2/21/12

Ridgecrest, Calif. —
As Ridgecrest and China Lake await word on the next Base Realignment and Closures, the proposed defense budget could invite unexpected impacts for the county and state.

On Feb. 13, the Obama administration presented its 2013 budget to Congress, with projected defense [...]]]> The Daily Independent

2/21/12

Ridgecrest, Calif. —
As Ridgecrest and China Lake await word on the next Base Realignment and Closures, the proposed defense budget could invite unexpected impacts for the county and state.

On Feb. 13, the Obama administration presented its 2013 budget to Congress, with projected defense budget cuts to $487 billion, described by Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, as “over $45 billion less than the President’s request for last year.”

Public data for 2010 shows California businesses earned over $43.24 bullion supporting America’s defense. Under the defense cuts of 9 percent for 2013-2021, annual business losses could total approximately $3.89 billion. The “sequestration” level of 18 percent cuts to the Defense budget, state business losses for the year could total about $7.78 billion.

With data based on the national averages, the Center for Security Policy gathered data to project economic impact reports for individual states and counties.

Statewide, small businesses drew in about $3.8 billion in 2010. The report indicates a $342 million revenue loss under a 9 percent reduction or a $684 million loss with 18 percent cuts. Whereas veteran owned companies took in $558 billion statewide in 2010, a 9 percent cut would total about $50 million or 18 percent is about $100 million.

Kern County spent nearly $500 million in 2010 on weapons systems – a 9 percent cut would mean a loss of about $45 million or $89 million under an 18 percent cut. Approximately the same amount across the board could be lost countywide for contracting and products and services.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center, stated: “A weaker national defense threatens the security of the United States and its allies. Furthermore, to the extent that those in favor of cutting the defense budget argue that such cuts are necessary to strengthen the economy, this report shows the opposite to be true. Drastic cuts to defense of 9 percent – and under the “Sequestration” cuts required for 2013, at least 18 percent – will cause irreversible damage to America’s industrial base and R&D capabilities.

“Local employers, citizens and communities will bear the brunt of these cuts. The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will allow them to prepare for this impact and to enlist their elected officials in mitigating it.”
Full reports and more information can be found at forthecommondefense.org, centerforsecuritypolicy.org and comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html.

Source: http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x1793842033/Defense-cuts-could-have-impact-on-business-in-the-state

2/17/12

Is it just me, or do you also feel that the nation is being surrendered?   The question is: To whom or to what, and why? Several factors appear to reveal this scenario, but one of the most prominent is the impending disarmament of our defense forces [...]]]> Patriot Post

2/17/12

Is it just me, or do you also feel that the nation is being surrendered?   The question is: To whom or to what, and why? Several factors appear to reveal this scenario, but one of the most prominent is the impending disarmament of our defense forces that is unprecedented in our history.

For one thing (and yes, I know, I have repeated this lately in other blogs and topics) the U.S. had been reduced during the Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton years to the point where our defense capability was such that we could not respond to a series of terrorist attacks that culminated in the fateful 9/11 attacks on the U.S. We simply did not have the capability at the time to respond adequately to the threats that confronted our nation, because the defense slashers, including Clintonista Leon Panetta, who now is Obama’s Secretary of Defense, but was back then one of the principal architects of base closings, troop reductions, and massive defense reductions, had sliced up the Pentagon and its charges severely.

The solution, to be able to answer in a limited way,  the 9/11 attacks, was to “federalize” the National Guard and activate our reserves by turning them into “regular” troops. Even aspects of our Coast Guard have been sent overseas to serve. While many argue that the tactics we used in Iraq were inadequate and some say incompetent, until the effecting of “the surge,” the underlying problem was that until that time there were not enough trained and experienced personnel to do the job. This is no fault of the troops themselves, for they stepped up to the plate and carried out their missions in exemplary performances, wherever they were needed. However, our troops certainly suffered casualties and fatalities, far above what was necessary due to the premature use of “not regular” forces, at least in the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Today our already reduced armed forces, padded with National Guard and Reserve troops, regardless of how well trained and maintained the force is, is going to undergo additional cuts and reductions. Now a wholly inadequate Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, armed force, which has been artificially propped up with Reserve and National Guard troops is going to be further decimated, and that decimation is tantamount to a scenario of surrender.

