Wash. Post's Kagan claimed OMB "has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending"
SUMMARY: In his Washington Post column, Robert Kagan claimed that "Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year." In fact, the Obama administration has reportedly proposed a $14 billion increase from its fiscal year 2009 budget.
In his February 3 Washington Post column, headlined "No Time To Cut Defense," Robert Kagan claimed that "Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested." In fact, as Josh Rogin reported in a February 2 Congressional Quarterly article, the Obama administration has actually proposed increasing the Pentagon's fiscal year 2010 budget by about $14 billion from its 2009 budget. In stating that OMB has "ordered a 10 percent cut," Kagan was comparing the limit reportedly set by the Obama administration for defense spending with what Rogan reported was "a $584 billion draft budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal 2010" -- not a budget that Gates "requested," as Kagan claimed. Indeed, Kagan baselessly suggested a split between OMB and Gates over the increasing size of the budget, writing that President Obama "should side with Gates over the green-eyeshade boys." But Gates has stated that the "FY 2010 budget must make hard choices" and that the "spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing."
Rogin reported:
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 about $14 billion more than the $513 billion allocated for fiscal 2009 (PL 110-329), including military construction funds, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.
Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald first noted Kagan's claim that OMB "has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending" in a February 2 post. Additionally, Heather Hurlburt discussed the issue in a February 1 post on the National Security Network's Democracy Arsenal blog.
Rogin further reported:
[B]ehind the scenes, Pentagon officials have already begun trying to cast the new administration's fiscal 2010 Defense number as a cut. A Jan. 30 Fox News report quoted a senior Defense official as saying the Obama administration demanded a $55 billion cut in Defense spending. President Obama met with the Joint Chiefs that day. "To call that a cut would be wrong, because what the chiefs had done was a huge increase," said Gordon Adams, who led the national security division of OMB during the Clinton administration.
Contrary to Kagan's suggestion that OMB and Gates are at odds over the size of the Pentagon budget, as Rogin noted, in his January 27 prepared testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates said that the "FY 2010 budget must make hard choices" and that "[w]ith two major campaigns ongoing, the economic crisis and resulting budget pressures will force hard choices on this department." From Gates' prepared statement:
I believe that the FY 2010 budget must make hard choices. Any necessary changes should avoid across-the-board adjustments, which inefficiently extend all programs.
[...]
The choices we make will manifest themselves in how we train, whom we promote, and, of course, how we spend. As I mentioned, President Obama will present his budget later this spring. One thing we have known for many months is that the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing. With two major campaigns ongoing, the economic crisis and resulting budget pressures will force hard choices on this department.
But for all the difficulties we face, I believe this moment also presents an opportunity - one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity. To critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements - those things that are desirable in a perfect world from those things that are truly needed in light of the threats America faces and the missions we are likely to undertake in the years ahead.
As I've said before, we will not be able to "do everything, buy everything." And, while we have all spoken at length about these issues, I believe now is the time to take action. I promise you that as long as I remain in this post I will focus on creating a unified defense strategy that determines our budget priorities. This is, after all, about more than just dollars: It goes to the heart of our national security.
I will need help from the other stakeholders - from industry, and from you, the members of Congress. It is one thing to speak broadly about the need for budget discipline and acquisition reform. It is quite another to make tough choices about specific weapons systems and defense priorities based solely on national interests. And then to stick to those decisions over time. The President and I need your help as all of us together do what is best for America as a whole in making those decisions.
From Kagan's February 3 Washington Post column:
Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested. Here are five reasons President Obama should side with Gates over the green-eyeshade boys.
-
It doesn't make fiscal sense to cut the defense budget when everyone is scrambling for measures to stimulate the economy. Already, under the current Pentagon budget, defense contractors will begin shutting down production lines in the next couple of years -- putting people out of work. Rather than cutting, the Obama administration ought to be increasing defense spending. As Harvard economist Martin Feldstein recently noted on this page, defense spending is exactly the kind of expenditure that can have an immediate impact on the economy.
-
A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation. There is already a sense around the world, fed by irresponsible pundits here at home, that the United States is in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun.

















Besides the fact that Obama is actually increasing defense spending rather than cutting it where's the evidence that defense spending will do the economy any good? If it's so great why is our economy in the crapper right now? And why is defense spending good and every other kind of spending bad?
