Gates Recommends $78 Billiion in Defense Cuts

The VFW ^ | Jan. 7, 2011 | Teresa Morris

[katiedidit1]

Gates Recommends $78 Billion in Defense Cuts: Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Thursday that the Pentagon's budget will cut programs and overhead by $78 billion over the next five years through the cancelation of high-cost weapons programs, and through personnel and management efficiencies. His recommendations are just proposals. More details will be known when the president releases his FY 2012 federal budget request in February or March. Notable reductions and changes could include: · DOD would cut its number of contractors, freeze government civilian salaries, reduce senior civilian billets, and reduce (from 900 to 800) the number of general/flag officers within the services. The secretary also said the new defense budget will propose moderate Tricare fee increases (of an undetermined amount) for working-age military retirees. VFW Resolution 413, passed at the 111th National Convention in August, opposes any Tricare increase, and urges moving the authority to set or increase such fees from DOD to Congress

[SkyPilot]

Gates has zero credibility with me.

He has no moral authority to tell anyone about "cuts" or "savings" until he outlines exactly what the cost of open homosexuality endorsed in the military will be.

Believe me, this is going to cost the military millions upon millions. How much will it cost to provide a lesbian Colonel's "partner" housing, medical care, insurance, delta dental, etc?

How much will it cost for this new mandatory "sensitivity training" program he is demanding for all active duty, guard, reserve enlisted and officers? How much will the training program cost in terms of lost man hours? How much will it cost for DoD civilians and contractors? If anyone objects to the training due to religious or moral objections, how much will it cost (in man hours and legal costs) to compel them? How much training will be required for new recruits that will be needed when current military members leave the service early due to the new homosexual policy?

Believe me - the answer to all of the questions from Gates is either a shoulder shrug, or ignoring the questions all together.

[SkyPilot]

At least the Dept of Defense is Constitutional.

Where is that "energy" clause again?

[upsdriver]

Plus, the Dept of Energy does some needed research I think.

Like what?

[Alas Babylon!]

Said to me 32 years ago....

“And just think, sergeant! If you re-enlist and stay in for at least 20 years, you can retire with full, free medical and dental benefits for you and your family, for the rest of your lives! Now, we know we can’t pay you much, and frankly, with your skill sets you’d make a lot more money on the outside, but, you see.... The Air Force really needs you. your country needs you! And when you retire, well, that’s when your country will pay you back for any hardship while you’re on active duty. It really is a good deal when you think about it!”

Said me... “Ok. Where do I sign.”

[Alas Babylon!]

Oops! I left out the rest:

So I was a dupe. I should have gotten out in 1980. I was in computer services when it was new and fresh. All the other guys I worked with who got out made a killing in the 80’s and 90’s.

I fell for the promises of the United States Government.

“As long as the grass is green and the rivers flow...”

Yeah, right.

[mewykwistmas]

http://www.energy.gov/forresearchers.htm

Personally I support such research: a few billion in this, space, medicine etc can easily pay itself with one invention. Sure beats building bridges to nowhere

[OldGoatCPO]

There are problems with a across the board TRICARE increase. One is how do you define working age, many so called working age vets left the service unable to work. Even many of those without combat related injuries are working, but are broken physically. Everyone using TRICARE pays a standard rate. It is kept artificially low because an E-7 that retired in 2000 gets less than an E-7 that retired in 2010, even with COLA. While both are working age and may well be able to afford a slight increase, what about an E-7 vet that retired at age 40 in 1995 can he afford the increase. Any increase in TRICARE should see a corresponding decrease in the cost of the “Survivor Benefit Plan.” I have to insure my retirement at the tune of nearly $200 per month. My wife as the beneficiary has to refuse the Plan, I cannot. In order to supplement my TRICARE with quality Dental care, my wife and I pay an additional $300 plus per month in private health care. I served for 31 years total, I am still working age and as you can see nothing I am already paying. What does that traitor Gates consider to be my fair share?

[familyop]

"Education is also heavily subsidized by local taxes."

Yes, and most noticeably, property taxes.

