Thanks for all the helpful commentary and links. I wonder how this will
compare with cuts to social programs during the same period. These projections
will mean little if administrations manage to frighten people sufficiently that
they will support increases or if as very well might happen the U.S. is
plunged into more disastrous wars that demand more boots on the ground.
The new type of warfare will involve more spending on high tech weapons
which will directly impact on the profits of the military industrial complex
but will also have the effect of increasing the number of people looking for
jobs as troop levels are reduced. Increasing the number of troops had the
effect of lessening directly unemployment problems but the new policy does so
only indirectly and only through promising increased profits for the private
sector.
Cheers, ken
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html
Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
________________________________
From: Max Sawicky <[email protected]>
To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 5:34:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Is the defense budget actually shrinking
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
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
