Pentagon Said to Offer Cuts in the Billions -NYT

[Rose Siding]

The Pentagon plans to retire one of the Navy's 12 aircraft carriers, buy fewer amphibious landing ships for the Marine Corps and delay the development of a costly Army automated combat system as part of $60 billion in proposed cuts over the next six years, Congressional and military officials said Wednesday.

The proposed reductions, the details of which are still being fine-tuned and which would require Congressional approval, result from White House orders to all federal agencies to cut their spending requests for the 2006 fiscal year budgets, which will be submitted to lawmakers early next year.

Since the November elections, the White House has been under growing pressure to offset mounting deficits and at the same time pay for the unexpectedly high costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which combined now amount to more than $5 billion a month.
...
One of the winners in this round of budget work is likely to be the Army, some military budget analysts and Pentagon officials said. While the other armed services have been forced to scale back their weapons modernization plans, the Army is spending billions of dollars a year to add as many as 15 brigades in the next several years.

http://nytimes.com/2004/12/30/politics/30military.html?hp&ex=1104382800&en=cd3f00371778d364&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[GetTheRightVote]

1. looks like we are running out of money now

hmmmm, this may not be very good news

:kick:

[bowens43]

2. Either way it's good news.

If running out of money is what it takes to stop us from invading and occupying nations that have done us no harm then I'm all for running out of money.

[Skink]

3. HMMM..Maybe a 30 percent national sales tax is what's needed.

But not on the internet. this way those with loads of credit can buy stuff and not have to worry.

[MADem]

4. I'll betcha the FIRST thing they cut is INFRASTRUCTURE

...and the SECOND thing they cut is personnel expenditures.

That means, here we go again with BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT, which means that a shitload of CIVILIANS in military towns all over America get dumped on the unemployment rolls, and cities and towns are handed over a ton of acreage, much of which is polluted with heavy metals, fuel spills, and Lord knows what else. European and far eastern bases? Stand by for some tough decision making, they're gonna get shaved away to bare bones minimum.

It also means that those pay raises for the active forces will if not GO AWAY, will not keep up with inflation anymore, like the 70's post-Nam--instead, any supplemental cash will be highly targeted in the form of bonuses strictly for those headed to the sandbox, and as for retirees...fuck 'em...no COLA for you, WW2 vets!!! No COLA for you, Korea and Vietnam era fellahs!! You Gulf War One crowd, screw ya! Then, they'll start shaving away at the VA again....

Hey, the weecowboy is a lame duck, he'll fuck us as soon as look at us. What are we gonna do about it???

They'll target the big ticket items too, of course, but don't think those penny shaving tactics won't happen. I've seen this shit done before, and I don't think weecowboy will use a scalpel, he'll use a hatchet. Or maybe that brush-clearing chainsaw he loves so well.

[tsuki]

8. People on this thread keep asking why the south is so red. Bases.

NWFL total economy is 34% from military installations. On the one hand, it will devastate this area; on the other hand, I predict less of a red zone.

The information below is dated, but it gives an overview of the impact the military has on Florida.

Check out Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Bay Counties. They are the Panhandle counties.

http://www.floridadefense.org/info/state_assessment/documents/EconomicImpactsofMilitaryBaseActivityinFlorida1997.pdf

UWF 2002 report on Okaloosa County only

http://haas.uwf.edu/pdfFiles/Military/Economic%20Impact%20of%20the%20Military%20in%20Okaloosa%20County.pdf

This is Alabama's situation:

http://www.governorpress.state.al.us/pr/pr-2004-01-05-01-bases.asp

I have watched NW FL slowly become more red over the years until there are just a few old timers like me, natives left.

[Maria Celeste]

12. Fact for you: BRAC did not start under W

BRAC were authorized by Congress. The approach taken is a singe up/down vote on the entire list from the DoD. No *minor* changes by the pork barrel professionals allowed. The last round of BRAC is due to be announced in mid 2005. Early lists are out and circulating. Interesting places getting closed. I'll post what I last saw if anyone is interested. It includes Miramar, Hanscom (Boston), and Yuma Proving Grounds. Those are serious cuts.

From what I have seen in the past, most communities get past the loss of the military base and end up ahead in the long run. Then again, there are others that screw it up big time (Barbers Point in Hawaii)

The people really hurting from the cutbacks are in Germany where a couple of generations had counted on the US Army to fuel the local economy.

Bush asked and got a decent COLA for the military and tried to give civil servants less, but in the end the congress made them even.

[MADem]

17. OF COURSE NOT!

I never implied that W started BRAC...it was initiated in modern times by Dick Nixon, but really gained steam under Cheney, when Dickie was the SECDEF. He initiated a series of, in essence, five year plans, that fell like dominos. Infrastructure, personnel, the whole magilla...that's why the PERSONNEL bombshells fell under Clinton, and he had to take the heat for it, but was powerless to do much of anything about it--your infrastructure has to match your personnel, and the infrastructure was being rolled up.

All of the force shaping caused a shitload of heartburn, that even Temporary Early Retirement and buy-outs couldn't assuage. The people left behind on active duty had to shoulder a greater percentage of the load, and never knew when a force-shaping axe would fall on them.

BRAC was not always a vote up or down proposition. Bases were taken off the list in the early days of the effort by high falutin' representatives with clout, and "bad states" were punished.

The Chelsea Naval Hospital was a victim of the first post Nam realignment because Massachusetts (remember those bumper stickers--Don't blame ME, I'm from Massachusetts) didn't go for Tricky Dick. Chelsea was an important hospital--central, convenient, and with a good OB-GYN department. Many military dependents were born in that hospital, it was full service, very professional, right off the highway, easy to get to, plenty of parking...that was a REAL blow to the gut for military families struggling to get by in the Nixon era. Otis, where Kennedy would land when vacationing in Hyannis, and where some aircraft launched in the moments after 911, fell into significant disrepair, and was relegated to reserve status. They've thrown a little money at it post 911, but it is still a dump and a disgrace to the Services.

There's always something that looks like a BRAC after every war, but it is unusual to see it going on in the middle of a so-called war. And the consolidation, centralization and control issues are profoundly different in the last two decades. Also, while they claim there is no politics involved in the decision, you can be sure that politics will play a huge role in the overseas drawdowns. After all, they are either with us, or agin' us.

Hanscom will be very problematic if they cut that. Aside from the fact that they just built a brand spanking new exchange/commissary, MITRE, MIT and a host of other mil-industrial efforts make their home there. Sure, they could move, but the base is easy to secure (pain in the ass to get on during a high force protection posture) and it will be perceived as a retribution. The base clinic, the CHAMPUS clinic, all that stuff is there. It's a blow to both active and retired if they make it go away. It wouldn't surprise me though--the blue states must be punished!

I have a friend who is a lawyer who has made MILLIONS working BRAC exclusively. The environmental issues are profound, and persist long after the base has been converted to civilian usage, especially bases with heavy operational aspects. Training bases, on the other hand, like Orlando or NTC San Diego, have fewer issues.

[Maria Celeste]

20. I'm confused here

I replied to tsuki, and you (MADem)stated that you never implied that W started BRAC. Multiple names or did I miss something (new at posting here).

Military facilities have been shrinking ever since Vietnam. Several where I grew up are gone, one is on the closure list this time around.

My understanding is the once the list is presented to Congress it is a straight up and down vote. The lobbying etc goes on ahead of that but fundamentally the DoD provides the list. Some places, like Warminster, they were glad to get the military out of there.

Environmental issues are big on any military base. They use a lot of nasty stuff, and sometimes no one understand the long term impacts.

Hanscom from what I have been told is history. The service members there hate it with a passion. Way too expensive to live there and minimal base housing. Also nothing there that is operationally unique. What they do could be done anywhere at a lower cost. The friend who sent me the list is pretty bummed. Its his second BRAC hit, he used to work for the Navy at Warminster.

[MADem]

26. Look at the thread tree, your reply was to me!

If you replied to tsuki, your response would have been indented under that one, and would not have reflected as a reply to my post in the "MY POSTS" section.

I used to work BRAC in a previous life. DOD always provided a list, but in the past, Congress could screw with the decision-making efforts of the Pentagon, and did. It's like Trent Lott, taking the hull of a cruise ship, waving his magic wand, and handing the Navy an amphibious ship they didn't want or need. Because this was happening, the Congress finally put the brakes on themselves and instituted the rule that it was a straight up or down vote....but that was not always the case. It caused a lot of heartburn at the Pentagon.