[OldGoatCPO]

“and as you can see nothing I am already paying”

I meant to say “and as you can nothing about my retirement is a free ride, I am already paying allot.”

Sorry

[OldGoatCPO]

Excellent post, nobody in the socialist admininstration wants to talk about this.

[katiedidit1]

Why is it that someone who served their country for over 24 yrs and earned their insurance should have an increase while others that chose to sit on their arses and live off medicaid do not have any consequences? from what I understand on the tricare increase..it applies to those 65 and under.
Granted their are some cuts that can be made in regards to defense but I don’t think tinkering with tricare for seniors is one of them.

[American Constitutionalist]

What's the point of having a Department of Energy when this country is not allowed to use it's own natural resources ?

Should not the Department of Energy have the responsibility of developing those natural resources so we can have energy to heat our homes, drive our cars, and have a healthy economy ?

[American Constitutionalist]

What's the point of having a Department of Energy when this country is not allowed to use it's own natural resources ?

Should not the Department of Energy have the responsibility of developing those natural resources so we can have energy to heat our homes, drive our cars, and have a healthy economy ?

[OldGoatCPO]

Gates is well aware that many of us leave the service at working age with many medical issues. He does not care and wants to force us off TRICARE. The traitor is not concerned with our welfare, lets hope our conservatives in Congress are. If they did a $20 a month increase in TRICARE with a $40 decrease in the Survivor Benefit Plan, I would buy that as it switches money from an insurance policy I may never need to medical care. But, there needs to be a trade off.

[katiedidit1]

OldGoat, many of the age group being targeted are Vietnam vets. A war that Clinton and his ilk “loathed” even tho it was dems that escalated that war.
My husband is CPO retired and I understand what you are dealing with as far as the Survivors Benefits and Tricare goes...imo there are so many other areas that should be cut first.
Also, you remember that the military was omitted from Obamacare until Skelton caught it and the VFW went to DC and lobbied hard to have it put back in...dangerous bunch in the white house. God bless our veterans and PS...my father was also a retired Navy Chief that worked for 17 yrs after getting out but died at the age of 62. He had the very type of health issues you refer to

[F1reEng1neRed]

@ MontaniSemperLiberi

If the annual DoD budget is $780 billion, a $78 billion cut is 10%, not 2%.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

It’s $78B over five years.

[gleeaikin]

So Dept. of Defense is 21%, and when you add in Global War on Terror, Veterans Administration, and Homeland Security, then 28.6% of our budget is in defense and care of our soldiers.

The biggest problem I have heard articulated is spending too much money on hardware. There is a disturbing new book “The Prophets of War” about the machinations of the Military/Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about. I recently sent my son (who is doing his 20 in Special Forces and has served in Iraq and Afghanistan) a clipping about a new field weapon: “US deploys ‘game-changing’ weapon to Afghanistan”. Here is what he wrote to me:

“Neato. Now if we only had a national strategy to address our current set of problems.

The American military is an all volunteer force. As such, nearly everything that is found in the civilian world can be found in the military. There is not a special farm where we grow soldiers. We recruit them out of the general population. Many of our military solutions are simply reflections of our overall national culture. Americans like to solve their problems with technology - even if technology it’s self is the problem. This war has been a boon for soldier equipment. Our force has never been so well equipped.

Unfortunately, we lack the soft skills (like language and cultural awareness) needed to truly affect tactical and strategic outcomes. This new weapon, while potentially useful, is not worth the $25k a copy we will pay
for it. That money would be better spent sending troops to language schools.

And this is why the budget is so out of control. Buying weapons is a legitimate military expense. Most likely, there is no ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ in this program. But, are we getting the best bang for our defense buck? The DoD routinely makes legitimate legal purchases for things we don’t need, don’t want, can’t use, or won’t work. If you went to a commander on the ground in Afghanistan and asked him if he wants a $25k grenade launcher or a soldier that can speak Pashto, I am pretty sure he will tell you to keep the grenade launcher.

