OK, I think we're speaking at cross purposes. I wasn't referring to the past 8 years, but the large drawdowns which preceded them. I find the "unfettered growth" phrase disingenuous and contrary to their point. It really doesn't put spending of the last, say, 20 years in context.
Ever throw a phrase in an email or report for flavor or as a lead-in, and then had someone completely misinterpret your point because of it? When I read that first phrase, it really pushed my buttons, because to me, it makes the authors sound like stereotypical liberals who think our budget should go to the Peace Corps. Thus, that's kind of what it set my brain up to hear. As I start doing real officer stuff, versus being a stud, I'm beginning to learn that you need to measure your words. There is no such thing as filler, because someone will take every part of what you write as a serious argument.
That goes both ways here, and I'll eat some crow here where crow-eating is due. Going back through, they make a much more well-reasoned argument than I expected given their introduction. Your pdf is very enlightening, though. I was under the impression that much more of our costs were being borne by supplemental funding; it was a shock to see our base budget going up that much.
And it furthers my feeling that the goverment has its fingers in too many pies, and needs to cut entitlement spending, but fat chance of that in this economy.
