(5.8.2009) "Half of Obama 2010 budget cuts from defense: aide" (Reuters)

[Jester]

Half of Obama 2010 budget cuts from defense: aide
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE54600220090508

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Half of the roughly $17 billion of proposed spending cuts in U.S. President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2010 derive from defense programs, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said an early childhood education program known as "Even Start" and a long-range radio navigation system that has been made obsolete by GPS technology were also on the chopping block.

"This is an important first step but it's not the end of the process," the official told a conference call with reporters. "We will continue to look for additional savings."

The official said there were 121 "reductions, terminations, or other savings" in the budget proposal.

Obama, a Democrat, has faced criticism from Republicans as well as members of his own party over huge budget deficits. His 2010 budget, further details of which are to be released on Thursday, is expected to stay around $3.5 trillion.


A cookie for anybody that can produce the entire list of cuts that add up to the $17 billion. Is the news cycle too filled up with the Obama ball today, burger the other day, etc, etc.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Good. Our defense budget is way too bloated and way beyond both our means and our needs. This isn't the cold war anymore. We don't have any giant enemies we need to beef up our defense to protect us against. We can stand to lose a few of our more high tech toys.

[Jester]

Good. Our defense budget is way too bloated and way beyond both our means and our needs. This isn't the cold war anymore. We don't have any giant enemies we need to beef up our defense to protect us against. We can stand to lose a few of our more high tech toys.

Which hi-tech "toys" and why?

[Spang]

Which hi-tech "toys" and why?

F-22

Why? Unnecessary.

[lanney]

US future weapon will be wooden sticks and sand.

[Jester]

F-22

Why? Unnecessary.

Yes, air superiority was totally useless in the last 20 years of American combat. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia. Why use technology when you can accomplish the same thing with less precision (civilian casualties) and less defense against both air and ground forces?

The F22's role would be mainly in the opening stages of combat.

[tired]

Funny, the dh and I were talking about our trip to the Nascar races last month. The thing that we most remember was our entrance to the track.

Since the attacks on September 11th, when we went to the races, everyone had their backpacks, coolers, etc... searched, you even had to remove your cap.

Last month, we, along with thousands of other people were allowed in with no searching at all.

While I wasn't real happy about the searching to begin with (I'm harmless, I tend to think most people are) I was a bit perturbed that the lack of checking meant people could carry in oversized coolers. :-bd

Trying to reason it all out in my mind, I figured track owners and officials must have decided that if the government was scaling back on security, they could as well.

While I want our nation to be secure, it did give me a reason to wonder if I've been a bit paranoid over our countries protection. After a bit more thought, I decided I'd much rather have our nation protected by our Commander-in-Chief. As for those oversized coolers, they irritate me, but I can deal with them. I just have to hope they didn't bring the forbidden glass bottles in the cooler or something mores sinister, as that could cause some problems.

[AngusAwesome]

Yes, air superiority was totally useless in the last 20 years of American combat. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia. Why use technology when you can accomplish the same thing with less precision (civilian casualties) and less defense against both air and ground forces?

The F22's role would be mainly in the opening stages of combat.

There is nothing the F-22 can do that the F-15, F-16, or F-18E can't do for cheaper or that isn't necessary. The question is not whether we need air superiority (we obviously do), the question is why spend more than we need to? The F-35 is $40 million cheaper per plane than the F-22 and can do everything that's needed. Sure, the F-15 can't supercruise or execute Pugachev's Cobra, but how often did we need those things in Iraq? Afghanistan? The F-22s in service have not flown a single combat mission overseas.

[Jester]

There is nothing the F-22 can do that the F-15, F-16, or F-18E can't do for cheaper or that isn't necessary.

None of these jets including the F-35 match the F-22. The end of production was not because the F-22 was unnecessary as stated, nor was it to save money. It was because 183+4, they felt, filled the necessary role to stay ahead of the perceived 6-10 year air superiority lag of Russia-China. The F-35 is more of a multirole fighter that is not meant to compete with the F-22.

This was not about savings or saying the F-22 was "unnecessary" as much as it was take $x here and put $x over there (mainly for non-air related roles).

And whether people want to admit it or not, military R&D has civilian R&D benefits. It isn't just one big money flush as people like to pretend.

[Ikasu]

Overall defense budget costs are about the same as Bush. These cuts are Obama's way to show fiscal responsibility, although they have little effect on the total US budget.