Never the less, all of this is only so much window dressing without the national will to actually prosecute the war, or a clear national strategy to bring the war to a favorable conclusion.”

Basically he confirms the thesis of the book that much too much is being spent on systems. What the book further emphasizes is that even when the DOD says it does not need some kind of hardward, our Congresscritters insist on funding it to keep their constituents employed. As FReepers and Tea Party people, we are now in a position to hold the lobbiest’s feet to the fire and regain control of our Congresscritters.

[DoughtyOne]

Folks, I know some of us think the military budget should be cut significantly. On a case by case basis, I might sign on to some of it. Here’s what weighs heavily on my mind as I write this.

At the present time, our Navy is smaller than at any time since World War II. At the present time our active military is smaller than it has been since World War II.

At the current time we are operating on a one theater military preparedness structure. Some people site hot spots in Israel, North Korea, areas around China, South America, and other parts of the Middle-East as powder kegs waiting to explode, and this doesn’t even fully address terrorism from Southwest Asia all the way around to Africa, Europe, and the Untied States.

China is arming. Russia is arming. Terrorist groups that have been chummy with Russia since the 1960s are even intent on taking us down.

We have cartels operating on our border, and frankly to be honest inside the United States as well. There are terrorist groups in Central and South America, and nations all the way down the Americas are signing on to a Marxist vent. Not good.

If we maintain things the way they are (or far better yet, were under Reagan) we’re going to ward off adventurism by our worst enemies. Mostly likely we won’t stop it all, but we will scare off some nations that seem to think we’re going to be ripe pickings in a few years.

We saw the Bush administration and now the Obama administration spend like there was no tomorrow. And now they want us to slice and dice our military to make up for it. Anotherwords, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. There won’t be a tomorrow if we do this.

Folks, we have (deficit only) spent five trillion dollars in the last three years. Now they want to slice and dice the military by a hundred billion or so to make up for it. Tell me that isn’t ridiculous, as well as peripherally insane.

If we cut $100 billion a year, in ten years we will have saved enough to make up for 1/5th of the excessive spending executed in the last three years. It’s a paultry sum when you think about it. It won’t make up the deficit. It will make us less than ready for what is ahead.

We can’t afford to cut our Navy further. We can’t afford to cut our armed forces further. We can’t cut our air force further. In fact we have an air force that needs new tools if it’s going to remain functional for another decade and on into the future.

The Leftists on the Left and the Right have savaged our budgets and our economy. Don’t let them fool you into thinking savage cuts in the military will save the day.

All it will do is hasten the night.

Quit the damned bail out funding. Stop paying the two year unemployment today.

Get rid of illegal immigrants. Cut welfare further. Get Social Security on a firm footing. And defund the Leftist groups supported by our tax dollars.

Defund ACORN or whatever it calls itself today.
Defund PBS.
Defund NPR.
Defund the myriad of leftist environmental groups in our nation, who use our tax dollars to turn this into a ecological fruit farm.
Defund the myriad stupid studies that cost us hundreds of millions.

Put people back to work in our nation. Start implementing some sane trade policies, that see equal tariffs placed on goods coming into our nation that the shipping nation charges on our imports to their nation.

There are plenty of places to cut. And yet where is the first place the left and even some of our own look to, to cut? Why the military of course.

No. I’m all for a review designed to make things run more smoothly, but I’m not for a second going to buy into some Leftist pipe dream that we’re all supposed to okay now that the Lefties on both sides of the isle have spent us into a corner.

Defense comes first. Without it, nothing else matters. Nothing!

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not totally insensitive to the argument you make. I would ask you, or perhaps more accurately suggest this.

Why don’t we cut the spending on new weapons of the variety you’re talking about, for let’s say twenty years? Sound like a good idea?

At the end of twenty years, where do we go to find an expert in those fields that can make our next generation of weapons?

They haven’t sold our military any hardware in 20 years. Do you think they’re still out there at the end of 20 years, with all sorts of new cutting edge weapons then?

It’s my take that China has by that time built up it’s military to the point that it is nearly equal to ours. How is that going to make us safer?