Will Congress cut US Military Budget in 2011?

[F-15 Eagle]

Is anybody interested in just what long term decision this, possibly temporary reduction in military spending, could be most effectively done?

The most effective way to reduce military spending right now is to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that would save $250 billion right there.

As for the base budget I honestly can't say how much they can cut without reducing the size, readiness, or the maintenance of the US Military. Other than cutting procurement by canceling unneeded weapons systems but than you have to replace those with more suitable weapons programs.

 

[rip]

The most effective way to reduce military spending right now is to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and that would save $250 billion right there.

As for the base budget I honestly can't say how much they can cut without reducing the size, readiness, or the maintenance of the US Military. Other than cutting procurement by canceling unneeded weapons systems but than you have to replace those with more suitable weapons programs.

The only problem with that is that we would have to fight them someplace else. They are not going to stop just because we leave. This is a war we cannot chose, not to fight, because they will just come at us from someplace else. You may not believe it but it doesn’t matter if you do or not, it is what they believe that is the point. We have many choices besides surrender but war or no war is not one of them.

Personally I think that the secretary of the defense is right, the entire military is top heavy and that is the first place to start cutting.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The only problem with that is that we would have to fight them someplace else. They are not going to stop just because we leave. This is a war we cannot chose, not to fight, because they will just come at us from someplace else. You may not believe it but it doesn’t matter if you do or not, it is what they believe that is the point. We have many choices besides surrender but war or no war is not one of them.

Personally I think that the secretary of the defense is right, the entire military is top heavy and that is the first place to start cutting.

The military is top heavy with overheads and bureaucracy which is what he wants to cut. Gates said any more cuts beyond the $78 billion could be catastrophic and many Republican senators said they want to educate the Tea Party why defense spending needs to be at around $700 billion including the two wars.

Tea Party causes GOP split on defense budget cuts

As for whether or not we should pull out, Iraq yes Afghanistan I don't know I only mentioned that as a way to save money. The US should focus more on China now given recent events.

 

[rip]

The military is top heavy with overheads and bureaucracy which is what he wants to cut. Gates said any more cuts beyond the $78 billion could be catastrophic and many Republican senators said they want to educate the Tea Party why defense spending needs to be at around $700 billion including the two wars.

Tea Party causes GOP split on defense budget cuts

As for whether or not we should pull out, Iraq yes Afghanistan I don't know I only mentioned that as a way to save money. The US should focus more on China now given recent events.

I agree that looking at the future we need to reorient our military priorities to some degree, just in case our relations with China do go bad, but I do not think those relations are destined to turn sour. To over prepare or to over emphases that one possibility among many, is both dangerous and counterproductive. Such things unfortunately have a momentum all of their own that tent to fulfill themselves if you are not vary, vary, carful. It is about the level of trust that is lacking on both sides but that trust can improve, I hope.

Plus, isn’t it a fact that we are most often hurt the most and have suffered the greatest damage, when we are blindsided from an event we don’t see coming? How many examples do you need? Instead of focusing on a potential war with China and using that real (but at this time fairly slim possibility), to dominate our planning (which nobody in their right mind on either side of the Pacific Ocean wants to see happen) so I think a more general, open and flexible defense policy that emphases over all capacities and maintaining skill sets which emphasizes the generality of forces that are capable of operating in all kinds of environments and dealing with all levels of threats, is a far more important military policy to pursue. Even if we are not a total master or dominate in any one of them and no one can afford to be dormant in all the military arts. I may be wrong, but I believe that will in the long run serve us better in both the strict military since and in the political one as well.

If we were to try to build a wall around China to confine or diminish it in some way, or to forge a purely military alliance against China, without it first staging visible significant provocations aganest us or our allies to justify those actions, far greater and less ambiguous actions than we have seen so far, it could lead to a reaction on their part that would be a tragedy for us both. The Chinese do have a streak of real visible paranoia in them and we do not need to feed it unnecessarily but only to be prudent in our actions.

There are the facts, China is going to have a powerful and modern Army, Navy, and Air Force equal its population, size, and its wealth. If that development was by its very nature unacceptable to us then we have already waited too long. But it was and is acceptable to us and it always has been. That is just part of the equality of nations that we have long promoted since the end of WW II where our policy have been not to impede the advancement of any other nation (including ones that could become a potential rival to our own status) as long as they are not set upon a course of world domination.

