Obama plans 8% increase in defense budget?
posted at 4:48 pm on February 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
According to Congressional Quarterly, Fox News got its story wrong on Obama’s planned defense spending. This weekend, Fox reported an Obama mandate of ten percent reductions across the board. CQ reports that Obama has given Defense Secretary Robert Gates an upper limit of $527 billion for non-war spending in FY2010 — which would be an 8% increase in defense spending:
The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday.
If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009 (PL 110-329), and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010. But it sets up a potential conflict between the new administration and the Defense Department’s entrenched bureaucracy, which has remained largely intact through the presidential transition.
Some Pentagon officials and congressional conservatives are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it to a $584 billion draft fiscal 2010 budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The $527 billion figure is “what the Bush people thought was the right number last February and that’s the number we’re going with,” said the OMB official, who declined to be identified. “The Joint Chiefs did that to lay down a marker for the incoming administration that was unrealistic. It’s more of a wish list than anything else.”
If that was what Fox did, then they should apologize. Lord knows the Left did this constantly with the Bush administration, screeching about supposed cutbacks at the VA while the Bush administration was rapidly increasing spending at the agency, but not as fast as the Left wanted. Budget comparisons are not that complicated — an increase is an increase, and a cut is a cut, but an increase above the rate of inflation is never a cut, in either the Bush or the Obama administration.
An eight percent increase seems like a reasonable amount, and could get amplified with an effort to clean up defense contracting and spending. Getting pork out of the defense budget would certainly help in that regard, but if the stimulus package give any indication, the Obama administration doesn’t have much interest in that kind of change. Congress likes to complain that the Pentagon’s procurement processes waste money — and it does — but Congress forces them into spending hundreds of millions each year in non-competitive contracting that makes the situation worse.
It would also help if Congress would stop appropriating money for war efforts in Afghanistan and maintenance efforts in Iraq in supplemental spending bills. Not only does undermine any sense of stability in funding, it also lends itself to even more pork and less accountability. Gates estimates that he will need $70 billion in war funding in 2009, which should have been made part of the overall spending package. Supplementals should only get used to fund unforeseen missions, and since we’ve been in Afghanistan for more than seven years and Iraq for almost six, those stopped qualifying in 2004 at the latest.
At any rate, it’s good to know that Obama hasn’t really cut the defense budget as Fox initially reported during a time of war. Now, if we could get them to cut the rest of the budget ….










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Fox is fair and balanced.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Hope
CABE on February 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM
What is the point in him saying he’s endorsing a 10% cut to all budgets while at the same time trying to pass a bill that’s a 33% increase in the federal budget?
Kelligan on February 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM
its a wonder what a couple national security briefings will do.
trailortrash on February 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM
That’s what the liberals do with social programs. So why shouldn’t the Pentagon be allowed to do the same thing?
MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM
As soon as I read this, I opened my window so I could hear all the moonbats’ heads exploding.
CurtZHP on February 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM
both side of same issue within a week?
jp on February 2, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Hope for change, we can believe in.
the_nile on February 2, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Great news!
infidel on February 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Yup!
OneGyT on February 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Do you complain when the MSM does the same thing to social programs?
Or are such tactics only invalid when they benefit those you don’t like?
MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
knowing Obama, this 10% could go for some welfare program somehow. Much like his “tax cut” scam he ran on
jp on February 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
No. Someone needs to be an adult.
lorien1973 on February 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Hope
Change
Hope and Change
Change and Hope
Hange
Chope
Ope-hay
Ange-chay
Sugarbuzz on February 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
If this is true, Obama +1, which bring the Score to:
Obama -138,873,089,107.
portlandon on February 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I still think that O will cut defense the first chance he gets because I believe that he thinks that it should be secondary to his social programs and domestic agenda.
volnation on February 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Define increase.
as in pentagon budget, plus supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, or pentagon budget with NO additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Skandia Recluse on February 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Gotta love Washington that when you don’t get as much of an increase as you wanted it’s called a cut.
cadams on February 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Yes. If this is true then Obama deserves credit — and Fox should apologize.
johnsteele on February 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Someone check Cindy Sheehan’s pulse.
fogw on February 2, 2009 at 5:00 PM
This is such good news I’m afraid to believe it. Every time Obama breaks a campaign promise, an angel gets its wings.
doppelganglander on February 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM
This is like putting “Cool Whip” on a pile of SH!T.
