GovernmentExecutive.com

The Pentagon's $439.3 billion fiscal 2007 budget request continues a steep upward trend in defense spending, marking a 48 percent increase since 2001.

But while many top technology transformation programs will still see hefty budgets, officials shaved billions off poor-performing and low-priority items to make room for more pressing needs. This budget, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters, is a "calibration in our direction as we continue transforming to meet new challenges."

Lawmakers will likely welcome cuts to two much criticized ventures: high-risk space programs and the Joint Tactical Radio System. Defense officials want to delay development of some space programs to save $2 billion over five years and cut $233 million from the struggling radio system in fiscal 2007 alone. Restructuring the Air Force's tanker replacement program should save $896 million through fiscal 2011.

A new analysis concluded the service can safely delay plans to replace its tanker fleet. The Army's decision to cancel Lockheed Martin's Aerial Common Sensor spy plane would save $314 million next year.

Replacing the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System --consisting so far of two Boeing X-45A prototype smart aircraft and a Northrop Grumman X-47A demonstrator --with a longer range unmanned aircraft will save $158 million next year.

The Navy's termination of four planned T-AOE(X) fast combat support ships frees up $4.4 billion through fiscal 2011. A San Diego-based unit of General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems of Pascagoula, Miss., was expected to bid for the shipbuilding contract. In addition, cutting "lower-priority operation and maintenance programs" would generate an additional $3 billion in fiscal 2007, documents show.

COMMENTS

• I agree with DR about my job but he totally is wrong about social security! His money went to the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force long before any of it went to Social Security. He should find out that the "trust fund" does not exist! Social Security was a Democratic program presented as if it were a totally separate operation and it is not! Neither is Medicare and Medicaid. DR needs to learn a little about how his government operates. DR also has to figure out why we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- there was no legitimate reason to go to war with either but we needed to justify the big defense budgets Bush wanted. Your great military had been planning to fight two wars simultaneously but when they got two wars close together they cry that they do not have the budgets to get the goods they need to fight with. Also, Bush used an excessive amount of guard and reserve personnel to the benefit of the volunteer military that we pay so dearly for. The privates you mention are no longer willing to do the work you suggest because they now are volunteers and if we make them work they will not re-enlist. Enlistments fell tremendously when we went to war but services now show they are meeting requirements by lowering the number in the quotes and increasing the signup bonuses tremendously. If a contractor is making $200k a year the military guy is making almost as much when you add in the overhead to support them, health care for life, retirement, signup bonuses, housing allowances, combat pay, transportation, food, and all the other freebies they get from the taxpayers of the country. Taxpayer Posted February 10, 2006 6:59 AM
• Some of the cuts that need to occur are the Iraqi contracts. Second, why doesn't the administration place the costs inside its budget? Last year, the Army had to take money from everything to pay for Iraq until Congress passed a supplemental budget. Defense needs to learn to live within its means. GovExec.com reader Posted February 8, 2006 12:08 AM
• Taxpayer, we'll start with your job, then move along to Social Security (give me my money back and I will invest it myself!) and so on and so forth. Just say no to more mercenaries (contractors) than we already have! DR DR Posted February 8, 2006 8:24 AM