The F22's are limited to 187. It's below what the Air Force is requesting. I agree with Jester on the F22's.

Funding for autonomous missile defense can be limited temporarily for now, but it's worthwhile to continue these programs for future combat. It's a major research topic.

And whether people want to admit it or not, military R&D has civilian R&D benefits. It isn't just one big money flush as people like to pretend.

Absolutely. A lot of this technology is later applied to consumer products in some form. Federally funded civilian labs do research for the military. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, MIT Lincoln, Los Alamos, Sandia, etc. employ thousands to do this work. It's not a waste. This is an issue that I disagree with liberals. I work in this industry.

[The_Basseteer]

So let me see if I have this straight....Obama can cut our defense budget and cancel superior weapons programs and NOT be criticized at all.... but Bush is a maniacal killer of our military if all the Humvees aren't up-armoured immediately after the first IED is set off

People are gonna be killed because of this...but because it will happen under a Democrat watch it won't matter.

[WASTRIC]

There is nothing the F-22 can do that the F-15, F-16, or F-18E can't do for cheaper or that isn't necessary. The question is not whether we need air superiority (we obviously do), the question is why spend more than we need to?

The problem with this is that these 3 airframes are at the end of their technological lifespans. They have been tweeked as much as possible and are still only marginally superior to newer offerings from Russa and China. Air Superiority is a crucial role and unless we are willing to expend equal US lives to reach Air Superiority over a combat theater, we need at least a 10 year technological advantage minimum over our adversaries.
When we went into Iraq we already knew that they had almost no operational fighters left after Desert Storm. The F-22 was newly deployed to operational squadrons and the pilots were still working up tactics after the critical transition time all pilots go thrugh when moving to a brandnew airframe. So the 22s were way overkill in Iraq, but if we had had them at Desert Storm when we still had to take Saddams Air Force out of the sky, we would have used them. The F-35 is a muliti role fighter meaning that it will do lots of things well, but at a cost of doing any one thing better than anyone else.
Several of the F-22s abilities are a leap forward in fighters. The ability to Super Cruise alows it to rapidly deploy over vast distances without tanker support. One of the biggest problems with our current fighters. Its greater range and speed allow it to be on station sooner and stay longer where it is needed. Without needing to use afterburner all the time for supersonic speeds, it lasts longer and needs less engine maintainance. Several of our older fighters and fighter/bombers were still very much effective in combat when they were retired but the massive maintainance costs and times they required made them unsustainable. We ned to always be ahead of the game, I agree that we could strech out the 22 program by lowering the number per year slightly that we buy, but you have to build a minimum a year to keep the factory open. The last plan I saw was to replace the 15 ,16 and 18 with a mix of 22s and 35s that would still drasticly reduce the number of fighters over our current 15,16 and 18 fleet. Cutting those numbers deeper start streching our systems to dangerously thin states.

[TheTaoOfBill]

The problem with this is that these 3 airframes are at the end of their technological lifespans. They have been tweeked as much as possible and are still only marginally superior to newer offerings from Russa and China. Air Superiority is a crucial role and unless we are willing to expend equal US lives to reach Air Superiority over a combat theater, we need at least a 10 year technological advantage minimum over our adversaries.
When we went into Iraq we already knew that they had almost no operational fighters left after Desert Storm. The F-22 was newly deployed to operational squadrons and the pilots were still working up tactics after the critical transition time all pilots go thrugh when moving to a brandnew airframe. So the 22s were way overkill in Iraq, but if we had had them at Desert Storm when we still had to take Saddams Air Force out of the sky, we would have used them. The F-35 is a muliti role fighter meaning that it will do lots of things well, but at a cost of doing any one thing better than anyone else.
Several of the F-22s abilities are a leap forward in fighters. The ability to Super Cruise alows it to rapidly deploy over vast distances without tanker support. One of the biggest problems with our current fighters. Its greater range and speed allow it to be on station sooner and stay longer where it is needed. Without needing to use afterburner all the time for supersonic speeds, it lasts longer and needs less engine maintainance. Several of our older fighters and fighter/bombers were still very much effective in combat when they were retired but the massive maintainance costs and times they required made them unsustainable. We ned to always be ahead of the game, I agree that we could strech out the 22 program by lowering the number per year slightly that we buy, but you have to build a minimum a year to keep the factory open. The last plan I saw was to replace the 15 ,16 and 18 with a mix of 22s and 35s that would still drasticly reduce the number of fighters over our current 15,16 and 18 fleet. Cutting those numbers deeper start streching our systems to dangerously thin states.

