Budget hawks question Pentagon's doomsday scenarios

Washington Examiner ^ | February 21, 2013 | Byron York

[vbmoneyspender]

See Link

But perhaps the biggest example of the Washington Monument maneuver is coming from the Defense Department, where it goes by another name. Over many decades of defense budget battles, the Pentagon has often used a tactic known as a "gold watch." It means to answer a budget cut proposal by selecting for elimination a program so important and valued -- a gold watch -- that Pentagon chiefs know political leaders will restore funding rather than go through with the cut.

So now, with sequestration approaching, the Pentagon has announced that the possibility of budget cuts has forced the Navy to delay deployment of the carrier USS Harry S. Truman to the Persian Gulf. With tensions with Iran as high as they've ever been, that would leave the U.S. with just one carrier, instead of the preferred two, in that deeply troubled region.

"Already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf," Obama said at a White House appearance on Tuesday, in case anyone missed the news.

Some military analysts were immediately suspicious. "A total gold watch," said one retired general officer who asked not to be named. Military commentator and retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters called the Navy's move "ostentatious," comparing it to "Donald Trump claiming he can't afford a cab."

And Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is worried not only about the Truman decision but also the Navy's announcement that it cannot afford to refuel another carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln. "I am concerned that these decisions are being made for the purpose of adding drama to the sequestration debate," Hunter wrote in a Feb. 12 letter to the Pentagon, "given the continuation of other programs that are worthy of cost-cuts or even elimination."

[vbmoneyspender]

Apparently some of the people in the Pentagon don't recognize how serious a threat gov't spending is. Gov't spending is threatening our economy and if our economy goes, our military goes.

[ClearCase_guy]

I would suggest doubling the required cuts for any service branch which seems to intentionally propose hurtful cuts. There are vast amounts of waste. Everyone knows that. Everyone.

If a service branch wants to start off by cutting a "gold watch". I say -- fine. That gold watch is gone. You lost it. Now, let's start again immediately. Same dollar amount: new round of cuts. Do you think you can find some waste this time? Or would you like to lose another gold watch? Be aware: a third round of cuts could follow, if you insist on being an asshat.

[vbmoneyspender]

I’ll tell you, we have people on this site screaming bloody murder about military cuts which aren’t even real cuts. They are just cuts in the amount of growth already penciled into Pentagon budgets.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

We caused this by exporting US jobs.

Our tax base is shrinking, because things are made in China. Which is now the world’s leading exporter.

When our tax base is shrinking, we cannot spend as much.

BRING BACK US JOBS.

[ClearCase_guy]

Hey, Obama is still trying to “grow the economy” by patching roads and boosting pre-school education. Somehow, I don’t see his efforts doing a whole lot to help us export more goods and create wealth in this country over the next 5 years or so. The current political establishment has no desire to restore this country.

[SkyPilot]

Enough of this misinformation on this website. I used to think the Democrats were stupid. It seems to apply to Republicans as well.

Sequestration is a dagger to the Department of Defense.

It is reeling from a $487 Billion cut that began in 2011.

Sequestration EXEMPTS entitlements, which are the real cause of our debt and deficit.

Sequestration take 13.5% (in the middle of a Fiscal Year) from the DoD, which cannot touch military pay or most procurement dollars, and will have to eviscerate Operations and Maintenance by 30-40% in just 6 months. We have become Rome. We feed the Bread and Circus.

Do you understand?

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Dems won’t because it runs contrary to their “free stuff for voters” nonsense.

But the GOP is out to lunch and absent. A small portion is sold out to the Chicoms.

The rest have been brainwashed. It is that simple.

We need American manufacturing back and we need it now.

Now.

[vbmoneyspender]

You are not telling the truth. Bryon York has a column on this today about the cuts amount to a reduction in the growth of the Pentagon's budget.

Here is an excerpt from York's column today which you can read on FR:

But even for the Pentagon, the cuts are only to the rate of growth for the defense budget in coming years. They are not actual cuts that make spending decline. In a February publication, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023,” the Congressional Budget Office (summary here, full report here) outlines the increases in defense spending that will happen even with the various spending caps and sequestration cuts that are currently law. Table 1-5 (Outlays) on page 30 outlines projected defense spending in the coming decade. For 2014, the figure is $593 billion. For 2015, it is $597 billion. For 2016, $611 billion. For 2017, $619 billion. For 2018, $628 billion. For 2019, $648 billion. For 2020, $663 billion. For 2021, $679 billion. For 2022, $702 billion. And for 2023, $714 billion.

[vbmoneyspender]

By the way, Duncan Hunter is a vet and he says the Pentagon is purposefully cutting necessary spending in order to protect the Pentagon’s overall budget. Is he a liar? Or is he stupid. Try responding to the specifics of the article instead of posting pictures of soldiers hugging their kids.

[SkyPilot]

You are not telling the truth.

I am telling the truth, and you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it?

Even if this nation were to ZERO out Defense spending (which is Constitutional vbmonspender, entitlements are not) we will be destroyed fiscally and economically.

Not to mention that it is immoral to rape the military to fund your welfare state.

Do you understand? What is your IQ or profession? I am tired of dealing with simpletons on this issue. Either you acknowledge the the fiscal facts, or get out of the way.

