Navy secretary cited climate change as top priority as Biden proposes shrinking the fleet

Maritime News
21

The AP story is just stating what happened…the CJCS went before congress to stump for his budget of $842B vs. last years of $817B. Not really any opinions offered.

WSJ editorial board (only slightly right leaning as per your media bias chart) says it’s not enough/other (liberal priority) programs are prioritized instead/mentions about the Navy fleet shrinking.

Joe Biden’s Weak Defenses - WSJ

“The Pentagon’s budget request may seem large at $842 billion. But the figure is only a 3.2 percent increase over last year, and with inflation at 6 percent it means a decline in buying power. Compare the 3.2 percent growth with the double-digit increases for domestic accounts: 19 percent for the Environmental Protection Agency; 13.6 percent for both the Education and Energy Departments; 11.5 percent for Health and Human Services.”

“But Pacific deterrence depends on a U.S. Navy large enough to discourage bad behavior, and the goal of a 355-ship service remains a fantasy. The document promises “executable and responsible” investments in the fleet, which is a euphemism for cutting ships without adequate replacements.”

And BTW…I don’t know if you did this intentionally or not, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing a misinformation campaign would do. In reading the above, one might think the whole budget request represented a 40% (vs. the reality of a 3.2%) increase from last year.

In reality, the 40% part (a part that you actually highlighted) is for one sector of the budget (new technology such as hypersonics) and represents a $9B increase.

So, yeah, I think the case can be made that 3.2% increase in the DoD budget is inadequate.

Thoughts? (from anyone)

22

And other networks including MSN regularly runs stories originating on FOX. Doesn’t that make them all complicit in demagoguery?

23

My credo is not to trust people who lie to my face, are caught lying in my face, never admit to lying to my face, and never apologize to lying to my face. Listening to them just incentivizes them to continue lying to my face.

RE: hypothetical situation of a story that the AP would offer its members, originating wholly from the Fox newsroom; I don’t think that’s a real comparison, because I don’t think it would happen.

AP is a news cooperative, sharing stories between members. Correct me, but I don’t think Fox is a member. Fox buys individual stories from the AP and runs them, provided they mention the AP-byline, and don’t alter the story.

Never saw a Fox story offered by AP service. Someone can correct me If I’m wrong.

Do I trust AP? Look at the Ad Fontes media chart. AP ranks at the top for accuracy and impartiality. Contrast that with both MSNBC and Fox, which the chart shows aren’t in the same ballpark when it comes to those qualities.

I don’t expect media to be accurate all the time. I expect journalists to always try to be accurate. And when they fail, to own up to their errors. When Dan Rather rushed a story to print after failing to do his due diligence he apologized, was demoted, and later resigned. When Jayson Blair was caught lying while writing for NYT not only was he fired, but his two editors were also axed, for for failing to detect his lying, and NYT apologized to the public.

What did Rupert Murdoch’s employees do when the story broke that they got caught lying? They promptly held a confab on-air where they complained about how all the other media are such horrible liars–except them. No mention of their own lying. None. Doubling-down on their douche-baggery.

24

There are only 2 news gathering organizations that I consider unbiased: AP and Reuters. Both have been around a very long time.

2 Likes
25

A) I’ve been quite explicit about this: I do not watch any cable news because it is just meth for outrage addicts. All cable news has become a carefully-crafted drug designed to stimulate the outrage centers of the mind and addict Americans to its consumption, in order to pimp adult diapers and erection medicine.

b) Broadcast news is better re: impartiality and accuracy. See the Ad Fontes chart below re; PBS. But I don’t watch broadcast news, also. Too shallow.

C) IMO the Ad Fontes Media chart is pretty good at the relative ranking of impartiality and accuracy of news sources. The rankings change all the time. One reason I find it accurate: because the people on both the left and right extremes hate it.

image
image967×777 101 KB

26

My bad…my comment was a throw away snide reply to your snide comment. All this other stuff about news outlets is known. Yes, AP seems to be middle of the road mainly because they’re not so opinionated and focus on reporting what happened using neutral language and ‘frame’ (see? I’m quite the cunning linguist also)

So back to how a 3.2% increase in the DoD budget accomplishes this:

27

When I consider increases I first ask where spending is now, and where is taxation? You can’t think about spending until you consider how much is coming through the door. That’s one reason building up a military is something that needs to be considered over a span of 10 or 20 years, rather than tomorrow.

Right now our military spending is about as high as it was in 2010. Historically, very high. It was considered too high back in 2010, and so spending decreased. Then it took off again at a steady delta since 2016. That’s great. Except for the major tax cut that happened in the same time frame.

So, discussing the DOD budget keep this in mind: We want to increase the delta of military spending, while at the same time tax revenues have decreased? Seriously? How do you do that?

If the economy was growing rapidly, it wouldn’t matter. In modern history the US economy creates so much wealth over time that the expense for the stuff we once thought we couldn’t afford occupies a shrinking part of the total.

But right now we are at an unprecedented economic inflection. You can’t bullshit demographics. The US economy is poised to grow quite quickly, but it cannot because there are not enough workers to feed it. Result: inflation. Moreover, because of an aging population, the proportion of taxes going to social services is increasing. Meaning, less money available for the military. And any politician thinking of cutting social security benefits would be tarred and feathered, so that option is off the table.