PappaMac on February 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Nah. I’m sure Sheehan was rooting for Dennis Kucinich. The the extreme leftists Obama is too conservative!
terryannonline on February 2, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Yes, but whose defense budget? Iran’s?
bloggless on February 2, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Sooo… the spokesman who contradicts the Fox report, was the head of OMB for CLINTON?
I’ll wait for the numbers to be published… for the Congress to get involved before I’ll buy into this.
“IF”, as I suspect happened, the War costs were built into the Defense requests, instead of putting them in a seperate Suplemental Bill… so they would be taken as part of the ongoing budget instead of just go straight to the deficit… then you would have to look at the totals of past, and future Defense Budgets PLUS Suplementals do decide if this is an increase, or decrease, in the overall Military budget.
Kinda depends on what the definition of “is” is…
Romeo13 on February 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM
When liberals do it you use it as evidence that liberals are low down and dirty. Is it now evidence that both sides are low down and dirty? Or, big surprise, is it somehow justified in your eyes? I don’t have to worry about seeming a hypocrite I actually think we should spend more on social programs and less on the military. But because your side always frames it as “and this proves the other side is corrupt” instead of “our priorities are more important” it makes your side look hypocritical. Stop demonizing and this kind of stuff won’t come to bite you in the ass.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Skandia Recluse on February 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Good questions, define increase.
If this happens, then good on Obama for it. Of course Obama can “propose” all he wants. Congress, the Liberal Democrat Congress, would have to pass such a thing.
catmman on February 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Maybe his “track two” discussions with Tehran and Damascus were less amicable than he had anticipated.
RedWinged Blackbird on February 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM
So was Fox the victim of a trial balloon leak? The One would never float a trial balloon leak, would he? After making sure that it had been focus-grouped and well-tested for acceptability?
ElRonaldo on February 2, 2009 at 5:12 PM
It is possible Fox just f*cked up. Or more likely since they are MSNBC just for the other side, they are transforming GOP talking points into “news.” Thanks corporate media hackery!
DeathToMediaHacks on February 2, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I thought the Pentagon was told to cut 10%. Somebody help me out on this.
Harpoon on February 2, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Stick to the facts and the story, dickeater.
Jaibones on February 2, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Ed – I agree that it’s dishonest to report an 8% increase as a 10% cut.
On the other hand, it’s also nice for people to be able to compare apples to apples when dealing with different presidents and political parties.
If increases have always been reported as cuts because they represented reductions in what the department had requested, it does not make sense to continue calling them cuts for Republican administrations and call them increases during Democrat administrations.
If that happens, people will not understand why President Rep “cut” spending all over the place and had less service and a larger deficit than President Dem that “increased” spending all over the place.
While I’d like to get that cleared up asap, my preference is to wait until Dems are out of office before we start setting the record straight. That’s a purely partisan move on my part, of course, but it’s mostly because I have a feeling things will be reported the new way during Pres. Obama’s admin just to revert back to the old way as soon as a Rep is in office.
I’m happy to discuss things accurately if the media could prove it was going to fairly report spending cuts/increases in the SAME way for both parties from now on out.
JadeNYU on February 2, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Good call, Ed. This is exactly what the entire liberal MSM has been doing forever. Sounds like Fox took a bogus projection, called it a new baseline, and extrapolated the admin’s budget as a cut. That’s crap.
Jaibones on February 2, 2009 at 5:16 PM
In the Lauer interview on Sunday, I think I remember O saying that the military was in good shape. No acknowledgment to how it got that way, though. I wonder if he’ll regret saying that.
