Numbers, VERY LARGE numbers...
Being a citizen of what is merely the 4th largest economy, the US budget numbers astound me; so, following the thrills and spills of clashing civilisations, lets look at some numbers.
George W. Bush unveiled his budget proposal last week; commentators took various views, but this one from the LA Times is quite succinct:
Bush Budget Plan Strikes Home, Not Deficit WASHINGTON — President Bush [today] will propose a $2.7-trillion budget that would take another slice out of domestic spending next year — but still leave a huge $355-billion deficit.In Bush's budget for fiscal year 2007, which begins Oct. 1, the departments of Defense and Homeland Security would continue to grow at a rate greater than inflation.But most other federal departments, from Agriculture to Veterans Affairs, will be asked to get along next year with less money, and with no allowance for inflation or population growth.Altogether, Bush's budget would save $14.5 billion next year by eliminating or sharply curtailing 141 federal programs — fulfilling his vow in last week's State of the Union address to reduce the costs of what he called "non-security discretionary spending."Broken down, those range from a relatively small nick in Medicare's enormous growth to the virtual elimination of a small program that distributes food to the elderly."
And so on and so on. Not wishing to tread on any American colleagues toes, I am only going to look at the defence side of it, as rumours of a new arms race begin to surface:
The DoD budget for fiscal year 2007 is $439.3 billion. But apparently the Office of Management and Budget's document Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category and Program contains a category called "National Defense", which includes not only the Defense Department budget but also the defence activities of the Department of Energy (mainly nukes and weapons labs, totaling $16 billion) and several other federal agencies ($4.4 billion), as well as $3.3 billion in various "mandatory" programs (which appear to be pensions, though whether for officers or enlisted men is not clear). In total, the sum is now $463 billion.
The OMB also includes the $50 billion that Donald Rumsfeld says he will request in "supplemental" funds for FY 2007, to cover the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now up to $513 billion.
Oh, and the Pentagon also announced Monday that it would ask Congress for $70 billion to fund war costs for the rest of FY 2006. This $70 billion doesn't count toward military appropriations for FY 2007 - or does it?. If it does, the grand total is now up to $583 billion.
Pretty spicy huh? But it gets better; when numbers of such magnitude are presented it is sometimes difficult to grasp where it is all going, down to the last pounds, shillings and cents... To help track some of the money into the actual machinery it is buying, here is Fred Kaplan writing for Slate magazine:
The F-22A stealth fighter aircraft ($2.8 billion). I've recited the argument too many times (and there's a fairly large choir joining me), but how many stealth fighters do we need (beyond the nearly 100 we already have) in a world where no foe seems able to shoot down any of our vast arsenal of un-stealthy planes?
Fred K goes on to list submarines, destroyers, an aircraft carrier (the US has 12 carrier strike groups already), more planes and missile programmes - all big projects with funds committed, but seemingly of little relevance in today's conflicts. I wonder what the soldier squinting down the barrel of his jammed M-16 would say?
PS. For the record, the UK's total public expenditure will be around £519bn, about $882bn
George W. Bush unveiled his budget proposal last week; commentators took various views, but this one from the LA Times is quite succinct:
Bush Budget Plan Strikes Home, Not Deficit WASHINGTON — President Bush [today] will propose a $2.7-trillion budget that would take another slice out of domestic spending next year — but still leave a huge $355-billion deficit.In Bush's budget for fiscal year 2007, which begins Oct. 1, the departments of Defense and Homeland Security would continue to grow at a rate greater than inflation.But most other federal departments, from Agriculture to Veterans Affairs, will be asked to get along next year with less money, and with no allowance for inflation or population growth.Altogether, Bush's budget would save $14.5 billion next year by eliminating or sharply curtailing 141 federal programs — fulfilling his vow in last week's State of the Union address to reduce the costs of what he called "non-security discretionary spending."Broken down, those range from a relatively small nick in Medicare's enormous growth to the virtual elimination of a small program that distributes food to the elderly."
And so on and so on. Not wishing to tread on any American colleagues toes, I am only going to look at the defence side of it, as rumours of a new arms race begin to surface:
The DoD budget for fiscal year 2007 is $439.3 billion. But apparently the Office of Management and Budget's document Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category and Program contains a category called "National Defense", which includes not only the Defense Department budget but also the defence activities of the Department of Energy (mainly nukes and weapons labs, totaling $16 billion) and several other federal agencies ($4.4 billion), as well as $3.3 billion in various "mandatory" programs (which appear to be pensions, though whether for officers or enlisted men is not clear). In total, the sum is now $463 billion.
The OMB also includes the $50 billion that Donald Rumsfeld says he will request in "supplemental" funds for FY 2007, to cover the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now up to $513 billion.
Oh, and the Pentagon also announced Monday that it would ask Congress for $70 billion to fund war costs for the rest of FY 2006. This $70 billion doesn't count toward military appropriations for FY 2007 - or does it?. If it does, the grand total is now up to $583 billion.
Pretty spicy huh? But it gets better; when numbers of such magnitude are presented it is sometimes difficult to grasp where it is all going, down to the last pounds, shillings and cents... To help track some of the money into the actual machinery it is buying, here is Fred Kaplan writing for Slate magazine:
The F-22A stealth fighter aircraft ($2.8 billion). I've recited the argument too many times (and there's a fairly large choir joining me), but how many stealth fighters do we need (beyond the nearly 100 we already have) in a world where no foe seems able to shoot down any of our vast arsenal of un-stealthy planes?
Fred K goes on to list submarines, destroyers, an aircraft carrier (the US has 12 carrier strike groups already), more planes and missile programmes - all big projects with funds committed, but seemingly of little relevance in today's conflicts. I wonder what the soldier squinting down the barrel of his jammed M-16 would say?
PS. For the record, the UK's total public expenditure will be around £519bn, about $882bn
posted by Jambutty at 4:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home