Snowmageddon February 9, 2010
Posted by Rebecca Williams in News.Tags: snowmageddon
4 comments
Budget Insight will be back up and running just as soon as the snow stops falling and the government reopens. In the mean time, here’s a list of family-friendly DC terms for the recent snowfall shenanigans:
Snowmaggedon
Snowpacolypse
Say it ain’t Snow
Snow Country for Old Men
Snow-bama
Snowtorious B.I.G
SnOMG
Snoverkill
¡Snow no Más!
Snowmergency
Snowverdose
Snowbliteration
Catastrasnow
Snowzilla
Snownami
Snowclone
All Snowy on the Eastern Front
The Greatest Snow on Earth
Snowruption
Snowphoon
An Inconvenient Snowstorm
Alexander Snovechkin
Chersnowbyl
Do you have others? Add them to the comment section!
Today’s News February 9, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
-
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today pledged surplus mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles along with expanded access to classified information to U.S. allies to help in combating the threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan.
-
While officials at post said that some officers in stretch positions perform well, others told us that the inexperience of entry-level officers serving in mid-level capacities can have a negative impact.
-
Oshkosh has signed contracts worth some $4 billion and counting to supply over 6,600 of its “MRAP light” M-ATVs – which military officials say is desperately needed to traverse the unpaved roads of Afghanistan — to Army units whose hulking MRAPs sometimes prove too heavy to navigate the Afghan terrain. But how much lighter is it really going to be?
In Today’s News February 8, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
-
The big funding increase for nuclear nonproliferation has become, at this point, a well-developed part of the narrative surrounding the new FY 2011 budget. But how much did the FY 2011 budget show on new nuclear bombers and submarines?
-
Defense Department officials are working to cut extraneous and wasteful programs, despite a requested modest increase for the fiscal 2011 budget, the department’s chief financial officer said.
-
The Admirals claim they want a bigger fleet, yet no one wants to cut a particular battleship program.
In Today’s News February 5, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
-
Long before the earthquake killed tens of thousands in Haiti, there was a running civil conflict, horrific public health crises, et cetera. Aid agencies including the UN and U.S. government offices simply could not raise enough funds to prevent so much suffering from violence, tuberculosis, and other threats in Haiti.
-
“The bottom line is, the [irregular warfare] stuff doesn’t cost a lot,” Work said. “You can buy a riverine [naval boat] squadron for a lot cheaper than you can buy a DDG-51 [destroyer]. … If you look at the increasing capacity for irregular warfare that we’ve had since 2006, it’s very, very impressive.”
-
The Navy’s 2011 proposed shipbuilding budget, released Monday, also shows that the estimated cost to build the next-generation aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, increased $685 million — or 6.3 percent — over a one-year period. The carrier now is estimated to cost $11.53 billion.
-
One thing is clear – the Navy did great in this years budget. A recognition of the advantages of naval power is evident in the Obama administration, even during very difficult economic times.
In Today’s News February 4, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
-
While the results of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) have yet to be released, we can be sure that at least one decision has already been made: Full steam ahead on a major refurbishment study for the B61 gravity bomb.
-
The Millennium Challenge Account, which funds the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), saw an increase of $175 million over last year, bringing the total to $1.28 billion for FY2011. Last year Congress approved $1.08 billion for the MCA.
-
The U.S. Senate began debate on the 2011 defense budget Feb. 2 where debate left off on the 2010 budget last fall – on the C-17 cargo plane, the alternate F-35 engine and the F-22.
-
The fiscal 2011 Defense Department budget request continues an overall reform agenda and seeks a total request of $708 billion in budget authority, the Pentagon’s chief financial officer said.
New CBO Study Projects Rising Unbudgeted Defense Costs for Next 20 Years February 3, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in Analysis.Tags: CBO, Defense Budget, Defense Department
add a comment
The CBO recently released a report on the long-term implications of the FY 2010 defense budget passed in December 2009. CBO estimates that real defense costs will, on average, exceed planned baseline projections by about $59 billion annually for the next 20 years.[1] The baseline is effectively CBO’s illustration of how DoD expects its budget planning to play out through 2028, holding current law and policy constant and applying the price assumptions of DoD’s plans for 2010 and beyond.
