Obama’s Defense Budget Increase
by Big Dog on Apr 2, 2009 at 13:38 Political
I wrote recently that Obama was cutting the military budget and the lefties out there informed me that programs were being cut, not the operational budget which Obama has actually increased. We do not know if he has increased it because the people in the Department of Defense (DOD) had to sign non disclosure statements. The public report was a 4% increase but how do we really know this is the case if people were sworn to secrecy? It seems strange to me that the most transparent administration in history (just ask them) would do something like this.
Let us assume there was an increase and that it was 4%. It is now clear why that increase was needed and it is clear that it was not for military operations. An increase was needed so that Obama could use military aircraft to ferry around his 500 person entourage. The Washington Times reports that Obama’s trip to Europe has strained the Air Force because more aircraft were needed to fly all the additional people to Europe. It has so taxed the Air Force that the service had to use private contractors to accomplish its mission to resupply our forces in Afghanistan.
The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.
The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president’s entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London.
Airlift for the traveling entourage also was used to move the president’s new heavy-armored limousine and several presidential helicopters used for short transits.
To make up for the shortfall, the Air Force had to increase the number of Eastern European air transport contractors hired to fly Il-76 and An-124 transport jets into Afghanistan loaded with troop supplies, the two officials said.
The airlift crunch comes at a particularly difficult time, as the military is stepping up deliveries of supplies in advance of a surge of 21,000 U.S. troops.
Couple this with Nancy Pelosi’s demands on the Air Force and her use of it as a personal airline and it is no wonder that the budget would need to be increased.
Why did he need 500 people with him? Why was it necessary to take resources away from our war fighters in order to send him and this huge contingent to Europe?
For you liberals who make claims about the military budget and how Obama is so supportive, keep this in mind before you make any claims:
One official said the problem was not only the vehicles and helicopters that were needed for presidential security, but also the unusually large number of people traveling with the president. The official said U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for airlift, once for Air Force jets that are not available for a war zone and again for foreign contractor aircraft that are. [emphasis mine]
No wonder Obama would need to increase the military budget. Taxpayers now have to pay two times for the Air Force to accomplish its mission.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: air force, defense budget, europe, Military, Obama, waste
Nope, the article to which you linked in your original post suggested that the cuts were to programs.
The money in the budget is the money being budgeted to the DoD. It is increased from the previous budget by I think 3.9%, but I will have to double check to be sure. The non-disclosure agreement was for the details of the allocation of the money provided in the budget.
Randy, you can only assume what the non disclosure was for because they cannot disclose it.
I have been in the DOD long enough to know what a budget cut and a budget increase is. This 4%, if it goes through (the budget is not done yet) is what, enough to keep up with inflation. There is no real increase in the operating budget.
Programs being cut so that money can go to welfare.
I am not for a huge defense budget but since social programs are 3 times more expensive we need to cut them. Remember, only one of those two expenses is in the Constitution.
Funny, you’re still telling lies about Pelosi and her plane despite the story being debunked years ago now.
You always claim that something was debunked though your idea of debunked is some left wing site (or Soros funded site) says it is not true.
I believe the people in the Air Force. Pelosi makes demands for certain aircraft and she flies her family around.
Tony Snow said it wasn’t true.
Well, we can surely verify that by asking him, Oh wait…
I claim it was debunked…because it was debunked. Just because the truth again has a liberal bias I guess that makes it OK for you to just ignore it and once again substitute your own reality. As Randy pointed out, Tony Snow said it, but this source is obviously biased so I don’t expect you to believe me.
The problem is, you are using a source from a few years ago that does not address the issue to which I refer. I do not think any Speaker should have a plane but if that is what they are doing then she takes what she gets. This story makes it clear she wanted one that would make it to California. They all will but some have to stop for fuel. If that is not good enough there are plenty of commercial planes available.
The more recent stories involve her demands for a G-5 aircraft and the demands she makes of the military. The planes are for the Air Force, not Pelosi. She should take what she gets and be happy.
Nothing is debunked here. The issue is Pelosi’s demands which the story clearly shows are true and recent emails and stories show are still continuing. The White House defended her having the plane. If that is what they decide, then fine but she still makes demands for certain types of aircraft.
There isn’t anyway I would believe anything that Obama says. His whole campaign was a lie, and he doesn’t care what the American people want, only what he wants. I hope some eyes are opened during these Tea Parties on April 15th.
Wherever the $$ is coming from it is being paid by us and our taxes to send this man and a county of people over to Europe for a iPod and a smile. Wasteful and useless – this whole administration so far has been a joke.
Right. Obama and his wife should have just flown coach over to Europe with their own money, taken a cab from the airport, and checked themselves into HoJo’s while they waited to meet the queen. I mean, it’s just the G20 and it’s not like the POTUS and FLOTUS need constant security or anything.
The Obama administration has been a joke only to those with early onset derangement. From the rest of us out here Obama has strong approval and is moving forward with some big goals. Nobody acts like Obama has been perfect so far but remember that just because Drudge, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are telling you Obama is a failure doesn’t make it so. It just makes it sad that you listen to those folks.
