At tonight’s Vice-Presidential debate, all eyes will be on Paul Ryan, who is well-loved in conservative circles as a fiscal hawk — except when it comes to defense. The budget is sure to come up during the Biden-Ryan faceoff, so before tuning in, give a second read to our own Laicie Olson’s piece on Ryan’s plans for defense spending, published a few weeks ago on The Truman National Security Project’s Doctrine blog.
“Protect U.S. Defense Labs from Budget Cuts”
The Center’s Senior Science Fellow Phil Coyle published an article on October 7 in Defense News on the importance of defense laboratories to U.S. national security needs. The piece, entitled “Protect U.S. Defense Labs from Budget Cuts,” argues that lab…
Ryan’s Defense Budget Plays Partisan Politics Over Strategic Thinking
In his 2011 budget, Ryan supported Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s proposal to save $178 billion over five years in reductions and efficiencies, as well as the Obama administration’s plan for a smaller increase in spending, year over year. Ryan’s proposal closely paralleled the President’s request, but in doing so, enflamed some members of his own party. Anticipating the details of the forthcoming proposal, 29 members of the House Armed Services Committee, led by Chairman Buck McKeon, sent a letter to Speaker Boehner requesting a $7 billion increase above the President’s request.
Whither the anti-terrorism budget?
I wrote my July Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists column on the Obama administration’s disappointing budget request for nuclear terrorism prevention programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Here’s an excerpt Despite the reductions to c…
Quote of the Day: Major Cost Discovery Edition
A senior Pentagon official describes the reaction of Pentagon analysts upon discovering that the cost of the B61 Life Extension Program could be $10 billion, $4 billion more than the National Nuclear Security Administration’s latest estimate.