CBO itself is not a policy shop and so makes neither recommendations nor budgetary policy forecasts. However, it would be difficult to interpret indefinitely rising real defense costs in virtually every category as a fiscally sustainable trend. The probability that costs are set to exceed current DoD budgeting planning should lead the reader to consider not whether defense spending ought to increase further to match burgeoning projections, but instead whether DoD’s already-vast resources might be allocated more efficiently to maintain the national defense.
Here are some highlights from the text of the report, predicting real increases in almost every major category of defense spending.
- The report attributes roughly 35 percent of the total unplanned excess to war costs, including the 30,000 troop increase expected to be engaged in “overseas contingency operations” through FY 2028. A significant portion of the remainder comes from failure to account for probable rises in DoD personnel real pay, benefits, maintenance costs for aging equipment, and new equipment R&D costs. Total defense costs in real terms are projected to rise almost every year out to 2028, eventually rivaling the peak spending levels of the Iraq War during FY2007.
- “…carrying out DoD’s 2009 plans for 2010 and beyond…would require defense resources averaging at least $573 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) from 2011 to 2028” (p. 1).
- “Including unbudgeted costs increases the projection to an annual average of $632 billion, or 18 percent more than the regular funding requested for 2010” (p. 1). (more…)
In Today’s News February 3, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
-
President Barack Obama’s FY 2011 budget request for global health totals $9.6 billion and includes funding for global health activities within the State Department, USAID and HHS, the Wall Street Journal reports. “That compares with $8.8 billion enacted for fiscal 2010,” according to the newspaper.
-
Lockheed Martin expects to be held to aggressive cost and schedule targets for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter despite the U.S. Defense Dept.’s decision for development and production based on more conservative independent estimates.
-
The U.S. Navy’s new 30-year fleet plan demotes the previous goal of a 313-ship fleet to a mere “point of departure” for developing a new fleet. The service estimates it can buy the ships in the plan for an average of “no more than $15.9 billion per year” in 2010 dollars. And for the first time, the Pentagon submitted to Congress a 30-year aviation plan for the Air Force and Navy.
-
The Defense Department just released its king-sized, $708 billion budget for the next fiscal year. About $56 billion goes simply to “classified programs,” or to projects known only by their code names: the Pentagon’s black budget.
-
According to calculations by the U.S. Global Leadership Council, the overall international affairs budget will see an entire increase of 2.8 percent over fiscal 2010 in the fiscal 2011 budget request, including supplemental funding.
In Today’s News February 2, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and power.
OMB Director Peter R. Orszag’s blog entry on FY 2011 budget.
Budget Director Peter Orszag and Council on Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer explain Obama’s 2011 budget.
Though President Barack Obama announced a three-year discretionary federal spending freeze during his State of the Union Message last night, it won’t apply to defense spending. The initiative, to begin next year, won’t affect national security programs, the president told a joint session of Congress gathered at the Capitol for the address.
Last year’s Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act will impose “extreme complication” on already difficult procurement decisions, according to Mark Lorell, senior political scientist at the Rand Corp.
The Blog of Legal Times has an update on the Colton v. Clinton case: The State Department filed its motion to dismiss a case challenging the U.S. Foreign Service’s mandatory retirement policy, arguing the age cutoff was a valid piece of Congressional decision making.
The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: Separating the U.S. civilian and defense missions February 1, 2010
Posted by Rebecca Williams in Analysis.Tags: QDDR, State Department
2 comments
by Gordon Adams
Also published at The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
The State Department and USAID are in the midst of conducting an unprecedented Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which is intended to bolster the civilian capabilities of U.S. statecraft. It is taking place in the context of calls by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen to enhance our civilian capabilities in order to avoid the “militarization” of U.S. foreign policy. This, of course, is a positive step forward.
But I’m worried. I’m worried because instead of focusing on national strategy and the country’s civilian mission, the QDDR has addressed the problem somewhere in the middle, focusing on how to build State/USAID capabilities so that they fit with a “whole of government” approach to U.S. foreign policy.