“Big goals”? What would they be?
Looks to me like he wants to take every dollar for his ‘goals’, which seems to be controlling everything in the country.
Hey Adam, stop the Alinsky methods of debate. No one said that Obama and his Klingon wife should not fly in AF One. What we are asking, and rightly so, is why he needed 500 people with him. Why did the military need to be disrupted to fly them around?
So cut the oh poor Obama no one wants him to have a plane crap and look at the real issue. Why so many people? Why so many Secret Service? Why so much equipment?
He is suppose to be so much better and so much more wonderful than everyone else then why does he do what others did not?
As for his job, unlike you Kool Aid drinkers, I can decide for myself what is good and what is bad.
The media will help him keep high ratings until something really bad happens. Then it will be too late.
He does not know what he is doing. He cannot lead and he is spending recklessly.
He is a ROOKIE and he is enslaving us to the debt.
OBAMA:
CHAINS we can believe in.
I think it’s fine for you to hate his policy. It’s not fine for you to think that because you live in a bubble of right wing fanatics that you are the norm and that there isn’t a larger majority of people out here who like me both voted for Obama and support his policies so far. Is that so much to ask for?
I don’t need to listen to anyone to see that he’s a failure – I can see that all by myself. Sure, he needs security but an entourage in this time of “fiscal responsibility” is over the top. And you would think he was a success only because you subscribe to his socialist beliefs. I think he is the most dangerous and damaing President we have been unfortunate enough to have. He’s unable to keep his word, unable to represent MY country as he should, and is wasting my money by campaigning and playing on late night TV.
Don’t spar with me on this, Adam. I don’t have time to suffer fools drinking the punch. You think he’s a success – good for you. But don’t try to impose your mental disorder of liberalism on those of us who value of personal freedoms and Constitutional rights.
Look, I’m not going to go too much into debate because you and I don’t really know each other but I will say this:
There are apparently two groups: Those of us who think Obama is doing an OK job so far (though not perfect by far) and the country is headed in a better direction, and your side who thinks Obama is a failure and a disaster.
One of us is on the fringe and I’m pretty sure it’s not me.
Americans stand behind Obama and his policies so far. Obama’s approval and favorability ratings are high 50’s mid 60’s. They’ll fluctuate of course as Obama makes more policy decisions. He can’t please everybody. The number of Americans feeling the country is headed in the right direction has nearly doubled from 15-20% to high 30’s low 40’s now and still rising.
When only Obama’s numbers start to mirror those of Bush’s where only 20-30% of folks support Obama and only 10-20% of folks like the direction the country is headed, we can talk about failure and disasters. Until then you’ll always be on the fringe just crazy enough to say I’m the one with the mental disorder.
Those of us who think Obama is doing an OK job so far (though not perfect by far)and the country is headed in a better direction,
OK for a dictator? huh and headed for more centralized control?
I’m sure you were just as outraged at the size of the Bush delegation to London in 2003.
How big was it, did it divert military aircraft and if it was that big, then yes.
I did not know about it, if it was that big. 500 people?
It will help to note that the article to which you linked only purports two unnamed officials suggesting that these aircraft were diverted. There are always 2 C-5’s reserved for such delegations, and every military official that went on record, according to the article, disputes the fact that any aircraft were diverted.
It is also worthy to note, in light of your criticisms of Adam’s sources, that the article is from the Washington Times, whose founder believes he is the second coming of Christ. Literally. And unlike our current President, attached the name Messiah to himself.
…or this delegation:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22365589-5001021,00.html
This post is a suggested read at, http://www.aresay.blogspot.com/
Adam,
Popularity polls do not a leader make. I don’t care what his approval is. More and more people are balking at the huge expenditures and the way he is doing the job.
The polls can be easily skewed. They can ask more blacks than whites to skew it, or more Democrats. Fact is, Clinton had high approval ratings and ran the country by polls and he allowed the NORKS to be where they are, the Chinese to be as advanced in missile technology, and he emboldened bin Laden to attack us. If he had kept the right head in the game we would have been better off.
This is not a democracy so we don’t take a poll and say Oh Boy, 55% like something so it must be OK.
If we took a poll that said 60% of people think all Democrats should be executed would you be OK with that because of a poll?
Bush was not a failure. Media manufactured polls will not change the way history views him.
Carter, he was a failure and Obama is doing the same things on a much larger scale. Obama will be considered a failure when all is said and done.
Oh yes, it’s always the polls that are skewed and not your perception of reality. Right.
Let me just once again remind you that a large majority of folks voted for Obama, support his policy so far, and a growing group like the direction of the country and even the work of Congress.
Simply shouting that Obama is a failure because you don’t like his policy doesn’t mean squat in the real world because you folks are simply marginalized pathetic holdovers to this shell of a Republican political party with no direction and no policy whatsoever.
You’re going to have to really make some big changes or Democrats are going to have to blow it big time before you are given another chance. Democrats shouldn’t act like that day will never come but for the time being they can rest a little easy knowing the Republicans are still drowning in their faked outrage.
