Evidently the President has identified the one federal program that was not underfunded by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The defense budget
I'll allow those more steeped in geopolitics to discuss the message this sends to Moscow, Beijing, Teheran and some cave on the Pakistan-Afghan border, but it certaintly doesn't convey the Reaganesque message of "peace through strength"
The other problem, is much as I am a spending hawk, is we don't have a "peace dividend" to give away like we did in the 1990's. U.S. defense spending is only about 4% of GNP (relatively small compared to its 1980's level). Moreover, what is spent is now largely devoted to the "boots on the ground" deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a result of needing to properly fight these wars, much of the planned technological upgrades to the U.S, military to apply the "revolution in military affairs". haven't been rolled out quickly and are in dire need of being procured promply to avoid serious functional deterioration of American defense capabilities. (as part of the "peace dividend", a lot of 1990's era weapons like the Seawolf submarine weren;t purchased in bulk or cancelled in toto)
Case in point is the F-22. This "shovel ready" aircraft already has had it's proposed deployment reduced, although the plane it is replacing, the F-15 has been beset with numerous crashes owing to age; the planes were originally developed in the 1970's. So, the Air Force's idea to keep these planes in service beyond 2025 seems more based on political correctness than operational requirements. Not replacing the older F-15C's may make the numbers work. And that's it.
And the Air Force was playing "nickel and dime" under the Bush budgets. And this isn;t the only weapon system rolled out slowly to put off the cost. The Virginia class submarines were procured at a rate of one boat a year. Congressman Joe Courtney has been vocal in pressing for a two sub a year procurement, which will keep both the EB yard in CT and Newport News in the sub business. This is likely to fall by the wayside, as will be the goal of building 30 new subs. Even at buildout, this fleet will be inadequate to replace the Los Angeles class fleet; maybe we can keep the 688i's running; but even then we are talking about trying to secure millions of square miles of water with about 50 boats.
And let's not forget the aerial tanker debacle which the Obama team needs to address on their watch; or the fact the Navy hasn't gotten a proper replacement for their surface warfare ships in the pipeline.. And if the budget gets cut, the U.S.S. Gerald Ford may be the last flattop we launch for a very long time.
So why do I think the hardware gets slashed. Because even if Obama cuts the cost of the Iraq deployment. he;s already proposed to recommit those troops and funds into an augmented effort in Afghanistan.. And cancelling weapons systems is what Democrat presidents like to do even when the world isn't at peace.
Now for the political ramifications. The defense industry is a major component of that long lamented sector known as American manufacturing. It's employees are well paid and highly skilled. And if you don't buy weapons, these workers are forced into lower paid service sector jobs.
Now perhaps the Obama team thinks that angering folks in Georgia, where the F-22 is built doesn't matter. But the engines for new aircraft are made in Ohio and Connecticut.. And naval vessels are built in Connecticut, Maine , and Virginia . Hmm, didn;t Obama win these states---and by only a narrow edge in VA and OH?
So, look for this effort to be a major issue in House and Senate races in many states. I could readily see this being unpopular for Democrats in the open Senate seats in Ohio and Missouri (the F-18 is manufactured in St. Louis), as well as a number of House seats which have recently flipped to the Democrats ( OH 1; VA 2 ; CT 2).
The bottom line is that not surprisingly the former community organizer wants to hire more community organizers with tax dollars. while putting people who make weapons out on the street. I have to admit this is not a choice I would have thought John McCain would have made.
Yep, elections have consequences. Perhaps the trade unions at the defense plants who endorsed Obama ought to chew on that idea a bit.
