "platoon sergeant" never reported his discovery because all the ISG found were a handful of shells believed to date from the 1991 war. Bush et al would have shouted an announcement from the top of the White House had any NBC weapons been found.
Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program

[1] The 122 mm shells did make it into the pages of the NY Times.

Biological Warfare

I wonder what the national unemployment rate would be if we cut all military spending.

XanderJ, please read through these findings by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction--the commission put together by Dubya to look at the intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMDs. I note this because I think it's important to point out that it's not some Monday morning quarterback move by any Busy opponent. It is the guys Bush himself tasked with finding out what went on.

The Iraq portion(pdf) is especially revelatory (and relevant to this discussion).

The assertion that we found any significant amounts of nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry, or materiel and/or intent to produce material in pursuit of creating nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry, is completely wrong.

Probably pretty high. Lucky nobody credible has suggested that.

I do wonder what colour the sky is in FixerWorld sometimes.

I was not suggesting that any was suggesting that. I am still curious. In a sense, our crazy military spending is already government stimulus spending and jobs creation.

Yes -- crazy military spending is its own form of "jobs creation".

It's only "net stimulus" (i.e. extra) if it goes up during a downturn.

If you cut all military spending (in some fantasy world that no-one has suggested) there would obviously be a substantial hike in short-term unemployment. Over some time, as either government spending was diverted elsewhere or government spending was reduced and private sector spending picked up the slack (as taxes are lowered etc.), employment would rise in other sectors.

What would be lost?
- whatever national defence/security capacity that your defence force provided;
- whatever sectoral labour market implications flowed from having army training and education available to young men (and now, more and more, women) who might come from underprivileged backgrounds and would not otherwise go to college;
- whatever technology spillovers would have resulted from R&D into high-tech weaponry, armour and so on that can flow on into innovations in the civilian economy.

Here's where I think China has us totally beat. They're smart enough to realize that having an economy based on war doesn't make sense. They are planning for the future by not becoming overly dependent on fossil fuels like we are. And they understand the importance of education and infrastructure.

From Wiki:

China is the world's leading renewable energy producer, with an installed capacity of 152 GW.[4] China has been investing heavily in the renewable energy field in recent years. In 2007, the total renewable energy investment is $12 billion USD, second only to Germany, and expected to be first by 2009.[23] China is also the largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels.[24] Approximately 7% of China's energy was from renewable sources in 2006, a figure targeted to rise to 10% by 2010 and to 16% by 2020.[13] The major renewable energy source in China is hydropower. Total hydro-electric output in China in 2009 was 615.64 billion kWh, constituting 16.6% of all electricity generated. The country already has the most hydro-electric capacity in the world, and the Three Gorges Dam is projected to be the largest hydro-electric power station in the world, with a total capacity of 22.5 GW. It is expected to be fully operational by 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

Also, per capita they are way ahead of the US when it comes to fossil fuel use and greenhouse emissions.
(In 2002, China ranked 2nd (after the United States) in the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, with emissions of 3.3 billion metric tons, representing 14.5% of the world total.[8] However, due to its huge population size (the largest in the world), it only ranked 99 in the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, with emissions of 3.2 metric tons per person (compared to 19.8 metric tons per person in the United States).[9)

But more importantly they want to ween themselves off of fossil fuels because they know the future is elsewhere.

As for your assertion that the Chinese "dont give two craps about the environment":