Modest Defense Spending Cuts

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
Defense secretary announces billions in budget cuts

From Charley Keyes, CNN Sr. National Security Producer
January 6, 2011 5:59 p.m. EST

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • NEW: "I'm not happy," the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee says
  • Gates' plan will trim the Army and Marine Corps
  • The plan protects "the U.S. military's size, reach and fighting strength," Gates says


Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates staged a pre-emptive attack Thursday in Washington's looming budget battles, announcing cuts of $78 billion to the U.S. military and defense department, including reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.
In addition, Gates said the Army, Navy and Air Force had found $100 billion of savings that they would retain, allowing them to continue developing major weapons and modernizing their forces over the next five years.
"These reform efforts, followed through to completion, will make it possible to protect the U.S. military's size, reach and fighting strength despite a declining rate of growth and eventual flattening of the defense budget over the next five years," Gates said at the start of a lengthy opening statement at the Pentagon.
Under the Gates plan, the Marine Corps would slash 15,000 to 20,000 people, a 10% reduction. The Army would shrink by 27,000 active duty personnel, 4% cut, on top of an already planned reduction of 22,000 -- for a total of 49,000 fewer soldiers.
The smaller fighting force won't take effect until 2015, to coincide with the scheduled handover of security to local forces in Afghanistan.
"A major objective beyond creating monetary savings is to make this department less cumbersome, less top heavy and more agile and effective in the execution of its responsibilities," Gates said. "My hope and expectation is that as a result of these changes over time, what had been a culture of endless money, where cost was rarely a consideration, will become a culture of savings and restraint."
The chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, seated beside Gates at the Pentagon briefing, pushed back against anticipated criticism that the proposed troop reductions would cut too deeply.
"These are modest changes and ones that we think are well within the risk envelope, as we understand things right now, particularly given where we think we'll be with respect to Afghanistan in 2015, when these force structure changes start to kick in," Mullen said.
And Gates said he is proposing a slowdown in the rate of growth of the military, not what he called "absolute cuts," and he insisted the U.S. military will be ready and able for the future.
"My message to both our allies and to our friends -- and in light of what some of our closest allies have had to do in terms of their own military capabilities -- is that this president understands and accepts our global responsibilities and we will continue to invest in the defense capabilities that are necessary to sustain our military strength and meet our global responsibilities," Gates said.
The Defense Department had instructed the individual branches of the military to identify $100 billion in cuts over the next five years, with Gates' pledge that they could keep the savings they identified instead of it being returned either to the larger Defense Department pool or the U.S. Treasury.
Some of the plan could collide with the wishes of members of Congress, which often include protecting jobs in their districts, although part of the proposals can be implemented by Gates alone.
The cuts Gates announced Thursday drew quick fire from Capitol Hill.
"I'm not happy," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-California, who just took over as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I remain committed to applying more fiscal responsibility and accountability to the Department of Defense, but I will not stand idly by and watch the White House gut defense when Americans are deployed in harm's way."
McKeon said he is particularly concerned by the proposed cuts for the Marine Corps.
"Members of the House Armed Services Committee remain committed to the Marine Corps as an expeditionary fighting force 'in ready,' which includes the capability to conduct amphibious landings," McKeon said in a prepared statement. "This mission could be jeopardized by the cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a capability revalidated by the secretary just last year, and delays in the Joint Strike Fighter and amphibious ship construction."
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, also signaled that Congress wants a say in Defense Department spending, saying the Gates announcement was just the start of a process.
"Everyone is concerned about the debt, no one wants to make substantial cuts that jeopardize our national security, and it's going to be a very hard public policy challenge to balance those two interests," Smith said in a written statement
Some big programs, identified by Gates and the services as "troubled or unneeded," are under the budget ax, including the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. And some parts of the multiservice Joint Strike Fighter will be stretched out over a longer time. Gates announced that the vertical take-off version of the jet requested by the Marine Corps -- and plagued by design and cost problems -- will be placed on what amounts to a two-year probation.
Gates warned that if the program couldn't meet its goals it would be cancelled.
The Pentagon plan for savings came from reducing overhead and finding new efficiencies and improved business practices as well as combing through weapons programs.
Substantial new investment harvested from these savings will stave off additional cuts to the number of personnel in uniform as well as allow additional modernization.
In one example of the proposed cuts -- certain to fire up sharp opposition in Congress and elsewhere -- the Pentagon will seek to increase medical premiums for retired working-age military personnel. Gates said the costs of health coverage had not been revised since the 1990s and are only a fraction of the costs of private health insurance.
These cuts have no direct impact on the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are funded separately.
The Pentagon budget will increase next year and taper off at the end of the five-year period now under consideration.
As part of its budget cuts, the Pentagon is previewing expansion in certain areas. For example, the Air Force will be able to use its savings to develop a new long-range nuclear-capable penetrating bomber, a project that had earlier been put on hold, and buy additional unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Army can use its savings to invest in suicide prevention and substance-abuse counseling and to modernize its tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Strykers and other vehicles.
The Navy will be able to purchase additional ships, and more F18s to hedge against any delays in the Joint Strike Fighter.
The Marines will be able to use savings to repair and refurbish equipment returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The budget plan brings the Pentagon in line with President Obama's request to reduce projected spending on the military by $78 billion over the next five years.
The Defense budget, under the Gates plan, has overall spending increasing 3 percent in the coming year, then dropping for two years before zero growth in the final two years.
"This country's dire fiscal situation, and the threat it poses to America's influence and credibility around the world, will only get worse unless the U.S. government gets its finances in order," Gates said. "As the biggest part of the discretionary federal budget, the Pentagon cannot presume to exempt itself from the scrutiny and pressure faced by the rest of our government."






Well looks like we are decreasing the size of our military finally. That's what I'm talking about, I call this progress.
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
"I'm not happy," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-California, who just took over as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I remain committed to applying more fiscal responsibility and accountability to the Department of Defense, but I will not stand idly by and watch the White House gut defense when Americans are deployed in harm's way."

lol this guy is worried about his job. The defense department itself even the marine corps are voluntarily reducing their sizes and this guy is acting like its some unforseen force that is doing it. I feel as if Republicans are gonna blame Obama for it, even though he isn't mentioned? We'll see no assumptions here guys.
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
Nobody has anything to say? The military is going to decrease its spending in each branch by 100 billion in the next 5 years. Which will conclude in a savings of 500 billions every five years or 100 billion every year.

Plus the immediate cut of 78 billion.
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
You can't do it that fast. We would be like Soviet Union if we did that. All this rotting equipment and no where for it to go but warring countries? We would make a lot of money.
 

budsmoker87

New Member
reminds me of a story I heard the other day on talk radio about the governor of some state cutting gov't employee salaries by 1% lol


it's either small potatoes, or....more likely than not, class warfare strategies enacted by the super wealthy to get the lower classes fighting among each other, or at least distracted from the real super powers that hord all the assets/wealth
 

budsmoker87

New Member
sorry, i should be more encouraging...or optomistic, or whatever... $100 billion sounds like a lot of money, but it's less than 10% of the entire military budget (if im correct) ...how many branches are going to cut $100 billion? can we have an estimate of the total expenditures being cut, and by when? over the next 5 years? ok so if the annual budget is 1 trillion, then a few hundred billion in cuts over 5 years or more....what's that? lol.


this is great....but what you said about the soviet union does not register to me at all. YOU would make nothing if the ppl who own the huge military contracting companies sell their assets to other warring countries
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
The military needs more funding. those A.I. robots their going to build won't be cheap. Their making terminators that will take a lot of money. I think they should make them look like Arnold.
 

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
I never thought you and me would agree on something political, but it's happened. It's about time but honestly i dont think its enough, bring our guys home and stop throwing away our money and future for nothing. The iraq war was supposed to cost 60 billion and be quickly re-paid to the us through future iraqi oil revenues.....a $trillion later and we're still giving them aid they dont even want anymore they say publicly.......and what happened to pulling the troops in 2011 in afghanistan, thats one of the few things ive disagreed with obama with, i understand why its so hard to do since the republicans and everyone else would probally jump all over him and try to do an about face and attack him for it but he should just admit he was wrong and keeping them there longer is a pointless and idiotic idea.
 

