Suggested Reading
Get Serious About Reform
Budget Challenges Will Force Hard Choices
By Carl Conetta and Charles Knight
February 21, 2010
From DefenseNews.Com
During the past decade, the U.S. Defense Department has enjoyed a rise in its budget unprecedented since the Korean War. With President Barack Obama's fiscal 2011 budget request, it is up nearly 100 percent in real terms from its post-Cold War low. But few observers believe that this level of spending can continue in light of the mounting national debt. So it is wise to think now about options for savings.
A way to begin is to ask, what has driven budgets so high? Obviously, the wars are part of the answer. But they account for only 20 percent of today's expenditures. And they are the least likely targets for economizing.
It is more fruitful to reflect on the shortcomings in past efforts at defense reform. Can we do it better? It is also worth thinking about the practice of force modernization during the post-Cold War period, which has been distinctly undisciplined.
More...
Putting the Coast Guard Out to Sea
The New York Times
February 27, 2010
Op-Ed Contributors
By LAWRENCE J. KORB and SEAN E. DUGGAN
Washington
DESPITE the pressing need to cut government spending, under President Obama’s spending proposal all the nation’s military services are set to see their budgets increase — all, that is, except the Coast Guard, the nation’s chronically overburdened maritime force, responsible for everything from global search and rescue to port security.
Under the president’s proposal, the Coast Guard’s budget will decline by 3 percent, to $10.1 billion, smaller than many medium-sized agencies under the other services. It’s a puzzling decision, considering the increasingly critical role the Coast Guard plays in protecting the national security interests of the United States — and considering that many much less vital military programs have been spared.
More...
A Military Budget of Add-ons, Not Choices, Makes the Security Imbalance Worse
From the Institute for Policy Studies
February 1, 2010 · By Anita Dancs and Miriam Pemberton
An emphasis on non-military engagement can't hide the fact that Obama is spending more on defense than Bush.
By exempting not just military spending, but also non-military international engagement and homeland security from his proposed spending freeze, the president has sent an important message: Strengthening non-military tools is essential to U.S. security.
This can’t obscure the fact that in his budget the military tools are, shall we say, more equal than the others. At $744 billion, the military budget continues its upward trajectory. It also widens the gap between spending on military vs. non-military tools. Spending on non-military international engagement actually decreased since last year, from $64.9 to $60.5 billion.
The imbalance between the budget for offense (military forces) and prevention (non-military foreign engagement) actually grew from 11:1 to 12:1. The imbalance between offense and defense (homeland security) stayed roughly the same, at 15:1.* The imbalance between spending on military vs. non-military security overall expanded, from 6.5:1 last year to 7:1 in the proposal for FY 2011.
More...
The Boxing Match to End C-17 Production—Round 1—The Fight Begins—Again
Dolores Barr, Editor and Publisher , OC180NEWS.com
Published 02/15/2010
The Obama Administration, the Challengers, recently unveiled their proposed defense budget for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2010. Just like last year, once again they want to end production of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III advanced airlifters, and once again, most elected officials that are speaking up, the Defenders, give the idea a strong right jab. Hanging in the balance are the jobs of about 5,000 Boeing Long Beach employees [about 1,000 in St Louis] who assemble the big four engine cargo planes.
It was not surprising that the budget proposal called for an end to production of C-17s, but the President’s words were more aggressive than in the past. Last year, the Administration went to the mat for a handful of other high profile defense programs they wanted to dump, and for those programs where they chose to make their stand, they won. But, even though they initially said they wanted to end C-17 production, after the first bell, they took a hands off approach to the idea. This year, however, President Obama highlighted termination of C-17 production in his budget first bell speech.
The President said “We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. One example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport aircraft. Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested -- 180. Yet every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's waste, pure and simple.”
More...
Rep. John Murtha: lifelong hawk, military backer, brazen earmarker
PEP has been hard on the late congressman for his role in expanding superfluous defense spending to support his district. This leader's service, particularly as described in this article, illustrates why PEP's work is so important. On one hand, we want to limit the influence of lobbying forces like PMA and the other contractors who lined Congressman Murtha's coffers for 38 years while in the House. On the other, we want to remind congresspersons that you can get more, better jobs out of non-defense spending (see here) and empower them to solicit non-defense work for their constituents.
