defense spending novice da

8/2/2019 Defense Spending NOVICE DA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/defense-spending-novice-da 1/3

CHS Forensics 1NEG: Defense Spending DA

DEFENSE SPENDING DA 1NC (1/3)

Uniqueness: Obama will increase defense spending now

Wheeler 6/17 /09 (Winslow T. Wheeler spent 31 years working on Capitol Hill with senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability

Office, specializing in national security affairs. Currently, he directs the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. He isauthor of The Wastrels of Defense and the editor of a new anthology: „America‟s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress‟,"How Obama will outspend reagan on defense", http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler06172009.html//greenhill-ak)

On Jan. 27, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress, "The spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11is closing." Right after Gates' defense budget was released on May 7, the Pentagon's comptroller, Robert Hale, confirmed to t he press: "The sp igot is starting to close." A closing spigotimplies less money, but the new 2010 defense budget shows quite clearly that the spigot is not closing; it'sstuck - full on. Not counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's annual appropriations for 2009 were $514 billion. For

2010, Gates is requesting $534 billion. The flow is to increase by $20 billion. Comptroller Hale also told the press, "We don't have a plan be yond

2010." He said there would not be one until after the Defense Department completes its review of strategy, programs and policy - the Quadrennial Defense Review(QDR). Actually, there is a plan for the out-years "beyond 2010." It's in the budget that President Barack Obama approved and sent to Congress that same May 7. TheOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) materials on the budget show a flood of numbers for DoD's outyears. They are all available to the public in Table 26-1 of OMB's 415 page tome for the 2010 budget, "Analytical Perspectives." It projects DoD spending all the way out to 2019. Not counting money projected for the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan, the presidentially approved budget plan would continue increasing the Pentagon's budget: byanother $8.1 billion in 2011 (up 1.5 percent), another $9 billion in 2012 (up 1.6 percent), and $10.4 billion in 2013 (up1.8 percent), and so on all the way out to 2019. If we add in the costs for

the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon budget for the current fiscal year - 2009 - exceeds any year since the end of World War II, including the spending peaks for the Korean and Vietnam wars. President Obama's plan is to increase that lead. Obama also will outspend Ronald

Reagan on defense. Obama plans to spend $2.47 tril lion on the Pentagon for the years 2010 to 2013. If he makes it into a second term, he plan s tospend an other $2.58 trillion for the years 2014 to 2017. Put together for the eight years, 2010 to 2017, Obama plans to spend $5.05 trillion. In hisfirst four years, Reagan spent, in inflation-adjusted dollars, $2.1 trillion. In his second four years, he spent $2.11 trillion, for an eight -year total of $4.21 trillion. Obama will out-spend Reagan in his first four years by $369 billion. Over eight years, Obama will exceed Reagan by $840 billion.Many Republicans are trying to accuse Obama of cutting the defense budget . They seem to have confused their plus and minus signs. According totheir logic, the near-sainted Ronald Reagan was a defense budget slasher. And what of Hale and his implied assertion that none of these numbers willmean anything until the Pentagon completes its much touted QDR? The Pentagon has been conducting these reviews since early in the Clintonadministration. Each one has been greatly ballyhooed and cited as the essential precursor of big decisions to come. Each one has come and gone anddone nothing to change whatever trajectory the Pentagon's leadership has pre-decided; it functions as little more than a review by the departmentbureaucracy of itself. Just as the 50 program and policy decisions that Gates announced to the press on April 6 held some dramatic news, such ascanceling the Air Force's F-22 fighter, the new QDR will probably contain some newsworthy decisions when it is finished later this year. Notably,however, Gates' 50 decisions were budget neutral (the 2010 budget was set at $534 billion both before and after them). We can expect the QDR to bethe same. Or, we can expect the numbers to climb a little. On May 14, Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that sustaining thePentagon's current program will require 2 percent annual growth in the department's budget. That's just a little more than Obama has now in his plan.Breathlessly, some will protest that we must wait for the results of the QDR and the big changes everyone knows are needed. However, based onObama's performance on national security issues so far, it clearly is not going to happen. With his decisions on Afghanistan, extra-judicial militarycom mission trials of suspected terrorists, the public release of recorded prisoner abuse and other matters, Obama has already shown he has nostomach for major departures from conventional wisdom and the "moderate" - i.e., politically safe - thing to do on questions of national defense.Similarly, we can expect Obama's first QDR Pentagon exercise to land on safe territory, certainly not on the stormy seas of actual reductions - or the

uncharted waters of real and meaningful Pentagon reform. The spigot is pretty much stuck where it is. It would take realchange for it to be otherwise.





Link: The plan trades off with defense spending programs

The Hill 3/25/ 09 ("Liberals want more defense spending left behind", http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/left-

fires-back-on-budget-2009-03-25.html//greenhill-ak)President Obama is facing mounting pressure from his party‟s left flank to cut defense spending so more money canbe spent on social programs. A letter obtained by The Hill shows that liberal advocacy groups and lawmakers want Obama to seize a

moment when Democrats control both Congress and the White House and scrap costly weapons programs they say have drained domestic coffers.

