Max Boot has caught the administration pledging something that isn't supported by their budget numbers. Citing President Obama's recent speech to the VFW in Arizona, Boot says there's one claim he makes which bears much close scrutiny: That is his claim that “my budget increases defense spending.” Obama went on to talk about how his budget has “increased the size of the Army and the Marine Corps” and provides “more of the Army helicopters, crews, and pilots urgently needed in Afghanistan; the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that gives our troops the advantage; the special operations forces that can deploy on a moment’s notice; and for all those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, including our National Guard and Reserve, more of the protective gear and armored vehicles that save lives.” Boot says, "not so fast" and cites Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution's analysis of the defense budget: The administration is … adopting a policy of zero real growth in the “base budget” (the part that does not include war costs, which are too unpredictable to include in this analysis). Specifically, the base budget is to grow 2 percent a year over the next five years. But with the inflation rate expected to average over 1.5 percent, the net effect is essentially no real growth. Cumulatively, that would leave us about $150 billion short of actual funding requirements through 2014. . . . For the Defense Department to merely tread water, a good rule of thumb is that its inflation-adjusted budget must grow about 2 percent a year (roughly $10 billion annually, each and every year). To make it clear, O'Hanlon is saying the budget must grow about 2% a year after it is adjusted for inflation just to maintain a zero real growth (tread water). The point, of course, is while all of what is being pledged sounds wonderful, none of it is supported by the budget numbers for the next 5 years. The budget actually will create a shortfall in funding. Boot concludes: In his VFW speech, Obama pledged, “We will equip our forces with the assets and technologies they need to fight and win.” That may be true for the very near term, but for the long term, he’s already violated that pledge with his very first defense budget. That, of course means it is almost a certainty that cuts will be necessary in critical areas at a time when we're increasing the size of our military and our commitment in Afghanistan. That puts us in the very same funding shape we were in as we took on the Iraq war. However, this time it would appear, if O'Hanlon and Boot are correct, any short funding will be a result of purposeful budgeting instead of being the result of an unanticipated event such as Iraq, despite the administration's glib assurances to the contrary.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/hYlmVpMiL24/stupid-budget-tricks.html
Posted
Aug 18 2009, 02:17 AM
by
BLACKFIVE