So to answer your question, we are already spending a historically high amount for our military. We are considering increasing not just the amount of spending, but the delta… We are worried that the amount of spending will not keep pace with inflation. But then we refuse to go back to the past rate of taxation that would have eased the problem. And inflation bedevils us because we act like demographics don’t matter.

So we are stuck with the finances we have, and in that light the DOD’s proposed budget sounds realistic. Congress can double the increase if they wanted to. Do you think the DOD would turn the money away?

Solutions: Simple–increase taxation and legal immigration. Are we all behind that? Good! Meeting over. Problem solved.

We all complain about runaway government spending. Is the Opposition now complaining because this administration is watching the spending?

image
image938×700 34.7 KB

28

Operate in a deficit…what - We’re worried about the debt now? I think both sides are onboard with that but not without limitations.

How about the increases below? Do these fall into the ‘cutting will get the politician tarred and feathered’ category?:

No room for cuts there?

hahahaha…no, I don’t think the administration is in any danger of being accused of that

At any rate, it’s going to require compromise to get the budget passed/prevent a default. Can the Congress and President function to get it done on time? Time will tell.

29

Ask the taxpayers who want those things. They elected the present administration, in part because they want those things funded. You don’t want those things funded, or to those levels, but then you didn’t vote for him. The people who voted for P45 wanted a Wall, and the majority didn’t want it, so they didn’t get it.

But let’s discuss the big picture here. Earlier you stated that Taiwan is not worth the USA going to war over. OK.

But if you’re not willing to use the DOD to keep the PRC’s hands off Taiwan, then why do you want to increase U.S. military spending re: China?

China isn’t going to invade Hawaii, or California. So why do you want increased military spending against a nation that isn’t going to invade us?

30

found this which shows federal tax revenue on a steady rise except for '08-'12 (recession related according to the site).

U.S. Federal Tax Revenue by Year (thebalancemoney.com)

edit: maybe a better source:

Government Revenue | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

31

Because I wouldn’t expect it to stop in Taiwan. There will be a time where our/our allies’ hand is forced to war if they were continue to try to expand (as I expect they would), but I don’t think Taiwan is where that line should be for us. As previously stated, this is due to I don’t see how we can have a “one China” policy, then go to war when China tries to implement just that.

My hope is that a bloody takeover of Taiwan by China would galvanize the world against China (similar to the reaction to Russia’s action in Ukraine) and then we (the rest of the world) could choke them off economically. And I do believe it would be bloody as I think the Taiwanese will fight hard just like the Ukrainians have.

But, if it comes to it, then we best be prepared to go to war. I agree with something the CJCS said today in that (paraphrasing) ‘preparing for war is expensive but pales in comparison to the cost of waging war’. That’s doubly so if you’re ill prepared when the war starts.

1 Like
32

Well, then we have something we can completely agree on.

FDR was faced with the same decision in the years preceding WW2. The public was largely against war, because of the experience of WW1. If FDR got in front of the public on this–if he had openly and stridently warned that war was coming and the USA would have to join in-- the public would have booted him for an isolationist. So he had to play dumb, while doing everything he could to prepare for war.

Nowadays the American public is again tired of wars. They’ll spend money on it (Ukraine) if they think the recipients of the aid will fight, and if we don’t have boots on the ground, but even that support is eroding now.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the administration’s thinking in defense spending is also influenced by this consideration of a lack of support over defense spending. Get ahead of the American public and you can end up on the street.

33

In diplomacy you give something to get something. The One-China term is simplistic. The policy, made in a very different world, was simple: as long as the PRC kept their hands off Taiwan the USA would not say Taiwan was a sovereign country. That was it. There was a provision for peaceful reunification etc. but the subtext was: hands off, unless invited.

What the USA got was entree to Chinese markets, a deal that we thought would benefit us. Does to a great degree, too.

The deal was made back in a time when China was a poor wreck of a country, dangerous only because of its sheer size and a bunch of nukes. If its backward navy had tried to invade Taiwan in 1996 the USN could have sunk it easily.

But with time that military equation has changed significantly, even though the “One-China” policy remains unchanged.

34

Give it a break with the political pissing contests, please. You guys are driving off everyone under age 90. Isn’t it boggle night in the rec room? There’s lime jello and everything.

35

Don’t like to read it? Don’t click on it. A concept everyone over age 6 can figure out (or so I thought).

1 Like
36

So no red jello then?

1 Like
37

In the OP link, the article said:

the Biden administration released its proposed budget for 2024, which calls for shrinking the Navy fleet even though most military experts and senior Navy officers have called for more ships

And yet in the 2023 budget the Navy actually asked to decommission more ships than Congress ultimately approved, and Congress also authorized a higher budget amount than the Navy requested.

So, who is the best source for deciding the appropriate fleet size? The Navy, Congress, “military experts”?

38
39

This article seems to better explain what actually seems to be a bipartisan clusterfu@& around the number of ships to scrap, specifically the LCS’s. I understand the pork fight and the big fleet fight, but this part just seems like pouring money down the drain with no discernible benefit to national security.

1 Like
40

A different time, to be sure, but given the drift of the conversation towards a potential US/PRC conflict (which will have a large naval component), I suggest reading Robert Massie’s excellent two volume history of naval issues prior to and during WWI.
“Dreadnought” (vol I) deals with naval arms race in the early 20th century between the UK and Imperial Germany while “Castles of Steel” (vol II) deals with the naval war itself.

Eerie, when compared to today, but troubling as we are significantly behind the building curve.

1 Like