Pentagon budget: top 3 winners and losers

Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 27, 2012 | Anna Mulrine

[SteelToe]

Pentagon budget: top 3 winners and losers

As the Pentagon rolled out its budget preview Thursday, it stressed the tough work involved in cutting $487 billion over the next decade. But in Pentagon parlance, the word “cut” is a relative term. While the Defense Department’s base budget initially decreases from $553 billion this year to $525 billion in fiscal year 2013, it is still more than its $480 billion base budget in 2008, when US troops were in the midst of two wars. The budget will then rebound steadily to $567 billion in fiscal year 2017.

With this in mind, here are the top three winners and losers:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0126/Pentagon-budget-top-3-winners-and-losers/Winner-No.-1-the-Navy

[ScubieNuc]

The number 3 loser was about benefits. These Congress critters and administrators moan that the benefits are too much and most people who serve 20 years get out. Well, duh. Obviously no one proposing these changes in retirement must have served in the military. 20 years in the military is, in most cases, equivalant to 40 years in civilian world. The other thing that is ironic is I believe Congress critters get benefits for life, even if they just serve one 4 or 6 year term. Hypocrits! Cut your own benefits before touching the benefits of our troops.

[kosciusko51]

While I think there is waste that could be removed from the Pentagon budget, this is the one area that should be fully funded before all of the non-Constitutional “entitlement” programs. If we have insufficient ability to “provide for the common defense”, we have no country.

[rbg81]

How much does this country spend on illegals (on or under the table)? The Dems would rather throw our vets under the bus than touch any entitlements for illegals. After all, there are fewer of them and more illegals all the time.

[Vince Ferrer]

We have a long way to go in cutting the federal budget, and we really haven't even started on anything except the military and NASA. But what I see of the military budget is hopeful and well reasoned. The largest parts of the military budget are not the high tech gizmos, but the mundane things like salaries, benefits, and fuel. I am not in favor of cutting salaries and benefits, especially to currently serving members. So that leaves the less painful option of cutting down the number of personnel. By having smaller, and especially more automated forces, they can still perform their constitutional duties while saving the budget.

Now, can we please get started on the non military cuts as well?

[ScubieNuc]

You know, the more I think about it, I would rather the military in the US have a coup and run this country by military rule, rather than have Obama, or Romney or whomever, lie to us while stealling our childrens inheritance. Pretty sad place America has slumped to.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

While I think there is waste that could be removed from the Pentagon budget, this is the one area that should be fully funded before all of the non-Constitutional “entitlement” programs. If we have insufficient ability to “provide for the common defense”, we have no country.

You are right about defense being the one priority. The problem is that much that is called defense, such as "nation building", "global leadership", "commitments" and "power projection" has less to do with the Constitutional defense mandate and more with the current bipartisan elites' consensus that has its origins with Woodrow Wilson and FDR rather than with George Washington and the Founders.

[SandRat]

As a retiree whose medical file at retirement was as thick as a NY Yellow Pages Phone Book, telling of multiple shattered or broken bones, lacerations, dislocations, and sundry other injuries; Kongress Kritters need to cut their own benefits before they even think of looking at cutting ours.

[blueunicorn6]

Look at all those federal civilian employees that have been cut

Yeah, I’m looking, too.

[bert]

I’m not sure I disagree with what was listed.

I’m pleased with the removal of the occupying brigades from Europe.

Ten years have passed and the Soviet threat has evaporated. It seems that the need for presence in Europe is to have advance staging for operations in west Asia or east of the Arabian Gulf.

[Vaduz]

More money for the Special Population Academic Readiness Centers I guess.
Every transnational vote counts. /s

[kosciusko51]

Good points. I'm thinking more of improvements in weapons systems, and having the best trained, best equipped, and best prepared fighting units. The PC crap should be eliminated and the "nation building" aspects should be seriously reconsidered.

The issue with "power projection" is that if we don't, the Russians and the Chinese will. Technology has made the world a lot smaller than when the founders envisioned our country. The US was well isolated from the rest of the world until WWII. After that, and especially with the advent of ICBMs, we are no longer so isolated. Also, I would rather fight the battle abroad than in our own backyard.

[ScubieNuc]

Part of the sneaky part of their proposal is to leave those who are already in alone but reduce the benefits for those who will go in in the future. Regardless of what generation of war fighters they decide to short change on benefits, it’s flat out wrong, especially when they haven’t even touched their own special benefits.

[SandRat]

Typical conduct for a silly-sibillian who's never worn combat boots or got mud on those boots or heard the lead Bees Buzz by his ear.