It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 


Because they're shifting things around so more money goes into operations, and they're cutting funding for projects, some of the necessary. We're spending more for ops, and for things like the KC(X) (which is desperately needed), but we're cutting funding for F-22, DD(X), FCAS, etc. So the PROJECT budget is being cut.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Because they're shifting things around so more money goes into operations, and they're cutting funding for projects, some of the necessary. We're spending more for ops, and for things like the KC(X) (which is desperately needed), but we're cutting funding for F-22, DD(X), FCAS, etc. So the PROJECT budget is being cut.


No all of that is included in the 'base funding'.

I did find this in the 2010 budget:

-----------------------------------------
The 2010 Budget for the Department of Defense
(DOD) requests $533.7 billion, or an increase
of four percent from the 2009 enacted
level of $513.3 billion
------------------------------------------



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 



With regard to the troops and their families, I will recommend that we:

1. Fully protect and properly fund the growth in military end strength in the base budget. This means completing the growth in the Army and Marines while halting reductions in the Air Force and the Navy. Accomplishing this will require a nearly $11 billion increase above the FY09 budget level.

2. Continue the steady growth in medical research and development by requesting $400 million more than last year.

3. Recognize the critical and permanent nature of wounded, ill and injured, traumatic brain injury, and psychological health programs. This means institutionalizing and properly funding these efforts in the base budget and increasing overall spending by $300 million. The department will spend over $47 billion on healthcare in FY10.

4. Increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, lodging, and education.

Many of these programs have been funded in the past by supplementals. We must move away from ad hoc funding of long-term commitments. Thus, we have added money to each of these areas and all will be permanently and properly carried in the base defense budget. Together they represent an increase in base budget funding of $13 billion from last year.



1. First, we will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for the warfighter in the base budget by some $2 billion. This will include:

* Fielding and sustaining 50 Predator-class unmanned aerial vehicle orbits by FY11 and maximizing their production. This capability, which has been in such high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be permanently funded in the base budget. It will represent a 62 percent increase in capability over the current level and 127 percent from over a year ago.
* Increasing manned ISR capabilities such as the turbo-prop aircraft deployed so successfully as part of "Task Force Odin" in Iraq.
* Initiating research and development on a number of ISR enhancements and experimental platforms optimized for today's battlefield.

2. We will also spend $500 million more in the base budget than last year to increase our capacity to field and sustain more helicopters – a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan. Today, the primary limitation on helicopter capacity is not airframes but shortages of maintenance crews and pilots. So our focus will be on recruiting and training more Army helicopter crews.

3. To boost global partnership capacity efforts, we will increase funding by $500 million. These initiatives include training and equipping foreign militaries to undertake counter terrorism and stability operations.

4. To grow our special operations capabilities, we will increase personnel by more than 2,800 or five percent and will buy more special forces-optimized lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft.

We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.

5. To improve our inter-theater lift capacity, we will increase the charter of Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) ships from two to four until our own production program begins deliveries in 2011.

6. We will stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) at 45 versus 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength of 547,000. This will ensure that we have better-manned units ready to deploy, and help put an end to the routine use of stop loss. This step will also lower the risk of hollowing the force.

online.wsj.com...

Then they stop the F-22, which cuts that money out, they cancel the 2nd YAL, cut money from the BMD program, speed up production of the F-35 without changing the total numbers.

They also canceled the next gen bomber, they want to cancel the VH-71, change the building program for the CVN fleet and cut it down to 10.

So they're shifting money from R&D programs to operational programs, and cutting other programs. So overall, they're spending 4% more, but it's going to more operational programs than to building new programs and R&D like it has been.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   


So overall, they're spending 4% more, but it's going to more operational programs than to building new programs and R&D like it has been.


But if they are spending 4% more overall, isn't this administration increasing defense spending, rather than cutting defense spending?

I am asking because the 'cutting defense spending 10 percent' is reported in other places too, and I have a hard time getting the numbers to match. Particularly with regard to the 'Department of Defense including cost of overseas contingency operations', which is budgetted to increase.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Yes and no. It's 4% higher than last year, but it's cut quite a bit from what it originally was. And it's a cut to the R&D and developmental budgets.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Isn't the bailout package(s) bigger than our military budget? Where do you think that bailout money is going? Right now they are paying off bankers, most of them foreign. The rest of it goes into pork barrel projects like refunding the libraries of psychotic leftist politicians.

That apparently is more important than maintaining US military strength. China and Russia must be excited at the new developments. Obama is certainly cheering from his cave. I won't be surprised if he becomes an honored guest at the white house.

As I see it, based on the Obama philosophy, it's more important to fund crack whores than the US military. (Crack whores is my euphemism for government 'welfare' programs.) If you are going to pull the money from military R&D (which employs thousands), at least spend it on research, startup venture capital or even student financial aid. We don't need another center to study some form of racial politics (which is what a lot of the money is funding by the way.)



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   


Yes and no. It's 4% higher than last year, but it's cut quite a bit from what it originally was. And it's a cut to the R&D and developmental budgets.


What do you mean 'originally'? Either the budget is cut compared to last year, or it isn't?!

My brain hurts.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 


I'm talking about the initial budget that was going to be submitted for FY10. They cut an additional ton of money out of it last weekend, before submitting it this week.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Ahhh, now I get it.

The 'cuts' are in reference to the 'the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010' ie what the pentagon would like to have, rather than last years budget.

That's just silly, the 2010 budget should be measured against the 2009 budget.

What if the pentagon's budget request had been a trillion, would it then be accurate to say that the administration had cut the defense budget by 46 percent? Of course not!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join