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
I say cut everything 10%, freeze spending at 2008 levels, and we will be out of debt in 10 years. That is doable, no sacred cows.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
The military needs more funding. those A.I. robots their going to build won't be cheap. Their making terminators that will take a lot of money. I think they should make them look like Arnold.
[youtube]bfXlpMCSG98[/youtube][youtube]YPoANTKo5kA&feature=related[/youtube]
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
I just think we need to reduce our military spending and defense spending more, but I'm saying is we need to to do it on an incline. We cannot just cut all that spending at once, it would reek havoc on our economy losing that many jobs at once.
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
We don't in any means need to eliminate our entire debt. I think we had a debt ceiling of around a trillion we would be fine.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Its not doable, even if you taxed every citizen 100% and every corporation 100% forever you still couldn't keep up with the amount of debt and interest we are accruing. Just to balance our current expenditures so that the amount going out is equivalent to the amount coming in, every single man, woman and child needs to pony up $200,000 right now. Mathematically impossible to attain, they will keep kicking the can down the road until finally inflation takes hold and the rest of the world turns in their USA I.O.U's and the bond market cracks and all of a sudden its 3rd world here. In Yugoslavia things went from bearable to bodies in the streets, cities on fire in a matter of 2 weeks.
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
Its obviously going to take time. That is why the administration and defense department are going to be implementing cuts at a steady rate. But things all hinge on future presidents decisions.

This are looking up unemployment at 9.4 percent. Republicans still trying to vote out Obamacare even though it is impossible for them to accomplish until Obama is out of office.

I swear our Republican representatives are a bunch of dottering old fools. I know some of the provisions of the health care reform are careless, but the thing is more good comes from this reform than bad. If we excluded the everyone buying health care provision I believe that more people would support it.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
the US doesn't spend shit on 'defense'.

it's all war-mongering offensive technology.

the US has very little defenses. we saw that on 9/11, where the only 'defense' we had was that every lawmaker, cabinet member, and aide was swiftly wisked away to bunkers, and the president was put on a plane to an undefined location surrounded by 10 fighter jets.....

that's not national defense. that's cowardly routing.
 

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
Its obviously going to take time. That is why the administration and defense department are going to be implementing cuts at a steady rate. But things all hinge on future presidents decisions.

This are looking up unemployment at 9.4 percent. Republicans still trying to vote out Obamacare even though it is impossible for them to accomplish until Obama is out of office.

I swear our Republican representatives are a bunch of dottering old fools. I know some of the provisions of the health care reform are careless, but the thing is more good comes from this reform than bad. If we excluded the everyone buying health care provision I believe that more people would support it.
If we had kept the public option would of gotten more support too. the republicans have already broken 90% of their promises and made a mockery of all their so called inititives like paying for a bill by cutting others and explaining how it fits into the constitution.......it only applies to them when they feel like it....Makes me sad, i had hoped they had learned something, but they havent changed a bit. I knew it was an impossible dream.how many congress member stuck through for the whole constitution? almost none, and how does reading the constitution and all their bs help jobs which was supposedly priority #1....
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
I just think we need to reduce our military spending and defense spending more, but I'm saying is we need to to do it on an incline. We cannot just cut all that spending at once, it would reek havoc on our economy losing that many jobs at once.
Incorrect. Bringing our military personnel home would mean they are spending their money here. Stopping our illegal occupation in the Middle East would mean our government would no longer be stealing our money and spending it there. Our money would be spent here. We need to stop the occupation. It's not happening. Billions are being spent to build an Embassy there. The current philosophy is to stay in the Middle East no matter what lies the dems tell you. They have shown little interest in ending the illegal occupation like they said. We know most of the repubs are for the war. Don't count on those sleezebags to end it.
 

Dominathan

Well-Known Member
Nobody has anything to say? The military is going to decrease its spending in each branch by 100 billion in the next 5 years. Which will conclude in a savings of 500 billions every five years or 100 billion every year.

Plus the immediate cut of 78 billion.
I got something to say... It's about damn time!
 
Top