Not Much 'Change'- Analysts See Upward Spending For Pentagon

[Orwellian_Ghost]

"They're calling it a fundamental shift and that's both true and false," said Miriam Pemberton, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. "It's true because their budget proposes the most ambitious set of cuts to well- entrenched weapons systems since the early 1990s."

"It's false, though, because this budget perpetuates the upward trajectory of defense spending, it's higher than any of the Bush budgets that preceded it, and it increases funding for some programs that I think are a mistake," Pemberton continued.



"By calling for an Army configured mostly to wage stability operations, effectively affirming the Long War as the organizing principle of post-9/11 national-security strategy, with U.S. forces called upon to bring light to those dark corners of the world where terrorists flourish," wrote Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University professor and former Army colonel, in March.

"In this sense, Nagl's reform agenda, if implemented, will serve to validate - and perpetuate - the course set by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46416

[Dr.Phool]

1. Yep. Framing it so that increase is called a cut.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/framing_the_debate.php

Framing the Debate
04.07.09 -- 12:37PM
By David Kurtz

You can lose a debate before it even starts if it's framed badly for your side. When it comes to protecting their hallowed weapons programs, defense contractors and home state congressmen have a vested interest in framing the debate as much to their advantage as they can get away with. But that doesn't mean the media has to be complicit in the framing.

As Brian Beutler points out, too much of the coverage of Defense Secretary Bob Gates' proposal -- trimming some major weapons programs and reallocating the money elsewhere in the Pentagon while increasing the overall defense budget -- casts the debate as between those who would cut defense spending (Obama/Gates) and those who want a strong muscular defense (GOP and hawkish Democrats).

We've been grappling with this question for going on 20 years now: How should the U.S. restructure its military in a post-Cold War world? It's time we stopped using a 20-year-old framing of the debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------

More change we can make believe in.

[Winterblues]

2. If I am not mistaken though the "Wars" are being counted in the Defense budget

of Obama's while they were off budget under Bush* an always financed as an Emergency Supplemental Spending bill. So in reality Obama's Budget is not nearly as high as it was under Bush*

[blindpig]

4. I believe you're wrong.

If I'm not mistaken the so-called wars are in the overall budget but not counted in the Pentagon budget. Don't have time to check right now.

k&r

[Qutzupalotl]

8. You are correct.

Bush did not fund the wars in his budgets.

I don't know if that is accounted for in this OP or not. If they are comparing apples and oranges, obviously that would be intellectually dishonest.

[TBF]

3. K&R n/t

[L0oniX]

5. Money for defense (offense), money for banksters, no money for single payer health care.

[Mari333]

6. sigh.

oh well. I will just wait til we go completely bankrupt. I think thats the only thing thats going to wake this adolescent nation up. we have to get so bad its going to hurt a lot more then it does now, before we stop the chest beating juvenile idiocy that is this military fucking empire.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. But if and when the nation wakes up, how will they fix anything?

It's pretty clear by now that no matter who wins the election, nothing gets fixed.