Skip to main content

Army Times inadvertently explains government budgeting hypocrisy

First, read the Army Times story:

A speedier withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would shave $1.1 trillion off the budget in the next decade, a new congressional budget projection says.

That would be a sizeable cut in defense-related spending from 2010 through 2019, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates at $7.4 trillion.

The budget forecast, issued as Congress is about to return from a summer break and confront questions about budget priorities and deficit spending, says defense costs are uncertain because budget analysts cannot predict the number of deployed troops and the pace of operations.

The $7.4 trillion price tag is based on the number of deployed troops remaining at about 210,000, but looks at two scenarios for reductions:

• A sharp reduction in troops over three years, resulting in $1.1 trillion in savings. Under this projection, the number of deployed troops falls to 160,000 in 2010; to 100,000 in 2011; to 35,000 in 2012 and to 30,000 from 2013 to 2019.

• A more gradual decline that shaves $700 billion off the $7.4 trillion defense spending estimate. It assumes 210,000 deployed troops in 2010; 190,000 in 2011; 150,000 in 2012; 100,000 in 2013 and 75,000 in 2014 and beyond.


The report does not suggest what the money saved from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan should be used for, but the Defense Department surely would make a bid to keep at least some of it to pay for unfunded weapons modernization programs.

The budget and economic update notes that Congress has allocated $944 billion so far for Iraq and Afghanistan operations — $849 billion in direct spending by the Defense Department, $51 billion for diplomatic efforts, $42 billion to aid Iraq and Afghanistan police and military forces and $2 billion to cover costs such as increases in veterans benefits and services.


Note the sentence in bold. The $7.4 Trillion dollars for the Defense budget through 2019 is predicated on the US maintaining 210,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next ten years.

When did President Obama tell us that his plan was to keep 210,000 troops in these two countries for a decade?

Moreover, the 30,000 troops quoted in plan 1 and the 75,000 troops quoted in plan 2 represent the extremes of administration troop estimates of the permanent force in Iraq alone, as envisioned by the administration.

Leaving no troops for Afghanistan after 2013 or 2014?

Damn, I knew General McChrystal was good, but I never realized he had promised we could win the war and get the hell completely out of Afghanistan in four years.

This is one of those phony Government assertions that the administration is saving us money by counting the savings against a troop level (210,000 for the next decade) that nobody has ever proposed, and which would be completely unsustainable by the US military at its current size and budget.

So what's the purpose?

The purpose is to sell you on the idea that accepting either a $6.7 Trillion or $6.3 Trillion dollar US Defense budget for the next decade (which works out to an average of $650 Billion/year, far higher than the Pentagon actually got this year and higher than any of the Bush-era Defense budgets) is actually a good deal because it could have been worse.

Yeah: instead of raising the Defense budget from about $540 Billion to $640 Billion per year, President Obama could be asking for $740 Billion each year.

Ain't we lucky?

Truth-in-advertising: President Obama merely joins a long line of US Presidents going back at least to Ronald Reagan who have employed this tactic to sell increases to the Defense budget as savings. As much as it galls some folks to read it, the evidence is pretty clear: since 1980 Bill Clinton was the President to ever prune back the Defense budget. He did it badly [primarily because Secretary William Cohen did not exercise any control over the services as they did idiotic things with the reduced budgets), but he did it.

President Obama--the supposed socialist leftist--is proving to be just as much of a war hawk as anybody since--I don't know--LBJ.

Comments

Anonymous said…
How is it that you do not have a daily column on the News Journal's editorial page?

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?