Washington is abuzz with budget talk and military officials are skittishly preparing for potential cuts to defense spending, but the proposed plans to do so are not expected to reduce the capacities of the Pentagon or military in any measurable way.
The most likely plan put forth by the so-called Gang of Six proposes to cut $800 billion to defense – double the number Obama initially suggested – over the next decade. Other pitches, like Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.), go as far as $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. This has the Pentagon bracing for possible cuts to, for example, the Navy’s next-generation ballistic-missile submarine, or the Air Force’s new futuristic long-range bomber, or for the Army to drop to a measly 520,000 active duty members from 569,000 within five years (or even more outlandish manifestations of military domination).
But for FY 2012 alone the Defense Department’s budget is slated to be $676 billion and current total military spending has swelled to its highest level, adjusted for inflation, since World War II. Furthermore, these proposed cuts represent merely reductions in projected spending and would allow the Pentagon’s budget to continue to grow at about the rate of inflation. At present, two years military spending exceeds any proposed cuts over the next ten years.
The proposed cuts to military spending, a part of the budget which has been traditionally off-limits, are mostly political grandstanding. A new analysis from Todd Harrison, from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says that while the source of growth in annual defense budgets since 2001 has been mostly (54%) due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, much of the rest has been spent on wasteful superfluous weapons technology, bloated salaries and benefits plans, and expensive peacetime operating costs for the 900 plus military bases in 130 plus countries around the world.
Cutting defense spending more drastically is not without political support: about half of Americans – a plurality by a large margin – think deep cuts can be made at no significant security risk. Indeed, the amount of savings from proposals like Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s – to bring all overseas troops home and end all of America’s unnecessary wars – seems politically palatable too, as Paul has attracted more campaign donations from military families than any other candidate from either party.
what goes up, must come down. The law of the Universe.
As stated in the article, as long as the Pentagon continues to raise their requests for funding and the Congress continues to approve such requests, the nickel and dime cuts won't amount to squat. As I've said before many times, It's time to close all those "…900 plus military bases in 130 plus countries around the world…" that will not only reduce their required operating expenses drastically and allow them to retool and resupply but will also allow for a more stable family life for the troops. Having endured a couple of isolated tours myself, I understand what it does to family life and what is does to the children of service members.
AND, they need to end the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Time to let them each rule and govern their own countries. We've done enough damage.
this so called "cut" is like a 600lb fatso skipping his after dinner mint.
Any discussion of military cuts must include more than just how many dollars should be cut. It must include discussion of troop strength,force levels, and which geographic areas must be vacated. That's where the money is.
Small cuts expressed in percentages without the above language will result in the status quo.
troop strength …. Standing armies are a threat to liberty
force levels … Standing armies are a threat to liberty
geographic areas … we don't own the world. Bring the troops home.
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." – James Madison
Ron Paul has the awnser bring all the troops home right away and close the empire that has been built around the world.If America is doing the right things why do they spend what amounts to at least the rest of the worlds military spendind combined.The CIA and most government institutions are lieing criminals and need to be in jail not running the country.The CIA since it began has been illegaly invoved in drugs even Today in Afganistan and how nows were else.When Ronauld Regan was the President and all since have been invoved in illegally profiting from drugs well they spend millions on the war on drugs they bring in.Nancy Regan started the just say no well Ron was having drugs shiped into America.America needs a complete overhal of the government and CIA and FBI and the new people in power can figerout how else.Another must is the banks that are the ones illegaly running the country with no care for no one.Like Immortal Tecniqe says about the por areas in America( You cant take care of a family on minimum wadge why the F do you think most of use are loacked in a cage)listen to his music even if its not your styel you will learn alot about Americas past and present and read about both also then you will see how we got here.
All that we need is enough strength to protect our shores. If we pull out of everywhere, there will be no reason to fear other countries. It's because we're there, they are here. Military strength is directly proportionate to the countries relationship with other countries. In the case of Israel, they have a lot of enemies because of their actions. Does that mean we have to make their enemies, our enemies? No big deal, just common sense
Cuts? What cuts? When it comes to the Pentagon, "cuts" always mean more money.