I’ve heard that phrase a lot, and I remember working in the Defense industry and noticing a big difference between funding under Presidents Reagan and Clinton.

But is it true? Turns out, mostly yes, in terms of funding National Defense.

I looked at US Defense Spending (Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Table 4.1) from 1977 to the present. The data is presented by Federal Fiscal Year, so I associated the President and Congress with the appropriate fiscal year.  For example, President Bush and the First Session of the 110th Congress (Speaker Pelosi and the 2006 Democrats) started the budget process in February 2007 for FY2008 (Oct 1 2007 through Sept 30 2008) . The Fiscal Year 2009 budget (for the fiscal year that begins Oct 1 2008) is currently being discussed in the Second Session of the 110th Congress.

Let’s start with President Carter and the Democratic 95th and 96th Congresses. What I found is that after years of post-Vietnam Democratic cuts, President Carter and the Congress actually increased Defense Spending significantly (7.5%, 11%, 15%, 17.5%). In My (revised) Opinion, Carter is blamed somewhat unfairly for the ‘hollow military’, while prior Democratic Congresses deserve the blame (along with President Ford to some extent). Note that years of cuts had taken their toll on the military.

President Reagan swept in with a GOP Senate and Democratic House for six years: defense spending increased 17%, 13%, 8%, 11%, 8%, and 3%.  Reagan’s last two years and the Democratic 100th Congress saw a 3% and 5% increase. Reagan demanded that General Secretary Gorbachev “tear down this (Berlin) Wall” in 1987; the Wall fell in 1989.

President George H.W. Bush and the Democratic 101st Congress cut defense spending by 2% and 10% (the ‘Peace Dividend’).  Germany was unified in 1990; Soviet Communism collapsed in 1990. Bush and the Democratic 102nd Congress increased defense spending by 9% after the First Gulf War, then cut defense by 3% in his last budget.

President Clinton and the Democratic 103rd Congress cut defense by 4% and 3%, then the 1994 GOP 104th Congress cut defense by 2% then increased defense by 2%. Clinton’s second term and the GOP 105th Congress cut defense by 1% then increased defense by 2%.  The GOP 106th Congress and Clinton increased defense by 8% and 3%.

President George W. Bush got an increase of 14% in his first defense budget, with a GOP House and Democratic Senate (107th Congress). After the 9/11 attacks, Bush and the 107th Congress increased defense by another 17%.  Bush and the GOP 108th Congress increased defense by 12% and 9%, then Bush and the GOP 109th Congress increased defense by 5% and 10%.

I am concerned that a Democratic Congress, with a possible Democratic President, will gut the military just like it was gutted after Vietnam…

For a different view of this topic, the Heritage Foundation analyzed defense spending as a percentage of GDP, and shows that defense spending (at 4% of GDP) is below the 45-year average of 5.5% and well below Vietnam and Cold War levels.

According to this article from US News & World Report Boeing’s proposal for the tanker contract essentially, well, sucked.

So how did Northrop, in conjunction with European giant EADS, surprise virtually everybody in the defense industry and snag the huge contract from Boeing?

On the merits, apparently. Details of the competing proposals are just beginning to emerge, and a forthcoming spate of congressional hearings is sure to elicit more info—plus plenty of overwrought political rhetoric. But defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute has scrutinized data released by the Air Force and concluded that the Northrop proposal “was deemed much better in virtually all regards.” The Air Force, he writes, considered the Northrop proposal to be cheaper and less risky, and to provide more overall capability. Poor performance on a few recent contracts also worked against Boeing; the Air Force judged the Northrop team more likely to deliver the planes on time and on budget.

If that is truly the case then the upcoming congressional inquiries into this award might not be the best PR move for Boeing.

So long as there are no shenanigans in Congress this contract is a big win for Alabama.

Just reinstate the draft.  I think it is safe to say that many of the Iraq war supporters who wave their flags from the comfort of their homes will be singing a different tune when they, their children, or their grand children are compelled to serve over there.  Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel has been pushing a draft for years, but now one of Bush’s advisers says that we should “consider” bringing back the draft.  Personally I don’t believe that governments should make military service compulsory and I wouldn’t support such a policy shift.

From Aviation Week:

Lockheed Martin is paying back the Pentagon about five years’ worth of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) award fees totaling $265 million the company erroneously charged because of a computer glitch in its billing system, company spokesman Thomas Jurkowsky said Aug. 9.

The company expects to repay the government “within several days” the overpaid award fees, plus interest that’s still being determined, Jurkowsky said.

The computer problems started with initial program award fees in 2002, but were only recently discovered by Lockheed employees during an internal review, Jurkowsky said. There have been 11 award fees during that time. “We immediately notified our customer,” Jurkowsky said.

While this was a huge error that took a considerable amount of time to discover, you have to give Lockheed some credit for uncovering the problem through an internal investigation and then promptly doing the right thing.

I guess my effort to recruit (pun intended) a friend to blog about his tour in Iraq won’t happen now.  The Army has effectively banned milblogging.  They claim that front line (and even rear area) bloggers are a threat to OpSec.  While there is certainly some merit to that claim, I’m a bit skeptical.  I think most, like me, look to people that we know and trust to find out the real story about how the war is going - at least on the grunt level.  I personally don’t think we can fully trust the media’s reporting or the government’s official accounts.  The media is too desirous of negative stories about death and destruction for the ratings, while the government will always tell you the weather is sunny and the pollen count is low.

Today is Patriot’s Day.  Take a moment to reflect on the battles at Lexington and Concord that marked the beginning of the American Revolution - at least the start of open, armed conflict.

In honor of the day, I had the opportunity to listen to a talk by Col. John Reitzell (Ret.) on the history of terrorism.  It was fascinating to hear first hand accounts from a man who was at the tip of the spear on many special ops missions - some of which you’ve probably heard of, including the Achille Lauro hijacking.  He has a commanding knowledge of military history and the role of Islam in many conflicts since its inception.  If the opportunity presents itself I would encourage you to listen to him.

They’re having to involuntarily call up 1,200 Marine reservists for active duty in Iraq.

Can a city annex a portion of a federal military base?  One would assume that they wouldn’t try if it couldn’t be done.

Huntsville leaders want to annex 422 acres of Redstone Arsenal so that any private development on the arsenal would be “on a level playing field” with other city businesses.

…

City leaders are concerned that business development in the 422 acres of tax-exempt federal land would harm Huntsville businesses, [Mayor Loretta]Spencer said.

“If they do not have to pay sales tax on the lease area, then that would be a disadvantage to those nearby businesses in Huntsville,” Spencer said. “We want this to be a level playing field for all concerned. That’s what we have been promised by Redstone all along.”

There is new evidence that North Korea may be preparing for an underground test of a nuclear bomb, U.S. officials told ABC News.

From DefenseNews.com:

China’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, throwing diplomatic language to the wind, told the United States on Aug. 17 in no uncertain terms to “shut up and keep quiet” on the subject of Beijing’s growing military spending.

Interviewed for a BBC radio program on the topic, Sha Zukang also said China would “do the business” and sacrifice its own people’s lives if any nation supported a declaration of independence by Taiwan.

Responding to jitters within the Bush administration about Beijing’s spiraling military budget, Sha said the United States itself accounts for half of the entire world’s military spending.

”The China population is six times or five times that of the United States,” he said. “Why blame China?… It’s better for the U.S. to shut up and keep quiet. It’s much, much better.”

His voice rising, Sha continued: “It’s the U.S.’s sovereign right to do whatever they deem good for them — but don’t tell U.S. what is good for China. Thank you very much!”

Sha was equally explicit on Taiwan declaring independence with U.S. backing — a prospect that the BBC program, by former Beijing correspondent Carrie Gracie, called the motivating factor behind Chinese military spending.

”The moment Taiwan declares independence, supported by whoever, China will have no choice,” he said.

”We will do the business through whatever means available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on that. We will do the business at any cost.”

He added: “It’s not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that.”

China’s rising military spending, which has grown by double digits for much of the last 15 years, has caused concern in the United States and amongst China’s neighbors in Asia.

In March the National People’s Congress (parliament), largely a rubber-stamp for decisions taken at the top level of the Chinese Communist Party, approved a 14.7-percent increase in military spending to $35 billion (27 billion euros) this year.

Although this is paltry compared to the $419 billion (325 billion euro) U.S. defense budget in 2006, the Pentagon last year estimated that China’s defense spending was two to three times the publicly announced figure.

In a speech in Beijing in July, Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan said modernization of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) remained a priority, the China News Service reported.

”The entire military must eye the historic destiny of China’s military in the new century and new era and push forward the main line of a Chinese-style revolution in military affairs,” he was quoted as saying.

He added: “We must unswervingly fulfill our sacred duty to defend state sovereignty, territorial integrity and security and never tolerate Taiwan independence and never permit Taiwan independence forces under any name or under any circumstances or form to split Taiwan from the motherland.”