The USAF used to be the very best at bullshitting Congress. The other services finally got on board and learned the USAF tricks (lobbying, super-CODEL programs, fancy presentations that evolved from jazzy films to Powerpoint presentations over the years, and statistics so stultifying that no one could make head nor tail out of them, but hey, they sounded good!).

Hanscom could well go, but not without a huge fight. It could be downsized, realigned, but it has unique (read: highly classified) mission characteristics that fit well with the current administration's mindset of using technology to achieve mission objectives. Also, the civilian airfield benefits hugely from the shared assets--where will those penurious rich guys land their Lears, if the landing fees go up? Some background:

Hanscom funnels $3.2 billion a year in contracts to small and large companies. The base has an annual payroll of $572 million and supports an estimated 26,000 jobs. There are 1,583 civilian employees and 1,400 active-duty military personnel at Hanscom. Cite: http://www.shhair.org/Articles/HanscomBaseClosingBattlePlanned.htm

According to Meehan, Hanscom is the ninth-largest employer in Massachusetts based on revenue, and the 14th-largest based on numbers.

The economic value of Hanscom has even compelled New Hampshire's all-Republican delegation to lobby the Pentagon to keep the base open.

Specializing in high-tech research and development, Hanscom's unconventional mission was not distinguished in the broad criteria the Pentagon devised to guide the base-closure process. Bases will be judged on their military value, on items such as future mission capabilities, availability of additional land and ability to host additional troops.
Cite: http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/html/press-releasesandletters/pr040706-1.html

And you've got to consider that Ted sits on the SASC....he no doubt has markers, he may just call them in.

I'm not disagreeing with your friend's assessment. The base could well close, but the repercussions will be substantial if it does. And the proximity to MITRE and MIT, for starters, can't be easily replicated.

[Zorro]

22. I'm interested in the preliminary BRAC list

Post away, please.

Miramar makes a certain amount of sense and would force San Diego to come to terms on whether they want to use it as their new international airport; Lindbergh Field is physically constrained to grow any more. It would certainly bring howls of protest from the neighboring communities, and in particular the residents of La Jolla, who would be in the overflight area.

I'm also interested in seeing what other California bases may be on the list, particularly LAAFB and Fort Hunter Liggett. Closing LAAFB would have profound effects on the southern California aerospace industry, IMHO. Closing Fort Hunter Liggett would put more pressure on the national parks system to acquire it to add to the Los Padres National Forest up by Big Sur.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

5. Dammit, see Kerry was right all along

Spitballs are the future.

[babzilla]

6. $10 billion? Big f'n whoop

"Military and Congressional officials said the Pentagon was looking to trim up to $10 billion in the 2006 budget alone."

$10 billion is about the cost of 6 weeks in Iraq.

$10 billion from a $425 billion yearly defense budget is about 9 days short of the 2004 budget.

How much could they cut if they finally folded up the never-gonna-work-defense-contractor's-golden-goose-so-called-missile-defense-shield? A whole lot more than $10 B is my guess.

[mulethree]

11. one step forward, and eight steps back

Over 6 years they'll save $60 Billion which is 9 months of Iraq.

They could cut the 'two weeks a year and one weekend a month' for all the reserves and guard that they've used up. The guys who have spent so much time activated that they can't activate them again?

I suppose the extra 3-4 Billion a year they'll need to care for 10,000 disabled vets, survivors benefits to 1300 families, mental health care for 50,000 troops - ends up in a different budget?

And the 20,000 worn-out humvees and other fighting vehicles?

Better toss on another 3 billion a year in re-enlistment bonuses. And a bundle for recruitment ads and such.

Of course they'll 'retire' a carrier, now that the Ronald Reagan CVN 76 is entering service and the George H. W. Bush CVN 77 is under construction.

I wonder how much they're 'trimming' by exempting themselves from environmental cleanup regulations? Ignoring Gulf War Syndrom has to be saving Billions every year.

