Will Congress cut US Military Budget in 2011?

[RubiconNZ]

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?

Well considering they have already outlined 100's in Billion of cuts, I can't see anything drastic taking place to be honest, 10 years is a long time and situations change, efficiencies will continue to take place. A further reduction in personnel is likely. Surprisingly they have announced Europe retaining a 3rd BCT, I think we will get to that point where the US starts heavily reducing its global foot print, at least on the Atlantic side. Considering the global change from 2000 to 2011, predicting any long term spending for 2011-2021 seems questionable.

Edit, my mistake, the 400 Billion is new cuts by not adjusting the budget for inflation.

Though to spark discussion I will put forward some ideas.

Another round of BRAC with corresponding personnel reduction.
A massive reduction of European Bases.
Retire all B-52's early. Corresponding reduction in ALCM's.
Stick with 10 Carriers once the Enterprise goes.
9 CVW's as only 10 CVNs.
Scrap AB Flight III's and plan for new CG model.
Halt LCS production at 20 then build 30 Corvette/Frigate Class vessel.
Reduce ICBM force by 100
Decommission 2 Ohio's.
Reduce planned buy of P-8's by 20.
Cancel Marines 5 F35C squadrons.
Reduce National Guard Size.

 

[Killer McGiller]

What will they cut?

It doesn't really matter what they cut.
The Pentagon are allegedly big boys, let them figure out how to work with a budget 1/2 the size they now have. One that would roughly be equal to the one they had in 2001. If we need to do it at home they should try it on for a change.

They've already said they're getting money that they don't need for R&D projects they don't want. But similar to anyone else if we give them the budget they'll find a way to sped it.

Forcing cuts to social programs, education and infrastructure renewal at home to maintain a bloated military spread all over the world and "Helping" people who despise us for propping up a corrupt regime to rule them like Afghanistan; This just seems like insanity that only a military could love.

Remember if you can the wonderful results every empire nation that entered Afghanistan was able to return home with, the Soviet Union - bankrupted, Great Britain - Humiliated, Alexander - Nearly killed when driven out.

Ask our military today what it will take to leave Afghanistan and it's ten years and a few hundred billion more dollars - If we're lucky, plus any contingency wars that may pop up elsewhere while we wait.

So what do they cut? I don't really care nor do I care how many wars they need to fight at once, just do it with 1/2 of what they have today or less!

 

[RubiconNZ]

U.S. Marines Unworried by New Cuts

The wrangling begins, a very intelligent proactive release by the Marine Corps
Defense News article

An instant response from the Marines that demonstrates purpose, mission and and emphasis on running efficiencies.

"The Marine Corps pays attention to the T's, not just the M's and B's," he said. "We're talking thousands, not just millions and billions."

Bravo Zulu.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think the defense budget will still grow just at a rate below inflation.

"Two bipartisan debt panels go even further than Obama in their proposals to tackle the national debt.
One effort, led by former Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and former Clinton White House budget director Alice Rivlin, proposes freezing defense spending at fiscal 2011 levels, saving $1.1 trillion through 2020.
Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the bipartisan National Fiscal Commission, have called for similar levels in defense spending reductions, proposing a $100 billion cut from the defense budget top line in 2015 alone."

$400 billion in cuts for 10-12 years is far less than the $1.1 trillion in cuts that has been proposed. Thats a cut of $40 billion per year.

I believe the US Military will still be the worlds most dominate force in the world and all these cuts will do is force the Pentagon to prioritize and focus more on high national security needs.

In the end the military got off easy.

But if you read here: http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/book...et-plans-will-cut-military-muscle-experts-say

"Old weapons systems would also be scrutinized and assessed. “And that would come at a time when you can’t afford to squander that capability because you’re not replacing them with anything new,” Goddard emphasized. “The idea that we would have to cut muscle is exactly right … and we would do so while we’re engaged on three fronts.”

If thats the case than I guess our asses are doomed....

Is there any way they could cut $400 billion without cutting muscle?