Frank J. Gaffney of Investors . com is flashing red lights and issuing the warnings:

“The budget that President Obama unveiled on Monday does its best to conceal the magnitude and implications of his plans for our military. But the cumulative effect of the spending cuts it does specify, together with those that are statutorily required but as yet unacknowledged, is unmistakable: The U.S. military’s might will be transformed from that of, and befitting, a global superpower to that of just another cash-strapped, if glorified, regional power.”

Gaffney provides a stunning observation, along with a graphic representation of Defense spending shriveling as entitlement spending swells and says:

“This is not an accident; it is by design. The evidence of Mr. Obama’s true intentions towards our armed forces and their ability, on behalf of the nation, to project power is all over the just-released 2013 budget…Let’s start with what Mr. Obama has described as his new “defense strategy” — a blueprint for the armed forces that supposedly justifies cutting at least another $487 billion from Pentagon accounts. In fact, that strategy is purely a budget-driven exercise: We are being told what we can afford and then what we will do with that amount…What he thinks we can afford in the way of national security capabilities bears a surprising resemblance to what hard experience has branded as a “hollow military.” That is, the sort of force we have been left with in the past when successive presidents thought we could safely cash in “peace dividends” in the wake of victories or, at least, when serious security threats had receded.”

Gaffney covers the hollow arguments of the Surrender minded President presenting the discrepancies of “pivoting” from where our defenses are now and redirecting them toward the Far East. It’s simply not doable, he says.

“Even if we do disengage substantially from the Middle East to concentrate on China, does anyone really believe that the transformed Obama strategy, which will only allow for one-conflict-at-a-time strategy, won’t invite Iranian or other aggression while we are confronting the Chinese? Apart from America’s enemies, is that the kind of “change” anybody is hoping for?”

And then there’s the looming problem of “sequestration.” That’s the scenario in which, if Congressional actors cannot come to an agreement, automatic cut-backs are mandated by legislation that would add further reductions.

Even Defense butcher Leon Panetta was joined by Hillary Clinton in warning that such an eventuality would be devastating to the nation:

But even before the current slice and slash scenario was even considered, the previous Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates issued repeated warnings about heavy handed scissoring of our defenses.

Putting this in context, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen warned that the greatest threat to our national security is our National Debt:

The once Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and now President of the Center for Security Policy, Frank J. Gaffney concludes his article (which you can see HERE) with this forceful refrain:

This makes it astounding, not to say scandalous, that the true extent of the devastating transformation to the national security now in the works is not being disclosed by what candidate Barack Obama promised would be ‘the most transparent administration in history.’…What is transparent about the president’s defense program is that it involves what he considers to be undesirable employment and industries, not the kinds he favors…So 100,000 troops and Marines will be forced out of uniform, a million jobs may be lost in the defense sector and businesses doing vital work for the national security may have to close because they didn’t happen to involve “shovel-ready” transportation jobs, green energy or other favored activities…We simply cannot afford this sort of transformation — and the dangerous world into which it will plunge us, wholly unprepared.”

The President’s agenda becomes clear when one puts in context the wide panorama that comprises his political strategy. Without a strong military, the U.S. cannot defend its interests and its holdings. In order to ensure that our defenses are limited, he must ensure that we are vastly in debt and have a weakened economy. In this wise he justifies cutting the Pentagon budget.

Additionally there is a more severe price for unwitting citizens to pay, for not only is Obama disarming the nation’s armed forces, he seeks also to disarm its citizens. The recent buzz about Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s failed gun tracking program, Fast and Furious, which was actually a front for a way to justify anti-gun legislation here in the U.S., has recently backfired. But it has brought to light the extent to which the Obama administration is willing to take measures in order to implement his agenda.

