Very true. Not easy to cut in the face of long-term contracts for base construction and weapons systems.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Robert Naiman <[email protected]>wrote: > That's not the whole story, however. > > It's true, as you say, that the final number is set every year. And > it's true that a future Congress can do whatever it wants. > > Nonetheless, the Pentagon plans over a long period of time, and makes > decisions that imply multi-year commitments of huge resources. > Therefore, forcing the Pentagon onto a different budget path is a very > big deal, that is likely to have long-term consequences, in terms of > weapons systems, the size of the armed forces, the number of troops > stationed in Europe, etc. > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Defense spending is classified as 'discretionary', which among other > things > > means it is set annually. Like all discretionary spending, the only > number > > that matters is the one for the coming fiscal year. And when the U.S. is > > waging war, that number doesn't matter either, since it always gets > bumped > > up by so-called 'supplemental appropriations' in the spring. > > > > It is true that projections of spending beyond the coming year set a > > political tone to some extent, so in the future it would be difficult for > > Obama, assuming he had the votes and desire, to reverse his stated > support > > for austerity. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Robert Naiman < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> More numbers will be rolled out over the next few weeks. > >> > >> Catherine Lutz, editor of "The Bases of Empire: The Struggle Against > >> U.S. Military Posts," has said: "the new proposal for Department of > >> Defense base budget reductions over the next five years represents > >> only a 4 percent decline in real, or inflation-adjusted, terms, > >> according to the Project on Defense Alternatives." > >> http://www.accuracy.org/release/is-the-military-budget-really-being-cut > >> > >> Here is PDA's new memo: > >> http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1201bm53.pdf > >> > >> In the President's speech, he said: > >> > >> "over the past ten years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an > >> extraordinary pace. Over the next ten years, the growth in the > >> defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will > >> still grow... In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it > >> was toward the end of the Bush Administration." > >> > >> I'm on a list of analysts who want to cut the Pentagon budget. This > >> list includes top insider-type budget analysts. > >> > >> I asked: > >> > >> "When the President said 'the defense budget will still be larger than > >> it was toward the end of the Bush Administration,' was that a true > >> statement in terms of constant dollars? > >> > >> One person responded: > >> > >> "Ashton Carter said that Obama's statement referred to nominal dollars > >> (not adjusted for inflation)." > >> > >> One person responded: > >> > >> "See the numbers at > >> > >> > http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/02/omb-dod-agree-on-523b-2013-budget-budget-chicken-game-begins/ > . > >> The nominal numbers go up in the FYDP; in 2012 dollars its about flat, > >> perhaps teeny-weeny up." > >> > >> So, I would sum that up by saying: the current 10 year projection is a > >> cut from the previously projected growth. In real terms, it's cutting > >> virtually all of the previously projected growth; it basically amounts > >> to a freeze, in real terms, over 10 years. > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM, ken hanly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > After reading several articles on the cuts to defense spending I > >> > noticed > >> > there are not actual figures showing the defense budget for last year > >> > and > >> > this year or projected spending in the future. Is there actually a > >> > decline > >> > or simply a decline in the rate of expansion of the budget with cuts > in > >> > some > >> > areas and increases in others? Anyone have the figures handy? > >> > > >> > Cheers ken > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html > >> > Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > pen-l mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Robert Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> [email protected] > >> _______________________________________________ > >> pen-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
