Answer: He's increasing it by $31 Billion.

What? How can he be increasing the budget if he's cutting all these programs? Obviously because he's spending it on other parts of the military, especially special forces, which is where we need it most in the War on Terror.

It used to be that Republicans would only call you weak on security if you refused to increase total defense spending (an already bloated budget) each year. Now, it seems as if the new requirement to avoid being berated on the subject is to continually increase spending for every individual defense initiative we have.

If John McCain (or, actually, any other potential president) had done this, Do you think we would have people trying to explain how a 4% increase in defense spending constitutes a decrease in military spending? Why do conservatives think they can convince people that a positive number is, in fact, a negative number? How could even the staunchest conservative think that the president is being weak-on-defense while providing more for the troops than Bush ever did?

Simple. Because he's Barack Obama, the anti-American muslim terrorist who was born in Africa. Duh.

The real irony is that McCain has publicly endorsed this spending plan. Won't stop the talking pinheads from decrying cuts to weapons systems that either don't work or we don't need.

Sweet increase....considering that the rise in spending just about covers the rate of inflation. How generous!...certainly translates to Obama's generosity. I wonder if your raises are just enough to cover inflation....and you consider to be generous, an increase in your budget.

Is this the same attitude that you have toward spending on other government programs?

This is the government program that I primarily live with...so ebbs and flows in it's budget are perhaps felt more directly by me than others. I don't consider keeping pace with inflation necessarily qualifies as being a budget increase....but more of a status quo. In my own service, manpower has been cut, but demands on personnel have increased. Transfers are on hold till the new fiscal year because we can't afford to fund personnel transfers, and airplanes are being grounded and put in preservation....maintaining the bare minimums to support the bare minimums in maintaining proficiency. So no, with the current budget....it isn't going to be any different this year either.

Overall, I think we need to tighten the belt loops up on all kinds of government expenditures. Problem is, nobody wants to take a cut in funding....and the people have figured out how to vote themselves money. Considering most American citizens have failed to live within their own means...it's rather difficult to expect the fed to do the same....it's a part of our psyche, everything will be better tomorrow. If we need to make cuts, lets be serious about those cuts....simply looking at one department out of many as the means to the end is short-sighted and unrealistic. I have my concerns....as Ben Franklin once said, " When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Unless you yourself is willing to make a sacrafice, can we really expect our government to be able to do the same? It is run by people just like you and me...and it's hard to be re-elected if you have the gumption to make the hard choices. Retirees don't want to give up what was promised them, and welfare recipients don't want to work for minimum wage....not to ignore all of us somewhere in between.

I don't consider keeping pace with inflation necessarily qualifies as being a budget increase....but more of a status quo.

Very true, but it also doesn't qualify as a cut either, which is what some are saying.

I think you're pretty much spot on with most of what you wrote there. Living within our means is a big hurdle we have to leap, from the top down. In the military sense, this translates as adjusting our objectives to match our resources. Unfortunately, the government's way tends to be increasing our optempo while not providing the required funding for personnel and equipment, or else directing that funding to places where it doesn't really translate into results (read: procurement). I especially like when the military tries to save money by slashing billets and contracting civilian services, and then tries to save money by getting rid of the civilian service and placing that burden back on the (now significantly reduced) military personnel. This actually makes sense to some people! My father taught me that anything worth doing is worth doing right and that half-assing a job is never a good idea. Apparently, not everyone's fathers taught them this sort of thing.

Overall, I think we need to tighten the belt loops up on all kinds of government expenditures.

I agree, with some exceptions. I like the increase in funding for alternative energy, which really should have been a major strategic focus of ours for at least the last 30 years for both ecological and geopolitical reasons. I also like the funding for infrastructure projects, which we have sorely neglected over the past few decades. I also like the funding for education, which is the sort of thing that never fails to pay back its investment as more and better educated people enter the workforce. We could also save a great deal on healthcare (and carbon emissions) simply by encouraging people to eat a healthier diet and exercise (in the market sense, this would amount to adding a tax to fast food or something like that). But we probably won't do it.

As for the military budget, we spend more than the rest of the planet combined. We could probably cut that in half, still outspend any other nation (or small group of them) and provide an amazing defense of our own soil. That money could be used to balance the budget or invest in the technology with which we must replace oil in the very near future. Considering how much of our military is deployed specifically to oil-rich regions to secure our supply, I think this would be an admirable allocation of money that our great grandchildren will thank us for. However, as you alluded to, this decrease will absolutely demand a reduction in optempo. We would have to redefine our notion of what contributes to the defense of America and start looking for alternatives to the use of the military. If you believe, as I do, that most of what we do is superfluous anyway, this isn't an issue.

Unless you yourself is willing to make a sacrafice, can we really expect our government to be able to do the same? It is run by people just like you and me...and it's hard to be re-elected if you have the gumption to make the hard choices.

That hits the nail on the head. I've always said that pork will never die because it's only pork if it's the other guy's project. Your own pork is a vital allocation of resources vital to your constituency, and subsequently your own reelection.