Probably because the private sector can handle everything else BUT defense. Would you want Microsoft in charge of National Defense?
... just trying to explain the reasoning... I'm not even sure I did a good enough job of that, much less convince myself it's a good idea
Actually, the private sector DOES handle most of our defense. At least the big spending items, they are all private sector government contracts.
I'm not saying we should cut or raise the amount we spend. I would just like to see this particular chesnut backed up with some evidence more recent than WWII or put away.
Technically Microsoft does do defense...
Microsoft defense
The very first computers our units received ran on Microsoft software. Ask any young Captain how many Powerpoint presentation's he's put together and you'll have a good idea how ingrained they are.
Now before you you rip me a new one, I know what you're saying! ;)
Because the Sacred Doctrine of Original Intent states that any spending that doesn't involve weapons is socialism.
I'd have no problem with a 10% defense spendign cut. It would do more (save more money) than a 10% cut anywhere else, and it wouldn't affect ANYONE. (Just a few defesne contractors, designing stuff we don;t really need.)
Besides... 90% of our military still has many, many times the capability of any other country on this planet - at least that we'd ever actually go to war with. (And we'll never go to war with Russia or China, due to economic represcussions and the fact that it would "go nuke" before any of the troops even landed on tehir soil. So don't bother using that example.)
i agree. we could cut defense spending in half and we're still way ahead of anyone else. but the limbaugh types go into their act that supposes we cannot be a strong country unless we're digging ourselves into even more debt with more and more military spending. but the fact is that it was not reagan's military spending that defeated the soviet union, but their own internal rot from a system that could not make it either politically or economically. nor did our military spending have anything at all to do with 9-11. we just had a president who was too lazy and too inept to pay the least attention to the plentiful warnings in the months before the attack. in his last press conference, bush scoffed at the idea of the "burdens of the office". no wonder, he didn't have any. his eight years were spent biking and piling ever more goodies on the plates of the wealthy. eisenhower, certainly no liberal, warned us in his farewell address of the power of the "military-industrial complex", a perpetual weapons producing industry. and he was exactly right.
Which President was too lazy and inept? Go down to PDB dated 4 DEC 98:
Clinton's PDB dated Dec 4, 1998
Also that "military industrial complex" the left likes to tout did not keep up with the times. AT the time I think Ike was wise to sound the clarion call, but defense spending is at the lowest point over the past fifty years.
Defense spending as % of GDP
it may have fallen as part of gdp, but it's still far higher than it needs to be in terms of actual money spent.
and bush is the president who was lazy and inept. because on the very next page of the 9-11 report, page 130, it says this about the warnings of a hijacking in 1998: "to address the hijacking warning, the group [richard clarke's] agreed that new york airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. they agreed to boost security at other east coast airports. the cia agreed to distribute versions of the report to the fbi and and faa to pass to the nypd and the airlines."
bush's response to the aug 6, 2001 pdb 'bin laden determined to strike in u.s."? that would be exactly nothing. and clarke was demoted under bush. try again.
What does it need to be then? I would LOVE to see your number!
That's a nice little quote out of the 9/11 report. Hindsight is 20/20 after all. Funny how Clarke didn't say the same things under oath during his testimony about 9/11 AND procedures that led up to 9/11 specifically 1998. Seems like a GOOD time to bring that up don't you think?
Here is what he did say in response to Richard Ben-Veniste's questions:
That doens't quite jibe with the "9/11 report " now does it?
Here is another little tid bit that came out of Clarke's testimony:
That was in response to a question Bob Kerry asked about aviation security implemented by the clinton administraiton after the TWA 800 disaster. It looks to me like clinton had a chance to beef up airport security but passed.
As for your assertion that airport security went to max securtiy in 1998 after Clarke was screeming from the rooftops can't be substantiated. Please post a link if you have it. Not trying to sharpshoot here, but I can't find anything of that nature.
Now to be fair Clarke said an FAA advisory went out. That may be true but it doesn't mean any agency ACTED on it. I went to the FAA website and could not find the advisory. You might have better luck:
FAA website
Clinton said the same sort of things about the millenium plot, but Diana Dean the Border Patrol agent testified to the Senate that her field office was NEVER briefed about higher level of security.
I'm not saying your deliberately spreading misinformation here, but I think you need to get some facts straight. Try again.
you're doing your best to avoid the point that when there was a warning in 1998, the clinton administration moved on it and did the things that had to be done. the 9-11 report says "threats surged in june and july" 2001, there was no response from the bush administration. none. that is a verified fact. and what you see as contradictory in clarke's testimony is beyond me. he was asked about moussaoui, and that info was available in 2001, and if that information might have made a difference. he said he didn't know. what is known for sure is that information did not make it to him, whereas under the clinton administration it would have. nor because one thing was rejected was rejected under clinton, federalizing the searching process, doesn't mean other things were not done. and the 9-11 commission seemed to accept that the faa advisory went out. just because you can't find it doesn't mean it did not happen. and the 9-11 commission said that during the millenium period: "in the period between december 1999 and early january 2000, information about terrorism flowed freely and abundantly".
so it comes down to this. warnings widely distributed and plots stopped under clinton. bush pays no attention and we get hit on 9-11. sorry you can't accept the truth.
OK, I'll bite! What DID he do that had to be DONE? He didn't pay attention to the PDB of 4 Dec 98. If he had surely Clarke would have mentioned that in his testimony. Or maybe not. Clarke has proved to be all over the board depending on what source you read. Since you seem to rely SOLELY on the 9/11 report and NOTHING else, then I can see where you would run into dead ends.
Clarke never mentions, under oath mind you, anything about heightend security. I would think this would be topic number one. Read it again, they were talking not only about Moussaoui, but "a body of information" that covered several threats.
I agree. I never said it didn't go out, I said I couldn't find it. I also said and you ignored that just because Clarke was sounding the alarm it didn't mean anyone was listening. I proved this with Diana Dean's testimony to the Senate. I didn't expound on this. Ms. Dean is the Border Patrol agent that foiled the millennium plot. She testified that her field office was NOT briefed about higher security/ threat levels even though clinton himself asserted that it did happen. She was just a sharp agent with a keen eye doing her job. Pont is just because Clarke said it's so, doesn't mean it was. Remember he was pimping a book at the time this testimony came out.
I guess that didn't include the Blue Sky memo.
There is plenty of blame to go around for both administrations. I can admit that...can you?
on what basis do you make the claim that clinton paid no attention to the pdb of 1998? the fact is warnings went out and there was no attack. sounds pretty clear to me. there was no action on the aug 6, 2001 pdb.
two, you don't even know the previous report clarke is refering to. you are taking a quote where he was asked about something in 2001 and claiming it refers to something specific in 1998. based on what?
three, whatever dean said, the fact is that there were warnings all over. even the public was warned that an attack could be coming during the millenium. i remember it.
fourth, the commission studied all the evidence and said that it was the bush administration that did nothing. and i don't admit anything i don't agree with. bush told bob woodward that he was "not on point" about bin laden prior to 9-11. why can't you accept his words?
this can't be good news for liberals, in increase in defense spending.
Do you think Kagan's falsehood is good news?
A neocon lying? I'd say that's no news.
bad, bad Kagan. satisfied? so is an increase in defense spending good news?
Why would increased Defense spending be bad news? Who is it bad for?
That was my question, too, which he avoided.
many liberals.
How many liberals have you assigned this mindset to?
He's talking about the liberals that Limbaugh and Levin often talk about. Hope that helps.
So he's talking about the liberals that don't exist. Got it!
That's no help whatsoever. Thanks.
Oh, those liberals, the ones the fat man imagines the stereotypical liberal to be.
Would it be fair of us on the left then to describe everyone on the right as a cowardly Chickenhawk?
You know, the ones made of straw.
i asked you if you thought an incrase in defense spending was a good idea? why are you avoiding answering it?
You did not ask me that question.
answer either one then if you think they're different. is it good news, or is a good idea?
Depends on how it's allocated.
the problem is that if obama announces a cut in defense spending, all the conservatives will accuse him of not wanting to protect the country.
Again, why?
what about you? are you in favor of an increase in defense spending?
I am in favor of the proper level of defense spending, if that means an increase then yes, if that means a decrease then yes.
Why is that questions a watershed for you? Also, why do you think I would think it was bad?
because generally speaking, liberals are not in favor of increase spending when it comes to defense. It's often thrown out as a rebuttal by liberals when conservatives decry spending increases, by saying what about cutting defense spending? so it stands to reason that an increase in this area isn't meant with much applause by many liberals. glad to see that's not you though.
I think most conservatives are too wimpy to admit that they hate increases in defense spending. Rush, Hannity and their many listeners just don't have the nerve to admit it.
how many conservatives have you assigned this mindset to?
