Gov. Richardson Proposes 54.7 Billion in cuts to cold war military programs

[seasat]

From his press release:

Sound fiscal and defense policy calls for cutting outdated Cold War weapons systems and wasteful programs to better face real threats of 21st century

HANOVER, NH-- New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today laid out an essential part of his proposal to refocus the Pentagon's budget and modernize the military in line with his foreign policy philosophy of New Realism. This proposal better prepares the American military to face the new challenges of the 21st century and returns the country to sound fiscal policy.

Richardson plans to outline his policy initiative in full and address the future of Iraq and the U.S. military in a major speech on October 4 at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

"Too much of our military remains focused on stopping tank columns from marching across Europe rather than dealing with lethal non-state actors and loosely affiliated terror cells," Governor Richardson said. "My plan calls for a return to fiscal discipline that both cuts outdated Cold War weapons systems and wasteful programs and renews the focus on the real threats posed to our nation."

Richardson has compiled a list of more than a dozen specific programs that can be cut, reduced, or delayed. These sensible spending adjustments will strengthen our national security by refocusing our resources and strategic capabilities on the real threats that America faces in the 21st century. Governor Richardson's plan will give the United States $57.14 billion per year to reinvest in urgent domestic priorities.

These savings, many of which were recommended by Dr. Lawrence Korb, a defense analyst, retired Navy Captain, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Installations, and Logistics to President Ronald Reagan, include:

• $8 billion from scaling back the failing National Missile Defense program.1
  
• $3 billion from eliminating the Pentagon's secret ‘Space-Based Offensive Weapons' that both are redundant in terms of military capacity and will serve to cause a new arms race in space.2
  
• $5 billion from eliminating the unnecessary Reliable Replacement Warhead and Complex 2030 programs to develop new nuclear weapons and by negotiating further reductions in nuclear forces with the Russians to 1000 missiles or less. These reductions will enhance our credibility as we lead global negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and get all nations to improve the security of fissile materials.3
  
• $8 billion from reducing our nuclear posture to 600 deployed warheads, with 400 in reserve. This eliminates all "tactical" nuclear weapons and still leaves us with an ample nuclear deterrent against any foreseeable threat.
  
• $2.7 billion from slowing down the rate of development for the Army's Future Combat Systems. Today, 52 of the system’s 53 crucial technologies are unproven. We should not continue to fund this program at present levels until the technologies come online.5
  
• $3.6 billion from reducing the number of F-22's that we plan to buy, which will still leave us with more than enough planes to address any upcoming challenges.6
  
• $7 billion from eliminating Pentagon earmarks and managing the Pentagon's bureaucracy more efficiently. Last year alone, there were nearly 3,000 pork barrel projects in the Defense budget, totaling $15 billion. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least $1 billion a year could be saved by simply by consolidating military personnel costs into one appropriation, thereby increasing efficiency and better assessing where the money really goes.7
  
• $4.1 billion from slowing down and reducing the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that we plan to purchase, which will still leave us with extraordinary air supremacy over any potential competitors.8
  
• $2.7 billion from canceling the Virginia Class Submarines, which do not offer significant improvements over the existing Los Angeles Class subs.9
  
• $1.6 billion from canceling production of the C-130J, which adds little to the existing capacities of previous C-130 models.10
  
• $2.4 billion from canceling production of the V-22 Osprey, which is tactically unsound and has been plagued with cost overruns and major technical problems.11
  
• $7 billion by reducing Pentagon research funding, which has increased from $48 billion to $75 billion in real dollars since 2001.12
  
• $540 million from canceling the Airborne Laser Program, which has suffered from cost overruns and test failures.13
  
• $1.5 billion from canceling new Maritime Prepositioning Force Ships, which add little of substantive value in today's defense environment.14

These cuts and shifts in spending are coupled with plans to bolster the personnel end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps, America's intelligence community, and our special operations forces-- necessary steps to address the true threats of the 21st century.

[jmp]

1. Bill Richardson is a block head!

We don't need more soldiers and Marines ... unless we're planning more Iraq type wars. Our defense budget should be dedicated to NATIONAL DEFENSE. The F-22 may be "gold plated", but it serves a useful role for national defense. More soldiers and Marines do not.

Our Army end strength needs to be cut significantly to discourage future little napoleons from military adventurism and imperialism. We don't need the capability to occupy a country half way around the world.

Those gold plated cutting edge toys keep us safe. More boots leads to more quagmires.

[sandnsea]

2. Specific cuts - bold

I like it. And yes, the threats of small countries with nuclear or bio/chem munitions require a different kind of military.

[seasat]

4. The policy wonk in me loves these detailed proposals from our candidates.

No one can claim that we're not the party of ideas.

[provis99]

3. Richardson's got it exactly right

The F-22, F-35, and Virginia class attack sub are completely irrelevant for our current needs. They were designed to fight the Soviets during World War Three. Totally useless programs with high profit margins for their corporate producers; thats the only reason we have them. Just part of the military-industrial complex. The Osprey program might be useful, if it wasn't an engineering mess.