Is Obama Going To Raise Defense Spending?

Over the weekend Fox reported that Obama had requested 10% reductions in Pengtagon budgets from the joint chiefs of staff. But now Congressional Quarterly is reporting almost exactly the opposite: A proposed 8% increase in defense spending.
But even with that 8% increase, not everyone in the military is happy:

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday.
If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009 (PL 110-329), and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010. But it sets up a potential conflict between the new administration and the Defense Department’s entrenched bureaucracy, which has remained largely intact through the presidential transition.
Some Pentagon officials and congressional conservatives are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it to a $584 billion draft fiscal 2010 budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The $527 billion figure is “what the Bush people thought was the right number last February and that’s the number we’re going with,” said the OMB official, who declined to be identified. “The Joint Chiefs did that to lay down a marker for the incoming administration that was unrealistic. It’s more of a wish list than anything else.”

An 8% increase is probably appropriate. I’m pro-military, and as defense-minded as they come, but it’s worth remember that military bureaucrats tend to be like any other flavor of government bureaucrat. They’ve never met a budget increased that couldn’t be improved by doubling it.
Even so, this move by Obama surprises me. It makes me wonder how it’s going to sit with the anti-military elements of his political base. For years we’ve heard them (and some others genuinely concerned with military spending) carp about the cost of the war in Iraq, and the cost of our defense spending in general. Now that The One is going to increase defense spending, how will they react?
Regardless of how they react, I think this is something I can support Obama on pending additional details. My only concern is how we’re going to afford this likely appropriate spending increase given all the other spending Obama and the Democrats want to do on things like “economic stimulus” spending sprees that are really cover for subsidized STD testing, among other things.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://Array Rezistik
  • robert108

    I’m not running for anything and I care about the poor?

    If you really cared about the poor, you would support the free enterprise system, with its upward mobility. The poor who care about themselves generally don’t stay poor. In fact, you lefties need a permanent underclass for your identity politics and vote-buying pork spending.

  • Rezistik

    This is something that has always bothered me about conservatives. They love spending to kill people but spend to help people and your the antichrist

  • Hawk

    I’m pro-military, and as defense-minded as they come

    Heh!!

  • docdave

    Doc, we have troops stationed in 138 nations. Explain that.

    Don’t know where you got your data (be nice if you had provided a link) but it’s probably irrevalent anyway. What you seem to be missing is that in virtually every case the troops are there by invitation NOT OCCUPATION which would be the case if we were a conquering empire and in most case the invitation had to do with potential threats to that nation (surely you remember the cold war, don’t you).

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Reznitic opines:

    Perhaps the world hasn’t made me as cold and jaded as you Cons.

    But then:

    We attempt to help people in the name of the impoverished, you claim to defend people while killing others.

    I’d say that’s a pretty jaded (not to mention stupid) view of conservatism.

    Though, I will love to hear how the beneficient Obama, who celebrates partial birth abortion and is against the BAIPA, is more caring of innocent life than the evil Bush who liberated two countries from evil dictators.

  • SHADY

    Well if you think about it for awhile, conservitives would rather take the war to the terrorist’s soil and kill them there. The enemy are adult people with guns!

    The lefties,(commies) would rather kill on our own soil.
    Abortion and partial birth abortion. Seems kind of cowardly
    dose’nt it. The babies are defenceless and have no weapons!!

  • Mickey

    This is something that has always bothered me about conservatives. They love spending to kill people but spend to help people and your the Antichrist

    Rezistik

    Iraq was not about defending US citizens. It was about killing Saddam and his sons and ushering in Democracy to reform and stabilize the Middle East.

    Hannitized

    France
    Germany
    Norway
    Finland
    Poland
    Latvia
    Estonia
    Lithuania
    Algeria
    Morocco
    Romania
    Kosovo
    Panama
    Serbia
    Croatia
    Bulgaria
    Netherlands
    Luxembourg
    Czechoslovakia
    Afghanistan
    Denmark
    Kuwait
    Egypt
    Montenegro
    New Guinea
    Indonesia
    Thailand
    Greece
    Russia
    Tunisia
    Ukraine
    Albania
    Hungary
    Belgium
    Austria
    Libya
    Korea
    Japan
    Italy
    AND Iraq.

    Another country FREE!!!! Courtesy of the United States of America.

    __________________________________________________________

    Excuse me you idiots were saying?

  • Hannitized

    A Rockwell follower. That explains a lot. I used to think he was pretty cool until he became a fanatical anti-war missionary.

    The liberal doesn’t know who Lou Rockwell is, and the Conservative who thought he was pretty cool until he found out he disagreed with him on something attacks the liberal for being so aligned with Rockwell. Huh?

    Rockwell, a Libertarian, has more in common with conservatives than he does liberals.

    What up wit dat?

  • Rezistik

    Doc, we have troops stationed in 138 nations. Explain that.

  • Ken

    They love spending to kill people but spend to help people and your the antichrist

    That’s your problem right there. Conservatives don’t want to spend money to kill people, but to defend citizens of the US. And it’s not helping people that we have a problem with. It’s the fact that we believe the social programs that liberals support will actually cause more harm than good. The people that those programs claim to help actually make them relient on government money, therefore never actually helping them in the long run. Plus the people paying for these programs are also hurt by having less income.

