Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In the middle of financial catastrophe, Defense Sec'y Gates proposes $450 billion Defense increase

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:07 PM
Original message
In the middle of financial catastrophe, Defense Sec'y Gates proposes $450 billion Defense increase
Edited on Wed Nov-12-08 12:10 PM by HamdenRice
For a lot of Americans who can add, subtract, multiply and divide, the only way out of the current financial catastrophe and federal budget meltdown, as well as the only way to pay for universal health care and the inevitable job creation programs President Obama will have to adopt, is for the federal government to begin to drastically scale down its military commitments.

But Defense Secretary Gates, whom Obama is said to be considering keeping on in the new administration, has thrown down the Pentagon's gauntlet, requesting $57 billion in new Defense spending for next year and $450 over the next five years -- on top of the already massive base Defense budget of $526 billion and on top of the supplemental spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which brings the annual budget to well over $671 billion.

These costs do not include "defense" costs spread over other departmental budget categories, such as intelligence and spy satellites, which experts believe put the annual defense budget well over $1 trillion.

Yes, you heard that right: Secretary Gates wants an additional $57 billion above and beyond the Pentagons budget and the cost of the two wars for next year alone. In other words, the Pentagon does not want to engage in any cost cutting in the coming years.

This $57 billion request, combined with other expected requests for increases in Defense spending, moreover, would be permanent additions to the base budget, so the increases would total over $450 billion in the first five years. Of the $57 billion requested for next year, at least $30 billion would be for an ill-defined "contingency fund."

According to news sources, the massive request is designed to "put pressure" on the incoming administration to accede to the Pentagon's request to "drastically increase" the size of the Defense budget:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20081009/pl_cq_politics/politics2973555

Pentagon Wants $450 Billion Increase Over Next Five Years

By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff Josh Rogin, Cq Staff – Thu Oct 9, 5:20 pm ET

Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.

The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.

Experts note that releasing such documents in the twilight of an administration is a well-worn tactic, and that incoming presidents often disregard such guidance in order to pursue their own priorities.

...

The fiscal 2010 portion of the estimate includes a $57 billion increase, out of which $30 billion would go for a vaguely defined contingency fund and $14 billion would go for replacing or fixing existing equipment, called reset, and modernization, the former officials said.

<end excerpt>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aYdmA70X40hw&refer=news

<scroll down>

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said increasing defense spending may act as a boost to the economy.

``We are trying to persuade people it would be a good thing'' to increase the projected 2010 defense budget of $526.7 billion by $57 billion, Gates said in an Oct. 21 interview. ``If you want to talk about a stimulus package, the defense budget's not bad and obviously a lot of jobs around the country depend'' on military spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. God I hate these people. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. The World's Only Superpower.
Yeah. Sure.

Brought to you by the People's Republic of China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
droidamus2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting
I remember reading, sorry no link, an article in the last few days that a group connected to the Pentagon had said we needed to cut back on the Defense budget primarily by killing some of the big ticket weapons programs. Maybe all the Pentagon people should get together and decide is it more money or big cuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I read that
article too. I wish I could remember the wording so I could search for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Was it this?
Obama urged to scrap some Pentagon programs


By Bryan Bender The Boston Globe
Published: November 11, 2008

WASHINGTON: A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable" and that he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.

The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body. It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities.

Those include rebuilding ground forces battered by multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan and expanding the ranks to wage the war on terrorism.

"Business as usual is no longer an option," according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to The Boston Globe. "The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Yes! Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mediaman007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. How does he know that's enough? (sarcasm)
Now's the time to depth charge that missile defense system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Gorging themselves at the public trough.
... glad he's going. He's a dyed in the wool, Republican shill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. Poppy's company needs the cash!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama needs to purge the entire Bush cabal from government.
Disgusting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. We need to break this fucking government before we leave...
Otherwise, it may be spent on things that people need, likes roads and hospitals. We can't have that. It too socialistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. I suppose you support this ripoff just like you did the bailout.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. But, but...these military assets are worth WAY more than the market will pay for them!
It only makes sense to bankrupt your grandchildren to pay for them! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. Is he insane? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. He is a bu$h appointee. Does that answer your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. Looking out for the defense contractors while it's still possible.



If any of it goes through, no doubt Gates and the other
corrupt BushCo criminals will get a piece of the action.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC