Obama proposes largest defense budget since WWII

[Guided by Wire]

http://www.slate.com/id/2243297/

Too Big To Fail?
President Obama has proposed the largest defense budget since World War II.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Feb. 1, 2010, at 7:42 PM ET

The Pentagon released its budget for fiscal year 2011 this afternoon, and it is enormous—much larger, even adjusting for inflation, than any budget since World War II. What's more, some numbers buried within the budget suggest that it's set to grow larger still in the coming years—to a greater extent than the White House or the Defense Department acknowledges.

One bit of good news: Defense Secretary Robert Gates is more honest than his recent predecessors about how much money he's really requesting. The figure for FY 2011 is $708.2 billion—consisting of $548.9 billion for the "baseline" budget plus $159.3 billion to pay for "overseas contingency operations," mainly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, by the way, he says, tack on another $33 billion to the current year's budget, to pay for the 30,000 extra troops (and all their supplies, weapons, and so forth) that President Obama is sending to Afghanistan.

All told, that's $741.2 billion in new money—and Gates is upfront about it.

In the past, defense secretaries, in presenting their budgets to Congress, have pretended that the costs of war are completely separate from the rest of the military budget. And they've itemized those war costs very sketchily, if at all. By contrast, Gates breaks down that $159.3 billion in some detail ($89.4 billion for operations, $21.3 billion to repair broken equipment, $13.6 billion to train the Afghan and Iraqi security forces, etc.).

Still, $708.2 billion, the sum requested just for fiscal year 2011, is an extraordinary chunk of change. The Center for a New American Security (hardly a dovish think tank) calculates that, adjusting for inflation, this sum is 13 percent higher than the defense budget at the peak of the Korean War, 33 percent higher than at the peak of the Vietnam War, 23 percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War, and 64 percent higher than the Cold War's average.

+ more @ link

Pretty hefty defense plan for a terrorist Muslim who hates America.



This is interesting, though not really surprising:

There has been one constant in the defense budget ever since the mid-1960s: the money has been divided almost exactly evenly—never varying by more than a couple of percentage points—among the Army, Navy, and Air Force. For all of Gates' apparent rationality, the same is true in this budget: 32 percent goes to the Army, 35 percent goes to the Navy, 33 percent goes to the Air Force. (For more on this, click here.) It is extremely unlikely that our national-security needs just so happen to demand a response that gives each of our three services a nearly equal share of the military budget.

In other words, the Defense Department is a monstrous bureaucracy, and its budget is a political document—a set of weights and balances to keep the natural tensions from erupting out of control.

[PretAllez]

"In other words, the Defense Department is a monstrous bureaucracy, and its budget is a political document—a set of weights and balances to keep the natural tensions from erupting out of control. "

Same is true here, except that instead of being divided by Army/Navy/AirForce, it is assigned by riding (electoral districts)

(oh, and the scale of spending is significantly less )

[chase]

Not if his strategy is to spend us to death...

We need a more efficient military, not necessarily a bigger one. Most of that is probably going to be spent on "coordinating fighting accessories" for all the homos that are going to rush in and be offended by the lack of "dazzle" in the armory.

[migopod]

Pretty hefty defense plan for a terrorist Muslim who hates America.



This is interesting, though not really surprising:

I'm curious actually. The Bush administration didn't include Iraq and Afghanistan expenditures in the budget proper but instead funded them through emergency supplemental funding requests (as did Obama in year one at least). If the plan going forward is to actually budget for the current wars rather than hide their cost through the emergency supplementals, is it so drastic a hike in funding?

[Hauptman]

Not if his strategy is to spend us to death...

We need a more efficient military, not necessarily a bigger one. Most of that is probably going to be spent on "coordinating fighting accessories" for all the homos that are going to rush in and be offended by the lack of "dazzle" in the armory.

It's time to grow up, Chase.

If you would like to be taken as an intelligent man, you might try to refrain from the childish insults. They accomplish nothing, but to make you look foolish.

[chase]

It's time to grow up, Chase.

If you would like to be taken as an intelligent man, you might try to refrain from the childish insults. They accomplish nothing, but to make you look foolish.

Ok, ok. I'll give him this point. That is, if military spending DOES increase. I seem to recall a candidate who was set on cutting back on the military and who voted against a bill that gave the troops the money they needed to save us.

[Fencergrl]

I seem to recall a candidate who was set on cutting back on the military and who voted against a bill that gave the troops the money they needed to save us.

Nah... you don't need troops. Jesus is saving you.

[Hauptman]

Ok, ok. I'll give him this point. That is, if military spending DOES increase. I seem to recall a candidate who was set on cutting back on the military and who voted against a bill that gave the troops the money they needed to save us.

That's good, Chase, stand up for what you believe in.