You might not believe it, but I'm actually a fiscal and foreign policy conservative, in the traditional sense of those terms. From that standpoint, both parties are hosed up in an epic way and likely to remain so until we crash in a way that can't be ignored.

:-)

Although I do believe in modernization Mr. quillsinister, I always had thoughts that our military would be better off if our budget had a "little less" to do with procurement as opposed to a strategy of replacing worn out equipment with small numbers of current generation aircraft, ships, and rolling stock, all with updated modifications. That in itself would save tens of billions of dollars that could be spent on fuel, spare parts, pay raises and the other nuts and bolts items that would help keep the military in fighting shape.

It would also have made it possible for you to have executed a PCS move by now. No matter, you'll need the extra time to pack-up all your professional reading material, and running shoes. : - )

I'm pissed off at him for selling out the left and the peace movement in favor of hopping into bed with the Military-Industrial Complex. Of course, he never promised to end its virtual control over the government and permanent, bloated place in the Budget, but increasing that control, and the money handed out, infuriates me.

Obama needs to realize that he's not really making friends on the Right with these moves, and that the friends he HAD, on the Left, are rapidly tiring of his 'let's all be friends and keep doing what we were doing' bipartisanship.

This isn't "change," but it could result in a change of Presidents in 2012. Word, Mr. O.

You can believe this elected thing is for America if you want to. You were deceived enough by him to cast your vote for him. Under this vile person AMERICA as a free nation no longer exists. For those too lazy to work and want government handouts you got your wish But you MUST understand that: Along with handouts, you give your life and soul in return. You will eventually be forced to bow and worship this ungodly person. You'll be so dependant on the (dictator) you won't have any choice. WAKE UP AMERICA!! The man s out for himself ONLY! Think about it. I would be surprised if another Presidential election was ever held in the US. You are officially a socialist nation.

It's okay. You can end the panic. Democracy works. Bush is out office now. ;-)

Oh, I am a firm believer in modernization; just not quite the way we do it. It's the seemingly panic (or profit) driven conviction that every single weapon system to come out of someone's imagination is the only thing standing between us and utter destruction from the hordes of Mordor. I think a bit of frugality would do us a world of good. An occasional reminder, if you will, that it's taxpayer money and should be spent wisely. We'd still get toys, they'd still be defended, but we could certainly stand to trim some of the more outlandish programs and divert those funds to some of the excellent things you mentioned.

And given where I am, a four month PCS delay is no problem at all. I wasn't going to be doing anything useful in Newport for a while anyway. I'll still make it to school on time and I get another summer here. I could almost believe that some benevolent entity arranged it all for my sole benefit. I think I owe a libation to the Olympians. :-D

The problem with our current system is that someone comes up with a new toy and then convinces some politicians that we absolutely must have it because it's really, really cool. Then they spread the manufacturing around into enough key districts so that members of Congress see it as a job creator for their constituents rather than an actual military need. Often what happens then is the Pentagon tells Congress that they have a need for X number of tanks/aircraft/ships and then Congress turns around and orders 2X because that will create even more jobs for their respectice districts.

There's no one out there really asking, "Do we really need this weapons system? Is it actually filling some strategic need? Is it something that we expect to use in our current conflicts?"

If we asked those questions before someone designed a new weapon system, perhaps we wouldn't have this mad dash over threats to cut some of these programs.

Spreading defense contracts out to multiple districts is nothing new....it has been done since at least 1794 when the first 6 warships were approved by Congress to be built for our fledgling Navy....USS Constitution is one of them. I wouldn't be surprised that our fine men of Congress mandated that it be done like that, or the appropriations wouldn't be approved. There was quite the debate over how expensive this endeavor would be, how imperialistic it could be percieved, and they feared pissing off the much stronger navies of Europe. So, our first 6 ships were built at 6 different locations...spreading the wealth at the very least. It's not just coniving defense contractors that want their projects spread all over hell and half of Georgia....it's our illustrious Congresspersons that are just as culpable. I'm not saying this is the right way to do things....my own mind thinks that such a wide area dispersion of a project only complicates matters and contributes significantly to cost overruns and delays.

Quill....there is fruit to be born in your assumption that delaying your arrival in Newport is a good thing. I've been here since mid-April....the weather has been absolute shit..with a sporadic nice day. Those days are worth celebrating....nice days in Newport are truly, a damned nice day. 50 degrees this morning....and rainy...and the friggin wind. Good for me....I leave Friday! Other than that...there is a lot to see....the houses near the cliffs are amazing....freakin' huge, palatial and gawdy. Good times to be had in downtown Newport....and good food. Some great areas to get a good run in...with a view along the way. Enjoyed my time here....but am ready to return to my family. I get to leave them again a week later for another 3 weeks. The wife is pretty stoked.

Spreading defense contracts out to multiple districts is nothing new

Doesn't make it the best way to do military procurements, though.