There still needs to be the Overseas Contingency Operations budget (which will be submitted after the Afghanistan drawdown is announced and implemented, reducing troop count in-country by ~half or more), but in 2012 it was at 110B and dropped to 88B this year. So the combined DoD/OCO budget will be somewhere between 550B and 610B (very likely on the lower end). In 2011 the combined budget was $712B, 2012 was $688B and in 2013 it was $672B (further cut by sequestration). More detail is available at the link.
It is your duty to do the best with what you have. Right now, that's more than every military on earth combined. I think a reduction is in order. I don't study this, so understand I am the uneducated and what I am saying is gut feeling, I could very well be wrong. But my gut says we could cut 50% and still have the best military on earth.
what the fgures you use do not disclose is the size of standing armies other countries have..China for one scares the hell out of me,Russia has been modernizing for about a decade..both of these are not seconed rate..
This. Good book about this called the Power Problem. Biggest thing that bugs me about it is that many countries that know we will back them in a conflict will barely spend on their own military. We're essentially footing the bill to "defend" not just ourselves but a host of other nations.
No Liar, it isn't. " Yet Obama and outgoing defense secretary Leon Panetta foresee great danger. Nonsense. As Mercatus Center analyst Veronique de Rugy writes, “Defense spending has almost doubled in the past decade in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts.” Summarizing Rugy’s findings, Gillespie writes, “Assuming maximum sequestration, Defense would increase only 16 percent in current dollars over the next decade, rather than 23 percent without sequestration.” Some cut. Of course, much could and should be cut from the military by ending the U.S. government’s imperial foreign policy—which makes enemies for the American people—and moving to a policy of strict noninterventionism. This would not only save money; it would be the right thing to do. The U.S. government should not be policing the world." http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/24/the-american-people-need-real-spending-c
I think reduction is in order, too. But I also think cutting the budget will mean a cut in the quality of the military. Because of all the overspending we've done over the years, we've developed things like smart weapons and bunker buster bombs. The former don't eliminate collateral damage, but significantly reduce it. The latter eliminates the need for using tactical nukes. On the other hand, I don't want us bombing anyone or using the bunker busters, so...
Personal attacks aside, you might want to learn to apply some critical thinking to your analyses. Please look at the chart you posted, and explain the following: 1) Why the blue "war funding" line that is solely for Overseas Contingency Operations is constant at ~100B a year until 2020, when it's already gone down to $88B this year (that's a fact) and the President has mandated that 34,000 more troops will be sent home by January 2014, with a significantly reduced presence post-2015? Does your critical analysis of these facts support the blue area staying at ~100B until 2020? 2) The 2014 data point for the purple "base defense budget projection" shows an increase in 2014 up to ~$560-570B. I don't know where Veronique is getting her OMB projection from, but in the OP the fact that the President sent a $526B budget to Congress was presented. Do you think that it's going to increase 15% from $526B this year to ~$590B in 2015, as your chart shows? 3) How do you explain the continued projected increase in base defense budget when the Army's drawdown of 80,000 troops over the next 6 years and the Marines' drawdown of 20,000 through 2016 (over 10% of their force, both below Clinton Administration manning figures) seems to indicate that personnel costs will be significantly reduced? 4) Why are you trusting projection over fact? That this chart has already been invalidated seems to suggest to me that you either need to choose your sources more carefully and apply some analysis when doing so, and especially when rehashing an old argument. Part of research is understand what you can trust, what makes you wrong when you put faith into it and what new research has come out that validates or invalidates your hypothesis and testing methods. Your passion is commendable. Your skills need some work. I'm happy to help educate you, but I can do without the invective.
