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 f...

--I mean, that President Obama, who decided it was necessary to go to that well at least one more time--even though candidate Obama condemned the maneuver and Senator Obama voted against it: Antiwar congressman and activists who played a key role in Mr Obama's election campaign criticised him for deploying the same "off the books" funding tactic that were introduced by his predecessor George W Bush. Mr Bush was accused of trying to mask the overall cost of the two conflicts – which now stands at virtually $1 trillion - by funding them via annual "emergency" supplements rather than through the usual budgetary process. The White House says the request, placed on Thursday evening, was needed to secure funding for the current fiscal year and that it will be the last made in this form before the first Obama budget kicks in. "This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many ye...

... and like Jethro ciphering out by the cement pond ("Uncle Jed, Uncle Jed, is naught plus naught another naught") ... I'm wondering in the light of this story : WASHINGTON — Ongoing combat operations overseas could cost the United States more than $860 billion over the next 10 years, further ballooning the defense budget, experts told Congress on Wednesday. That total includes plans to dramatically draw down the number of troops in Iraq in the next few years, according to officials from the Congressional Budget Office. Even with reducing the number of deployed combat troops to 75,000 worldwide, the CBO estimates that the Defense Department faces recurring personnel costs of at least $69 billion a year, coupled with other equipment repair costs. Lawmakers on the House Budget Committee said those estimates will only increase the pressure on budget planners to make difficult choices in how to properly fund the department. "Let there be no mistake: We’ll spend whatever...

Then consider the story of Latrobe Steel and Congressman Jack Murtha, as reported by the Coyote : And this certainly is a feel-good story for those rooting for the government to re-engineer the American auto industry: Latrobe Specialty Steel of Latrobe, 40 miles east of Pittsburgh, makes specialty steel for aircraft parts. In 2006, its parent company, Timken, spent $2.9 million lobbying Congress on various issues and persuaded lawmakers to ban the Defense Department from buying any products using foreign-made specialty steel. As the sole U.S. producer of certain kinds of specialty steel, Latrobe saw its orders climb. Timken then sold Latrobe to a group of investors in a $250 million deal. But the buy-American restrictions for specialty steel caused serious problems for the Air Force, creating a 17-month lag in getting spare parts for aircraft used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May 2007, Latrobe said it needed to expand but complained of high electric bills and publicly threat...

Delaware Way is one of my daily reads. Even though I don't agree politically with Nancy on a lot of things, she (a) educates me from time to time, and (b) keeps me up to date on what Delaware's progressive brethren and cistern are up to. That said, I got into the most interesting exchange with her over on Down With Absolutes (and the exchange had little or nothing to do with the overall thread, which is why I'm not continuing it there). I raised this issue about Senator Obama's position on US military expansion: Me: "I have read Obama's platform. There you will find his promise to INCREASE the size of the US military. Ask yourself why he would propose that when his first act is supposedly to pull out of Iraq." Nancy: "We have to increase the military. Obviously. We have destroyed our standing army with constant redeployment, stop loss and demoralizing lack of care upon return (most recently please read about Fort Bragg conditions and last yea...

Now that the Army will not allow soliders in the PX to purchase Playboy Magazine , Donviti over at Delaware liberal had no words to describe the situation. Well, I have a suggestion.... Join the Navy: