Posted on 09/13/2008 1:13:47 PM PDT by reaganator
I'm having trouble finding facts on whether during the Clinton Administration the military and intelligence agencies were subject to spending cuts. I've often heard this and was wanting to know whether it is correct. Any help would be appreciated, thank you.
The list is very long on clinton, suggestion
go to google and type in
president clinton’s military cuts ?
and-— read back on the postings, one guy
listed quite a few of the cuts.
Yes, I don’t have details, but the military hated him. Reports after he was out of office surfaced about how difficult it was to be respectful to him.
The so-called "wall was enacted in 1978" preventing sharing information between FBI & CIA.
Correct me on this if i'm wrong.
As a percentage of the total budget, Clinton's cuts in defense were extreme and took years to build back up.
Outlays for defense dropped with Clinton even in terms of current dollars. Let's face it; the Dems gutted defense and it took years to repair the damage.
Bush-bashers never mention that rebuilding defense was the biggest cause of increases in post 9/11 federal spending.
“All of those military cut backs were started under George Bush.”
Wrong. And it’s George.
I Googled Clinton Military Cuts and the first entry is
Bill Clinton Of the 305000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years ... www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644 - 63k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Google works really well when looking for history
Here is a report on Intelligence and Defense funding throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It’s the best thing you’ll find on Intelligence funding in those years:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/epubs/int/pdf/int017.pdf
It is from this document:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/epubs/int/pdf/report.html
You could also source Tenet’s comments about Intel funding in the 1990s:
“By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.”
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_testimony_04142004.html
There’s not a lot on Intel funding in those years because it wasn’t made public.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644
Clinton’s most significant failings as President concerned less publicized but far more ominous matters of national security. Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore’s purported “reinvention” of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America’s defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.
While the U.S. military was used as a ‘meals on wheels’ service by the Clinton administration in its nation building adventures, the military had its own humanitarian crises at home on its own bases. The pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDC1331F937A35751C0A965958260
Clinton Seeking $14 Billion Cut By the Military
Defense Secretary Les Aspin has directed the Pentagon to produce a spending plan for the next fiscal year that is at least $14 billion less than the budget for the current year, according to internal Pentagon documents.
About $8.3 billion of what Mr. Aspin hopes to cut is to come from the operating budgets of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. That is likely to mean faster cuts in troops, less training time and fewer ships than President Bush had envisioned in his final budget. Reducing Troops in Europe
The military budget for the current year is $283 billion, in 1994 dollars, adjusted for anticipated inflation of 3.7 percent. Before he left office, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had proposed a $280 billion spending plan for the next fiscal year.
In a departure from Mr. Cheney’s plan, Mr. Aspin directed that money for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, which operates the “Star Wars” anti-missile program, be kept at the current level of $3.8 billion. Mr. Cheney had requested $6.3 billion for it.
In general, Mr. Aspin is using the Cheney plan as a basis, while seeking deeper cuts. Mr. Aspin, for example, directed the Pentagon to comply with legislation that forces in Europe be reduced to 100,000 troops by 1996 from about 185,000 now.
Mr. Aspin, in memorandums to the acting service secretaries sent late Tuesday, ordered the services to submit their reductions by next Monday. The Navy and Marine Corps were told to reduce their combined budget by $3 billion, the Air Force by $2.8 billion and the Army by $2.5 billion. Each reduction is about a 4 percent cut from levels outlined by the Bush Administration.
and here is a chart of military spending
http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/primarysources/coldwar/docs/dspend.html
when clinton took office spending on the military was about 5% of GDP and 21% of the total budget
by the time he left it was about 3% of GDP and 16 % of the total outlay
and, as I understand, erected a wall preventing the FRI criminal division from speaking to the FBI security division, with serious consequences for those who violated the edict.
Can’t give specifics but can relate that hubby was in military, in Pentagon, doing budget stuff and complained bitterly of all the cuts and reductions. Bubba “balanced the budget” on the back of the Defense Dept - known fact.
At a Republican debate in Boca Raton on Jan. 24, 2008, Rudy Giuliani repeated his claim that Bill Clinton is to blame for shrinking the nation's military.
"I think we should increase the size of our military substantially to overcome the damage that Bill Clinton did with the peace dividend," he said, adding that "a lot of the cause of (the smaller military force) was Bill Clinton's peace dividend, in which he cut the military 25 and 30 percent."
We've covered this topic in two previous items, one for Giuliani and one for a similiar claim made earlier by Mitt Romney. But because this misleading claim is new to many voters who are just tuning into the campaign, we'll reiterate what we've said before.
Romney made his claim in April 2007, saying that, "Following the end of the Cold War, President Clinton began to dismantle our military. He reduced our forces by 500,000. He retired almost 80 ships. Our spending on national defense dropped from over 6 percent of GDP to 3.8 percent today."
The two Republicans are correct that military forces were reduced significantly under Clinton. The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. They are also correct that the naval fleet shrank dramatically. The Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000.
But they are selectively choosing numbers that make it appear that the military cuts were Clinton’s alone. In fact, the cuts were prompted by the end of the Cold War during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.
During Bush's presidency, he and Congress agreed to a sharp drop in military personnel. Active-duty military declined from 2.2-million to 1.8-million. Total defense forces also shrank, from 3.3-million to 2.9-million.
The Republicans are trying to portray Clinton and the Democrats as weak on defense and to make the peace dividend look like a partisan effort. But contrary to the Republicans' claims, the post-Cold War shrinkage of the U.S. military was very much a bipartisan effort. It began under a Republican president and a Democratic Congress and continued under a Democratic president and a Republican Congress.
And so we find, as we did before, that this claim is Half True.
From:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/309/
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1993_cr/h930804-ia.htm
Take a look at this,not all you want, but might give you a lead...
When I was in the military under Clinton, our unit didn’t have enough money to do training exercises.
That’s what our commander told us.
The Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1995 (after Clinton's 2nd year of an 8 year term). Since the budget is controlled by the House, shouldn't the House Republicans be responsible for the reduction in military spending?
They seem more that willing to take credit for the reduction in the budget deficit that occurred at the same time.
Yes, read David N. Bossie’s book: “Intelligence Failure.”
The way it works is the president tells congress how much money he needs when he submits a budget. Congress can add and take away, but they start with the president's budget. The reason I can't buy the idea that Dems are for more spending on defense and Republicans want more money for welfare, is because Clintons budget cut defense Republicans amended defense increases.
Note the increase in defense spending from '93-'95 congressional appropriations to those of later years. Keep in mind that any flat out budget disagreement between the president and congress was viewed by the fawning press as the 'republicans shutting down government' that excused Clinton's lying under oath..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.