  • Rezistik

    I criticizing anyone who wishes to raise offense spending. If obama is for it then he is equally at fault.

    Why not recall our troops and stop spending on other nations?

  • Hannitized

    Conservatives don’t want to spend money to kill people, but to defend citizens of the US.

    Iraq was not about defending US citizens. It was about killing Saddam and his sons and ushering in Democracy to reform and stabilize the Middle East.

    Don’t insult our intelligence.

    Going into Afghanistan was to defend our citizens, and Bush shifted focus on Afghanistan to put the resources and intelligence in Iraq.

    You can make the argument that you can do both, but you can’t do both well and with the same effect.

  • crshedd

    The United States is far and away the global leader in military spending. Consider the following:

    * The United States spends more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined.
    * The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world’s total military spending.
    * The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
    * The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.

    U.S. Defense Spending vs. The World–http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

    think we can afford not to give the pentagon every penny they want?

  • docdave

    A Rockwell follower. That explains a lot. I used to think he was pretty cool until he became a fanatical anti-war missionary.

    The whole troop deployment list is meaningless because it doesn’t state the reason for the deployment. For instance many of the countries in the list are NATO members which would account for military assistance and interchange.

    Really, you should have dwelled on this more deeply before making the empire accusation.

  • Rezistik

    I’m not running for anything and I care about the poor?

    Perhaps the world hasn’t made me as cold and jaded as you Cons. Or maybe your just greedy? How does it protect us to have soldiers distributed all over the world. It didn’t protect the Khan empire, or the Roman Empire, or the British Empire. We are becoming a tyrannical empire in the name of “defense”

    We attempt to help people in the name of the impoverished, you claim to defend people while killing others.

  • Brent

    I wrote yesterday on this blog, “don’t worry… spending won’t be reduced anywhere.” Not until the feds run the economy into the ground and there are just no more resources to spend.

    So this news shouldn’t be surprising. After all, Bush and Obama both promised “fiscal conservatism”, but c’mon… anyone paying attention should know better.

  • http://forums.kikizo.com/ Eddie_the_Hated

    I’m not for Obama raising military spending per-se.

    I’m for the United States Government providing the United States Military with adequate funding to do their job. I think the notion that many conservatives claim, that we must, for the sake of national security, write a blank check to the military in our budget is inherently flawed.

    If they require more funding to do their job adequately, give it, but don’t be afraid to trim the fat where necessary. Government bloat isn’t just limited to the economy.

  • crshedd

    My only concern is how we’re going to afford this likely appropriate spending increase given all the other spending Obama and the Democrats want to do on things like “economic stimulus” spending sprees…

    remember, bush never included iraq and afganistan in the defense budget and as far as i know obama hasn’t either.

    with his move to be out of iraq in 16 months (or so), there is a lot of money we won’t be spending.

    now, the question for conservatives is since they were willing to undertake deficit spending for iraq, are they willing to undertake deficit spending for americans?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob
  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    Conservatives hate spending money to kill innocent people (Abortion and Infanticide). That is what liberals do. Providing for the defense is sometimes necessary. AND a strong military protects and prevents more innocent deaths from happening.

  • docdave

    This is something that has always bothered me about liberals. You always pretend to care about the poor and unfortunate but only until they have voted for you, then you don’t give a damn.

  • Rezistik
  • Rezistik

    Not a rockwell follower don’t know who he is. Googled American Empire.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    So this news shouldn’t be surprising. After all, Bush and Obama both promised “fiscal conservatism”, but c’mon… anyone paying attention should know better.

    Neither of them promised any such thing. (Well, OK, Obama used those words, but in the same sentence with promises to increase spending.) Bush promised to increase spending on Medicare and Education. Obama promised to spend over a trillion on his idiotic Global Poverty initiative.

    Both men campaigned on increasing spending.

  • docdave

    We are becoming a tyrannical empire in the name of “defense”

    That’s pure bull but if you seriously believe that, there’s little point to continue this debate.

    What this blog really needs, another USA hater.

  • docdave

    Rockwell, a Libertarian, has more in common with conservatives than he does liberals.

    What makes you think that todays libertarians are conservative? They use to be strict constitutionalists but of late they have become liberalized, sort of how liberals have become more like socialists. Seems like idealogies have been shifting to the left, not a good thing.

    Oh yeah, I was an active libertarian for many years.

  • sayanything-2483

    with his move to be out of iraq in 16 months (or so), there is a lot of money we won’t be spending.

    In 16 months we could be spending it in Afghanistan.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Doc, we have troops stationed in 138 nations. Explain that.

    All the better to promote our interests and security in the world.

    Though if you want to make an argument for a necessary re-deployment of our troops globally from their cold-war era alignments to something more fitting the threats we actually face today i’m all ears.

    I think foreign deployments are necessary, but we need some reform to take into account new technologies, new capabilities and new threats.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    By the way, I find it interesting that Obama is apparently the one raising defense spending but here you are railing against conservatives.

    Incapable of criticizing your Messiah?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You presume that social spending helps people, and that premise is erroneous.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development