Add to the aforementioned situations the following contingencies that have already come to fruition:

1. The deteriorating unbridaled acceleration of the national debt, the deficit spending, and the prominent absence of anyone demanding that it stop, and then taking the steps to make it stop.

2. The unprecedented unchecked massive corruption of Legislators via lobbying efforts, government favors, government kick-backs, outright bribery, financial favoritism, conflicts of interest. One despicable example: They actually had to pass a law to prevent Senators and Representatives from indulging in “insider trading.” The level of ethics is such that refusal to do that is not coming from within themselves; that is, they have not found it possible to refrain from indulging in insider trading, and have to have a law passed to keep them from doing so, even though there are laws already on the books that make it illegal for you and I to indulge in insider trading.

3. The extreme prevalance of conflicts of interest between bankers, Wall Street, Financiers, and the Federal Reserve, leading to massive benefits for those inside the financial circles and their interests, because there simply aren’t checks and balances or laws existing on the books that make it illegal, like the Fannie/Freddie fiasco, the “derivatives” and the subsequent bail-outs.

By design or by default, the apparency is that not only are our Defense Forces being decimated, our entire society is being dismantled piece by piece.

Combine these factors and you have a formula that begs the question: To whom or to what is our President surrendering? And more importantly, WHY?

And even more pressing is the question: “What are YOU going to do about it?

Source: http://www.libertynews.com/2012/02/17/obama-plans-to-defend-america-with-less-defense/

2/17/12

The Obama Administration brought its 2013 budget before Congress, with projected defense budget cuts that could mean trouble for Ohio’s businesses.

In 2012, President Barack Obama limited the U.S. military capability to fighting one regional conflict and one holding conflict. Defense budgets [...]]]> By: Lauren Sega
The New Political

2/17/12

The Obama Administration brought its 2013 budget before Congress, with projected defense budget cuts that could mean trouble for Ohio’s businesses.

In 2012, President Barack Obama limited the U.S. military capability to fighting one regional conflict and one holding conflict. Defense budgets for 2013-2021 were cut $487 billion — a 9 percent cut.

Sequestration, required by law in 2011, mandates $500 billion more in 2013-2021 defense cuts — an 18 percent cut.

Many are concerned for Ohio’s counties, cities and industries.

“Local employers, citizens and communities will bear the brunt of these cuts,” said Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the American Center for Security Policy in a press release. “The Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports will allow them to prepare for this impact and to enlist their elected officials in mitigating it.”

Public data for 2010 shows Ohio businesses earned over $6.62 billion supporting America’s defense. Under these 10-year defense cuts of 9 percent, Ohio annual business losses could be at least $596 million.

At the Sequestration level of 18 percent in defense cuts, Ohio annual business losses could be at least $1.19 billion.

“Drastic cuts to defense … will cause irreversible damage to America’s industrial base and R&D capabilities,” Gaffney continued.

These planned budget cuts could also hit small businesses.

From 2000-2010, 6,433 Ohio businesses provided goods and services for America’s national defense, 213 of which were minority owned, including 85 owned by Black Americans, 20 owned by Hispanic Americans, eight owned by Native Americans, 41 owned by Asian-Pacific Americans and 59 owned by other minority Americans.

Small businesses also include 210 woman-owned businesses and 261 veteran-owned businesses, including 65 owned by service disabled veterans.

However, post-secondary education remains a priority on the 2013 budget.

It expands access to college through Pell grants, maintaining the grant at $5,635 through 2014-2015, a $900 increase from 2008, which will ensure post-secondary education for up to 10 million students.

The budget would also give more aid to universities that keep tuition affordable, provide good value, help needy students and increase funding for work study jobs while shifting aid away from schools that fail to do so.

It offers a $1 billion investment that will challenge states to increase the affordability of higher education. It suspends the scheduled increase of subsidized Stafford loans, which are set to increase this summer from 3.4-6.8 percent; and makes the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a partially refundable tax credit, permanent.

The proposal includes an $8 billion investment in community colleges for training workers in high-growth industries. It would meet Obama’s goal of training 2 million unemployed Americans with skills to find a job.