Pianobuff on February 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Exactly…It’s the old two step…I fully expect a decrease in the growth…a modest 1 or 2 percent…not even close to inflation.
jerrytbg on February 2, 2009 at 5:23 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/
-
So… can we get a name here? Was this a setup of Fox by an Obamite at the DoD? Gee, I sound like a lefty loon all the sudden.
RalphyBoy on February 2, 2009 at 5:23 PM
The problem I have with any of these discussions is that the entering argument is always faulty. It assumes that government spending is fundamentally reasonable and just needs tweaking. There is no political will to ever question the validity of worthless programs, let alone cut them. Yes, the DOD could be run more efficiently but so too can every other part of the executive agency. Fact of the matter is that the US government has plenty of money for legitimate operational expenses if they opt to get rid of programs that aren’t working.
Of course, as I said, there is no political will to do this under normal circumstances. That’s doubly true as the filthy bastard and his party are trying to introduce European Socialism to America.
highhopes on February 2, 2009 at 5:26 PM
don’t forget that that projected number is over a year old…
jerrytbg on February 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Sorry.. should have included a bit more from the 2 days ago story.
RalphyBoy on February 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM
This sounds awfully similar to the kerfluffle around Palin’s supposed decrease of funding for something or another (special needs maybe?) when in fact it was more funding than the prior year. Anyone remember what that was? Anyhoo, betcha this gets “fixed” before that one ever will.
Pianobuff on February 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM
But did you read the fine print? The money’s earmarked for building wind farms in Afghanistan.
petefrt on February 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Sweet.
Our Manchurian candidate is working exactly as planned.
Muaaaaah hahahahaaaaaaaa (evil laugh)
Tony737 on February 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM
If true, Ed, don’t be surprised if most of the increase will go to “sensitivity training” after Obama kills the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy, not to mention the other social engineering projects they are considering.
TXUS on February 2, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Heh.
chunderroad on February 2, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Based on the fact that The Fool hasn’t said a single word in his life that wasn’t a lie or half-truth, I’ll believe a Defense Dept increase when I see it.
notagool on February 2, 2009 at 5:31 PM
He will because it is fundamentally untrue. Eight years of sending troops to combat has taken a personnel toll that is little mentioned. Fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration pared things back so much our “Reserve force” has been pressed into operational service since 9/12/01 (literally). Over time these personnel costs cause issues not quantified by budget numbers. It’s where that “leadership” thing comes into play and I have no confidence that the filthy bastard and the crowd of criminals he’s hired are up to the challenge. The only mitigating factor is that Gates is still around to temper the worst excesses of the filthy bastard and his hate-the-troops party.
highhopes on February 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM
The Pentagon/Joint Chiefs requested $584 billion and get approved for $527 billion? Sounds like a cut to me.
Tom
marinetbryant on February 2, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Damnit Barry! You took away my foaming outrage! :)
ThePrez on February 2, 2009 at 5:36 PM
In the middle of the article:
“Obama’s team — faced with the choice of meeting the Pentagon’s higher number, forcing huge cuts in other parts of the federal budget or setting the defense spending number based on their own decision-making — chose the latter option. And since OMB ultimately decides the administration’s request to Congress, it’s likely the White House will win this battle.”
Tom
marinetbryant on February 2, 2009 at 5:37 PM
IMO, they could cut the defense budget by a lot and not lose anything. Realize that I’m a very conservative guy, so this isn’t just a left-wing troll, well trolling. IMO, defense spending is a lot like all other kinds of spending, particularly education. Just because you pour dollars into anything doesn’t mean that you get back a good return. There is so much pork and overbudget, under effective programs in the DoD that even a cut doesn’t necessarily mean we have an ineffective defense of the country. Yes, the left would slash and burn DoD, but that doesn’t mean that good DoD governance is to simply fund every expensive program that enters a general’s head.
Simply: I’m quite in favor of strong defense; I’m not in favor of expensive, ineffective defense programs.
PersonalLiberty on February 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Even he recognizes that most of the defense money is spent in the U.S….talk about shutting down the economy, cut defense spending and then watch the reaction from Wall Street.