Brian iyo, what are the advantages of having our db be higher than the next 10 or so combined? Disadvantages? Where would be the best place to make drastic cuts? What are the most important expenditures? If you were forced to cut the budget by 50%, what would you cut, and what would you keep? 75%? Thanks in advance, was wanting a knowledgeable view on these
This'll be quicker than I like and not comprehensive, but it's a rough start... Personally, I don't see defense cuts as being bad. Coupled with a national security strategy that supports it, I don't even have a problem with the idea that we can get back to a Clinton-level defense budget (which I've heard is ~400-450B in today's dollars, but I haven't studied that). I am almost positive that defense projections do NOT have a sustained increase over the next decade. It'd be political suicide for Joint Chiefs to demand it. There are two main issues (as I see it) that the public doesn't get enough info about. The first is that our military is (and has to be) built based upon the directives of the President and the SecDef, and then down through the services. For at least since I've been old enough to understand, it's been based on manning and equipment required to fight two major regional wars. That was tested when Iraq started, and was found to not be enough. Hence the rapid increase in size, upgrades to equipment (HMMWVs were no longer mission capable and multi-million dollar MRAPs had to be designed and purchased, for example) and use of what I call mercenaries (but who are generally called contractors)--people paid by the DoD to provide security or another military service who aren't responsible to the military chain of command. These people are generally paid at a much higher rate than a normal soldier. It's also why 6000 reservists are on yearlong recall orders taking them away from their jobs and families. But that's why we signed up for. Just not for multiple times because you're burning out the regular forces. The budget's dropped about 20% in the last few years...but the National Security Strategy hasn't changed. The military doesn't come up with that. It's not like the Chairman can come together with the other services and say "Mr. President, we are building our forces only for isolationist/non-intervention purposes--don't send us anywhere anymore". The President and SecDef state what the military needs to be ready to accomplish (including mission sets), and the services say what that'll cost in their opinion, it gets vetted by SecDef and the President and then submitted to Congress for approval in the budget. The second is that our reliance on high technology, which imho is a manifestation of a collective societal impression of the cost of a life which is higher than just about anyone's, anywhere, anytime in history. There were roughly 5000 killed in the last decade of two wars, and people were screaming to "let the slaughter stop". That's 1/10th of Vietnam, 1/80th World War II, 1/20th WWI, 1/120th Civil War. Why was that possible? Our training and technology is second-to-none. We have pumped a lot of money into R&D that has trickled out into the civilian world. We protect our troops in ways unheard of in past conflicts. (When I go outside the fenceline, I have to have a waiver to NOT wear a 40# vest, kevlar helmet and full gloves/eye/ear protection. 10 years ago, it would've been in cammies and a backpack.) Some of the old-school grunts on here can probably elaborate better. There's a problem with that, though. Most of our technological advantages are now entering their second or third decade of use and nearing end of life, with few replacements in the queue. The planes that are dropping bombs are starting to fall out of the sky because they've been overworked for the last 10-15 years and their replacements have been de-funded (or late, depending on which defense contractor you're looking at). The submarines that placed us on the cutting edge with precision strikes into Baghdad and Tripoli and others are entering their third decade, and not being replaced on a 1-for-1 basis. The ballistic missile boats are supposed to be retired at the end of this decade, but Congress still hasn't started funding construction of the new ones. The Air Force's ICBM program has been de-funded so far that some missiles are rotting in their silos and the companies that build rockets have shut down. We physically do not have the capability to build (for instance) as many nuclear weapons a year as Pakistan does, or about 1/50th as many as China IS making each year. There is supposed to be a wave of new construction/new systems coming in the next 15 years, but I don't know where that's going to come from. If I was forced to cut the budget drastically, I might think of going back to pre-WWII time and doing away with a large part of the US Army. Keep the National Guard, Keep the Marines in their (basically perfected) role as a 911/Force-in-Readiness and a show-the-flag force. Though I may be biased, I think that the Navy's role has already been stripped too far and would keep their levels at or near present just because protection of trade is a huge component not only of our national security but our national ethos and they are already proficient in working with the Marines to have forward presence around the world. At some point, though, it's strategically harmful to back out of world politics. I'm of the opinion that there will always be bad people doing bad things. It's not generally good for American policy to have to rely on other people for our security--be it militarily, financial or otherwise. There are also societal impacts. If you strip down the army to a highly professional cadre that will expand if needed, you have to have a draft/militia program that ensures that there are a lot of people to fill those slots when needed. I'm not sure that a draft or compulsory reserve/National Guard training or service will ever make a comeback in the US, but this may be a catalyst for it.