 

[Shock]

Is there any way they could cut $400 billion without cutting muscle?

easy, cut medicaid, social security, and other entitlement programs.

the defense budget would still be cut but not as savagely as some are making it out to be if you focus on entilement programs.

but still, i am bit worried for the U.S.

the hallmark of it's military is technological superiority with fewer personal. quality over quantity. However, that can be only supported by a robust economy (which really needs to be kick started again) and when the nation's econmy is stagnate, other nations will race to try to out do the U.S. in terms of tech and once that is lost, we are up the proverbial creek.

but i'm sure they'll figure something out.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/15military.html

Some quotes from the article I'd like to point out:

"Within hours of the president’s address, military planners warned that meeting the reduced spending targets might require cutting the size of the force even beyond current projections as troops come home from Iraq and Afghanistan — and this would mean, they said, accepting new risks. But some civilian budget analysts argued that while the president’s directive sounded sweeping, the Pentagon could save that much money just by limiting its future spending increases to the rate of inflation projected by the White House.
“This is easily absorbable, and it’s not really a cut,” said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University who oversaw military budgets in the Clinton White House. He said that while the Pentagon would no longer see real growth in spending if Congress approved Mr. Obama’s plan, it would be able to retain its current purchasing power."

"Administration officials pointed out that the $400 billion would not be drawn from the special budget paying for the wars — and that it would not come just from the Pentagon, either. The cuts will be found across the vast national security apparatus, including the State Department, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, the office of the director of national intelligence and the nuclear weapons programs under the Energy Department"

"But Mr. Adams and Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said Mr. Obama’s plan would not force sharp cuts in the military’s purchasing power, as occurred when the cold war ended.
Mr. Adams worked last year with a bipartisan group — led by former Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and Alice M. Rivlin, a former budget director in the Clinton administration — that recommended reducing the Pentagon’s projected spending by $900 billion over 10 years. President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission called for saving $1 trillion over that period.
Mr. Adams said the $400 billion was less than half of that and about 7 percent of what the administration had projected spending on the military over the next 12 years."

 

[tphuang]

Look, anyone who looks at the US debts problems can see that you can't address it without some painful cuts in every area + tax increases. Every cut that we've heard so far are projected for 10 or 12 years. Who can see that far ahead? It makes those Soviet Union's 5 year plans look mild.

Without doing the necessary evil, the bond traders will turn their attention to America. The treasury is so stupid to not lock in these all time low 30 year rate bonds, instead selling these t-bills and t-notes. Once these short termed treasuries mature, they will be facing much higher interest rates. Guess what, interest on the national debts will be the largest part of the national budget in a few years.

So to not get there, you have to substantially cut medicare, medicaid, stop extending these unemployment benefit and substantially cut America's foreign entanglement. On top of that, you got cut department of energy, department of education, all of the czars, reduce public sector worker benefits/pensions. And instead of having 10+ intelligence agencies submitting the same intelligence report. Why don't they cut it to like under 5?

Of course, military cut has to be a part of that. You don't necessarily need to cut weapon systems that much. You can cut bases around the world that you need anymore. Not getting into new wars and withdrawing from existing ones would help. Just think about all the extra incurred costs from paying pensions to all of the injured soldiers from these wars. That's going to become astronomical.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Of course, military cut has to be a part of that. You don't necessarily need to cut weapon systems that much. You can cut bases around the world that you need anymore. Not getting into new wars and withdrawing from existing ones would help. Just think about all the extra incurred costs from paying pensions to all of the injured soldiers from these wars. That's going to become astronomical.

The proposed $400 billion cut in military/security spending through 2023 will come out of $10 trillion in military and security spending over that decade which is part of a larger plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion. It also includes cuts to medicare and medicaid.

That amounts to a $33-40 billion per year cut in defense spending, this is not a major cut and if they do it right that can cut without cutting military muscle.

 

[Gremlin29]

The proposed $400 billion cut in military/security spending through 2023 will come out of $10 trillion in military and security spending over that decade which is part of a larger plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion. It also includes cuts to medicare and medicaid.

That amounts to a $33-40 billion per year cut in defense spending, this is not a major cut and if they do it right that can cut without cutting military muscle.

It is unfortunate that so much effort is put towards cutting the budget when in reallity they should be completely overhauling the entire federal procurement process. They could save $40 billion without giving up a thing if they would rewrite the Federal Acquistion Regulations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

They could save $40 billion without giving up a thing if they would rewrite the Federal Acquistion Regulations.

yep, get rid of time and materials based contracts, make them more tightly managed on performance milestones....

and ban ex uniforms from working for contractors within 12 months of exiting the service.....

 

[PO2GRV]

That amounts to a $33-40 billion per year cut in defense spending, this is not a major cut and if they do it right that can cut without cutting military muscle.

again the question becomes one of: Should the US (and as a consequent the US Military) have more, less, or about the same level of involvement in world affairs

I feel that how one feels about cuts in US defense spending is dependent on ones answer to the above question

I for one feel that in a world with growing military capability, the burden of security can and should be spread out among allied states, thus allowing portions of the defense budget to be reallocated to other key domestic sectors or issues. I also feel that the age of almost unilateral dominance of the US over the post cold-war world is, and well should be, over

contrariwise, those that feel the US should have more or maintain current levels of military involvement in the world will disagree, and much like any other question of religion or politics, are extremely unlikely to be dissuaded and that that viewpoint will influence their opinion on the defense budget

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Any thoughts on Leon Panetta becoming the next defense secretary? What could this mean for the defense budget? Will he take a sharper knife to the Pentagon? And if so what does that mean for the US Military?

 

[Gremlin29]

Any thoughts on Leon Panetta becoming the next defense secretary? What could this mean for the defense budget? Will he take a sharper knife to the Pentagon? And if so what does that mean for the US Military?

My question is; out of all of the people that could be tapped for this job, is he the absolute best candidate? Wouldn't his successor been a better choice, considering experience and so forth?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

My question is; out of all of the people that could be tapped for this job, is he the absolute best candidate? Wouldn't his successor been a better choice, considering experience and so forth?

Well from what I've read Robert Gates recommend Panetta to Obama like 6 months ago as next Secretary of defense. And they say Panetta will likely follow similar paths as Gates. So this may be a plus for the Pentagon so who knows time will tell.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Paring the types of missions conducted by the U.S. military could reduce weapon purchases over the next decade, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates discussed possible purchasing changes related to the new Defense Department budget.
"Obviously, if you change strategies or missions, that has implications for the amount of equipment that you buy," Gates told reporters May 18. "I would expect that to apply across the board."
Gates revealed details about the DoD review of missions and capabilities ordered up last month by President Barack Obama to shape a $400 billion, 12-year cut to security spending.
"If we're going to reduce the resources of the size of the U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications of that are for the security of the country as well as for the operations that we have around the world," Gates said.
As in the past, Gates reiterated the need for the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new Air Force aerial refueling tanker and a Navy Ohio-class submarine replacement despite planned budget flattening or reductions.
The review will be led by Christine Fox, director of cost assessment and program evaluation; Michèle Flournoy, defense undersecretary for policy; and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The review will focus on four areas Gates called "bins":
■ Generating additional efficiencies. DoD identified $178 billion in efficiencies as it built its 2012 budget request. Since then, Gates had stressed the need to find more savings in specific areas, including logistics. But the Pentagon will not be able to find the amount of funding desired over the next decade through this method alone.
■ Examination of policies, programs, processes and mandates "that drive the dramatic increase in defense operating costs," Gates said. This includes health care, retirement benefits, personnel compensation, infrastructure, and acquiring goods and services.
■ Determine options for reducing or eliminating "marginal missions and marginal capabilities," according to Gates. This includes "specialized and costly programs that are useful in only a limited range of circumstances or contingencies."
For years, the Pentagon has maintained a policy of being able to fight two wars simultaneously.
"If you were to tell yourself the likelihood of having two such fights simultaneously is low and you could therefore plan to fight sequentially, that would have huge implications in terms of the size of the force that you need to maintain," Gates said. "But the other side of that is the risk involved if you're wrong."
■ Specific modifications to the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) strategy "that translate into options for reductions in force structure or capability needed to execute the strategy," Gates said. This "bin" will be informed by the three other review areas.
"The new comprehensive review will ensure that future spending decisions are focused on strategy and risks and are not simply a math or accounting exercise," Gates said. "The overarching goal will be to preserve a U.S. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities, even if fiscal pressure requires reduction in the force's size."
The "traditional approach" of applying across-the-board cuts would result in a "hallowed out force." Gates called this approach dangerous.
The review will be guided by the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, the National Military Strategy, the Chairman's Risk Assessment and the QDR. The review will establish an analytical link between the QDR and force make up, according to Gates.
Officials will make "strategic policy choices" that will inform budget decisions, he said.
"This process must be about identifying options for the president and the Congress where the nation is willing to accept risk in exchange for reduced investment in the Department of Defense," Gates said.
At the same time, Pentagon officials do not expect to finish the review until after the departure of Gates, according to a senior defense official. Gates has said he will step down at the end of June. He did not address the timeline for the review during the briefing at the Pentagon.
DoD officials are expecting the Senate to hold a confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, Obama's nomination to replace Gates, as soon as June 7, according to Frank Kendall, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
Pentagon officials do not expect to finish the review until Panetta, the current CIA director, is confirmed, Kendall said during a May 18 presentation at a U.S.-Swedish defense conference in Washington.

Gates: Strategy Changes Could Cut DoD Purchasing - Defense News

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63989