They'll probably save in the long run by postponing their FCS robot/remote controlled army. Do a few more prototypes and possibly avoid some big boondoggle procurement. I wonder how our allies will take to our stationing unmanned armed droids in their territories?

Not even sure how the homeland security dept budget has affected it.

So they'll trim $10 Billion off the yearly $425 Billion budget for a defense department that spends $80 Billion on actual defense and has an actual hidden cost of $700 Billion.

[Thor_MN]

23. They want to retire the JFK, probably for more than one reason.

Got to have good GOP names on all the carriers, don't ya?

How long until they announce laying the keel for the carrier GWDumbfuck?

[buddysmellgood]

7. Works for me. But I'll bet they just spend it on a Star Wars increase.

[proudbluestater]

9. But will they cut the out-of-date Star Wars? Doubt it

[cavanaghjam]

10. One of the winners may be the army.

Among the losers are those of draft age. Given the past behavior of Bushco, the top age will start to approach Minimum Social Security age in three years. But for a mere 10,000 dollar GOP donation we'll find you a nice desk job.

[tinymontgomery]

13. I remember

I remember when President Clinton did cuts like this they blasted him as ruining the military. I was in at the time and all I heard from civilians with nothing to do with the military was how bad he was by not building more ships and decommissioning others, to this day people tell me how he destroyed the navy.

Interesting enough is that these same people don't know that the navy is cutting 60,000 people by the year 2010 or cutting the ship building program. Idiots all of them!

[UpInArms]

14. Where's the missing $2.3 TRILLION?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 29, 2002

excerpt:

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

...more...

[happyslug]

15. "We closing the Washington Monument" ploy.

For years when the National Park Service was told to cut costs, the thing the NPS would cut was funded the Washington and Lincoln Memorials, knowing that Congress would restore those funding.

While the NPS received the name for the ploy the best to performing the ploy has been the Military Services. For years when the Army was told to cut it would cut services to the Azores, which is operated by the Army but the Navy fly the planes (Thus the Navy always had Congress restore the funding for the Army who runs the port and the Air Force who run th Security for the Air Base). The Air Force has used the A-10 programs for decades (The Air Force would cut out funding for the A-10 knowing the Army wanted it to support Army formation so the Army would lobby for the Funding to be Restored by Congress). The Navy does the same things, offering to cut its support for the Army and Air Forces.

On top of this most large military programs affect almost every congressional District. Jets have parts made in as many different districts as possible. Parts of the Ships are made in as many different districts as possible. Thus to cut out any large program will to be cut out jobs in most congressional districts. This puts further pressure on Congress to restore the cuts.

My point is this is all a matter of form not substance until it passes the House and Senate. Once these "cuts" survive Congress than I will believe they are real. Before that it is all smoke and Mirrors for Congress will NOT want to cut out these programs. Not only will the Military services be lobbying Congress so will be the Contractors and their employees. Unless the economy really goes bad I do NOT see these cuts taking, to many Congressmen will have to explain to to many people why they made the cut, it will not happen (Baring a economic meltdown).

[leesa]

16. Poor Pentagon, pretending they are so broke they can't afford military

supplies like armor. Where's the 3 trillion you stole, Dov Zakheim and Rummie?? THAT would buy a lot of toys.

[Yavin4]

18. If The Democrats Were Smart, They'd Vote Against These Cuts

Look at what happened to Kerry during the campaign. If the Republicans want these cuts, theyn they alone should vote for them and pass them. Kerry's support of Cheney's cuts in defense spending came back to haunt him in a huge way.

[sandnsea]

19. My thoughts exactly

Problem is, if a Democrat were to vote strategically on defense, the left would just scream they're warmongers. That's why Democrats can just never win.

[Streetdoc270]

21. They should all stand up and yell

SPITBALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[two gun sid]

27. Fuckin'-A right they should

Screamin' the whole time about," cutting defense spending when there is a war on. These Repug's are goddamn traitors I tell you. Don't they understand that we are just inviting another terrorist attack?" By God if we make the wrong choice now there is no telling what the freedom haters will do to us."

[Demeter]

24. Declare Victory in Iraq, Go Home, Save Money

and lots of lives!

[Catchawave]

25. I thought the same thing....

...has a nice ring to it :)