Very interesting post with lots to chew on. Thanks (Both for the education and the service). Personally, I am for "cutting the fat" but not for stripping away readiness capabilities of the services. I am interested in your opinions on a couple follow up points. With the drones and generally more automated or unmanned methods of reconosince and warfare, do you feel it is more important to maintain funding in R&D then in having a large standing army? Shouldn't we be able to do more with drastically fewer soldiers than in the past? The mercenaries are paid drastically more, do you believe that they are used because they don't have to abide by the same codes as the military (operate outside the law)? Can they be gotten rid of and replaced with our military? How do you think this issue should be handeled in the future?
The reason the surge worked is that more boots on the ground were required to hold positions once taken. Drones might soften those positions before we take them, but as soon as the drones go elsewhere, the enemy comes back.
Good for you, the next step is PASSING a budget. Nice try. Let's ignore the fact the graph is a few months old, add plus or minus 10% to the prediction for your sake, I don't think you understand what the problem is. The problem is we should be making cuts (serious EVERY year cuts), not future decreases in spending I want to make you unemployed, I want you to file a job application in guam as a very experienced McDonalds employee. I don't like interventionism from an economic, strategic, and efficiency standpoint. Your social contract nonsense does not sway me, I'm a natural rights Libertarian. I don't think you've ever met anyone as capitalist as me, but either way many of your peers agree with me. That fact soothes me. 88 billion over the next decade would still be a nice little increase. Anything over a dollar is ludicrous to me. Yawn, again I want to cut your budget in half, then cut it in half again. Not slow down increases in the future. Let's put it this way, a real cut of 20% does nothing for me. Let's summarize your opinion: The military will decrease its budget by even more than my chart predicts. Good, but I doubt it. Withdrawing troops isn't much of a cut, they'll just get transferred around or we'll build more bases somewhere. Oh and Obama still has to suck up to the pro-war right. Your criticism is pointless, you can argue about 100 billion or whatever it is completely insignificant to my point. I'm not a Chicago School economist. And its nothing personal, I'm like that with all jingoists. I have a great distaste for what you represent, I will not let up.
You called me a liar because I presented a fact, and used incorrect information as a basis. Chicago School, Milwaukee School, Berlin School, whatever--you were wrong. You want to cut the budget multiple times---that's fine. The premise of this thread is that that's happening. Cuts today ARE HAPPENING. Not "projected" cuts. Not "cuts to increases". Having your head in the sand because it doesn't fit with your narrative isn't analysis. That's nice. Unrealistic, but nice. You don't want to be competing with me for a job, though. And it's funny that as a non-interventionist you bring up Guam. You can start a thread about that. This one is that the DoD has cut spending by almost 20% over the last 3 years. Contrary to your charts; contrary to your opinions; contrary to your analysis--cuts have happened and are continuing to. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Clearly you don't want to make the connection. I never said this year wasn't going to see a decrease in spending, your points so far are redundant. The Prez's proposed budget is hated by the war-mongering neocons who control a part of Congress, think about that before you go helter skelter on defense cuts. Not very savvy on the schools eh? I was referring to the long-run which is probably closer to what the CBO originally predicted. The long-run is what any legitimate economist cares about. You are a liar. And not a very good one. Just last year the prez told military officials to act like the sequester was not going to occur through the first half of the year, making them go over their official budget. Obama's current budget has little chance to get passed buddy. Uh-huh, not the best track record there. "Head in the sand" bullshit, let's see a budget get passed first. Oh and the government can just print (secretly tax) as much money as it needs for war time efforts at any time, look up some of our world's prior leaders. In the long run this makes it more palatable to pass big budgets. Dude the last thing I need is to waste my time in the military, not accomplishing anything for ten years in some country we occupied, that hates us, with a weird haircut. Your wars against statistically unlikely events, that require trillions of dollars, are illogical. Who cares? You're still a misrepresentative liar, one budget that can't get passed means squat in the long-run for budget projections. If you can't see how that other statement is related you have no understanding of ethics then. Your source of revenue is utter nonsense, your buddys even often agree.