A new Community College to Career Fund would also be created, providing grants to schools as incentive to partner with businesses and offer training in fields like health care and clean energy.

This fund is managed jointly by the Labor and Education departments and would provide paid internships for low-income students and financial assistance to small business entrepreneurs.

While defense cuts could cause trouble for Ohio’s economy, pushing more people into college and into the workforce could counteract this. His plans provide people of all incomes with the opportunity to gain a job.

Source: http://thenewpolitical.com/2012/02/17/obamas-proposed-budget-may-mean-trouble-for-industries/

As we near the end of the war in Afghanistan, we are reminded of the terrible costs of war, and the importance of avoiding them whenever possible. Yet, the drastic defense budget cuts triggered by the debt-ceiling deal could actually make it more [...]]]> Col. Eric Rojo
Daily Advertiser

As we near the end of the war in Afghanistan, we are reminded of the terrible costs of war, and the importance of avoiding them whenever possible. Yet, the drastic defense budget cuts triggered by the debt-ceiling deal could actually make it more likely that we’ll be drawn into more ground wars in the future with even higher casualties.

By mandating an unprecedented $500 billion reduction across every defense program, the debt ceiling deal cuts would cancel plans to modernize our fleet of fighter jets, bombers and combat ships, and to upgrade our intelligence satellites and drones and develop military innovations that also double as breakthrough commercial products –– like microwaves or GPS. According to economists, the cuts also could put 1.5 million Americans out of work.

 If we can’t control the airspace, gather better intelligence and direct quick airstrikes against enemy fire, more foes could be tempted test our capabilities and resolve. Our troops could be exposed to higher casualties like they haven’t been since the 1950s.

While Washington needs to take its medicine and trim spending, these defense cuts are poison pills for our national security and our economy. Congress should take a cue from medical ethics: first, do no harm.

Source: http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120215/OPINION/202150312/Closing-Detox-Unit-step-backward

2/15/12

As lawmakers debate cuts in the defense budget from national security and deficit reduction perspectives, outside groups are pushing back from the viewpoint of local economies.

Washington, D.C., home to hundreds of defense contractors and a workforce that relies on the military, could [...]]]> By: Emma Dumain
Roll Call

2/15/12

As lawmakers debate cuts in the defense budget from national security and deficit reduction perspectives, outside groups are pushing back from the viewpoint of local economies.

Washington, D.C., home to hundreds of defense contractors and a workforce that relies on the military, could be among those hardest hit.

Using publicly available data, the conservative Center for Security Policy and the Coalition for the Common Defense prepared reports for every state and the District of Columbia to paint a picture of how local businesses and jobs could be affected by plans to slash military spending in fiscal 2013 and beyond.

Obama’s proposed $613.9 billion defense budget for the upcoming fiscal year, unveiled Monday, would reduce funding from current levels for every major line item with the exception of operations and maintenance.

In the event that Congress cannot agree on other cost-saving legislation, $500 billion in automatic spending cuts to the defense budget, known as sequestration, would begin to go into effect early next year.

“A freight train is heading our way, and our hope is, at a minimum, people will start getting ready for it, and preparing communities for what will be a very, very substantial impact,” said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy.

Gaffney’s organization found that more than 1,000 D.C. businesses earned about $1.84 billion in 2010 supporting the defense industry. Over the next 10 years, those businesses could see revenue losses of more than $166 million.

And should sequestration of the defense budget go into effect, D.C. defense businesses could lose more than $332 million, according to the group’s findings.

Combining these numbers with those in Northern Virginia and Maryland, where other defense contractors are based, the region could lose even more money and jobs, Gaffney said.

“The extent to which you see what’s going to happen as a region is really devastating. It probably has more of an accurate picture than if you’re looking at the District itself,” Gaffney said.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told Roll Call that she is dubious of the numbers, coming from a pro-defense group, but not of their implications.

“I don’t have any reason to know where these figures came from,” she said, “but I have assumed all along that my district would lose jobs and other opportunities we’d otherwise have due to sequestration.”

Norton added, however, that if anything was going to put pressure on Congress to find an alternative to sequestration, it would be figures such as these.