If you believe that increasing military spending is good then give the president credit for doing a good thing, right?

[Inquartata]

"A rising tide lifts all ships."

The President's overall budget is the largest in history---no surprise that defense has gone along for the ride, especially given that the goal is the typical Keynesian one of spending us out of recession. In that pursuit it scarcely matters where the dollars are spent...

[chase]

That's good, Chase, stand up for what you believe in.

If you believe that increasing military spending is good then give the president credit for doing a good thing, right?

"A rising tide lifts all ships."

The President's overall budget is the largest in history---no surprise that defense has gone along for the ride, especially given that the goal is the typical Keynesian one of spending us out of recession. In that pursuit it scarcely matters where the dollars are spent...

I think those two quotes tell the whole story. I agree with him raising military spending, but I wish he would pay for it by cutting welfare, disbanding the EPA, dropping health "reform" and another failed stimulus plan.

[WGH]

I think those two quotes tell the whole story. I agree with him raising military spending, but I wish he would pay for it by cutting welfare, disbanding the EPA, dropping health "reform" and another failed stimulus plan.

You know that the EPA has other important duties than just shutting down people's ghost containment grids, right?

[chase]

You know that the EPA has other important duties than just shutting down people's ghost containment grids, right?

Like ruining our economy? Do you have any idea how many jobs are destroyed because of all the dumb federal agencies and regulations?

[telkanuru]

Like ruining our economy? Do you have any idea how many jobs are destroyed because of all the dumb federal agencies and regulations?

Do you have any idea how many people's lives are saved by dumb federal agencies and regulations?

[WGH]

Like ruining our economy? Do you have any idea how many jobs are destroyed because of all the dumb federal agencies and regulations?

Do you? I'm actually curious. How many jobs have been destroyed by the EPA? How many jobs are provided by the EPA? Why, of all the government agencies, does the Environmental Protection Agency seem to be your whipping boy?

[fencerchica]

Do you? I'm actually curious. How many jobs have been destroyed by the EPA? How many jobs are provided by the EPA? Why, of all the government agencies, does the Environmental Protection Agency seem to be your whipping boy?

Because movement conservatism is overwhelmingly a fusion of corporate interests and conservative religious interests, and these 2 groups both perceive environmental conservation as running counter to their agendas. Industry tends to pursue a short-term bottom line and wants unrestricted access to exploiting natural resources with no concern for tomorrow, and conservative religious sects traditionally (although this is changing somewhat with the "crunchy-con" movement) have perceived concern for the planet as a competitor for the devotion of their followers.

Actually, taking the religious angle a bit further, Dispensationalists positively desire environmental ruin because they see it as a road to the Rapture and the 2nd Coming. Those are the folks who sometimes refuse to perform maintenance on their own houses because they think that it shows a lack of faith in the imminent return of JC.

[Bayou Bum]

Do you have any idea how many people's lives are saved by dumb federal agencies and regulations?

That depends, which federal agencies and regulations do you consider dumb?

[Fencergrl]

Do you have any idea how many people's lives are saved by dumb federal agencies and regulations?

Or keep you from getting ripped off? There was a well known gas station chain that got a chip made in China so the pumps were only accurate at $20, any other amount it would rip people off by just a small enough amount that most people wouldn't notice, but significant enough that the gas station raked in a lot of extra money.

Why would they bother to make them accurate at $20? Because that is the amount the Federal Government inspectors often use to test the accuracy. I say often, because it isn't always the case... which is how they got caught and fined.

I know this because the Canadian Federal Government was warned of this behaviour when this company showed up here & started opening up stations. The inspectors here were instructed to watch for signs that this company might try the same thing.

Why do you think that there are so many recalls from China? Everything from defects, to lead paint used on toys, to melamine in food. This is what happens when you have a lack of governement controls, regulation & enforcement.

[telkanuru]

That depends, which federal agencies and regulations do you consider dumb?

Off the top of my head, I'd say the National Parks Service tops the list.

[I_luv_saber]

Because movement conservatism is overwhelmingly a fusion of corporate interests and conservative religious interests, and these 2 groups both perceive environmental conservation as running counter to their agendas.

Hmm... most religious people I know are at least somewhat environmentalists due to the "stewards of the Earth" angle....

[fencerchica]

Hmm... most religious people I know are at least somewhat environmentalists due to the "stewards of the Earth" angle....

Well, as I mentioned, this hostility towards environmentalism is more of a conservative religious phenomenon; also we're seeing a new "crunchy con" movement (the poster boy for this is the somewhat odious Rod Dreher) whose adherents do actually take environmental stewardship (and similar matters such as organic foods, sustainable agriculture, etc) very seriously, even while they look with scorn on most other progressive issues.