Why does the Bush Administration CONTINUE to leave the military in a fiscal lurch?

[jasendorf]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,99145,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Lacking Funds, Army Cuts Back on Spending

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Jen DiMascio | May 31, 2006

Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody directed the Army last week to stop ordering many spare parts and supplies in an effort to pare back spending until Congress passes the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Although we anticipate that Congress will finish the bill in June, we need to take action now to control spending in the Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) appropriation and stay within the law,” according to a May 26 memo issued by Cody.

“This measured response will provide appropriate controls on our spending of OMA resources and will minimize the impact to our mission,” Cody writes.

The memo lays out how the Army will begin to cut spending on a week-to-week basis through the month of June.

Starting May 26, the Army clamped down on ordering “non-critical” spare parts and supplies. “For supplies, requisition only what is necessary to accomplish assigned theater missions. All units should draw down on-hand inventories first,” the memo states.

In addition, the service should cancel “non-essential” travel, like conferences and training and stop shipping goods unless they are essential to support deployed units, the memo says.

By June 6, the Army will put a hold on civilian hiring and postpone summer hiring. “You may continue recruiting efforts but cease all final offers of employment,” Cody writes.

During the week of June 15, the service will release all temporary civilian employees who are funded through the operations and maintenance account, including personnel working at Army depots. All contract awards and new task orders on contracts will be frozen, and the service will suspend the use of government purchase cards, the memo states.

If Congress fails to come to an agreement on the supplemental by June 26, service contract employees will be let go unless the penalties and termination costs exceed the cost of continuing the contract. Commanders may hold on to a handful of personnel for “mission-essential services,” the memo says, adding “consult your legal adviser as you implement these actions.”

In addition, Training and Doctrine Command, Manpower and Reserve Affairs and the Army's chief of personnel (G-1) must report on how they will reduce spending on personnel. That should include a halt on recruiting, deferment of re-enlistments and a freeze on promotions, Cody writes.

What I'm trying to figure out is why the Bush Administration CONTINUES to not put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into its annual budgets. I know their main reason is so that they can continue the facade that their failed budget policies will somehow lead to a balanced budget... but is that really a good reason for our military to be left in the lurch?

 

[Gunny]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,99145,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl



What I'm trying to figure out is why the Bush Administration CONTINUES to not put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into its annual budgets. I know their main reason is so that they can continue the facade that their failed budget policies will somehow lead to a balanced budget... but is that really a good reason for our military to be left in the lurch?

Probably because every time Bush asks for a dime liberals start whining about the deficit.

Y'all need to shit or get off the pot.

 

[dmp]

I can't WAIT until 5stringJeff replies here; laying the smack. Nobody knows Army budgets like Jeff.

 

[jasendorf]

Probably because every time Bush asks for a dime liberals start whining about the deficit.

Y'all need to shit or get off the pot.

So, let me get this straight... the Bush Administration won't even ASK to put funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the annual budget and you blame it on liberals? I guess that's the quintessential "passing the buck" if I ever saw it.

OK, let's see... House, Republican controlled... Senate, Republican controlled... White House, Republican controlled... but if they don't allocate money to the troops in the budget... IT'S DOSE DAMNED LIBERALS!!!

Amazing how far you'll go to make excuses for the failures of the Republican Party.

 

[manu1959]

odd...the first paragraph explained it:

Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody directed the Army last week to stop ordering many spare parts and supplies in an effort to pare back spending until Congress passes the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[jasendorf]

odd...the first paragraph explained it:

Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody directed the Army last week to stop ordering many spare parts and supplies in an effort to pare back spending until Congress passes the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Point is, why should Congress even have to pass an EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING BILL in the first place? Why didn't President Bush put this spending in his proposed annual budget? Did he think we weren't going to be at war this year???

Nevermind... I'll tell you why.

Because if he were to do that, the "our tax cutting policies will bring us to a balanced budget" lie falls apart if you factor in the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, they make a budget which ignores our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and then act surprised when they need a couple hundred billion for them.

 

[manu1959]

Point is, why should Congress even have to pass an EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING BILL in the first place? Why didn't President Bush put this spending in his proposed annual budget? Did he think we weren't going to be at war this year???

Nevermind... I'll tell you why.

Because if he were to do that, the "our tax cutting policies will bring us to a balanced budget" lie falls apart if you factor in the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, they make a budget which ignores our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and then act surprised when they need a couple hundred billion for them.

did congress not know that we were not going to be at war? why did they not increase the budget? you dems are so smart....yall should have know better and taken care of us dumb red state folks....you don't help us then make fun of us for being stupid and not doing what you knew we were doing wrong?.....ever wonder why we don't jump over to your side?

 

[jasendorf]

did congress not know that we were not going to be at war? why did they not increase the budget? you dems are so smart....yall should have know better and taken care of us dumb red state folks....you don't help us then make fun of us for being stupid and not doing what you knew we were doing wrong?.....ever wonder why we don't jump over to your side?

Oh, it has nothing to do with being stupid. The Republican Party knows that the only way it can funnel money back to the rich is to cut taxes and the only way to cut taxes is to falsely justify it by extrapolating "future returns" which show some sort of fiscal balancing. They can't do BOTH that and fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without desception and a little budgeting slight-of-hand so they pull this "emergency spending" year after year. Meanwhile, the military has to refrain from ordering spare parts while the Republicans feed their future campaign contributions back to the millionaires who "need and deserve it most."

 

[manu1959]

Oh, it has nothing to do with being stupid. The Republican Party knows that the only way it can funnel money back to the rich is to cut taxes and the only way to cut taxes is to falsely justify it by extrapolating "future returns" which show some sort of fiscal balancing. They can't do BOTH that and fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without desception and a little budgeting slight-of-hand so they pull this "emergency spending" year after year. Meanwhile, the military has to refrain from ordering spare parts while the Republicans feed their future campaign contributions back to the millionaires who "need and deserve it most."

damn you found us out.....pity you smart folk can't stop us

 

[5stringJeff]

Frankly, the wars ought to be in the annual budgets. However, one cannot anticipate all the costs of the ongoing war, so even if the GWOT was in the annual appropriation bills, there would still have to be a supplemental budget bill to fund the war for the rest of the year.

As to your OP, jasendorf, I wouldn't consider the VCSA as part of the "Bush Administration." He's a general, not a politician.

 

[dmp]

As to your OP, jasendorf, I wouldn't consider the VCSA as part of the "Bush Administration." He's a general, not a politician.

This is how it works:

Somebody - ANYBODY (hell, if I stole my office printer and sold it to OBL, the headline would be "Bush Administration Employee supporting Terror with Tax Dollars!" And the first sentence would be "Under the leadership of GWB, Darin , an employee of Dept of Defense, sold his office printer to OBL for $5 and 10 Virigins in the afterlife"...but I digress) in government with authority makes a bad decision: They are labeled "The Bush Administration"

When they make a GOOD decision they are labelled by their respective position, and ANY tie to GWB is painted out of the picture.

 

[jasendorf]

As to your OP, jasendorf, I wouldn't consider the VCSA as part of the "Bush Administration." He's a general, not a politician.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here 5string... the VCSA was simply relating the problems being faced by the Army right now because the annual budget is being used as a place to hide the real failure of the Administration's tax cuts. I didn't make any statement that the VCSA is part of the Bush Administration... I simply stated that the problems being faced by the Army are being CAUSED by the Administration.

And, I can be fair... sure it's tough to determine the cost of war... but not putting a single dime into the annual budget for it? Come on.

 

[jasendorf]

This is how it works:

Somebody - ANYBODY (hell, if I stole my office printer and sold it to OBL, the headline would be "Bush Administration Employee supporting Terror with Tax Dollars!" And the first sentence would be "Under the leadership of GWB, Darin , an employee of Dept of Defense, sold his office printer to OBL for $5 and 10 Virigins in the afterlife"...but I digress) in government with authority makes a bad decision: They are labeled "The Bush Administration"

When they make a GOOD decision they are labelled by their respective position, and ANY tie to GWB is painted out of the picture.

Who's saying "somebody, anybody"?

The President presents a desired budget to Congress... in this case, the President presented a desired budget containing not a single dime for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm not saying "anyone, someone"... I'm saying "The President."

 

[CSM]

What all you conservative posters haven't figured out yet is that the libs have all the answers and know all the solutions...we dumbass conservatives just haven't given them a chance to implement them. How all us stupid people came to be in control of everything is beyond me.

The poor Democrats have not introduced ONE bill in Congress over the last six years because they know it will never pass in a Republican controlled Congress...right? At least they have an excuse for sitting on their ass and doing nothing!

 

[jasendorf]

What all you conservative posters haven't figured out yet is that the libs have all the answers and know all the solutions...we dumbass conservatives just haven't given them a chance to implement them. How all us stupid people came to be in control of everything is beyond me.

The poor Democrats have not introduced ONE bill in Congress over the last six years because they know it will never pass in a Republican controlled Congress...right? At least they have an excuse for sitting on their ass and doing nothing!

What's this have to do with the Bush Administration not putting Iraq and Afghanistan into their annual budget?

Regardless of how stupid conservatives are or are not... why is the Army suffering due to the Administration's budgetting games?


As for proposing legislation (which is obviously an attempt to deflect from the topic... but I'll bite on your bait anyway)... Ask Peter Ujvagi what happens when a Dem proposes great legislation in a Republican controlled House.

 

[CSM]

What's this have to do with the Bush Administration not putting Iraq and Afghanistan into their annual budget?

Regardless of how stupid conservatives are or are not... why is the Army suffering due to the Administration's budgetting games?


As for proposing legislation (which is obviously an attempt to deflect from the topic... but I'll bite on your bait anyway)... Ask Peter Ujvagi what happens when a Dem proposes great legislation in a Republican controlled House.

Costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed in the Defense budget. You know how to go find and read the thing. To say it isn't is pure dishonesty on your part. Furthermore, Congress approves the budget so if said items were not in there why did not ONE Congressman (Democrat or Republican) jump right onto the news channels and cry foul? If that were the case then CONGRESS bears as much responsibility as BUsh if not more.

Let me see if I can reconstruct the logic for you regarding the comment on Democrats being powerless:

Defense budget (original post) not containing Iran Afghanistan as an implied Bush administration failure....thread rambles through some discussion about Bush tax cuts and then into who is responsible for the budget...Congress passes the budget...

Here is where I take this track and made my statement about Democrats not offering bills (obviously I made some bad assumptions about people understanding that Democrats are a part of Congress, have some influence on bills presented and passed including the budget, tax cuts, etc.) in what turns out to be a poor attempt at illustrating that it is NOT the Bush administration ALONE that is responsible.

 

[jasendorf]

The regular DoD budget contains spending for normal operating expenses such as training, . It DOES NOT allocate for the increased spending necessary to fight a war. Even in the President's own seciton on his budget proposal he doesn't even attempt to say that it does:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060206-1.html

The Budget focuses taxpayer resources on National priorities like the War on Terrorism, health care, energy research and strengthening our global competitiveness through improved math and science education and research.

* Fighting the War on Terror. To give our troops the resources they need to fight terror and protect our Nation, the Budget increases defense spending by nearly 7 percent. This funding will maintain a high level of military readiness, develop and procure new weapon systems to ensure U.S. battlefield superiority, and support our service members and their families.

And, the Dems asked at the time of the budget approval and continued asking why that funding wasn't there: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0221/p01s03-usfp.html

And, the Dems (along with 12 Republicans) voted AGAINST the FY 2007 proposal because of its flawed nature. 218 - 210 the budget passed with not a single Dem voting for it.

 

[Gunny]

So, let me get this straight... the Bush Administration won't even ASK to put funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the annual budget and you blame it on liberals? I guess that's the quintessential "passing the buck" if I ever saw it.

OK, let's see... House, Republican controlled... Senate, Republican controlled... White House, Republican controlled... but if they don't allocate money to the troops in the budget... IT'S DOSE DAMNED LIBERALS!!!

Amazing how far you'll go to make excuses for the failures of the Republican Party.

Let me get this straight .... the Bush administration is guilty of not doing things YOUR way? Who f-ing cares?

And I LOVE your backwards-assed argument, but you know as well as I that the Republicans for some unexplained reason have YET to flex their muscle and shove something down the Dem's throats. A fact which disgusts me beyond belief because y'all loonies from the left didn't hesitate to try when the shoe was on the other foot.

So, you can take that little argument and stuff it. Pure BS.

Try again, and use your brain this time.

 

[jasendorf]

Let me get this straight .... the Bush administration is guilty of not doing things YOUR way? Who f-ing cares?

And I LOVE your backwards-assed argument, but you know as well as I that the Republicans for some unexplained reason have YET to flex their muscle and shove something down the Dem's throats. A fact which disgusts me beyond belief because y'all loonies from the left didn't hesitate to try when the shoe was on the other foot.

So, you can take that little argument and stuff it. Pure BS.

Try again, and use your brain this time.

This has nothing to do with my personal view. It has to do with the military NOT BEING ABLE TO BUY SPARE PARTS because the Bush Administration wants to play games with the budget to cover their failed fiscal policies.

That's all there is to it.

Either you're for those serving and for them getting the parts and training they need... or you're not. It's fairly simple.

 

[Mr. P]

This has nothing to do with my personal view. It has to do with the military NOT BEING ABLE TO BUY SPARE PARTS because the Bush Administration wants to play games with the budget to cover their failed fiscal policies.

That's all there is to it.

Either you're for those serving and for them getting the parts and training they need... or you're not. It's fairly simple.

They are getting the parts they need.