“I think that these numbers, or numbers like them, do exactly what the hammer of sequestration was supposed to do,” she said. “You want to avoid sequestration? [Congress] must sit down and do the hard work, make necessary cuts without impeding growth. … We ought to have a balanced approach, and the hammer of sequestration is to help us reach that balance.”

Source: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_96/Group_Paints_Grim_Picture_of_Defense_Cut_Effects-212428-1.html?pos=hbtxt

2/15/12

FORT WAYNE – The nation’s defense is Allen County’s bread and butter, according to a think tank.

The Center for Security Policy says the local economy could lose more than $155 million a year over the next decade if military spending cuts are [...]]]> By: Brian Francisco
Journal Gazette

2/15/12

FORT WAYNE – The nation’s defense is Allen County’s bread and butter, according to a think tank.

The Center for Security Policy says the local economy could lose more than $155 million a year over the next decade if military spending cuts are enacted as scheduled.

Much of the projected dropoff would come from Fort Wayne defense contractors, which manufacture communications and electronic equipment, and from the city’s Air National Guard base. The drain would be felt by a variety of suppliers, the center says in a report issued this week, including those providing bakery and cereal products, food services, fuel and oil, furniture, computer software, screws, hoses and bearings.

The report lists more than 170 products and services the military has contracts for in Allen County.

“We just want to show that it’s going to hit your community,” center spokesman Travis Korson said Tuesday in a phone interview.

“Ultimately, the big guys are going to pull through,” Korson said about local plants operated by Raytheon, ITT Exelis and BAE Systems. “It’s the third- and fourth-tier suppliers for these defense contractors, a lot of these small businesses, that are really going to feel the pain.”

The Center for Security Policy is a non-partisan, non-profit policy group that supports a strong national defense. It gathered its data from federal procurement documents, which pegged military spending in Allen County at $862 million in fiscal year 2010.

Nearly $1 trillion in U.S. defense reductions is planned for fiscal years 2013 through 2021, roughly half of the total in “sequestrations” triggered by last year’s Budget Control Act. The sum represents at least an 18 percent reduction in defense spending, the center reported.

Allen and Whitley counties would be among the five counties in Indiana facing the largest declines. Whitley County, home to Undersea Sensor Systems, could lose nearly $16.4 million a year. The Department of Defense spent $91 million in Whitley County in fiscal 2010.

Six other counties in northeast Indiana – Adams, DeKalb, Huntington, Kosciusko, Steuben and Wells – would lose a combined $2.2 million in yearly military expenditures, according to the Center for Security Policy.

“There is definitely a headwind at the defense industry. I don’t think that’s a secret to anyone,” Tim White, vice chairman of the Northeast Indiana Defense Industry Association, said Tuesday. “There are things we are doing to mitigate it, to manage it.

“Fortunately, most of the companies in Fort Wayne are not specifically tied to a major platform, like the Joint Strike Fighter. That provides a lot of flexibility,” said White, who works for ITT Exelis, which produces communications gear and weather-monitoring instruments. “We also have international sales.”

Bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House to stall defense sequestrations for a year, Korson said.

Even as the United States has withdrawn forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, “there are a lot of threats out there we still need to contend with,” Korson said, citing tensions with Iran, North Korea and China. “I think a lot of people are starting to realize that now.”

As part of the military budget cuts, the Air Force intends to retire A-10 jet fighters flown by three Air National Guard bases, including the 122nd Fighter Wing in Fort Wayne. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd, said this week he might consider pursuing legislation to prevent the move.

“If it takes legislation, we may go that route,” Stutzman said Monday.

He said he is working with Rep. Todd Young, R-8th, a member of the House Armed Forces Committee, in an effort to keep A-10 squadron in Fort Wayne. The base has been flying 16 to 18 of the A-10 jets and was scheduled to add a few more.

“What we’re going to push for is to say you should put more A-10s at our Air Guard bases rather than having the A-10s at active military bases,” Stutzman said. “If you want to save money, this makes sense.”