Good move Obama.
right2bright on February 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on February 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Remind us about the independent board’s important recommendations?
artist on February 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Citizen military will be interesting.
tomas on February 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM
That’s the idea. The money will be earmarked for ‘sensitivity training,’ building wind farms in Afghanistan, or demonstrating the damages of man made global warming in Darfur.
petefrt on February 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM
I’d like to see the actual budget number before I comment, other than to say it is amazing how increases can be called decreases, etc, and the OMB still has any credibility.
Vashta.Nerada on February 2, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Don’t be +1ing Obama yet. The requested budget includes The Afghan Surge I believe.
- The Cat
P.S. This is what Hotair quoted in the 10% cut thread
‘
Emphasis mine.
Looks like they were upfront to me.
MirCat on February 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Rereading the whole thing. The question would be did they know what the budget request was? Did their source tell them when he, as I assume, called Foxnews to compain.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 2, 2009 at 5:49 PM
P.S. The original Hotair Post. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/31/a-10-cut-at-the-pentagon/
MirCat on February 2, 2009 at 5:50 PM
So excluding war costs, the DoD gets +8% but it doesn’t say what the overall change is. So it is quite possible that both are correct with non-war spending getting an 8% boost and the overall DoD budget getting a total reduction of 10% with Obama doing as President what the Dems could not do in Congress … gut war spending.
crosspatch on February 2, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Then there’s that. Good catch.
MirCat on February 2, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Whoa, I just thought of something. If he is giving an increase to the military, is it to fund his international peace keepers crap with the UN? Or maybe his civilian army crap?
portlandon on February 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM
The problem boils down to what Dollars go to fund the “War”, and what goes to fund the Army?
Its impossible to really divorce the two…
If you buy a tank… is it regular funding? but if its suddenly needed in the war zone is it now War funded?
My guess is the Pentagon wanted its funding for the year set… including war costs, so it could adequatley plan… but now it will be at least two bills, and maybe more.
Romeo13 on February 2, 2009 at 6:02 PM
We are going to need it with all the talks going on with the dictators. I don’t think they buy into the whole hope and change thing.
Brat4life on February 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM
You’ve hit the heart of the matter.
It doesn’t matter how much money the DOD gets until we have a clue about what the filthy bastard and his crowd of criminals plan to do with the most powerful military force on the face of this planet. Are they going to continue to fight terrorism or are they going to be forced into re-education programs to convince combat proven soldiers that homosexuality is legitimate? It’s still an open question and the filthy bastard seems far more content with killing off life than answering it.
highhopes on February 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM
So, you actually believe the government should pay people who do not work, more than the folks in the military who sacrifice their lives for you and me?
Johan Klaus on February 2, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I agree that the number should be presented as an increase. But as MarktheGreat pointed out, describing it as a decrease simply normalizes the presentation to all the other ‘cuts’ in spending the media reports when the cuts are to liberal or welfare programs.
OBQuiet on February 2, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Bingo. Well done.
petefrt on February 2, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Here’s a stimulus plan: A 10% cut to everything the government does involving money. Cut 10% from every bureaucracy–military, civil, entitlement, education. Cut 10% from every kind of taxation–corporate, income, cap gains, estate. Cut all federal salaries (even congressional!) by 10%. You probably couldn’t get away with cutting Social Security payments by 10%, and I think reasonable moral objections could be made to cutting veterans’ affairs (particularly disability), but hit everything else across the board.
I’ve a sneaking suspicion that, despite the thousand objections that could no doubt be raised, this combination of reigning in government while increasing prosperity across the board would be a much better plan than anything Obama has in mind. But maybe I’m just simplistic.
Blacklake on February 2, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Good to hear from Pres. Obama.
In otehr “Stimulus” news, Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive quates Michelle Malkin!
Yakko77 on February 2, 2009 at 6:33 PM
I am sorry but i still dont believe it.
Why ?
Obama is grovelling to the iranians
Obama is now kissing chaves’s ass
Obama is now begging the chinese to buy american tresuries
Obama is now planning the end of capitolism..
