• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Hannity Right, Media Matters Wrong, on Missile Defense and Budget

    Media Matters attacked Sean Hannity yesterday for “falsely” claiming the Obama administration is cutting the military budget and “misleadingly” clipping Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Contra, Media Matters, Hannity is correct on both counts.

    Cutting the Defense Budget:
    Media Matters notes that the current FY 2009 Pentagon budget is slightly over $513 billion and that Obama’s proposed FY 2010 budget is almost $534 billion. This makes it seem like a defense budget increase, but this isn’t an accurate comparison to make. President Bush’s FY 2009 budget projected allocating $549.8 billion in FY 2010. So Obama’s $534 billion actually represents an almost 3% cut in proposed spending.

    More important are the future budget projections. Both the Bush FY 2010 projection and the Obama FY 2010 request fall significantly below the 4% of GDP benchmark of what is needed for defense. Using the CBO GDP projection, the appropriate number for the Department of Defense’s core program in FY 2010 should be roughly $563 billion. The real problem is the 10-year projection from the Obama Administration budget outline. In this case, the cumulative budget shortfall for core defense program (including non-DOD portions) is roughly $1.3 trillion against the 4% of GDP benchmark.

    Cutting Missile Defense:
    There is no way around this one. Secretary Gates flat out said “Overall, the Missile Defense Agency program will be reduced by $1.4 billion.” Media Matters spins: “Gates addressed rogue state missile threats, asserting that his proposals would focus on such threats.” But Gates’ proposals do not adequately address rogue state missile threats.

    The Department of Defense has long recognized the need to maximize the capabilities of a comprehensive missile defense system by having a layered missile defense architecture, which would target attacking missiles in the boost phase, mid-course phase and terminal phase of flight. Gates’ budget scales back funding for boost-phase systems like the Airborne Laser Program and eliminates funding for some mid-course phase systems like the Multiple Kill Vehicle program.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    17 Responses to Hannity Right, Media Matters Wrong, on Missile Defense and Budget

    1. John F Muller, North says:

      POLITICS: In todays environment, the most dangerous word to our society as we know it.

      It is criminal just what is taking place by legislative action and the world wide demeaning of the Greatest Country in the World by our elected President.

      From the games being played by Obama / Gates on our military budget to the massive Social Well Fare give aways orchestrated by Polosi / Read / Frank / etal in the name of STIMULUS will be the destruction of our Society.

      Defense spending has demostrated a positive economic impact on select Regional economies. Governments primary responsibility is to defend our Country. It should be a no brainer: we maintain our military superiority and the economy benefits as well.

      Speak softly and carry a big stick may be out of vogue with the liberal left and media, but it still works for me.

      Energy Independence is also a a major benefit, to our security and immediate impact (Stimulus) to our economy across the East and West Coasts and the North West.

      High paying union jobs (Construction, skilled trades) would floursh along the Gulf Coast in refinery expansion as well as New refining capability. Nuclear Plant Generation would also bring immediate economic impact to the construction trades as well as our Steel Industry and any number of mfg and fabrication industries along with high tech. ,through out the Country

      Defense spending and Energy Independence should be the driving factors to lead us out of the economic down turn and they require NO Government action and or expansion with the exception of streamlined permitting.

      A relative small portion of the monies already expensed for non stimulus social welfare programs is all that would be needed. Private investment would do the rest.

      What is taking place is a POLITICAL SHAM / SCAM which will surely bankrupt our future generations and damage the Defense Capability of the USA putting us all at risk.

    2. John, Greenwich says:

      It's a cut in "proposed" spending but an increase in "actual" spending year on year. Considering it's supposed to be a business based organization Heritage's logic is sometimes very shaky. Y/Y actuals are the only proper comparison to make. Gates who is a Republican and exceptionally well qualified for his job has made a decision about the allocation of priorities as I do as a manager every day. You may disagree with his priorities but to call him a liar and favor the interpretations of some radio talk show buffoon over this outstanding public servant is why so many of us are leaving conservatism. You've lost your way I'm afraid.

    3. Barb -mn says:

      SICK OF THE VULNERABLE SOCIETY BEING LIED TO, MISLED AND THE COVER UP FOR OBAMA (and his REAL plans), CONSTANTLY BY THE MEDIA!

    4. Terry K., Alexandria says:

      Does the Heritage Foundation take all of its talking points from Sean Hannity? Bush is no longer the president, so his proposed budgets for FYs beginning months after he left office have no meaning or legal force whatsoever. It's absurd to define a proposed budget that comes in less than another proposed budget as a "cut." If the FY2010 proposal is more than the FY2009 budget, it's an increase. Period.

    5. K. King, Memphis, TN says:

      It is DODs job to defend the U.S., NOT to provide employment in states directed by politicians. SecDef Gates is attempting to bring the DOD into the 21st century, prepare and equip those that do the actual fighting with the appropriate hardware and technology. Gates and his people (who are in the best position to know what projects/programs are needed), are being pragmatic. We can no longer spend money on wastful, overbudgeted programs and platforms that are not what is needed by today's military. We should not keep programs just because some senator or congressmen will have election difficulties back home. As a vet, and a mother of twice deployed soldier to Iraq, I don't want my son to be handed equipment that is inappropriate, unfit for the mission at hand, or with technology that wasn't tested, or doesn't stand up to the environment (weather or the evolution in enemy tactics). All the huffing and puffing by politicians, pundents, and think-tanks will NOT SERVE MY SON, the warrior on the field of battle. STOP THINKING ONLY ABOUT YOURSEVES AND START THINK ABOUT THOSE THAT FIGHT "YOUR" WARS!

    6. sean hartnett, ct says:

      The media, and the think tanks, serve an endless circle of soundbites to feed each other and their agendas.

      No matter what little change Obama is willing to attempt, the greatest change necessary is the one hardest to address.

      The tired conservative argument of American military might being the only solution to our problems, and the worlds, becomes thinner and more transparent every year.

      War will never be the answer. We have become a country that knows more of death that it does of life.

      We need to awaken to the facts that we share this plated with over 6 billion souls and we will rise and fall together.

      Good luck and happy holidays.

    7. Dennis, Idaho says:

      Talk about "legal force". How about the legal fact that Obama has not produced a long form birth certificate. He is not an American born citizen. Therefore all the things he has done have no legal foundation. Get the guy out of the White House before he destroys the nation.

    8. Val Martin, Naples F says:

      Liberals have a hard time understanding anything

      we try & help them with,especially Liberty,freedom,& capitalism. Yes i"m A capitalist,I get Soc Sec , & work a part time job.

      I make half of the poverty level. They dont understand Reagans Trickle down econ,small bus needs etc. Next time your trying to elucidate over their constant changing the subject, or overtalking you ASK THEM How many jobs they have had? Then How many of them were for poor people?

    9. rich weirton says:

      Saying Obama didn't cut defense spending is like Obama saying he didn't bow to the Saudi King…

      We all seen him bowing to the King with our own eyes, but still the paid liers in Obama admin are telling us it's our own eyes that are lieing to us, and not Obama.

      Believe your eyes, not Obama's lies……

    10. john livingston Boi says:

      Terry in Alexandria,

      Our military has been fighting an overseas war for 7 years. We need to reinvest in equipment, people, and programs. At this point our military spending (or as BO calls it investment cycle) spending needs to approach 5% of GDP.

      Do you really think that the TARP and stimulous pork packages are a better investment in our future and security and people than a reinvestment in our military? Do you think more jobs in Detroit, Seattle, Norfolk etc. will be created or sustained by military investment or bailout spending?

      Does the supply curve have a positive or negative slope? What happens when ceiling prices are placed beneath equilibrium prices? What is an oppertunity cost?

      Please Terry, tell me that you know and have pondered the answers to these questions because I don't believe BO, or NP.

      or HR have any idea about these concepts.

      John Livingston

      Boise

    11. Rick W., Minneapolis says:

      For years, in "Democratise", a decrease in the increase has always been a "cut". Thus, the continued increase in spending. Now, all of sudden, it's not a cut. The fact is, the Obama Administration is spending less on defense than the Bush Administration would have. That's a cut.

    12. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      What good is a garden if it has not fence to keep out the varmints, no poisons to controll the insects, and no rifle to shoot the deer?

      Do you plant a garden to feed these things or to feed your own?

      Hozro

    13. Larry in Texas says:

      Lynn B. your point is sharp and hard to argue against. Simply stated, and to the point, as many of the paprables that Jesus spoke. I had a boss man once, named John Law, no I'm not kidding. He told me that if he had to keep workin' his ass off just to keep starvin' to death, he'd just as well quit work and starve to death soon enough. That was during the Carter Administration, if that tells you anything.It still amazes me how stupid these Liberals on Capitol Hill are. Or maybe they aint all THAT stupid, if they know that any legislation that they want to bring to a vote will systematically pass through BOTH Houses just so they have a piggy back to push all there real porkmarks through on!!! My point is very similar to what I "believe" Lynn B. was saying. If we want to work and produce to better ourselves and families, why then wouldn't we stand vigilant against those who would do us harm, take our money to line their own pockets or squander the gains we've made in our endeavor to perservere? I guess THEY figure that THEY can spend MY MONEY as THEY see fit, until such time as MY MONEY is gone. Then they'll tell the Fed to print more "BAD" paper to cover the "BAD" paper in the files of Freddie and Fannie theft and cover up!!!Wait…I can always do what all the "appointed staff and counsel" of the Saul Obama Cabinet have done- I just won't pay my taxes during their stay in the "HOUSE" so they can't use MY MONEY against me.Yep,that sounds like a plan.Goin' to learn how to live like a w..b..k(criminal alien)and work for cash money that can't be tracked and live off of welfare and handouts from the RICH LIBERALS!! Y'all come get my gun. I'll have it in my lap, close at hand! Sittin' right on top of the taxes I'll save by not giving either of them to you!!

    14. cj, medford, Or says:

      Year over year comparisons and not past projections are the important numbers. Why not also mention the savings the Obama Administration is going to try to realize through tighter contracts, competitive bidding etc. Oh I forgot, I thought you would be in favor of reducing wastful spending…guess I was wrong!

    15. Kuni, Boonville, MO says:

      Obama will gut spending to $534 billion from $513 billion; that is just dastardly of him.

    16. Barb -mn says:

      Good one Hozro… as usual. And good to all that sees through this TAKE-OVER! The truth will set us free!

    17. Pingback: Morning Bell: Keeping Up Our End of the Bargain With Those Who Serve

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×