Obama spending more on defense than Reagan had at peak

The Department of Defense's new proposed budget would dwarf military spending sought during President Ronald Reagan's time in office.

According to a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the money sought by the Defense department as well as President Barack Obama's 2010 budget -- which excludes money for ongoing war efforts -- would outpace Reagan's defense spending at its peak.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a blog post that the Defense department's proposed budget would require some $573 billion in spending per year between 2011 and 2028. That request is seven percent more than what Obama requested in his administration's regular 2010 budget.

"The projection also exceeds the peak of about $500 billion (in 2010 dollars) during the height of the Reagan Administration’s military buildup in the mid-1980s," Elmendorf explained. "During that period, for example, DoD was pursuing a Navy fleet of 600 battle force ships, more than twice the size of the current fleet of 287."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77859-obama-spending-more-on-defense-than-reagan-had-at-peak

Obama inherited two wars.

Meaning that, the defense budget is bigger than Reagan's WITHOUT taking in to consideration the cost of 2 wars.

Vietnam caused the military to miss a modernization cycle, for example, a large chunk of the destroyer and escort force were based on ships and hulls built during World War II.

Additionally the increasing costs of the weapon systems (mostly in the electronics), SDI and the need to match the perceived threat of the Warsaw Pact are some other reasons Reagan spent so much. I've read several books that state that the military of the 70's was woefully unprepared and that if the Warsaw Pact had chosen to invade Europe, the only way we could have stopped them would have been first use of tactical nukes. Of course, as it turns out, the Warsaw Pact military was in even worse shape. (Major intelligence failure by the various intelligence services in NATO, not just ours)

Here is a list of Army and Air Force weapon systems introduced in the 1970's & early 1980's: F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, B-1, C-5, AH-64, UH-60, Humvee, M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley. While they have upgraded the electronics, the basic design is 25-30 years old. The YOUNGEST Air Force KC-135 is 44 years old and the plane is in desperate need of replacement.

The Navy generally plans on a 30 year life span for major vessels and a 50 year life span for aircraft carriers.

Every service plans a certain life span into the equipment and since the equipment is being used at higher then peacetime rates, it is wearing out sooner. For example the F-16 is designed with a life span of 25,000 flying hours (may not be the exact number). During peacetime they fly maybe 750-1000 flight hours per year. Now they are flying 2000-3000 flight hours per year.

The best analogy I can think of is this:
American military equipment can best be compared to a person owning a car for daily driving, no matter how well you take care of the car, no matter how well it was made in the first place, soon or later the cost of keeping the car in good running order becomes prohibitive.

What were the two wars Reagan was waging? Why was Reagan spending so much with no wars going on? Sounds like a bullshit story served up for Morning Joe and Fox fodder.

.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seems to be doing everything the right wing wants. Anyone else think the right wing is just bashing him over everything to hopefully get him out in 2012 and have a puke take over then take credit for everything?

just sayin'

:D

that this kind of war funding, the off the budget kind, was looked on poorly with the last administration.

thing as soon as our President started doing it.

I did not get the memo since I dropped out of the team. So we are supposed to like this now huh?

Starting with the infamous SGT York air defense gun. They spent a billion dollars developing this piece of shit and discontinued it when they couldn't get it to work.

They also spent billions on Star Wars, billions on the 600-ship Navy, etc. etc. etc.

Obama is faced with having to replace most of the equipment Reagan bought--years and years of desert operations will destroy a piece of equipment.

That salary cost is huge.

They get paid a lot more, though. And their equipment is a LOT more expensive today than it was in, say, 1985. Humvees back then were about $40,000 each; today they buy uparmored ones that cost $140,000 each. Ammo is more expensive and they're buying more of it to ensure troops get the training they need before they head to war. Food is more. They're actually building barracks rather than having Repair and Utilities sergeants try to keep the old ones from falling apart.

Get with the program--stamping out dissent allows no time for niceties like reading!

But don't let that get in the way of ripping a Democratic President.

All quibbling aside, look at it pragmatically; What would happen to any President who cut military spending while troops were fighting wars in two countries?

for inflation" is implied.

:hi:

Priorties.

Hey, those 100 Al-Quadea in Pakistan must be worth it...

...though homeland security is part of the reason why.

(note this chart includes the cost of the 2 wars)

while pleading poverty to the American people.

:shrug:

How does that become "Obama's" defense spending? Looks like some jiggery-pokery to me, but what do I know?

The two inherited occupations would keep spending higher than Reagan's, no matter if escalated in Afghanistan or not.