I will bet you that either
a. obama got caught off guard and hurridly re-instated the so called budget (although he is using bushs numbers)
b. or obama is playing us for fools by giving (at least temoporarily to the military what they asked)
Until .. he gets his condom stimulating plan through the homos in congress..
C. or more than likly he was surprised by the backlash and backed off (but that means soros and the wakos at the daily kos communist party will be very upset)
How much you wanna bet its either B or C?
jcila on February 2, 2009 at 6:46 PM
That is a usually liberal game only played by dishonest people.
MB4 on February 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Warmonger!
ChimpyMcObamaHitler!
Babykiller!
Imperialist fascist!
Bush III!
Have I forgotten any?
profitsbeard on February 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Thank God if this is true…
RocketmanBob on February 2, 2009 at 7:10 PM
2% loss on projected budget…. nice feint…. big ears.
MNDavenotPC on February 2, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Bingo. I don’t think he’s foolish, I think he’s naive, and just intelligent enough to get a sense of the serious danger he could place 300 million people in, if he doesn’t keep the military in play.
MadisonConservative on February 2, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Well seeing is believing. Is good if he does this. Fox should apologize.
sheebe on February 2, 2009 at 8:04 PM
My money is the Fox report. When push comes to shove the Marxist, black supremacist, anti-American, vote buying, hypocritical lying, faux environmentalist, social engineering, entitlement pushing, amnesty loving abortionist, (did I mention lying)PO
TUS will rape the military budget in a heart beat so the “wealth” can be spread around. I despise him and all he represents!dmann on February 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Then I’ve been getting a cut for the last 20 years, at least! I demand my bailout!
/sarc
IrishEyes on February 2, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Don’t celebrate yet. Let’s see how this plays out in the House.
Mason on February 2, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Why is it that they never describe the State Department or the I.R.S. as an entrenched bureaucracy?
Paco on February 3, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I appreciate the correction because it makes clearer where we are in the budgeting process. We will have to wait and see where it ends up; an unwise reduction in the defense budget could still be what the Obama Administration serves up. My guess is that there is a tension between Democrats who do want to cut defense and realists in the Adminisration who see the needs in the military that require attention. Keep in mind that back in the late 1970′s, Jimmy Carter increased the defense budget after years of congressional Democrat enforced budget cuts in defense.
Phil Byler on February 3, 2009 at 5:25 AM
Everyone should examine just what the “increase” is aimed at (pun intended). I mean, examine a breakdown of what’s involved here and what the motives are by Obama.
I was reading earlier about the crazy Congressman from Florida (Hayes, I believe it is) who wants “emergency camps” built in the U.S. while he suffers under threat of a possible “moose skinning” Sarah Palin which he then projects to mean that the moose’s fate would be that of “Blacks and Jews”.
I get a feeling that — given Obama’s actual politics and beliefs muchmoreso this nutty (but ‘normal’ to Democrats) guy from FL just might have big dollar signs in his eyes…
Then there’s that “corps” that Obama wants and Michelle O. is bombing for.
I think the details of just HOW this defense increase will be spent ought to be examined very, very closely while under the O-cast in this nation.
S on February 3, 2009 at 5:31 AM
I USED to excuse Obama as naive and not foolish, but now I conclude he’s badly intended. I do not trust the man as to our national defense and security, just not at all. I think his idea of defense is mostly to defend the people who (in agreement with him) have a starting point in perspectives that the U.S. is “bad”. I do think that’s where Obama’s coming from. All the advisors and briefings aren’t going to change his basic pathology as to not trusting these United States of America.
S on February 3, 2009 at 5:34 AM
AGREED.
S on February 3, 2009 at 5:35 AM
But did you read the fine print? The money’s earmarked for building wind farms in Afghanistan.
petefrt
Nope…gay housing for when he opens the military closet door.
SKYFOX on February 3, 2009 at 7:02 AM
There seems to be some confusion. Robert Kagan has a article out today claiming 10% cut by Pentagon officials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020202618.html
Dreamweaver on February 3, 2009 at 7:22 AM
Meanwhile….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487126,00.html
Scorched_Earth on February 3, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »