Worrying About 2011's Defense Budget
The way the Federal budget process works is that the current year budget is being executed after being passed by Congress on or about October 1st of the previous year. The next year's budget is on Capitol Hill to be reviewed and voted on by Congress, and the budget for two years later is in development within the Executive Branch.
Right now the 2009 budget is being executed which is President Bush's last one. The 2010 is on the Hill and was shaped by Secretary of Defense Gates and the Obama administration. The 2010 budge saw significant proposals to restructure the planned acquisitions of the armed forces with the end of DDG-1000, F-22, C-17 and Future Combat Systems (FCS). The total dollar amount was a slight increase over last years; and as long as the U.S. is involved in Afghanistan and Iraq it will have to be.
In a normal defense budget despite the conventional wisdom the only real discretionary costs are to investment programs -- research & development and procurement. If you have a certain size force it costs so much to pay, house and provide them and their families benefits. To carry out continuing operations you need to buy fuel, bullets and consumable parts and supplies. The only "fat" is stuff you are buying to modernize or upgrade the existing force. In times of lean budgets you have a decline in investment, forces and operations.
There are many in the defense realm who are suspecting that is the future of the U.S. defense budget and will start happening in 2011. During the Clinton years there was a rapid decline in the size of the armed forces, the civilian support staff and buying new programs. In the Seventies under Carter you also saw a loss of readiness as existing equipment and troops did not receive the funds they needed to maintain operational capability.
If Obama is going to make these kind of major cuts to the U.S. military the first hint will be in the 2011 budget. The 2010 budget sent to Congress ended in that year. Unlike most budgets there were no projections for the next five years spending by program. This means that major changes are coming and they may be beyond just ending a few acquisition programs.
Recently the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) a private organization that supports the Army had a meeting in Huntsville, AL where the worry that major changes to spending might be made in 2011 was raised. Huntsville is a city whose economy is heavily dependent on the Army and NASA and has seen boom-and-bust periods related to the defense budget.
It is more then the just the idea that defense contractors and those in the military are worried that they will lose their gravy train. Certainly any acquisition program has its supporters for that reason alone -- especially the local Congressmen who see jobs leaving their district -- but based on the history of the U.S. many in the military have seen, read or heard about times when the military were denied funding and then when a crisis came could not meet it or took several months to get ready.
Former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Cody, was once quoted as saying when asked about the deployment cycle and stress on the current Army after 9/11 that the problem was the Nineties when eighty percent of the active duty Army was done away with. In 1990 there were eighteen active and ten National Guard divisions available. Now there are ten and six, who might be better paid and equipped but sometimes you need manpower. This is what some are worried about.
In February 2010 the 2011 budget will be released and expect major changes that might include slashing of overall spending for the first time since 2000.