Well, as you pointed out about Bush, Obama has no mandate because a large number of people did not vote. Of registered voters, a lot did not show. Under your rules, he has no mandate.
A large number voted for him but they are not happy with the spending, except of course the slugs who want others to pay for their lives.
We will see in 2010. So long as Democrats do not commit more fraud, like disenfranchising the military (they do it a lot and now in New York) and keep the dead from voting things will be quite different.
Faked outrage, like the stuff you guys showed during 8 years of Bush.
Democrats WILL screw up big. They already are by applying failed methods to fix an economy.
It won’t work. When it takes a truckload of money to buy a loaf of bread then you will know. You won’t admit it and will say we need to spend more, but deep inside you will know.
Who is John Galt?
When that comes true let we can talk. Your incessant jumping of the gun is kind of getting funny.
And when I talk about big changes I didn’t mean 137 Republicans voting for a budget that calls for a spending freeze in the middle of a recession. The sheer unabashed lunacy of your party’s leaders should worry you but it seems to instead be emboldening you. Sad.
Spending freezes, tax cuts and fiscal responsibility are the way out. If spending prevented economic problems we would not have any.
So how will a spending freeze help the recession? I guess maybe you still think our bad debt created a recession and not the other way around.
You are still saying that line about spending already and it’s simply not true. We were not spending money geared toward creating jobs and boosting the economy. We were simply throwing money down a hole and burning it all the name of tax cuts for the rich and for contracts related to wars waged in the name of terrorism.
On one hand you seem to acknowledge huge public spending in a time of war boosted our economy and ended the depression but then you turn around today and act like spending will not stimulate.
The impact of war was that millions of people got jobs. The men who went to fight and the women who stepped in to do their jobs.
We are not spending money that creates jobs. Look, the unemployment rates are still going up.
Obama says this will take until next year (in time for elections, no doubt). That is like sending a letter to the Fire Department to tell them your house is on fire.
The return on investment is not there. It is costing hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars per job that is allegedly created.
And if you want debunked, the idea that tax cuts are for the rich has been debunked. The greatest recipients were the middle class. That is an absolute fact.
Problem is, you think that if a person WHO PAYS NO TAXES does not get a refund it is a crime. I think the crime is giving them the money that others paid.
So remind me again why Obama’s proposals either won’t directly create jobs by funding projects or won’t stimulate demand which calls for more jobs?
And just let me add that this multi-threaded conversation is out of control…
Adam, inflation will be huge. It has been showed time and again. You guys who learn finances from liberal places don’t learn anything.
Why is it out of control?
As for policy, the reality is you don’t want others to hate his policy or to see what is wrong with it.
If you want to slobber all over him that is your business. The issue is when someone disagrees or points out the problems they see you attack them for having that view.
I do not like him and I KNOW what he is doing will not work. Since he is stealing my money to pay for it I have a right to say something about it. The slugs who pay no taxes have no right to say how tax money is spent. IT IS NOT THEIRS.
I just mean out of control as in hard to keep track of the conversation. There must be 6 different conversations in here somewhere starting at different points in the order of comments. But anyway…
So explain to me more about the inflation and why we’ll have it, and when it’s been shown.
If only 5 Mickey Mantle baseball cards exist they are all worth a lot of money. If millions exist they are not.
If we flood the market with fiat money, such as we are doing now, the dollar will lose its value (or more of it). This causes a loss of purchasing power. Look at some of the other countries where it takes millions of their monetary unit to buy a cheap item.
Check the inflation of the 70s and see what you come up with. Check other country’s (more third world) currency and see why it takes billions of something to buy a $2 item.
One cannot continue to print money and flood the market without decreasing the value of the dollar. This will result in paying more for goods.
I see what you’re saying. So from what I’ve seen and read some inflation is anticipated by the federal reserve because they increased the money supply but this is not a permanent policy but just a temporary measure for the recession just like dropping the fed fund rate to near zero.
A panel of both liberal and conservative economists I saw speak a few weeks ago seemed to believe strongly in the monetary policy enacted to create more money during a recession. The very conservative economist that I’ve seen several times now who studies the depression seemed to believe the monetary policy alone would be enough and he thought Obama should roll back the fiscal stimulus if it in fact appears to be correcting itself with monetary policy alone.
You say “fiat money” like it’s such a bad thing…
And part of the reason Carter is so unpopular from an economic standpoint is that he apparently did what a president more concerned with his legacy like Clinton may not have been willing to do, actually set in motion a recession in order to stifle the crazy inflation despite the fact that it was one of the things that doomed his hope for a 2nd term…
Adam,
Carter’s policies were what led to the inflation. How the recession started is another issue.
Fiat means made out of air. We cannot just keep printing money. Remember the baseball analogy. If you keep printing it, it will be worth less.
Carter’s policies led to his problems and the inflation. Inflation is usually a temporary problem but it can last a long time. Flooding the market with extra dollars will lead to more and more problems.