In the "More" section, are further articles about the late Congressman and his replacement as the head of the appropriations committee.
By Gail Russell Chaddock
February 8, 2010
From the Christian Science Monitor
Washington
Until his public break with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq on Nov. 17, 2005, Rep. John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania, who died Monday after surgery, was best known for the billions of dollars he secured for his district behind closed doors.
Abandoned by coal and steel factories, Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District owed its billions in defense contracts and infrastructure to the persistence and clout of its 19-term representative, who last month became the state's longest-serving House member of all time.
A protégé of legendary House Speaker Tip O’Neill and, more recently, a confidant of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative Murtha swayed the lion’s share of member projects in any budget year from a perch on top of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Regardless of which party was in control of Congress, Murtha had a hand in overseeing the defense budget and distributing its member-projects, or earmarks. There’s even an area of the House floor dubbed “Murtha’s Corner,” for its traffic in earmarks.
His zeal in winning projects for his district brought him to the edge of scandal and frequent ethics investigations. Last month, he was cleared by the Office of Congressional Ethics of charges that he had accepted campaign contributions from PMA Group, a former top defense lobbying firm, in exchange for funding for earmarked projects.
Murtha brushed off the criticism, especially that from those who had never visited his district nor seen the economic devastation there.
“Jack Murtha was a man who thought representing his constituents was the most important thing in his public service,” said G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center of Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “He could care less what people said about pork barrel or earmarks or wasting. He felt that the primary goal of his service was to the 12th District and for that he had their undying affection.”
The first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress, Murtha was also focused on support of US military forces, especially in combat.
“Ever since I was a young boy, I had two goals in life – I wanted to be a colonel in the Marine Corps and a member of Congress,” he wrote in his 2006 memoir “From Vietnam to 9/11.”
A lifelong hawk and an early supporter of the war in Iraq, Murtha led Democrats in pushing for sufficient support for the troops, including adequately armored vehicles. His break with President Bush over the war in Iraq in late 2005 gave a significant boost to the antiwar movement both on and off Capitol Hill.
“Jack was a devoted husband, a loving father and a steadfast advocate for the people of Pennsylvania for nearly 40 years,” said President Obama in a statement honoring Murtha.
More...
Wars sending U.S. into ruin
Obama the peace president is fighting battles his country cannot afford
By ERIC MARGOLIS, QMI AGENCY
From The Toronto Sun
2/7/2010
U.S. President Barack Obama calls the $3.8-trillion US budget he just sent to Congress a major step in restoring America’s economic health.
In fact, it’s another potent fix given to a sick patient deeply addicted to the dangerous drug — debt.
More empires have fallen because of reckless finances than invasion. The latest example was the Soviet Union, which spent itself into ruin by buying tanks.
Washington’s deficit (the difference between spending and income from taxes) will reach a vertiginous $1.6 trillion US this year. The huge sum will be borrowed, mostly from China and Japan, to which the U.S. already owes $1.5 trillion. Debt service will cost $250 billion.
To spend $1 trillion, one would have had to start spending $1 million daily soon after Rome was founded and continue for 2,738 years until today.
More...
Deficits in a Growing Defense Budget
Interviewee: Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow, Defense Budget Studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Interviewer: Greg Bruno, Staff Writer, CFR.org
From the Council on Foreign Relations
February 4, 2010
The Obama administration released its second defense budget and an accompanying Pentagon strategy on February 1 amidst talk of rebuilding the American defense establishment. But Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says while the administration's reform rhetoric is laudable, its defense spending plan doesn't allocate money to seriously rebuild the military to deal with such threats as irregular warfare. Soaring costs of military healthcare are cutting into the Pentagon's ability to fund and design new equipment, says Harrison. And despite early predictions that a Democratic administration would dramatically reduce defense spending, Harrison says, just the opposite is happening. "This administration hasn't cut defense spending at all but increased it to record levels, and it looks like for the foreseeable future defense acquisitions are going to continue increasing," Harrison says. "What happened [on February 1] was people started to realize, 'Hey, this president isn't bad for the defense industry.'"
More...
Quadrennial Defense Review Fails to Match Resources to Priorities
While PEP and the Center for American Progress have a handful of issues on which we disagree (The War in Afghanistan and the approach to combating terrorism, for example), this is still a very thoughtful, valuable, and informative first look at and review of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
-PEP-
By Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan, Laura Conley | February 4, 2010
This article was published by the Center for American Progress
Earlier this week the Obama administration released its first Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, a congressionally mandated planning and strategy document that is supposed to provide a framework for the military’s force structure and thus shape its annual budgets. The document should recognize the nature of the current threat environment facing the United States and show how the Pentagon plans to develop the force needed to address it. While the 2010 QDR largely accomplished the former objective, it did not achieve the latter. The true measure of the effectiveness of any QDR is whether it ensures that the department’s budget supports its analysis—on this measure the 2010 QDR comes up short.
The QDR does support a number of progressive national security priorities. For example, it points out the necessity of rebalancing the military to address unconventional enemies, the benefits of enhanced relationships and cooperation with our international allies, and the need to be able to fight and win today’s wars while preparing to fight the wars of tomorrow. Significantly, the 2010 QDR abandons the Bush administration’s “Long War” construct that oversimplified the nature of the struggle against violent extremists.
Importantly, the QDR indicates that counterinsurgency and stabilization operations are, and will continue to be, a key part of the Defense Department’s mission. It also emphasizes “enhancing language, regional, and cultural abilities” as a part of DOD’s long-term planning. The QDR makes clear the Obama administration’s commitment to a whole of government approach to national security, including emphasizing the role of development and diplomacy in keeping our nation safe.
It is also encouraging that for the first time the Pentagon is factoring climate change and its effects into its long-term strategy. But reducing the military’s reliance on oil and pursuing greater energy efficiency is only one dimension that must be considered. Climate change is a threat multiplier and will contribute to instability in many regions. All estimates point out that climate change will affect agricultural capacity and output, access to food and water resources, and threaten the economic livelihood of millions. In extreme cases, experts estimate that 200 million people could become climate migrants by 2050. In addition, natural disasters may spur climate migration, suddenly forcing people to move. The Center for American Progress recently argued that Northwest Africa is one of the regions to watch in regard to climate and its impact on security and policy, both for the United States and the European Union.
More...
On defense budget, Obama is more of the same
The president continues his predecessor's policies
baltimoresun.com
By Nancy Langer
February 1, 2010
Today, President Obama will release his budget request, asking more for defense than any other president -- a whopping $708 billion for the Department of Defense in fiscal 2011. Also today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will release a document known inside Washington as the QDR -- the quadrennial defense review, a four-year snapshot of our security plans. The last QDR was done under Donald Rumsfeld, with George W. Bush as president, but be prepared to wonder if Mr. Bush is still president.
Hamlet famously said, "the time is out of joint." With the threat of terrorist attacks and a stumbling economy, not only is our time out of joint, but our budget priorities are also out of whack.
President Obama has said his plan to freeze the budget for three years excludes the military and other "security" sectors of the budget. Hidden in the details will be a shocking disparity between the dollars thrown at the Department of Defense and those sent to the State Department -- money to help us talk, not just shoot. Our wacky reliance on military operations over civilian-run aid and diplomacy is getting tiresome for the world, but that's not the worst thing about it. Diplomacy at the end of a gun is very expensive.
More...
Cut the Pentagon, Too
Why Obama's spending freeze should apply to (most of) the military.
While we at PEP are skeptical about the wisdom of a spending freeze coming so soon on the heels of this devastating recession, if Obama wants to discuss belt tightening at the federal level, we will adamantly call for the examination of military spending within the discretionary budget.
From Slate.com
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010
President Obama's proposal tonight to freeze discretionary federal spending for three years may or may not be a smart idea. Certainly it is a good idea to exclude, as he put it, "spending related to national security." I hope he realizes, however, that such spending is not synonymous with the Defense Department budget.
Like the budgets of all bureaucracies, but much more so, the Pentagon is stuffed with entrenched interests, parochial barons, and internecine rivalries.
In the budget-freeze section of his State of the Union address, Obama noted that because of the economy, many American families "are tightening their belts and making tough decisions," so "the federal government should do the same." The administration will, he said, need to go through its budget "line by line, page by page, eliminating programs we don't need or that don't work."
There is no good reason to exempt the Pentagon's budget from this discipline.
More...
| NEXT page |