Will there be competition between China and the US? You bet there will be. But that form of competition doesn’t have to be in the realm of (military competition or confrontation). Many forms of competition are beneficial to both sides because the competition itself forces both them and us to be better than we would be without the competition.

 

[tphuang]

The idea that the US needs or wants absolute military supremacy over anybody is way off the target unless it is an over an enemy that cannot be reconciled to our existence in any other way. The military priory of the US is twofold. One is the same as that of any other country, and that is to have a military of such strength that no one can force us to do or act in any way that we don't want to.

The second goal is harder to put into words. And that is what kind of world do we wish to live in? Is it acceptable to live in a world where terror, privation, poverty, hopelessness, and despair are rampant even though you are doing OK while othere are suffering? And if that situation is OK to live in that kind of wourld(to your way of thinking), can your preferred way of life ever be safe and secure in such a world like that?

The first part of the question is we could have a much smaller military structure than we currently do and satisfy the first condition and for the second part, is that we could never afford the cost nor have the absolute power to do the second without having good strong partners to share the burden.

The issue in the future that is unknown at this time is what kind of partners will these new emerging powers be? Or will they be partners at all. China and other emerging powers, (powers that are only emerging in the first place because of a world order that the US has striven to achieve which allows for other nations to rise uo to and acheave success),will they nether respect that world order? They do not at this point seem interested in doing much to preserve it. But of course that might change in time if they see that in the long run when they face the question it is the king of world they want to live in?

I'm just simply replying to what has been thrown at me about US's need to have dominant power over China in its backyard. This is what I was responding to:
"It's not a time to let history repeats itself, the U.S gotta do whatever it take to prevent a growing China."

And I'm not just going to stop at China here, because India will also be a huge player in 20 years (much larger than it is now) even if it is still marred with corruption problems. And neither of these growing powers would want to take a back seat to US in their own backyard.

My take is that US needs to maintain as strong of a military and efficient of a military as possible without bankrupting itself. Remember, American government right now is running on a ponzi scheme of fed reserve creating money and buying treasuries/mbs. This obviously cannot continue forever and you have to trim your spending including defense related stuff. And there are many things it can do to reduce its overall military spending.

You first have to start with Iraq/Afghanistan and figure out how much more money you want to pour in there and possibly risk that region turning worse.

Then you have to think about all the military bases around the world and cut down the ones you don't need.

Then you have to think about restructuring the pay scales and finding out ways to keep personnel cost down.

Then you have to think about having greater competition in procurement projects to drive down cost. LCS is a great example of achieving lower cost due to competition.

It's not about what you want and not want, but rather how much money you have and what you can do with it. You can probably figure it out, from my comment but I do support a lot of Ron/Rand Paul/Tea Party positions on this.

 

[rip]

I'm just simply replying to what has been thrown at me about US's need to have dominant power over China in its backyard. This is what I was responding to:
"It's not a time to let history repeats itself, the U.S gotta do whatever it take to prevent a growing China."

And I'm not just going to stop at China here, because India will also be a huge player in 20 years (much larger than it is now) even if it is still marred with corruption problems. And neither of these growing powers would want to take a back seat to US in their own backyard.

My take is that US needs to maintain as strong of a military and efficient of a military as possible without bankrupting itself. Remember, American government right now is running on a ponzi scheme of fed reserve creating money and buying treasuries/mbs. This obviously cannot continue forever and you have to trim your spending including defense related stuff. And there are many things it can do to reduce its overall military spending.

You first have to start with Iraq/Afghanistan and figure out how much more money you want to pour in there and possibly risk that region turning worse.

Then you have to think about all the military bases around the world and cut down the ones you don't need.

Then you have to think about restructuring the pay scales and finding out ways to keep personnel cost down.

Then you have to think about having greater competition in procurement projects to drive down cost. LCS is a great example of achieving lower cost due to competition.

It's not about what you want and not want, but rather how much money you have and what you can do with it. You can probably figure it out, from my comment but I do support a lot of Ron/Rand Paul/Tea Party positions on this.

You are right in that we cannot have any military establishment that our economy can reasonably support. You are also correct in that our national finances are a true mess. But it is possible we might disagree exactly why our national finances are such a mess. The military budget is very visible but there are many hidden costs and roadblocks in our economy that are very real but less visible to the quick solution, while many of the benefits provided by the military, which are carried on its budget provide direct civilian benefit, like let’s say civilian us use of GPS system as only one of many benefits. Dose that get factored in?

But the American people want to be in the world, (not my personal favorite as I have said) and as long as the American people think they can make a difference in the world we will be continually committed to things we are increasingly less able to afford. If you want to start some place starts with the (Trying to fix the world syndrome) of the American public.

 

[sgtgunn]

The biggest challenge will be changes to TRICARE and other veteran services, that most of all must be tackled to retain budget stability, its going to be messy an unpopular but it needs to be done.

While TRICARE and Veteran's services are expensive simply reducing them to an economic formula IHMO is immoral. As a Nation if the United States wants to continue to send young men and women in harms way to protect and advance the National interests, then the people and the government have a moral obligation to provide those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines the very best in medical care when they are injured in the line of duty. Frankly, I don't think this country does enough for our veterans - as far a I am concerned, when a young service member comes back from war physically or mentally damaged to the etxent they can no longer serve, they should be taken care of (in all ways) for the rest of their life. A Nation that is to meet its sacred and moral obligation to its veterans does not deserve their sacrifices. Period. if the 99% of Americans who don't serve are unwilling to meet this financial obligation, then I say get rid of the professional military, re-introduce conscription (preferably universal) and let EVERY able bodied citizen put their ass on the line where they are unwilling to put their tax dollars. ~56% of the 2010FY Budget was Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, Unemployment and other entitlements. The Veterans Affairs only comprised 1.5% of the 2010 Budget. I think the US has plenty of other places to cut first....

Adrian

 

[RubiconNZ]

While TRICARE and Veteran's services are expensive simply reducing them to an economic formula IHMO is immoral. As a Nation if the United States wants to continue to send young men and women in harms way to protect and advance the National interests, then the people and the government have a moral obligation to provide those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines the very best in medical care when they are injured in the line of duty. Frankly, I don't think this country does enough for our veterans - as far a I am concerned, when a young service member comes back from war physically or mentally damaged to the extent they can no longer serve, they should be taken care of (in all ways) for the rest of their life. A Nation that is to meet its sacred and moral obligation to its veterans does not deserve their sacrifices. Period. if the 99% of Americans who don't serve are unwilling to meet this financial obligation, then I say get rid of the professional military, re-introduce conscription (preferably universal) and let EVERY able bodied citizen put their ass on the line where they are unwilling to put their tax dollars. ~56% of the 2010FY Budget was Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, Unemployment and other entitlements. The Veterans Affairs only comprised 1.5% of the 2010 Budget. I think the US has plenty of other places to cut first....

Adrian

As an outsider looking in I'm really not entitled to much comment on this, nor would I feel comfortable doing it, my probably poorly expressed comment was that the DOD budget spends approx 30% plus on personnel costs. That being said I wasn't advocating cuts to the VA budget, steps to keep it a float was more along the line I was intending. I will plead guilty to inadvertently looking at it as economic formula, no offense intended though.

That being said Health Care alone as gone from $19 Billion to $50 Billion. this being when an average TRICARE coverage contribution is $20 a month not bad fro what I understand is comprehensive coverage. For some one on a full retirement pension. Now if I have misunderstood this then I apologies, also as I read up a bit more that TRICARE was promised free for at enlistment that makes it somewhat unfair for it to be levied post contract.

However for any new enlistments or re-ups for those who retire with full pension requiring a reasonable contribution, if someone does there 20 from 20 years old they retire at 40 with 20 years working life asking them to pay $40 a month for health care could be reasonable. My numbers come from the open sourced side of the internet so I could be off base.

That being said for those on disabilities or medical discharges should be exempt of course. I one hundred percent agree with you that the the Military budget is a small piece of the "federal pie" my comment was aimed purely at the DOD budget and increasing efficiencies with it, this of course should not be at the expense of the volunteer force who choose to serve. I think what the US does for their Veterans is fantastic and a lot of nations could look to the US for inspiration, that's not saying more couldn't be done either.

I apologies for any offense none was intended.

Rob

 

[sgtgunn]

.

I apologies for any offense none was intended.

Rob

No apology necessary! It's just a subject that is near and dear to me, and I maybe get a little overly defensive about it....

I wouldn't mind an increase in co-pays for retirees or dependents on TriCare as long as it's within reason. I'm more concerned about more radical proposals such as changing military pensions so that the service member wouldn't begin collecting until they turn 60, rather than immediately which is currently the case. Radical changes to military retirement (or pay or other benefits) would ultimately gut the professional military. I doubt I would have stayed in as a career NCO if it wasn't for the current retirement system. I know many other career Soldiers feel the same way. This especially true today with the high operations tempo and "war with out end" we are engaged in. I know Soldiers on their 6th combat deployment - that's amounts to anywhere between 6 and 8 years out of the last 10 spent overseas in a combat zone. We have a military with a depth of experience and level of professionalism unlike any we have had before (and like few in history). If the high personnel costs required to maintain this world-class professional military become difficult to sustain as a nation, then we'd be better off reducing end-strength and maintaining quality over quantity.

Adrian

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Great news!!!!!

The alternate engine for the F-35 has been scrapped....and finally that stupid waste of tax paying dollars pet project is gone.

House amendment scraps $450 million slated for alternative F-35 engine - TheHill.com

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If the high personnel costs required to maintain this world-class professional military become difficult to sustain as a nation, then we'd be better off reducing end-strength and maintaining quality over quantity.

Adrian

Well than they better find a way cut personal costs than because a cut in end-strength is a cut in quality too.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Defense must face cuts, key senators say - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

The defense budget hasn’t reached bottom, leaders of the Senate Budget Committee said Thursday. Both the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on the committee said the nation’s debt crisis has reached a point where no government function — including national security — can be exempt from the budget knife.
“Our country is at a critical junction,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the committee chairman. “We are moving rapidly toward the fiscal cliff.”
Conrad said he has always been a strong supporter of military spending, but “the days of an open checkbook here have ended, for everyone.”
“We want to root out wasteful spending wherever we find it, and that includes defense,” he said.
“The message is clear — we need to do something now, and the Defense Department cannot be absolved of these challenges,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the panel’s ranking Republican. “We have got to ask our Defense Department to do more with less.”
But both senators said there are limits to how deeply the defense budget should be cut.
Sessions said he did not want a repeat of the one-third decline in the size of the force at end of the Cold War, which was “too much of a reduction,” and that he also worries about cutting weapons programs so deeply that per-unit costs become unaffordable.
Conrad said he would not allow defense spending to be cut so deeply that troops are hurt. “Congress will continue to provide our troops what they need for the mission and what will keep them safe,” he said.
Their comments came at a hearing on the Defense Department and State Department budgets for 2012. The Defense Department is asking for $671 billion, which includes $117.8 billion for overseas contingencies. The base defense budget request of $553.1 billion is $27 billion more than what was requested for 2011.
The budget committee is responsible for preparing an overall spending and revenue plan that will include a recommended cap on defense funding. Conrad said the committee could begin writing that plan soon.

 

[kwaigonegin]

As if the European bases exist because the small number of combat troops in them defends Europe...

Their sole reason to exist these days is that the US wants to retain their global footprint and these bases and installations are much closer to alot of hotspots than the stateside bases.

As for reducing the Armed Forces of the US, I am with PO2GRV and NICO on this. They brought up some important points apart from "Oh, no. They are scratching my shiny forces."

totally agree.. the US naval and afb bases in europe are not necessarily for direct protection of the land but rather to maintain a strategic land asset nearby hotspots. Same goes with the bases in Japan and in Singapore.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Why not just cap defense spending at 2010 levels-adjusted for inflation of course for the next 5 years and save 1.1 trillion dollars without needing to cut into the size and power of the military?

And while I agree defense should not be sacrosanct and that some spending cuts are needed, one can not cut too deeply into defense like in the 1990s with the end of the Cold War where defense outlays were cut by 30% including a 50% cut in procurement. That is not likely but a 15% cut is possible.

 

[harryriedl]

Why not just cap defense spending at 2010 levels-adjusted for inflation of course for the next 5 years and save 1.1 trillion dollars without needing to cut into the size and power of the military?

And while I agree defense should not be sacrosanct and that some spending cuts are needed, one can not cut too deeply into defense like in the 1990s with the end of the Cold War where defense outlays were cut by 30% including a 50% cut in procurement. That is not likely but a 15% cut is possible.

I not sure its do able keeping things stati with the rapid well over inflation rise in procurement costs and the various procurement FUBAR's, and the rising costs of legacy assets which means by the budget static still would have to cut both procurement and manpower.

You either have to boost the budget or you have to clear what you want you armed forces to do. Plus figure out what you going to do with thousands of MRAP's and all clapped out kit which is an added cost post Iraq/Astan.

Also aren't rises for mil personnel generally above inflation, one last point isn't the health care load also increasing rather rapidly as US armed forces are in the same rather expensive social security.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Well whatever they cut I doubt they will cut anything like the proposed $960 billion from the sustainable defense task force proposal.

Now I can see a $100 billion cut in addition to the $78 billion in cuts by Gates and that will still leave military spending at or above cold war levels and still maintain the military.

They could cut one or all or a mix of the following without hurting the military:

Cancel F-35B, have the marines fly additional F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35Cs. Instead of having 6 or so F-35Bs on the marines amphibious assault ships, simply add additional AH-1Z attack helicopters to fill in the space like on the new LHA-6 America class.

Cancel the V-22 and replace it with newer MH/HH-60 helicopters.

Cancel EFV....which they already did.

Cancel or cut in half the planed buy of 55-60 littoral combat ships. This will free up funds for more capable ships like SSBN(X), Gerald R. Ford class, DDG-51 Flight IIA restart and Flight IIII and Virginia class subs.

Cut in half the planed buy of F-35A and F-35C to around 800 F-35A and substitute them with new F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18 E/F.

If they can not maintain a 1.4 million strong military at $526 billion which is 2010 levels for 5 years I don't know what will.

 

[H Nelson]

I have been reading a lot of stuff on the internet mostly rumors saying the new Congress will cut not only the defense budget but also the overall size of the US military therefor weakening it.

What ever happened to the plan to keep defense spending at current levels with 1-2% annual increases like what Gates has outlined? But then again Gates is leaving this year and who knows how pro-military the nest defense secretary will be?

With a 14 trillion dollar deficit, will congress actually cut the size of the military like what a lot of deficit-hawks, some democrats and a lot of tea party members want?

I will say cutting the defense budget and the size of the military will be the worst decision this nation could ever do. We would be repeating the same mistake the US has done in the past.

I've been hearing a lot of rumors about cuts in military healthcare, especially for the families. Rumors also are spreading about retirement benefits being cut.

THE BIG ISSUE right now is will the military get paid if the governemt shutdown? The military will have to show up to work regardless of a shutdown, but they may not get paid on time. What does this say about our country? Both good and bad things.

The fact that we can not pay our military, and not worry about a coup, is a good thing. The fact that military pay can be used as a bargaining chip in political debates...that's another story.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I've been hearing a lot of rumors about cuts in military healthcare, especially for the families. Rumors also are spreading about retirement benefits being cut.

THE BIG ISSUE right now is will the military get paid if the governemt shutdown? The military will have to show up to work regardless of a shutdown, but they may not get paid on time. What does this say about our country? Both good and bad things.

The fact that we can not pay our military, and not worry about a coup, is a good thing. The fact that military pay can be used as a bargaining chip in political debates...that's another story.

I think they passed a 2011 defense bill of $518 billion for the rest of the year allowing the military to get paid in case of a government shutdown.

I'm more worried about the military being cut as part of debt reduction manly by the recent proposal by the far-left to gut the military, reduce conventional and strategic weapons force structure, military spending on procurement and R&D to pay for social programs with their "The People's Budget" against Paul Ryan's proposed budget.

 

[Belesari]

"Then you have to think about having greater competition in procurement projects to drive down cost. LCS is a great example of achieving lower cost due to competition."

WOW...someone accually wrote that. So how is each Hull (period no missiles or other modular weapons systems. Like NLOS-oops it was canceled now we get a hybrid gryphon that uses laser designators at sea_fun time_ and has a what 3lb warhead?) costing in around 600mil a peice. Each in for maintenience Constantly. Neither capable of Accually reaching the perscribed speed. (which its doubtful they even had a full load of fuel let alone weapons and such).

LCS isnt a great example of anything besides the biggest disaster to hit American Naval ship building in a century.

But hey dont let any of that stop you buy 20 of them:confused2

 

[F-15 Eagle]

$400 billion in defense cuts through 2023.

Yep thats right President Obama unveiled a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years including cuts of $400 billion in defense.

Obama Said to Seek $400 Billion Defense Cut Through Fiscal 2023 - Bloomberg

Pentagon warns on big U.S. defense cuts | Reuters

WSYX ABC 6 - National News

So...what do you think they will cut?