backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by marvdmartian.. on Apr 24 at 8:32 AM

Major budget cuts could have ramifications for all US military branches in the years to come.

Due to increased scrutiny and frustration, the U.S. federal government is shifting monetary budgets with procurement and research and development projects likely receiving a $66 billion cut if spending caps aren’t adjusted. 
 
The current five-year spending plan is more than $115 billion above mandated defense-spending caps, which could have major ramifications.  The budget cuts would hit everything from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II to the Airbus Light Utility Helicopter and Boeing KC-46 tanker.  In addition, the U.S. Army wouldn’t be able to acquire new Black Hawk helicopters and Stryker double-hull vehicles might also face cancellation.


Boeing KC46A Tanker [Image Source: Wikipedia]
 
Moving forward, the DoD will focus on research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), with an estimated $63 billion spent in 2014 alone.  One of the business sectors of the RDT&E program, the Future Years Defense Plan, will see its budget continually drop – from $20 billion in 2009 down to $10 billion by 2018.
 
“There’s a difference between spending money and spending money smartly,” said James Hasik, Atlantic Council senior fellow.  “There are folks out in the world who make the argument that you have to spread money around the world wildly, because money spent on research is just good because it just leads to development.  This is not a compelling argument because there are dead ends against which you can continue to apply money and not get very far.”
 
DoD officials want to make sure basic research funding and early-stage development both receive funding through the red tape, though this will force other future military technology research onto the shelf.  
 
Congress is evaluating another wave of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) papers in 2017, giving the DoD the ability to close bases on an individual basis.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: US was folowing the USSR
By Mint on 4/22/2014 4:40:11 PM , Rating: 1
Who is welfare spending crushing, exactly?

You think all the companies getting business from these welfare spenders are complaining? The restaurants getting food stamp money, or the groceries getting welfare and EI money, or the farmers selling food to both of those businesses? Cut out this primary demand and you get nothing but layoffs.

Just what do you hope to achieve in the economy with entitlement cuts? Who is going to replace all that demand?

All that happens is the wealthy have less gov't debt to buy, so they put their money in the bank instead for equally crap interest, and banks have more deposits than they know what to do with (hence excess reserves). The economy shrinks (can't produce what nobody is buying) and unemployment gets worse, so what's the point?


RE: US was folowing the USSR
By Spuke on 4/22/2014 4:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think all the companies getting business from these welfare spenders are complaining?
What does that have anything to do with the federal budget where welfare spending IS the largest chunk of spending by far and the place that must be cut in order to get out deficit under control. Let me put it to you this way. if we reduced the military to zero, we'd STILL have a deficit. Comprende?


RE: US was folowing the USSR
By ianweck on 4/22/2014 6:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
By your logic, if we increased entitlement spending to 80% from the current 60%, the economy would be in even better shape? Wise up man. The only way out of this is to create more jobs. Not more handouts.


RE: US was folowing the USSR
By ianweck on 4/22/2014 6:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
Comment meant for Mint, not Spuke.


RE: US was folowing the USSR
By boeush on 4/22/2014 10:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
@Mint,
quote:
Just what do you hope to achieve in the economy with entitlement cuts?
A balanced budget, for a change. A steady draw-down of the national debt, back toward a safe and sustainable fraction of the GDP.

Unless we do the above -- and soon -- we will all go broke as a nation. Our currency will be on a guaranteed trajectory to worthlessness, because we will eventually be forced to default.

The only times debt financing makes sense, is in the context of:
1) investment into major long-term projects that are reasonably assured to eventually more than pay off the initial investment
2) dealing with an unplanned-for catastrophe that must be tackled in the here and now despite the fact that saved cash isn't available or is insufficient to do so

Day-to-day spending on wage or health care subsidies does not fit that bill. As you obliquely note, it's nothing but pulled-forward demand. It's the economic analogue of the 'stimulus' a meth junkie gets from a hit; over time the 'stimulus' ceases to stimulate and becomes a mere daily necessity of survival. Then, when the next big crisis unfolds, there's no more ammunition left in the 'stimulus' magazine -- it's all been frittered away on non-emergency everyday necessities -- while the health of the financial body is so severely compromised that it's unable to tackle the additional insult. What follows, is financial death.

So, what would one hope to achieve with a balanced budget? The answer is nothing short of long-term fiscal survival. The near-term withdrawal agony is inevitable, of course. But it sure as hell beats death.


RE: US was folowing the USSR
By SPOOFE on 4/23/2014 3:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think all the companies getting business from these welfare spenders are complaining?

In Los Angeles at least, yes, many do.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki