Today, 14 U.S. Senators sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Gates raising concerns about cuts in the defense budget (see the full letter after the jump). Although Obama's baseline budget seems to reflect an increase from Bush's, the senators point out that with changes in supplemental funding taken into account, the fact is programs will be cut. In the March 9 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Tom Donnelly crunched the numbers:

In 2009, the Bush administration's baseline budget was $513 billion, and the plan was to spend $523 billion in 2010. The Obama administration announced this week that it would "boost" the 2010 figure to $533 billion. So the Obama budget is bigger than the Bush budget, right? The reality, though, is something quite different. Here's where the question of wartime supplementals comes into the picture. The Bush administration's last supplemental requests were for $188 billion in 2008--at the height of the Iraq surge--and a $65 billion installment on the war costs of 2009. The Obama budget adds another $75 billion in war costs for 2009, for a yearly total of about $140 billion. What accounts for the whopping difference between the 2008 spending of $188 billion and the $140 billion to be spent in 2009? It's not, unfortunately, that the success of the Iraq surge or the drawdown now beginning in Iraq are saving much money. Indeed the immediate costs of a safe withdrawal are no different from those of staying on. And, with a second surge--really, a long-term ramping up--of forces in Afghanistan about to begin, the supplemental cost of those operations is going way up.

In 2011, Donnelly writes, Obama budgets for "wartime costs of just $50 billion. Based on the numbers, by 2011 Obama plans to be fighting the 'Long War' at less than one-third the cost of the effort of 2008." To understand how irresponsible the Obama defense budget is, see the Washington Post's story today " GAO Calls Iraq Pullout A 'Massive,' Costly Effort":

The removal of about 140,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 will be a "massive and expensive effort" that is likely to increase rather than lower Iraq-related expenditures during the withdrawal and for several years after its completion, government investigators said in a report released yesterday.

So if costs will increase in Iraq during the withdrawal, which defense programs does Obama plan to cut? The senators write to Gates that Congress has not "been informed about which particular programs will be affected. This lack of information raises a number of important questions, with potentially troubling answers. ... It is unclear how the administration, if it intends to cut supplemental funding, expects to maintain our military forces in the field and enable them to conduct their missions safely and effectively." What's more, the problem with the defense budget is that the Obama administration is, in effect, trying to undermine the ability of the Congress to do due diligence when it comes to the budget and defense by forcing a vote on the top line without knowing what's below it. Therefore, the senators request that the administration specify which expenditures will be moved from the supplemental to the baseline budget. They've also requested risk assessments by combatant commanders. Kudos to the 14 Republican senators for understanding and taking seriously the security implications of the Obama budget. "Now is not the time to attempt to cash in a 'peace dividend,' while thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are serving in harm's way, engaged in military operations in two major theaters of conflict overseas, with other very real threats on the horizon," they conclude. It's hard to believe that more senators--especially in the Republican caucus--don't share those same concerns. The full letter after the jump...

March 25, 2009 The Honorable Robert Gates Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC  20301-1000 Dear Secretary Gates: We write today to express serious concern about the administration's planned national defense spending in Fiscal Year 2010 and beyond, which appears to be insufficient to guarantee U.S. national security in the coming years.  Based on the administration's budget documents submitted thus far, it appears that a marked decrease in overall defense spending is in store for our country.  If recent press accounts are accurate, this will be accomplished by canceling or postponing the acquisition of numerous major weapon systems critical to our Armed Forces and necessary to ensure their future ability to defend our country. As Congress begins the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) budget process, it is our view that we have too little information on hand, based solely on the President's incomplete budget submission, to thoroughly and responsibly make decisions about top-line figures for the country's core defense program.  For example, it is widely reported that the administration intends to shift funding that is currently part of the supplemental budget process into the normal DoD appropriations request.  But, to date, Congress has not been told exactly what amount will be transferred, nor has it been informed about which particular programs will be affected.  This lack of information raises a number of important questions, with potentially troubling answers. The President's plan to substantially increase U.S. military force levels in Afghanistan, while simultaneously withdrawing all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by August 2010, will require substantial funding.  However, it is our understanding that the administration will be requesting far less this year and next in supplemental funding, which is cause for great concern.  It is unclear how the administration, if it intends to cut supplemental funding, expects to maintain our military forces in the field and enable them to conduct their missions safely and effectively.  We would appreciate an explanation on this issue. To be clear, we fully support efforts to maximize transparency in the budget process by including all foreseeable DoD requirements in the normal DoD budget request; however, by shifting major expenses from the supplemental requests to the base budget, while simultaneously slashing the supplemental request, the net effect would be a decrease in overall spending on our national defense.  Our concern is that, under the guise of an "honest budgeting" approach to national security spending, we would be locking in an overall cut in military spending that either puts our troops in jeopardy today or our national security in jeopardy tomorrow as we restrict urgently needed capital investments in equipment such as planes, ships, and land vehicles. As such, we request that your department provide us as soon as possible with more detailed information on what expenditures, and at what levels, you anticipate moving from the supplemental budget to the base defense budget for FY10 and what defense programs you anticipate eliminating or substantially reducing, in relation to the most recent Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).  In addition, it is essential that we hear from our uniformed combatant commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the potential problems they will face in carrying out their responsibilities under the administration's proposed defense spending blueprints.  Accordingly, we request that you provide us, as soon as possible, risk assessments by each combatant commander, evaluating to what extent the President's proposed defense spending levels will limit their ability to meet ongoing requirements over the lifetime of the FYDP.  Finally, we request that the Chairman's risk assessment, which is statutorily required and is long overdue, be provided within 30 calendar days. During the early part of this decade, it became clear that defense spending decisions made during the 1990s and the resulting military "procurement holiday" that our government had taken left our Armed Forces without the needed advanced equipment and superior capabilities to defend our nation.  Today, in the middle of a global war on terror, we must not allow that to happen again.  Now is not the time to attempt to cash in a "peace dividend," while thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are serving in harm's way, engaged in military operations in two major theaters of conflict overseas, with other very real threats on the horizon.   We urge you to examine these issues carefully as the administration completes work on its FY10 DoD budget request.  Thank you for your service to our nation and your tireless dedication to its Armed Forces.   Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator       JON KYL United States Senator LISA MURKOWSKI United States Senator JAMES M. INHOFE United States Senator JOHN THUNE United States Senator JOHNNY ISAKSON United States Senator JIM DEMINT United States Senator         SAXBY CHAMBLISS United States Senator ROGER F. WICKER United States Senator DAVID VITTER United States Senator ROBERT F. BENNETT United States Senator RICHARD BURR United States Senator JEFF SESSIONS United States Senator   KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON United States Senator   Â