Hard economic times are intensifying pressure to choose guns or butter, particularly as the Bush administration is

criticized for sharply raising spending on both. The left‟s demands pose a looming problem for the president, who traveled to Capitol Hill onWednesday to build support for his budget, which has already drawn criticism from centrist Democrats for a 12 percent increase in domestic

discretionary spending. This further fractures the party, with liberals focused on Obama‟s call to hike defense spending by 4 percent. The pushfrom liberals comes at a time when Obama has pledged to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, andChina and India have begun to emerge as major military and economic powers. Embracing the idea while the country

is still engaged in conflicts overseas would reaffirm the notion to those on the right and in the center that Obama is a classic liberal. But turning away the request risksalienating key members of his base. The groups sent the letter to congressional Democratic leaders late Wednesday calling for steep cuts to the Joint Strike FighterProgram and other futuristic weapons plagued by production delays and cost overruns, with the money saved going to schools, healthcare and other social services. Atthe same time, a leading Senate liberal has questioned Obama‟s proposed spending on defense while House Democrats tussle over how to publicly oppose the

president‟s budget plan. “The Department of Defense has laid the welcome mat for rampant waste and excess,” wrote Brent Wilkes, of the League of United LatinAmerican Citizens (LULAC), and Gary Flowers, of the Black Leadership Forum, in a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House SpeakerNancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) late Wednesday. “Billions of dollars are being squandered on costly, faulty defense aircraft that may be outdated before they are ever flown,money that would be better spent in classrooms, emergency rooms and veterans hospitals.” Other national liberal groups including the Hispanic Federation, the Leagueof Rural Voters, the National Congress of Black Women and the National Council of Negro Women also signed the letter. The letter follows criticism lobbed by Sen.Tom Harkin (Iowa), a leading Senate liberal who gave the first hint of frustration over defense spending levels after emerging from a Tuesday briefing with SenateBudget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D- N.D.). “I have a question as to whether we need defense spending to go up by as much as it is,” Harkin told reportersafter lamenting that he would not have enough money to fulfill his funding goals for health and education. Harkin chairs the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health andHuman Services and Education Subcommittee. In past years, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CBC) and the Congressional Black Caucus, two groups dominatedby liberal House Democrats, have put forth their own budget proposals to strike a sharp policy contrast with President George W. Bush. But now that Obama occupiesthe White House, some lawmakers in these groups have argued that they should not clash publicly with the president in politically sensitive areas such as defensespending. This is the first year since 1994 that there has been a Democratic president and Democratic-controlled Congress. Some liberal lawmakers believe theyshould work behind the scenes to influence the budget resolution crafted by Democratic leaders. Publicly calling on Obama to cut defense spending at a time of warcould unravel into a political mess. One Democratic lawmaker familiar with the internal debate said that members of the Progressive andBlack caucuses are wranglingover the conundrum. (The House Progressive Caucus meets Thursday to discuss healthcare reform and budget priorities.) Liberal groups argue that eliminating the

Joint Strike Fighter program could make up the difference between their health and education spending goals and Obama‟s budget. Niel Ritchie, executive director of the League of Rural Voters, said “a few hundred billion dollars is a lot of schools and a lot of healthcare.” “There can‟t be business as usual on appropriations, and thedefense budget is one thing that has gone up and up, and that can‟t happen anymore,” he said. A report published last year by the Government Accountability Officefound that 95 major weapons programs exceeded their original budgets by $295 billion. The Joint Strike Fighter program could cost as much as $1 trillion over itslifetime. The argument by groups such as LULAC, the Black Leadership Forum and the League of Rural Voters is gaining traction among liberal and black lawmakersRep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said defense spending is “an area where we can make cuts and rei nvest inimportant programs such as healthcare and education.” Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.), a member of the CBC, said: “I agree 100 percent. “Rather than planning for war, we ought to take a timeout and invest in peace,” said Watson. Watson said that the CBC would unveil a budget “to ask that we decrease amounts of money goingto the Pentagon and increase amounts for education and health.” Watson said that Black Caucus members received a warm reception when they presented theirproposal to Obama during a meeting at the White House late last month. “When we finished he said, „Why are you preaching to the choir?‟” Two other members of the black caucus interviewed by The Hill said they did not remember those exact words but did not dispute Watson‟s acco unt. They characterized the meeting withObama as very positive. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Black Caucus, declined to discuss the details of the budget proposal it plans to unveil soon.During recent testimony before the House Budget Committee, Lee called for cuts to the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. She told The Hill the savings should bespent on mental healthcare and cancer research for troops. She described Obama as sympathetic to the group‟s foreign policy and domestic priorities. “We have beenthe conscience of the Congress and we will fight for funding priorities to be reprioritized,” said Lee at the hearing. “The president was very responsive.”





Impact: Decreased defense spending leaves the US vulnerable and hurts the US Economy.

Human Events 6/8/ 09 ("Obama: 'yes' to bailouts, but 'no' to defense?",

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32169//greenhill-ak)

Obama‟s initial cuts to 50 defense programs would grow progressively worse year -by-year. As Defense News reported May 11, “the Office of Management andBudget has signaled the [defense] department should prepare for budgets that grow only 1% a year to adjust for inflation.” Of course, inflation far exceeds 1%. For lesthan the cost of a major bailout, Obama and the Congress could assure proper funding of America‟s military and defense. According to Heritage Foundation defenseanalyst Mackenzie Eaglen, a $27 billion increase in FY2010 defense spending would meet the minimum necessary benchmark -- bringing defense spending back to 4%of the national GDP. To go beyond the minimum and keep modernizing our military, former Sen. Jim Talent (R,-M.), wrote in National Review that we must close a

$50 billion gap. Either way, it‟s less than what Washington has spent in less than a year on automaker bailouts. President Obama claims hisreductions aren’t risky, but so did President Bill Clinton when he consistently sought to underfund the military. Both then and now, the

Pentagon saluted their commander-in-chief and publicly supported his numbers. The then-Republican Congress repeatedly boosted Clinton‟s requests. Today, withliberals such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in charge, it will take bipartisan effort to undoObama’s cuts. What is on the chopping block? The ability to engage in conventional warfare. The reductions are mostly in capability to deter or defeat major threats, such as North Korean or Iranian nuclear missiles, ora growing navy such as China’s, or a nation with sophisticated aircraft such as Russia’s. For example: The F-22 Raptor. This highly-expensive

fighter is also incredibly capable, easily surpassing any other fighter in the world. Our only other new fighter, the F-35, is still at least five years away from firstdeployment. The Air Force says it needs more F-22s, but it‟s terminating production to meet Obama‟s budget targets. In a Washington Post column, Air Force Chief ofStaff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley explained: . . . last summer [we] concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. … [But] purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming moreconstrained. If 243 F-22s are a “moderate risk” isn‟t Gates‟ plan for only 187 a higher risk? And let‟s not forget what risk means: it means that lives and wars will belost. The C-17 Globemaster. As the only wide-body U.S. military cargo aircraft still in production, only it can deliver an M-1 Abrams tank or Apache helicopter to adirt airfield. It flies 80 percent of all strategic airlift missions. Obama‟s Pentagon will shut down production later this year. Shipbuilding. The U.S. Navy is key toprojecting American power around the world. Yet despite legal requirements to submit an annual shipbuilding plan, the Obama administration did not. Says Rep.Randy Forbes (R-Va.), “At a time when China is rapidly closing the 23 -ship gap between their navy and ours . . . the Department of Defense cannot or will not producea key plan for the future of our naval fleet.” Although it (so far) lacks carriers, China‟s 62 nuclear subs are only nine fewer than America‟s. The U.S. Navy states itneeds 313 ships at a minimum. It now has 283, only 251 of them in active commission. Obama has delayed indefinitely the next-generation CG(X) cruisers -- anupgrade of the current Aegis systems which would defend against both air and ballistic missile attacks. Missile Defense. Despite the proliferation of nuclear weaponsand ballistic missiles -- especially the efforts in North Korea and Iran -- Obama is ending the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program and cancelling the second Airborne Laserprototype aircraft. Anyone doubting the need for these should visit www.33minutes.com to get the facts. FCS (Future Combat System) Vehicles. Cancelled. Theseoriginated with former Gen. Eric Shinseki -- now Obama‟s Secretary of Veterans‟ Affairs -- who saw we needed a lighter, faster-responding Army. The system wouldhave created a common chassis for artillery, infantry troop carriers, battlefield assault vehicles and others components, replacing older units worn down by years of major combat operations. It was intended to enable fewer troops to handle missions, and to save billions of dollars in maintenance, fuel, and personnel costs. TheGood. Not all the decisions from Obama‟s budget-driven Pentagon are bad. The increase in purchase and use of UAV‟s -- Unmanned Aerial Vehicles -- is the rightthing to do. So was cancelling the grossly-inflated VH-71 Presidential helicopters -- but tendencies toward bloat and excess still must be avoided as that program is re-

visited. Interestingly, while Obama emphasizes “saving or creating jobs” in almost every other area, he won’t

apply it to the defense sector where his decisions will cause layoffs for tens of thousands of defenseworkers. Once those production lines close and people scatter, that cutting-edge expertise can be lost forever. When we lose highly-capableworkers on our national defense homefront, we lose the military advantage that high-tech weapons giveus. Without a strong defense industrial base, America is weakened and our troops are more at-risk.

defense spending novice da

Documents