I barely escaped being drafted, but I must say this: When Nixon ended the draft, he increased payroll to attract volunteers. Returning to a draft would greatly cut personnel costs and benefits.
Uh, you called me a liar when I posted that defense spending was coming down in 2014, and the chart you posted showed an increase. I don't think it's me who's unwilling or unable to see the connection Please do some research on how the last 4 years of the Dept of Defense were funded, specifically looking at the funding proposals that were sent by the President to Congress (and how much was cut or added from those recommendations). I'll wait. I'm not impressed with someone throwing out philosophy learned on wikipedia as trumping facts. A) I'm not a legitimate economist, and you've failed to provide any manner of credential or experience suggesting that you are, either. However, the premise of this thread is that "defense spending is coming down." In the words of May MacKenzie, "that's a fact!" B) If you don't care about it, more power to you. If you want to debate that it's not coming down enough, go for it. If you don't like the facts, I can't really help you there, and no name-calling is going to make it better. Does a legitimate economist think that, since a budget wasn't passed, the military is unfunded? Or that the Defense Department can spend willy-nilly to meet their perceived requirements? Do you understand what a Continuing Resolution is? As for the sequester, the part about the President not telling the truth about the sequester timing did ensure that O&M budgets were not going to be funded as given by the CR. That's why you see training exercises being cancelled, Tuition Assistance being stopped, etc. There's not enough cash after sequester and spending on the first half of the FY to do what the missions called for. Going back to post #10, it seems that no one is making the connection that, while spending is coming down, strategic requirements aren't. A budget hasn't been passed since 2007, yet somehow the DoD has spend a couple of trillion dollars. And they're spending less this year. Which was the point of the thread. Because there are still some people (who will go unnamed) who think that defense spending is continuing to rise unchecked in these austere times, when the facts are that, printed money or not, secretly taxed or not, the amount the military has been spending has decreased almost 20% over the last 4 years, and next year's funding recommendation from the President continues that trend. Your analysis of me and of the results of the work in Afghanistan are as faulty as your understanding of the DoD budget. I've spent roughly 1 year in the past 7 in uniform. Amazingly enough, it's when I've been ordered by your government to go to places in order to help with the Libya operation, when they need someone with language, culture, engineering and leadership skills to go to West Africa, and when more of those skills are needed in Afghanistan. Usually, I do "real" work for Fortune 50 companies. Nope, it doesn't mean squat for long-run budget projections. However, it does mean that those budget projections are already wrong. And the facts are that DoD spending has been going down for 3 years and will go down for a 4th. A chart you whistle up from who-knows-where that is statistically incorrect already, with projections that you don't understand and errors that you still haven't been able to refute (see again the questions I posed to you in Post 8) doesn't do much, coupled with name-calling, to make your case. I'm not high enough to even pretend to understand what you mean here.
