Typically deceptive NYT headline "Gates Outlines Sharp Cuts in Military Budget"

[n2doc]

Article starts off talking about Programs Gates wants to cut but here's the real point:

snip:
But they do not represent an actual decline in year-to-year total spending.

Mr. Gates is calling for the Pentagon’s budget to keep growing in the long run at 1 percent a year after inflation, plus the costs of the war. It has averaged an inflation-adjusted growth rate of 7 percent a year over the last decade (nearly 12 percent a year without adjusting for inflation), including the costs of the wars. So far, Mr. Obama has asked Congress for an increase in total spending next year of 2.2 percent, to $708 billion — 6.1 percent higher than the peak under the Bush administration.

Mr. Gates is arguing that if the Pentagon budget is allowed to keep growing by 1 percent a year, he can find 2 percent or 3 percent in savings in the department’s bureaucracy to reinvest in the military — and that will be sufficient to meet national security needs. In one of the paradoxes of Washington budget battles, Mr. Gates, even as he tries to forestall deeper cuts, is trying to kill weapons programs he says the military does not need over the objections of members of Congress who want to protect jobs.

more

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/us/10gates.html?_r=1&hp

Geez, the biggest item in the budget and they will "get by" with only a 1 percent increase per year? Oh happy day!

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. Does it mention anything about chocolate rations?

I heard they were gonna be increased.

[Patchuli]

2. Why do Rethugs call themselves

"fiscal conservatives" then object to cutting jobs that make military equipment that the U.S. does NOT need? ! When does the word 'conserve' actually mean anything to "conservatives?" Last I checked, conserve means to save, not spend.

[L0oniX]

3. As usual ...cuts mean a reduction to the normal every year increase.

Stupid mind fuck word games.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Well, taking into account inflation and medical increases, it is a cut.

There is less money each year for the Operations and Maintenance and Procurement functions as increases in fuels, metals, health care, and food erode the purchasing power the DOD previously had, not unlike the average American. Add to that the wear and tear on numerous military systems and the need to overhaul/replace them and the DOD is actually doing pretty well to only need a 1% increase per year. I don't consider personnel costs such as pay and health benefits to be wasteful, and they are going up each year a hell of lot more than 1%.

This may be unpopular here on DU to state, but it is the truth.

[L0oniX]

5. 1.03 trillion isn't enough for them.

[NutmegYankee]

6. The FY2011 budget is $708 Billion (including wars)

$548.9 billion for the DoD base budget, which excludes costs related to overseas contingency operations (OCO). This is $18.2 billion higher than the $530.7 billion enacted for FY 2010 -- an increase of about 3.4 percent, or 1.8 percent after adjusting for inflation (real growth).

The Wars are included: $159.3 billion for OCO requirements. The FY2011 base budget is $548.9 Billion. The FY2010 base budget was $530.7 Billion.

[L0oniX]

7. Yea I believe that ...pfffft NOT! It's over a trillion for this year.

Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

If you believe they will spend less next year then I have a bridge you might want to buy too.

[NutmegYankee]

8. I just quoted you the actual numbers. Choose to believe what you will.