BEagle, the Army are indeed managing the allocated budget as they usually do, and as usual they have to provide reports to service secretaries on what expected readiness shortfalls are.
This happens every year, in times of good funding and bad.
I am not sure if you are familiar with Integrated Priority Lists, and "approved but zero funded" programs and procurement. I got very familiar with those things back in the 90's as funding went down but the OpTempo went up.
It's an old story. So, choices have to be made, which means some choices can't be made. Some of those choices reflect in changes to weapons system upgrades or acquisition. (For example, a few years ago the OH-50D was chosen for elimination top to bottom, which cut short an upgrade program). Who is concerned about this? Business. People who sell things.
Please pay attention to the disclaimer at the end of page 2 of Mr Thompson's piece. (Several of the Army’s equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients.) Remember, this article was written for Forbes, which caters to business. Who is his audience for that piece? People who make money selling stuff to the Army.