Did you know that we didnt even have a department of defense until after WW2? Until then we had a department of war. Someone wisely understood that it would be hard to defend the "war" budget during peacetime but it would be hard to cut the "defense" budget... ever.
We spend more money on our "defense" budget than all other nations in the world combined and yet critics say that our troops are poorly trained and supplied. Where is all that money going? Even before Iraq we spent $300B+ every year on the military and that money didnt even cover any of the expenses of actually fighting; we needed $250B (and counting) more money for Iraq and Afghanistan.
When we talk about cutting things, like taxes and social programs, have you noticed that no one ever talks about cutting defense? I've heard some say that we cant cut these budgets because of the job loses but that sounds a lot like social welfare for the military industry. Im happy to see that some people are thinking about cutting those defense payments even if it doesnt make the news.
On the other hand, McCcain and others have been talking about increasing the size of the military in order to maintain our occupation of Iraq and the 9/11 Commission is saying that we arent spending on things that would actually protect us from terrorism.
I support McCain's comments but would use money from the big weapon system budgets to pay for it. Even so, how much "defense" can we afford to pay for and are we spending those funds on things that really defend us?
Cut the big weapon systems to pay for troops one day
Pentagon Girds for Big Spending Cuts
November 4, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has asked the military services to prepare to cut as much as $8 billion from the 2007 defense budget and about $32 billion over the next six years as it girds for a period of serious belt tightening.
"The planned cuts signal that the period of major budget increases is over," says Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
Last year, the Pentagon also projected some $30 billion in cuts to planned spending over six years, but delayed most of the pain until 2008 and beyond, raising doubts that the cutbacks would be carried out. The cuts outlined in Mr. England's memo were reported by Inside the Pentagon, a defense trade publication.
Pentagon officials say the latest cuts are likely to fall disproportionately on major weapons programs. The Air Force is weighing cutting several hundred planes from its planned purchase of 1,700 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, made by Lockheed Martin Corp., based in Bethesda, Md.
Some of the money cut from current programs may not be lost from the Pentagon budget entirely, defense officials say. The military is in the final stages of completing a major quadrennial review of the department that is set to wrap up later this year. The review is likely to call for a shift in spending away from big-ticket weapons programs that would be used in a conventional military conflict. Instead the military is likely to increase its investment in capabilities needed for fighting guerrilla insurgencies and attacking international terror organizations like al Qaeda.
To that end it is likely that the services will be asked to shift money away from big weapons programs and invest far more in human intelligence -- essentially scouts and intelligence operatives who have a deep understanding of local cultures and languages. Some Pentagon officials also expect the review to push the services to invest more on surveillance systems capable of tracking individuals or small groups of people.
Cut troops to pay those big defense contractors the next
$440 billion?? No wonder we "cant afford" a national healthcare system or higher salaries for teachers.
Pentagon Weighs
Personnel Cuts
To Pay for Weapons
Smaller Air Force, Reduction In Army's Plans for Growth Are Among Ideas Considered
December 5, 2005
As the Defense Department scrambles to finalize its budget for the coming fiscal year, the Air Force is looking to secure much of its savings by cutting active and reserve forces, instead of slashing weapons purchases.
The Army, which is bearing more of the burden of the war in Iraq, doesn't envision similar personnel cuts, but is exploring a modest slowdown in its plans for troop growth as it grapples with a recruiting shortfall.
The Pentagon move to sacrifice manpower in order to protect high-tech weaponry is an about-face from signals in recent months that Pentagon leaders and defense-industry executives were girding for deep weapons-program cuts to offset huge bills from both the war in Iraq and the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
The Army and Marine Corps have provided the bulk of U.S. troops for the war and have taken the most casualties. Although the Air Force also has committed troops and aircraft to Iraq, it hasn't been stretched nearly as thin as the Army. Unlike the Army, the Air Force hasn't had any trouble meeting its annual recruiting targets, and is exceeding its retention goals. The Army's study of a possible slowdown in troop growth, on the other hand, is driven by the service's recruiting difficulties as much as a desire to save money.
Nonetheless the shift is good news for the nation's major defense contractors, which appear to have dodged major cutbacks in big-ticket weapons purchases. The Air Force often has been on the defensive under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose vision of transforming the military with weapons aimed at countering multiple threats, including terrorists, clashes with some of the service's big aircraft projects. Some of the savings realized through personnel cuts could be used to pay for programs to make the military more adept at fighting terrorists or defending the homeland from attack, defense officials say.
Within days, the White House is due to decide on a defense-spending ceiling for the fiscal year starting next October. That ceiling is expected to be in the range of $440 billion.