Dude, I was mocking you.
and I you, fool
But unlike you, I really don't care what nameless liberals and conservatives think.
How did you mock him? He correctly called you on your foolish stereotyping.
You just said, Oh yeah? So are you!
I think you are equating two different things. "Democrats" in Politics may say something like that when Republicans (not conservatives) discuss soending because Republicans are so hypocritical.
"Most" liberals aren't so easily categorized. You seem to be typical of the lock-step Republicans in that you think everyone of any particular association is the same.
The one common trait of most liberals is the ability to think on their own and not foloow the marching orders of their "leaders" as the Republicans tend to do.
Yep, no foolish stereotyping there. lol
You just don't get it when stuff gets thrown back at you do you?
When you overhear someone complaining about you, you never realize it's you they are talking about?
This is why it's very difficult having a discussion with people who can't thinkl for themselves.
You come here spouting nonsense about "liberals" and when you are mocked and have your stereotypes shattered, you throw back, "well you're doing it to".
James, come back when you develop thinking skills, okay!
well you did do it, so get off your high horse scolding me for it.
James, try thinking before you write!
Probably a hate horse too.
Could be!
I think you are equating two different things. "Democrats" in Politics may say something like that when Republicans (not conservatives) discuss soending because Republicans are so hypocritical.
"Most" liberals aren't so easily categorized. You seem to be typical of the lock-step Republicans in that you think everyone of any particular association is the same.
The one common trait of most liberals is the ability to think on their own and not foloow the marching orders of their "leaders" as the Republicans tend to do.
Depends on how they spend it. If it leads to more manufacturing jobs in the U.S., then it's great.
If they're just going to pi$$ it away in the sands of Iraq, not so much.
Yes. Providing for the common defense is one of the primary functions of the US Federal Government as outlined in the US Constitution.
Is that the same US Constitution that allows for lining the pockets of defence contractors?
If you're trying to get ahead of the curve on world war three, then yes, I'd say it's good news for the right. Diplomacy was never an option for them.
It is what it is. It's neitehr good or bad... unless it's unecessary. Which, based on our capabilities relative to those of our enemies, I'd say it is [unecessary.]
Spending 14 Billion on health care will save more live that spending twice that amount on defense ever will. Terrorism isn't in the top 1000 causes of death in this country, unless you're (1) in the military and (2) not IN the country at the moment.
So yes, this does disappoint me.
No, I'm not satisfied. You want to brush off the fact that a conservative "thinker" blantantly lied in the pages of the "liberal" Washington Post in an effort to undermine the president. In fact, you seem intent on changing the subject.
How about instead of pestering people about imagined liberal attitudes toward defense spending, you address the real moral failings of conservative leaders? Then we can have an honest discussion of spending priorities.
ya right, I am going to have an honest discussion on a liberal forum with leftists on the moral failings of conservative leaders, whoever and whatever the hell that means, which has nothing to do with anything, and then an honest discussion will ensue. bright idea.
No, I'm suggesting you clean your own house. It's filthy.
Then why are you here?
The true good news is Barry will keep the rendition option open at this point.
Who is Barry? You know him that well?
That in itself is proof you know nothing.
That, and everything else you post, that is.
Yep, maybe a few more handouts to Haliburton will stimulate the economy.
Don't forget Blackwater. They paid the "contractors" (don't call them mercenaries!) FAR more than they paid our own troops.
"Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year." In fact, the Obama administration has reportedly proposed a $14 billion increase from its fiscal year 2009 budget.
So neither one of these statements have been proven true, so why report rumors. Since the leak is not confirmed, and whom ever is reported. How about we just wait and see what really happens.
Take it up with the Washington Post. Be sure to mention that lying sack Kagan.
It's a classic Chris Mortensen technique. If it's true, you have the inside scoop. If it's not, you have an easy escape valve by saying it's a rumor.
But he's not trying to make a prediction here; he's just making up a Pentagon source to plea for more defense spending. There's nothing to really escape from.
No, it's nothing at all like that. The budget request was leaked. The administration's number was reported.
I'm used to markbfooled not knowing what he's talking about, but you should really make an effort to understand the subject before posting.
It's Matt Drudge's entire career.
He comes from a family (his father is Donald Kagan-PNAC, and his brother Frederick is one of the Iraq Architects) of war-mongering hawks, as long as it isn't their blood or life being shed!