In a new piece published yesterday in Foreign Policy, CG&G alum Gordon Adams follows my post on the budget nonsense former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen talked about last week at the Center for International and Strategic Studies with what can only be described as a fiscal smack down.
It's not to be missed. Take a look.
CG&G alum Gordon Adams had a good piece published in Time magazine's Battleland Blog ("Where military intelligence is not a contradiction in terms") about the phony debate on military spending House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) tried to create with his budget resolution.
As Gordon points out, according to Ryan, falling Pentagon spending by any measure -- real, nominal, imaginary, whatever -- is always a bad thing. Never mind what the generals who run the military say and pay no mind to the strategy behind the numbers or the threat for which the U.S. is preparing. Apparently, we're all going to hell and the country is doomed if DOD has less to spend.
I've always been amused at the ability of congressional Republicans to take what the generals and admirals say as gospel when it confirms what the GOP wants to do but to do what Ryan did -- dismiss it out of hand -- when those same military leaders say something different than what they want to have said.
If you're looking for the reason so many federal agencies and interest groups are so worried about the impact of the sequester this January, look no further than this easy-to-read piece by CG&G alum Gordon Adams.
In case the word "sequester" isn't yet in your vocabulary (and if you're reading CG&G that's hard to imagine), that's the across-the-board reduction in spending that was triggered when the anything-but-super committee failed to agree last November on a deficit reduction plan. The $1.2 trillion, 10-year cut will begin on January 2 unless Congress and the White House somehow agree to amend the law -- the Budget Control Act -- that created the hardly-super committee and the sequester in the first place.
Here are two easy-and-quick-to-read pieces on the magnitude of the military spending changes Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta actually announced last week. The simple answer according to two people who know is that the reductions are less than the headlines indicated.
First, over at the Will and the Wallet, CG&G alum Gordon Adams did this very nice post about how what Panetta announced is "promising" in the sense that it shows there is finally the start of a meaningful shift in DOD strategy that could lead to significant savings. But Gordon says the proposal is also "dangerous" because the plans leaves "the long term budget trajectory...unrealistically high" and will leave Pentagon planners with the notion that they'll have more to spend in the future than will be the case.
Capital Gains and Games is about to enter a new and very exciting chapter in its history. After close to five years of being a collaborative effort between a group of friends and colleagues, CG&G is going solo.
Andrew, Pete, Bruce and Gordon will be leaving CG&G on January 1. As the potentially watershed 2013 federal budget debate gets underway I will be the principal writer and managing editor and what you read and comment on about "Washington, Wall Street, and Everything In Between" will be mine and mine alone.
The main reason for the change is that blogging has changed considerably since CG&G began. Although the group blog concept still works in some places, it's become increasingly clear to methat readers prefer a blog with a single personality and viewpoint. CG&G had to change to provide that.