“Whole of government” is an attractive bumper sticker. But it seems as though State isn’t asking fundamental questions about strategy and mission: What is the “whole of government” supposed to be doing, and what is the civilian mission in that mix? Without answering these questions, “whole of government” runs the risk of meaning, “Let’s fix the problems we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
In other words, a QDDR centered on this mission is likely to focus on programs that solve the Pentagon’s problems in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq (e.g., training foreign militaries, police, and security forces), instead of focusing on the civilian mission of supporting good governance, poverty reduction, and stronger international partnerships. Indeed, an early draft of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was explicit about such a focus: “Years of war have proven how important it is for America’s civilian agencies to possess the resources and authorities needed to operate alongside the U.S. Armed Forces during complex contingencies at home and abroad.”
But the problem extends beyond program focus. It also is a problem of defining the State/USAID mission and providing both agencies with the capability to perform their missions. The first place to start: Give State/USAID missions of their own, rather than missions set out by the Defense Department. Only then can the QDDR create a capability that puts the civilian agencies on par with Defense at the policy-making table, allowing them to help the president set and implement the country’s foreign policy and national security agenda.
At the moment, Defense is defining that agenda, which is understandable. Defense and the military are the most focused planning, strategic, and operational institutions in the U.S. government. So they are taking the lessons of 9/11, the conflict in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War and applying them to the rest of the globe. Consequently, as the forthcoming QDR will make clear, Defense is reconstructing the military to focus on counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and stability operations and on how to build State/USAID capacity to help them do so.
This kind of “nation-building” has a very specific, combat-driven meaning to Defense and the military: stabilizing and reconstructing the countries that the United States has invaded (such as Iraq and Afghanistan) and training their security forces and anyone else in the country that might help us confront terrorist organizations. Where they’ve needed help is in winning civilian hearts and minds through short-term economic and governance projects–a task they want State and USAID to take on.
Without a clear civilian mission defined in the QDDR, this is exactly what State and USAID could end up doing, with the capabilities necessary to establish good civilian governance, long-term development, and global partnerships getting secondary priority.
Obviously, it would be foolish to ignore global realities. Terrorist organizations do want to harm the United States, and weak, fragile, and failing states could provide them with safe harbor, presenting a major problem for international security. But there is a real downside to torquing the QDDR to fit Defense’s mission.
While it’s true that Defense has a lot of people, money, and logistical capabilities–not to mention a global reach–policies and programs for governance, reconstruction, and development aren’t its core strengths, as the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate. There, the military effort to strengthen governance and economic recovery was–and is–focused on the short-term. Not surprisingly, the results have been uneven and unsustainable. They might meet the near-term “hearts and minds” needs of counterinsurgency (though the jury is still out), but the programs aren’t designed with Iraqi and Afghani governance and development needs in mind. (more…)
President’s FY 2011 Budget Request Released February 1, 2010
Posted by Alexander Brozdowski in News.add a comment
The Executive branch’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request has been released. Fact sheets for the Department of Defenseand Department of State and other international programs can be found online from OMB, as well as budget breakdowns by topic and for other departments. The overall federal budget request for FY2011 totals $3.8 trillion.
The DoD budget request for FY2011 is $708.3 billion. With a $33.0 billion supplemental for FY2010, the estimated total Defense spending for FY2010 will equal $693.4 billion, a 4.1% increase over FY2009. Assuming this supplemental for FY2010, the planned percent increase in Defense spending for FY2011 will be 2.1%; without the supplemental factored in, FY2011’s request would amount to a 7.3% increase over the planned FY2010 budget.
The request for State and international programs in FY2011 equals $56.8 billion, with a $4.5 billion 2010 supplemental, bringing the estimated FY2010 State total to $55.2 billion.
At 10:45 this morning, the President gave brief comments on the budget in a televised address, affirming his intent to establish both a bipartisan commission on federal deficit reduction and a return to Pay-As-You-Go legislative budgeting policy.