I don't think he said anything about cutting R&D. He's cutting the production of high tech equipment we don't need. Considering out main enemy doesn't even have planes I think it's safe to say we have air superiority over them.

[foxyladi]

Good. Our defense budget is way too bloated and way beyond both our means and our needs. This isn't the cold war anymore. We don't have any giant enemies we need to beef up our defense to protect us against. We can stand to lose a few of our more high tech toys.

is he speaking in codes to the enemy?72 virgins,

[WASTRIC]

Tao when will we need them? Are you ok with the US fighting with near pairity to an advisary? OK with much higher casualties? Several nations have very active military sales programs of their latest fighters and other advanced weapons systems. Russa has offered up their frontline fighters and anti aircraft weapons to several 3rd world nations. All the R&d in the world will do nothing to provide security to the US unless it is transfered into a practical system. Once a aircraft assembly line is shutdown, it takes months to years to start it back up if the fixtures and jigs have been mothballed. In most cases though the Government won't pay to save the fixtures and the factories can't afford to save them all. Also the factory workers must relearn how to build that type again. all of this causes costs to skyrocket and slowdown startup times. From most reports on the F-35 it is only marginally superior in an air superiorority role to aircraft such as the latest russian offerings, the Eurofighter, the latest export model mirage from France etc. The F-15 assembly line has been shutdown for some time now, the F-16 line was shutdown a couple of years ago. not sure about the F-18e/F line but that is a Navy Carrier fighter that was purpose designed for shipborne operation and as such had to have many compromises in its design that leave it lacking. Most of our F-15 and F-16 airframes have high time on them and will soon have to be replaced. Thats because we stopped buying 15s and 16s several years ago with the intention of replacing them with the more advanced 22s and 35s but in reduced numbers owing to the advanced abilities of the new aircraft. By now cutting even deeper into those reduced numbers, we will be forced to wear out to smaller number of aircraft as a much faster rate, with fewer trained pilots and crew to keep them in the air. In the long run fewer airframes can cost more over the lifetime of a aircraft as the cost savings come as the design is matured and quanity improves manufacture times as well as cost per unit. The US Government will also have to pay a contract penalty for early shutdown since the manufacturer expects to be able to later sell reduced ability versions of the 22 to friendly nations after the needs of the US are met. Late production F-16s in real dollars cost much less per copy and were much more advanced than mid production aircraft. The friendly 3rd world natons that bought them, got aircraft that are almost up to the standards of our frontline 16s at a much lower cost. Most government procurement contracts include such cancelation clauses.

[Jester]

There weren't any cuts. Cuts would mean something is less than before. These are Obama "cuts".

One cut is this:
They expected oil to cost $1billion more than it actually looks like it will be. $1 billion in "savings". It is a joke.

[AngusAwesome]

So the 22s were way overkill in Iraq, but if we had had them at Desert Storm when we still had to take Saddams Air Force out of the sky, we would have used them. The F-35 is a muliti role fighter meaning that it will do lots of things well, but at a cost of doing any one thing better than anyone else.

But there were no F-22s in Iraq, we accomplished everything without any fifth-generation fighters. And the F-18E and F are not aging airframes, they may look mostly like first-generation F-18s but they are completely new, built entirely in the late '90s, and are quite capable at pretty much everything (there are EWAR variants, for example, replacing the ancient EA-6). I agree that the F-15 is getting on in its years; I remember when it was in the news for falling apart in flight. The F-16 is getting there but the F-35 is exactly the kind of plane to replace the multi-role F-16. Plus the F-22 doesn't have a naval variant, which the F-35 does, and there are a lot of carrier-borne aircraft to replace, such as the old F/A-18C.

I appreciate that the F-22 is the only true fifth-generation fighter and is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. I think the F-35 looks like a squished, uglier F-22. Believe me, I'd love to have 400 of them, but if it's such an amazing plane why do we need so many? 187 F-22s could destroy any country's air force. And for $20 billion you can have 84 more F-35s than F-22s – or more up-armored humvees. The fact is that, strictly speaking utilitarian-wise, we should take 250 A-grade planes over 167 A+ planes.

[AngusAwesome]

So let me see if I have this straight....Obama can cut our defense budget and cancel superior weapons programs and NOT be criticized at all.... but Bush is a maniacal killer of our military if all the Humvees aren't up-armoured immediately after the first IED is set off

People are gonna be killed because of this...but because it will happen under a Democrat watch it won't matter.

First of all he didn't cut the defense budget, it rose 4%.

Secondly, there's a difference between buying fewer incredibly expensive fighter jets that have yet to serve on foreign soil and have not saved any lives, and buying extremely vulnerable glorified trucks and using them as APCs without armoring them for the job. If we spend billions on stealth fighters at the expense of nitty-gritty, non-shiny but extremely important basics, like body armor, that is what will kill people.

[Jester]

First of all he didn't cut the defense budget, it rose 4%.


Now you are getting it. Only Obama could call spending more a cut.

[AngusAwesome]

It depends on what you're considering a 'cut.' He is not cutting the defense budget, he's proposing $17 billion in cuts from a bunch of things and these are all 'cuts,' despite the fact that each of these areas (defense, healthcare, whatever) will see its budget go up. Cutting $8 billion from defense while raising defense spending still qualifies as a 'cut,' just as cutting back on buying expensive toilet paper while buying more paper towels qualifies as 'cuts' in spending while not a 'cut' in total spending.

I don't recall Obama trying to hype that he was cutting military spending, while actually raising it. Hyping his cuts as a whole, sure, and are they laughably small compared to the increases in spending, of course. It seems to me that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't here; if he cuts spending you'll complain he's endangering the troops, and if he raises it you'll complain about generational theft. What would you like to see him do?

[foxyladi]

US future weapon will be wooden sticks and sand.

AND SPITBALLS.....:rotfl:

[Lealy]

AND SPITBALLS.....:rotfl:

Dont forget the cold shoulder and the evil eye if only these methods were used first.

[Tybee]

What would have happened if Obama had been president when 9/11 happened? Would this be ok? Well, for some probably.

[lanney]

What would have happened if Obama had been president when 9/11 happened? Would this be ok? Well, for some probably.

Another speech by teleprompter. ;)

[AngusAwesome]

AND SPITBALLS.....:rotfl:

Thank you, Zell Miller

[TheTaoOfBill]

What would have happened if Obama had been president when 9/11 happened? Would this be ok? Well, for some probably.

We would have never gone to Iraq. And we would have focused on Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin would likely be dead by now.

[Laura Cereta]

I know nothing about F 22's, F 16's, or Hummers, but we've always had a massive defense budget in correlation to our other spending. With two wars going on and Mexico and Pakistan both in crisis, though, I don't see this as the time to cut it. Obama's fiscal decisions have been perplexing to me.

[devildog]

A cookie for anybody that can produce the entire list of cuts that add up to the $17 billion. Is the news cycle too filled up with the Obama ball today, burger the other day, etc, etc.

Ask and ye shall receive: Office of Management and Budget. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/trs.pdf) I want my cookie.

Military recruiting is facing a budget cut. He's also going to lower enlistment and retention bonuses. That's just super!

To meet the cuts, the White House said, the military services would have to cap recruiting and retention programs at 2009 levels, lower enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, reduce the advertising budget, and cut the number of recruiters.

Source: Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002172.html)

[Jester]

I want my cookie.


http://www.sallybernstein.com/food/columns/zonis/Best_Cookie-20.jpg

Good job. Imagine if the news reporting included a detailed look at these cuts.

$4.1 billion (about 24% of the entire cuts) was MANDATORY terminations. So he is taking credit for what he INHERITED. Complete joke.

Here is one that made me go :eek:
Nuclear Power 2010, Department of Energy is going to be a mere 11% of what it was prior. I guess we have our answer as to whether Obama is serious about energy independence. Psst .... he's not.

And this all pales in comparison to the recent accounting error only 2 months out from his 2009 budget passage of $90 billion. Yes. $90 f*cking billion. Expect it to be off by quite a bit more once the final numbers are in.

Does the federal government get a credit card statement that reads:
Minimum payment due: Fort Knox.

[lanney]

Does the federal government get a credit card statement that reads:
Minimum payment due: Fort Knox.

Sell/lease California.