Searching for any
real evidence for a rebalance to the Pacific and a concomitant shift in
national military strategy as reflected how the budget is allocated among the
Services continues to be unsatisfying.
Here is a table I put
together of how the base defense budget has been allocated in the recent past
(actual budgets 2010-1013) and projections for how the pie would be split up
from 2014-2017. The figures in this table for future years are from the
2013 budget. All figures were rounded up or down to the nearest whole
number, which is why some years do not equal 100:
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air Force
|
DoD
|
2017
|
24%
|
29%
|
28%
|
19%
|
2016
|
24%
|
29%
|
27%
|
19%
|
2015
|
24%
|
29%
|
27%
|
19%
|
2014
|
25%
|
29%
|
27%
|
19%
|
2013
|
25%
|
29%
|
26%
|
19%
|
2012
|
26%
|
29%
|
27%
|
18%
|
2011
|
26%
|
29%
|
27%
|
17%
|
2010
|
26%
|
29%
|
27%
|
17%
|
Next, I took
figures from the 2014 Budget Submission as reported by DoD Buzz in an article
trumpeting that fact that the “Navy” hauled in the largest budget share. Putting aside the fact that the “Navy” has
two Armed Services in its budget, the Navy has been receiving the largest slice
of the pie for several years and the size of it has been fairly
consistent. Here is the table above with
the 2014 line showing both the pre-FY 14 budget line and post FY 14 budget line,
using the figures from the DoD Buzz story:
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Air Force
|
DoD
|
2017
|
24%
|
29%
|
28%
|
19%
|
2016
|
24%
|
29%
|
27%
|
19%
|
2015
|
24%
|
29%
|
27%
|
19%
|
2014
|
25%/24%
|
29%/29%
|
27%/27%
|
19%/19%
|
2013
|
25%
|
29%
|
26%
|
19%
|
2012
|
26%
|
29%
|
27%
|
18%
|
2011
|
26%
|
29%
|
27%
|
17%
|
2010
|
26%
|
29%
|
27%
|
17%
|
Again, in the
second table, the 2015-17 budgets have not been updated with figures from the
2014 budget input. It is entirely possible
that the 2014 line is just the beginning of more important shifts of money
among the Services and DoD. But don’t
let anyone fool you; the 2014 budget—from the perspective of how budget shares
reflect priorities—is business as usual.
No comments:
Post a Comment