Government Spending

Obama Will Cut Waste & Inefficiency in Defense by Jacking it Through the Roof


The time for action is over, the time for bullshit is now.

President Obama talking today:

"We've got to look at everything, including our security spending, in order to achieve the goals that we need."

And yesterday:

White House and Pentagon officials later confirmed that Obama was proposing another $400 billion in cuts on top of the savings projected over the next decade in the administration's fiscal 2012 budget. The already-detailed cuts would produce more than $400 billion in savings through fiscal 2021, officials said.

And in his 2012 budget proposal (table S-3) lays out security spending that rises from $815 billion in 2012 to $1.039 trillion in 2021.

Now, I realize that I'm just simple English major, but what part of "already-detailed cuts" am I missing? I look foward to a decade in which my salary gets "cut" by 27 percent.

Obama's words yesterday about the deficit (to call them a speech is really giving them far more credit than they merit) was precisely what we should have expected from a president who took an incomplete last year on what is arguably the single-most basic task of that office: pushing a budget through. That he failed to do while his party controlled both houses of Congtress is not simply historic (only time it's happened since new budgeting rules were put into place in 1974) but getting right up there with NPSM of the past.

I am no fan of the Paul Ryan budget alternative and I hope that doesn't come into reality either (largely because of its basic unreality when it comes to a mismatch between outlays and revenues). But even his leave-security-alone budget only raises that line item to $838 billion in 2021.

Did my grandparents emigrate to America so their grandkids could live in an America where a Republican spendthrift proposes spending less money that we don't have on "security" that we don't need than a Democrat? I hope so, cuz this is America in 2011 and, apparently, 2021.

NEXT: Fertilizing Farms with Tax Dollars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

109 responses to “Obama Will Cut Waste & Inefficiency in Defense by Jacking it Through the Roof

  1. I could do with a negative 27% salary ‘cut’ myself.

  2. You don’t understand, Nick. It’s assumed that a Republican has balls. A Democrat has to prove he has balls, by targeting U.S. citizens for murder, starting wars that even a Republican wouldn’t, spending more money on defense than George II, etc., etc.

    1. I think I’d rather him be a unich then.

    2. ^^Look at what just fell out of my ass!^^

    3. So, basically, never vote for Democrats?

  3. Are you calling the President a liar?
    He clearly said ‘We need to look at everything, including our security spending…” Look he did, and apparently concluded it should go way up (unlike the ratbagging teafucking GOP which his minions attack for proposing increased defense spending.)

    1. Is English his first language? Maybe instead of “look at” he meant “watch.” Watch it go up like the Saturn V used to.

      1. What are you saying? That he’s not from this country?

        1. What, are you saying that everyone from this country speaks English as a primary language?

          1. Based on my own experience, NOBODY in your country speaks English.


      2. That’s how I use to explain the difference between “look at” and “watch” to non-native English speakers. You watch moving things. You look at stationary objects.

  4. If what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan & Libya is perceived to be “humanitarian” & a necessary foreign policy direction for the US, he hasn’t jacked up the military budget enough.

    The conservatives want a Hummer. The liberals want a brand new hybrid. We can only afford a used compact.

    We end up with a remarkably expensive hybrid Hummer that breaks down every month & much less efficient than the compact… which gets us around just fine.

    1. Those motherfuckers need to buy a used beater for $1000 like Dave Ramsey is always telling people to do. Fuck a new compact car. No new debt.

    2. Nothing wrong with a hummer, unless she uses a lot of teeth.

      1. or smokes menthols.

  5. Cuts in DC-ese means a cut in the rate of growth, not a, you know, actual cut. It’s all for the rubes to make the Potomac Piss Pot seem less noxious, and for the plutocrats to remain in power.

    Debt Bell is tolling.

  6. Did my grandparents emigrate to America so their grandkids could live in an America where a Republican spendthrift proposes spending less money that we don’t have on “security” that we don’t need than a Democrat? I hope so, cuz this is America in 2011 and, apparently, 2021.

    Um, what?

    1. That statement is brilliant in concept, egregiously executed.

      1. This falls short.

        Nick’s lede was fantastic though.

  7. When federal workers see their paychecks increase by 5% instead of the 8% they demanded, they complain of a 3% cut in pay.

    These people are seriously fucked in the head.

    Oh, and Nick, I believe the third word is a typo.

  8. Make no mistake. I am a liar.

    1. i know barack. barack’s a friend of mine. u aint no barack

  9. “The time full action is over, the time for bullshit is now.”
    The time FOR action…?

    I look foward to a decade in which my salary gets “cut” by 27 percent.
    I look FORWARD to a decade in which my salary gets “cut” by A 27 PERCENT INCREASE…?

    An English major? Really?
    (Otherwise no argument with what you say.)

  10. Obama is aging visibly, maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll have an early heart attack like so many African American men do.

    1. I fail to see Biden as the answer

      1. Would be a lot funnier.

        1. He’d have the first SOTU with sound effects and laugh tracks.

          1. Hey!

      2. Couldn’t be worse

      3. President Biden? I think I’m gonna vomit…

  11. I look at the Ryan plan and think “nice starting point, lets see how we can cut some more.”

    But most of my fellow citizens seem to think even the Ryan plan is “extreme, draconian, decimating, baby killing, etc.”

    How did I get so out of sync with the rest of society? Am I insane or are they?

    1. Unfortunately, you’re not insane. The rest of society has the same attitude as my eight year old son, who just doesn’t understand why he can’t get everything he wants without doing his chores or his schoolwork on time and without making the rest of us miserable.

      1. yep ur insane

    2. I think the trick is to make it readily apparent there’s no way to provide all the things the public wants just by taxing “someone else” ie the rich.

      Typically when people say “I want the gov’t to do X” what they really mean is “I want some free shit at someone elses expense.” The number of people who want X drops off significantly when they realize they have to pay for it…

  12. Obama – Liar
    Bush II – Liar or deluded fool, you pick
    Clinton – Liar
    Bush I – Deluded fool
    Reagan – Liar who deluded an entire party of fools permanently
    Carter – Deluded fool
    Ford – Deluded fool
    Nixon – Liar
    LBJ – Liar

    I’m detecting a pattern

    1. When Nixon talked out of both sides of his mouth, he was lying out of both sides of his mouth.

    2. Care to take the list back to George himself?

      1. It gets redundant

    3. Is it too late for Zombie President Coolidge?

      1. The business of America is braaiiiiiiinnnnnnnnssssssss

        1. You have my vote.

    4. Well, my grandfather did say Truman was the last president worth a damn….

      1. depends on perspective stupid-san

  13. Off the top of my head, it’s the Clinton years all over again. A “modest rise” in spending is a “cut” because it didn’t go up as much as the given agency had desired.

  14. You had to know once he was rooting for the Steelers against the Cardinals in the Super Bowl a few years ago that he was going to be in favor of a robust and aggressive “defense”

    1. I’d have thought he believes football is a game for the bitter people who cling to guns and god.

  15. Maybe the Ascended One will ask the Joint Chiefs to hire fifty thousand Inspectors General. To ferret out waste. And that other stuff.

    1. Perhaps they could start a new, never-been-done-before program. They could put Joe Biden on it and call it “Making Government Work”.

  16. I fail to see Biden as the answer.

    If Obama has accomplished nothing else, he has completely eliminated any real reluctance on my part to seeing Biden take the top step. How could it be worse?

    1. Worse? How could it be worse?? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!

      1. So, you’re saying that we should stone him?

        1. I don’t know…I was too busy talking to Big-nose.

          1. I do not have a big nose.

            1. Better keep listening…might be a bit about “Blessed are the big noses.”

        2. No one is to stone anybody, until I blow this whistle!

    2. Try Biden with a “sympathy mandate”, veto-proof, Congress, because that’s what you’ll get if Barry O trips over his silver tongue and tumbles down the Air Force 1 staircase. (See 1964 election.)

  17. With all the new weapons the Chinese and Russian communists are building, do you really want to cut defense? If anything we don’t spend enough. For example, the Chinese have a new stealth plane, we need 1000 F-22s, not 180. The Chinese and Russians are also building aircraft carriers. We need more. Many jobs depend on defense, it is what our economy is all about.

    1. We have nukes dumbass.

      1. Deterrence, only. They’ll never be used, unless Skynet gets its way.

        1. skynet has no chance babieeee

        2. Yes, they will DETER the Chinese from attacking us.

    2. ahem, not so fast. They’ve rolled out a prototype each, about where we were 15 yrs ago. Even so, it takes more than an airplane to make on a first rate airpower, namely access to ground/space/air sensors (ie AWACS), robust data links, sensor fusion so the pilot can make use of all the info, integrated Elec Warfare suite, an AESA radar, training/doctrin and tons of flight time and realistic exercises, powerful engines w/ supercruise and high MTBF, an air refueling capability, proven/sophisticated precision guided weapons, and a solid hardware/software upgrade program to roll out new capability when it emerges.
      They’ve entered the arena, but are still aways off from being a peer.
      And lets not forget they still need to borrow top gun footage to spice up their propoganda:…

    3. OMG, they’re just now figuring out how to build aircraft carriers and you’re wetting your pants? How do you sleep at night?

    4. All I can say about a Russian aircraft carrier is that I wouldn’t want to be aboard one.

    5. Whoever this is, it isn’t Fred. Sounds a lot like Tony though, trying to goad us into revelaing what he hopes will be our true right-wing nutjob credentials.

  18. Having spent a good portion of my adult life as a part of the DOD bureaucracy, I can tell you first hand we could cut defense spending significantly and if we did it the right way pay little or no price in readiness. We have way too many officers. The officers we do have are of too high a rank (too many generals and colonels). We let contractors fuck us up the ass at every opportunity. And we spend way too much money on staff and bullshit bureaucracy. Right off the top you could derank the military by cutting the number GO positions in half and either getting rid of the positions all together or filling them with Colonels. And then mandate all general staffs be cut by 25%. You could do all of that and never affect readiness. And save a ton of money.

    1. David Stockman concluded, in the early days of the Reagan admin., that the Pentagon budget could be cut 25% without damaging military preparedness.
      535 congressmen and senators thought otherwise.

    2. We can get rid of the standing military completely as long as we have 2 or 3 thousand nukes.

      1. Yeah, that’ll work for low intensity and/or conventional conflict. next idea…

        1. No, it won’t. See?

          1. but since we have 5000 not 2000 nukes, we can keep our military babieeeee!!

        2. Since we won’t have a standing army we won’t be involved in any low intensity or conventional wars…see how that works?

          1. Costa Rica and Switzerland don’t have armies and how many wars are they involved in? 0, maybe?

            1. They (the swiss) don’t? You may want to fact-check that first. Besides, being famously “neutral” does not mean they don’t have a need for armed forces. Strategic nukes don’t do you a whole lot of good in a conventional, invasion scenario.
              We should trim the DoD, not abolish it.

              1. Let’s see you attack my country with conventional weapons, I nuke your country back to the stone age. I also use tactical nukes on your battle fleet before you can even land any troops. Seems like it might work to me.

                1. Israel has nukes. By your logic they should just get rid of their conventional forces and nuke gaza/lebanon, etc. Smart idea. “See how that works?” You underestimate the deterrent effect of nukes in an irregular conflict and way over state how ‘easy’ the decision is to use them.
                  Study just a little bit of military history or strategy and then maybe you can talk intelligently on the subject vs the kindergarden level. But then again, what do I know I’ve only got a Masters in it.

                  1. By your logic they should just get rid of their conventional forces and nuke gaza/lebanon, etc.

                    Not Lebanon. Syria. I know the Mideast is complicated and all, but geez, do a little research before you go nuking people.

      2. We can get rid of the standing military completely if we hand out full-auto rifles to every adult.

        I want a black one.

    3. currently sitting in an air staff job, I would agree w/ that. Although we could sure stand to lose a few redundant programs along the way too.

      1. As much as I think the concept of a railgun is teh awesome, I’m not sure the navy really needs it.

    4. Wait, are you saying that we don’t really need a nursing home for admirals and generals like JFCOM?

      1. JFCOM

        Fighting yesterday’s wars tommorow.

        Yeah. JFCOM and ARCENT and USAEUR and USARSO and STRATCOM and NETCOM and a few others.

        My favorite story about the Pentegon the last few years is how they came to give the Judge Advocate General of the Army a third star. They said he needed the third star because you had to be a three star to get into a lot of the important meetings at the Pentegon and after Abu Garib the lawyer needed to be in those meetings.

        So it never occured to anyone to just let the fucking lawyer into the meeting no matter what his rank was? Nope, had to give him a three star and by implication a bunch of other people below him stars. Those were the rules. Amazing.

        1. Hey, think of all the jobs the insignia manufacturer will have to eliminate if we stop handing out General/Admiral stars like Crackerjack Surprises!

        2. Try giving legal advice to a 4-star or undersecretary without a bunch of stars on your shoulders (or chest now and see how that goes.

          1. Bullshit. They knew the legal advice. And also the TJAG isn’t even that big of a deal as a lawyer in washington. The big dogs are at OLC to the President and the Solicter General’s office. And the system worked just fine for decades. It was just an excuse to hand out stars.

        3. Actually, the first thing that needs to end is NORTHCOM.

    5. Current working in DoD, significant changes to the procurement process could probably knock another 20% off of your figure without impacting preparedness.

      Spending $500 million in R&D costs to buy 5 examples of something just makes no sense on any level. We need to start far fewer major R&D programs and buy more examples when we’re through…..

      1. It makes sense if you look at DOD as a welfare program for you cronies back home. So from Congress’ perspective DOD is great.

  19. “Hope” and “Change” has turned out to be hoping to find some change underneath the sofa cushions ’cause we’re gonna have to live on that.

  20. lol, Obama is a pitbull with no teeth, all bark, no bite.

  21. Obama’s words yesterday about the deficit (to call them a speech is really giving them far more credit than they merit)

    “I wrote a speech, and I wrote it myself! *chuckle, chuckle*”

  22. “The more you spend, the more you save!”

  23. It’s worth linking to Nick’s NPSM article, if only for this:

    “an economy that has received more stimulation than John Holmes in Saturday Night Beaver”

    Sorry, I just have a soft spot for the clever porno version of movie names.

    1. “Honey, I Blew Everybody!”

  24. I propose a 10 trillion dollar budget for 2012. I will accept 3 trillion. There I just cut 7 trillion in one year! I am the greatest!

  25. It is a cut, because it is not as big and increase as I could imagine in my wildest dreams. So there.

  26. On the bright side, spending oneself to prosperity is officially not working in San Francisco.

  27. Table S-3 is the adjusted baseline– IE the current budget. Obama’s proposed budget is Table S-6, which lowers defense spending to $699 bil.

    Your simple English major has failed you.

    1. S-3 is in nominal dollars. S-6 is in inflation-adjusted, population adjusted dollars. S-4 is the unadjusted proposed budget, which has defense as $8,55.9 bil. So you’re both wrong.

  28. I realize that I’m just simple English major

    This explains a lot, Nick. I would suggest keeping that little nugget to yourself. Haven’t you ever talked to an English major? Horrifying.

    1. I was thinking he sound more like Russian major.





    Barack is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He wouldn’t wanna deprive his home-boys of much-needed unneeded funds and bureaucracy.

  30. Defense spending is out of control and jacking it up is going to do nothing to help us pay down our national debt. So frustrated.


    1. Ask the USSR. Astranomically high military spending is the way to go.

      1. I like how the same people who ardently believe this is how Reagan broke the USSR fail to see the implications for the U.S.

        1. Sure, it just should have been scaled back down afterwards. This is what happens when the vigilance and principles of free men atrophies. I guess we’re all heading to our ends anyway.

Comments are closed.