Col. David Augustine, the 122nd Fighter Wing commander, has said the local base costs 28 cents for every dollar spent at an active-duty Air Force base, in part because the fighter wing flies out of Fort Wayne International Airport.

The Air Force wants to replace Fort Wayne’s A-10s with nine to 11 twin-engine propeller planes used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Source: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120215/LOCAL12/302159925/1002/LOCAL

2/15/12

Federal defense spending cuts could result in a $61 million revenue decrease for Jefferson County, according to a new report.

The Center for Security Policy has compiled an economic impact report on how defense budget cuts taking effect in 2013 might impact the Alabama economy.

As we near the end of the war in Afghanistan, we are reminded of the terrible costs of war, and the importance of avoiding them whenever possible. Yet, the drastic defense budget cuts triggered by the debt-ceiling deal could actually make [...]]]> Rear Adm James J. Carey
Ventura County Star

As we near the end of the war in Afghanistan, we are reminded of the terrible costs of war, and the importance of avoiding them whenever possible. Yet, the drastic defense budget cuts triggered by the debt-ceiling deal could actually make it more likely that we’ll be drawn into more ground wars in the future with even higher casualties.

 By mandating an unprecedented $500 billion reduction across every defense program, the debt ceiling deal cuts would cancel plans to modernize our fleet of fighter jets, bombers and combat ships, and to upgrade our intelligence satellites and drones and develop military innovations that also double as breakthrough commercial products –– like microwaves or GPS. According to economists, the cuts also could put 1.5 million Americans out of work.

If we can’t control the airspace, gather better intelligence and direct quick airstrikes against enemy fire, more foes could be tempted test our capabilities and resolve. Our troops could be exposed to higher casualties like they haven’t been since the 1950s.

 While Washington needs to take its medicine and trim spending, these defense cuts are poison pills for our national security and our economy. Congress should take a cue from medical ethics: first, do no harm.

Source: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/feb/14/defense-cuts/

2/14/12

The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first of a potential $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade in what critics say is a policy that will leave the military under-equipped and ill-prepared to meet future global threats.

The Pentagon released [...]]]> By: Bill Gertz
Washington Free Beacon

2/14/12

The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first of a potential $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade in what critics say is a policy that will leave the military under-equipped and ill-prepared to meet future global threats.

The Pentagon released President Obama’s budget request to Congress, which calls for $525.4 billion—a cut of $5.2 billion for fiscal 2013 beginning Oct. 1. It also includes $88 billion for overseas war funding.

The budget is the first under a new defense strategy that calls for smaller U.S. military forces. It is also the first under the 2011 Budget Control Act that requires a cut of $487 billion over 10 years.

The administration defended the budget as part of a new strategy that will make the U.S. military smaller but more agile and efficient.

Critics said the cuts are being made at a time when the military needs to be rebuilt after a decade of conflict and as weapons systems developed since the last buildup in the 1980s are becoming obsolete and in need of modernization.

The cuts also come as the militaries of both China and Russia are being modernized with new conventional and nuclear forces.

Observers say the administration appears to be waiting to make larger defense cuts next year, after what the president hopes will be his reelection in November.

“Today’s budget doesn’t change the trajectory for $1.5 trillion in cuts under the Obama Administration,” said former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. “Like the rest of the budget, it is designed with the November election in mind—the mask will come off within nanoseconds of an Obama victory.”

On Capitol Hill, the budget met with opposition from Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

“The President’s budget is a clear articulation of Mr. Obama’s priorities; reduce resources for our struggling armed forces, and redirect them to exploding domestic bureaucracies,” said McKeon. “This budget reflects a true reduction, in real terms, of military spending while we have troops in combat. It irresponsibly ignores the looming threat of sequestration, while failing to adequately address threats posed by our adversaries around the world.”

McKeon noted that despite the administration’s announced “pivot” toward Asia and away from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it calls for retiring nine ships and cuts 16 other ships from plans for new warship construction.

Tactical aviation also took a major hit in the budget, with a call to cut 13 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters totaling $1.6 billion.