Sequestration is a dagger to the heart of the US military, halfway through the fiscal year. It cannot touch military pay, so it will have to gut Operations and Maintenance (O&M).

And the "takers" of this society are exempt.

I am sick and tired of the entitlement takers on this website who hide behind their keyboards to protect their Direct Deposit checks at the expense of better men and women who serve in the military.

[blueunicorn6]

We, as a nation, simply don’t understand the concept of OPPORTUNITY COSTS. In the business world, this concept is used with GROSS MARGIN RETURN ON INVESTMENT to make decisions. The Democrats don’t use these common-sense business practices. They use a concept known as DEMOCRAT VOTES PRODUCED BY GOVERNMENT SPENDING. The Democrats know full well that they are gambling with American lives when they cut the defense budget. They are more concerned with using the hard-earned tax dollars to buy votes. Why? What is so great about those elected jobs? Because THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY IS. The Democrats aren’t childish, misguided ideologues. They are simply thieves. And the media aids and facilitates the thieves.

[pepsionice]

In the late 1980s...we were discussing how computers would replace most workers, and how DoD would downsize within fifteen years. Instead of downsizing, we actually coordinate and plan expansions now....which doesn’t make any sense.

[jiggyboy]

Even a few "low information voters" of my acquaintance know it's a scam.

It took longer for me to prove to them that these were "Washington cuts", not real cuts -- when they saw that the Huffing-and-Puffing-ton Post had the same AP story that evil, biased National Review quoted, they were finally convinced. (My effort to educate them on The Ad Hominem Fallacy is in its eighth fruitless year.)

But once they saw that this fiscal year was indeed more spending than the previous year, they wondered on their own, "so why do all these people who were already employed need to be laid off? why don't they just not hire new people?"

[qwerty1234]

>>It is reeling from a $487 Billion cut that began in 2011.

Baloney.

[vbmoneyspender]

For whatever reason, you are an hysteric on this subject. Fortunately, though the doomsday scenario you depict is belied by the facts. Here is a link to the Dept. of Defense's Green Book. The DoD describes The Green Book as "a convenient reference source for data associated with the current budget estimates of the Department of Defense. It also provides current (nominal) and constant historical date for the Department, as well as selected data on all National Defense, the total Federal Budget, and the U.S. Economy."

The Green Book shows the DoD's baseline budget numbers as respectively $528.2 billion for 2011, $530.6 billion for 2012 and $525.4 billion for 2013. See page 8 of the pdf link for these numbers.

With regard to future numbers, page 30 of the Congressional Budget Office's outlook for the years 2014 thru 2023 shows that the DoD's basline budget will be $518 billion in 2014 and $510 billion in 2015 and $520 billion in 2016. This means that the DoD's baseline budget will be reduced less than 1.5% if the sequester cuts go into effect. And that will only be for the year 2014. Another cut of less than 2% will go into effect in 2015. After that the DoD's baseline budget starts rising again.

That is hardly the stuff of nightmares and if the DoD can't find less than $2 in unnecessary spending to cut out of every $100 it spends for only 2 years of budgets, then it has bigger problems than the sequester cuts.

[SkyPilot]

I swear, I am sick and tired of useless Freepers like yourelf that infect this forum.

Better men and women than you were serving this nation while you were surfing porn on your computer.

BREAKING: Secretary Of Defense Announces $487 Billion In Defense Cuts

I wager that you are overweight keyboard typer that never served a day for this nation. And if you did serve, you are a nothing but a Judas.

[SkyPilot]

For whatever reason, you are an hysteric on this subject

I am the voice of sanity on a previously pro-military, pro-Conservative forum that has lost its collective mind.

Even if we zeroed out Defense spending, this is what we are left with.

Who is the hysteric now?

Sequestration will cut 30-40% from Operations and Maintence now. Today.

Military pay and most procurement dollars are exempt.

Do you understand basic math?

[vbmoneyspender]

Here is a link to the DoD's Green Book showing defense spending went up from from 2009 to 2010 and again from 2010 to 2011. Maybe SkyPilot will argue that the DoD employees who put the Green Book together are simpletons and idiots but the Green Book shows on page 6 that total defense spending in 2009 was $697.8 billion, in 2010 it was $722.1 billion and in 2011 it was $738.7 billion.

[vbmoneyspender]

Try putting in actual numbers in your next post and then take up any complaints you have with the numbers in my post with the people who put the DoD’s Green Book together.

[SkyPilot]

Do you sit in your car all day and listen to Rush and his ill informed numbers?

Let me spell it out for you, because I can tell you are thick.

Miliary pay is exempt from Sequestration, but Obama planned back in 2010 to cut troop strength, so that is coming. The FY2011 cuts call for 189,000 less army soldiers to begin with, and that is BEFORE the cuts.

Operations and Maintenance, which is the life blood of the military, is about to be absolutely gutted.

Don't be a jerk and try to "spin" this. Don't post crap websites that don't tell the truth about the numbers. Believe me, I know the numbers.

The takers of this country are doing just fine under Sequestration, thank you very much. Almost 2/3rds (62%) of the budget is give away programs, and they are EXEMPT from Sequestration.