Sorry, my chart shows a dip in defense spending for 2013. Try again man. Read my specific point before you "counter" it. Yes if you blatantly bitch about the short-term with no regard for the upward trend in defense spending, I think you're an entitled liar. What did the CBO say about defense spending in the long-run? What did the CBO predict for 2023? That's what I thought. And sure, I know exactly how much money we wasted the past few years. http://sportstwo.com/threads/235207-Defense-spending-coming-down...?p=3002351&viewfull=1#post3002351 It isn't about you being "impressed" you're simply uneducated about economics. You can't have a massive interventionist state and capitalism. A world police state comes with certain neoclassical elements, and unsound fiduciary media. That may be your premise, certainly. My post, and my premise was about the long-run according to various long-term projections. Your purpose was to mislead the public by mentioning the "budget", I simply responded with reality, which is that the budget is irrelevant. You made it a point to allude to the President's "lower" budget, which was extremely misleading. If the world ends today then of course more power to you, you're correct. Fortunately for everyone that isn't the case. You do realize, the government can just make up all the money in one fell swoop during an emergency? Weak as shit sequester. Hmm this is false, lol sorry go back to the beginning of the thread and get your eyes checked. My points are nuanced and the only one that matters. I'm much more concerned about the secretly taxed money btw, than your budget proposals. It isn't a minor thing, I wish the only thing I had to worry about was the budget as is. Well are you speaking for everyone? Because I was speaking for myself, I have higher standards and I don't find that lifestyle to be fruitful, statistically intelligent, or moral. If you do that's fine, I don't really mind that part. I'm sure there are some nice humanitarian cases out there, but statistically nothing you say can ignore the fact that the state is extremely paranoid. And as a basis for this assertion, you said I claimed defense spending wasn't going down recently (go back to the beginning of my post). Then you said the President's budget disproves my theory, which is crazy. Then you ignore the only thing that really matters to me, monetary policy. You haven't shown a great counter-argument at all. The CBO predicts an increase of eventually 100 Billion, per year, over the next ten years. "Why are you so entitled?" in simpler terms. I was trying to be nice. :] Where do you get this sense of entitlement, that your views need to be funded by force? It seems illegitimate to me, fund your own lifestyle and your own beliefs.
And an increase of about 70B or so in 2014, which has no chance of happening. And a static amount of OCO spending, which has already been proven wrong. I didn't bitch about anything. I provided the information that the president has provided his recommendation to Congress for military spending in 2014, and it's lower than it was last year, which is lower than the year before, which was lower than the year before. As I said, just because it doesn't fit with your chart isn't my problem. If their analysis is anything like either their chart you provided or their analysis of ObamaCare spending, I'm not impressed. The facts are that spending is going down for the 4th year in a row. Well, since their prediction for 2014 was off by about 100B and showed a completely different trend slope, I don't care, other than to laugh at those who still try to use something that's already been proven wrong. CBO predictions for 2023 weren't part of the thread. SPending going down was. No, your post was that I was a liar, and you posted a chart that's already wrong a red-lined, underlined and bolded a quote that is patently false. I can't help that, and your backtracking and philosophical interludes aren't helping. I made it a point to show that spending has gone down for the last 3 years, and the President's recommendation to Congress shows a 4th year of cuts on top of sequestration. You have yet to show anything to refute that other than already-wrong CBO projections. Sorry, I deal in truth. If you like to fantasize about the future, more power to you. Correct. You called me a liar for posting the quote. No, I've shown that dollars spent on DoD has gone from 711B down to a projected 550-610B this year. I couldn't care less what really matters to you. The thread is about defense spending going down. It has. And they got 2014 wrong. What does that say for the next 10 years? Are they going to suddenly reverse course and overfund the military by 180B next year to get back on track? I'm sure this answers someone's question...I'm sure it wasn't mine. Again, I deal in truth. You want to fantasize, project, embellish, philosophize, etc. you're welcome to...maybe the world needs more dreamers. However, the truth is that spending went down from 2010 to 2011, again from 2011 to 2012, again from 2012 to 2013, again when the sequester cuts happened, and the President's recommendation to Congress reduced that amount again while reducing by over half the things that OCO pays for. That's all. Your rants are welcome. They're just misplaced. And you might want to do some of the research I posted above. Like I said, you've got spunk. Just need some discipline. I'm sure there are some nice humanitarian cases out there, but statistically nothing you say can ignore the fact that the state is extremely paranoid.
Where HK's graph is misleading is that the amount of dollars we spend will increase because of inflation. Economists measure things in constant dollars to account for inflation, or they use a % of GDP. "Neocon" Paul Ryan's budget proposal would cut $2T, or $200B a year, from the defense budget over the next 10 years. The sequestration settlement is cutting $50B a year for the next 10 years as well. In spite of a graph of current dollars increasing over time, the military is going to feel the real and significant cuts.