Another cut that is likely to be controversial in Congress is that of health benefits for the military. The budget requires new copays for the military’s TRICARE health plan and will increase enrollment fees, adjust deductibles, and place new caps on catastrophic health coverage. It also proposes slower military pay raises starting in 2014.

The changes are expected to save $29.4 billion over five years.

Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, said the budget reflects efforts by the administration to fundamentally transform U.S. defense capabilities.

The new budget will result in reducing the size, modernity, and readiness of armed forces, and “understates what is really happening to our military,” Gaffney said.

“It does not reflect the $330 billion in reductions that have already been made in the past three years,” said Gaffney, a defense policymaker during the Reagan administration.

“It also does not show the effect of the next $500 billion that are mandated by law but will be obscured until after the election. Taken together, the effect will be to transform the U.S. military might alright, from that of, and befitting, a global superpower to that of just another cash-strapped, if glorified, regional power.”

The budget keeps the 11 aircraft carrier strike groups currently operated by the Navy.

For the Air Force, the budget will demobilize 18 of the new long-range surveillance drone Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft.

Todd Harrison, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA), said the Global Hawk cuts were made “despite the fact that Air Force leaders have repeatedly lamented that the service now has the oldest inventory of aircraft in its history.”

The Army will eliminate at least eight brigade combat teams and the Marine Corps will cut one artillery battalion and four tactical air squadrons.

Air Force cuts will include six fighter squadrons comprising 303 aircraft, including 123 combat aircraft, 150 mobility and tanker aircraft, and 30 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft.

Funding for cyber warfare is $3.4 billion, for missile defense is $9.7 billion, for space systems is $8 billion, and for science and technology is $11.9 billion.

Funding for strategic nuclear programs includes a proposed $25.1 billion through 2017 for urgently needed modernization of U.S. nuclear forces, including improvements in the B61 nuclear bomb, D5 Trident missiles, and Minuteman III missile arsenal.

A new long-range Air Force bomber also will continue to be developed.

“While the budget reaffirms the nuclear triad for now, maintaining current capabilities in each leg of the triad will require substantial investments beyond the five-year period covered by this budget,” said CSBA’s Harrison.

Source: http://freebeacon.com/obama-budget-slashes-defense/

2/14/12

Colorado businesses could lose hundreds of millions of dollars, up to more than $1 billion, under proposed federal defense budget cuts for fiscal 2013, according to a national security organization.

The Obama administration proposed a 9 percent defense cut that would result in [...]]]> By: Ann Schrader
Denver Post

2/14/12

Colorado businesses could lose hundreds of millions of dollars, up to more than $1 billion, under proposed federal defense budget cuts for fiscal 2013, according to a national security organization.

The Obama administration proposed a 9 percent defense cut that would result in $608 million in annual business losses, said the Center for Security Policy, which describes itself as nonpartisan. Under that scenario, “Colorado businesses may have to fire workers,” the group said.

With sequestration, or automatic cuts, to whittle the federal deficit, there would be 18 percent in defense cuts. The group said annual Colorado business losses could be greater than $1.22 billion, and some businesses may have to shut down.

DigitalGlobe of Longmont, which provides high-resolution satellite images to several federal agencies, primarily through the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, is concerned about a potential cutback.

The Obama proposal also has potential effects on Colorado aerospace businesses that receive NASA funds. The space agency’s proposed budget is down $59 million to $17.7 billion in 2013.

The Orion spacecraft being built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in south Jefferson County receives $1.2 billion in the proposal.

NASA’s commercial crew program, which supports private companies in developing spacecraft and rockets to low-Earth orbit, would receive $830 million under the Obama plan, up sharply from the $406 million approved for 2012.

Sierra Nevada Space Systems of Louisville has received more than $100 million from NASA to develop its Dream Chaser space plane, and United Launch Alliance of Centennial has received $6.7 million to certify its Atlas V rocket for human spaceflight missions.

The next-generation national weather satellite system being developed by Ball Aerospace & Technologies of Boulder and Raytheon Co. in Aurora gets continued funding of $916 million.