Skip to comments.Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts
Posted on 11/07/2010 2:06:31 PM PST by fabrizio
WASHINGTON (AP) Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.
The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be on the table.
Paul tells ABCs This Week that he supports a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.
if this is true we have another libertarian who doesn't understand the proper role of government and the fallacy of cutting military expenditures, all the more at this time with the Afghan situation, to balance the budget. Secondly, amendment on balancing budget HOW? By cutting the armed forced down to size in the era of Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad? And one could "balance budgets" by increasing the fiscal pressure, and that is NOT the constitutional way to balance budgets.
I repeat: I could be wrong, and I would like to read the full text of Paul's statements, but I do hope he's not turning into his lunatic father. Compromise with the Dhimmicrats my @§§
Woo hoo!! Closing in on the finish line!! Less than $2,100 to go!!
Let's git er done!!
If you enjoy reading or posting to FR and haven't donated yet, please consider doing so today!
Military spending has gone up because of two wars.
Shouldn’t the military be decreased as those wars wind down?
He is right. Nation building is ridiculous.
Considering we are in two wars now that are fairly pointless because we have an Islamic POTUS and Saudi mole plus open borders.
We are broke and there appears to be no strategy or plan except our troops cannot shoot back, bomb, use artilleryy etc.
I get the impression that FR is filled with people who work for defense companies sometimes with that union scum on the factory floor at UTX, Raytheon, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Boeing, etc. Eff those union goons.
I do not support cutting the actual constitutional parts of the budget. Military spending is not a huge part of the budget, social spending is. I would rather cut govt. employees of the myriad depts, but not defense, our military strength may be all that saves this nation if our economic strength is brought down by socialism.
In this I feel Paul is wrong, and we must not cave to the dems in any way.
NO Rand Paul you @$$! Look elsewhere for funds (givaway entitlements) that can be cut. The military has already been cut and corrupted enough with the O-Bozo PCism and socialist agenda.
You don’t think that some of our military spending is pure pork/waste?
How about let’s stop building a missile shield for Europe - they can afford to pay for it themselves. Or perhaps we can stop trying to fight Columbia’s drug war, considering that most of it is ineffective anyway.
Senator-elect Paul would be wise to remember, or to learn if his education was deficient on the point, that the armed services have express sanction in the Constitution and a vital role to play in keeping this nation’s citizens free and prosperous. For him to place the mission of the armed forces on the same level of legitimacy as liberal’s extra-constitutional social programs is not merely ignorant—it’s damned ludicrous.
Exactly, that’s precisely what I mean. And, when anyone uses the term “compromise” with the Dems after an historic wipeout you know there something REALLY wrong with them.
I notice that he doesn’t have the balls to say exactly what he would cut in the military. Jets? Warships? Nuclear weapons? Troop numbers? Nuclear Submarines? Pay and benefits for troops? Cut spending for disabled veterans? Research and development of weapons? Run from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban and al Quaida? Watch China’s military grow exponentially while we shrink our own? If he can say military cuts should be on the table, then he needs to have the balls to say what gets cut, or else he needs to shut up. The people who elected this man should stand up and tell him the first federal cut should be in HIS pay check and HIS benefits.
Department of Education
These are state issues and concerns
Defense IS the proper role of central government and should be the last to be abolished however THAT can be cut too.
Retirement and health care is an individual concern and shouldn't be political at all.
That is why we have charity.
Federal government needs to recede back to their proper role as dictated by the Constitution.
No you guys are wrong.
He said that defense is Constitutional duty of federal govt.
I listened to the whole interview.
I think he wants everything on the table.
Better save somthing for the war with China.
If we cut our troop strength in Europe the Europeans might have to increase their defense spending. We wouldn’t want to overburden them. It’s in the Constitution that we must be the world’s cop. I just can’t find where.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Republicans, you were warned.
I’ve always assumed that. The military isn’t exempt from wasteful spending and inefficiency. There have to be ways to reduce spending without reducing the actual strength of our military.
but I do know this...
military spending is just as much out of hand as other govt spending and the pensions and medical benefits alone are astronomical...they are paid too soon, and are too large....
having said that, defense is a nations' first priority above all else...
“For him to place the mission of the armed forces on the same level of legitimacy as liberals extra-constitutional social programs is not merely ignorantits damned ludicrous.”
Yes, not one dollar less than the $600B+ a year they get now. How could the military possibly get by on less than that without jeopardizing our security. Why, if they had to scrape by on $500B, our entire way of life would collapse.
Why not consider pulling out of Europe? 65 years after the fall of Nazi Germany seems long enough. We still have troops in Japan too. Do we really need them there?
There may be good arguments to keep theses bases open, but assuming that planes ships and troop cuts are first on his list is premature.
The fact is that our military defense has been subsidizing socialism in Western Europe and Israel for two generations. Let them dismantle some of their social welfare state too. If we’re going to have to pay for socialism in the world, I’d rather be paying for the social benefit of Americans than for Belgians or Germans.
Not so fast. If it’s a government program you can guarantee there is massive spending waste somewhere. I have a brother who works for a company that lives off military contracts. They readily admit in some departments it takes no more then a half hour a day to do their jobs. That and they are paid 60.00 an hour with unlimited overtime for a mid talent, non college degree positions. He and my sister in law rake in 120,000 a year each and the toughest part of their day is the job justification meetings.
Cut everything that is unconstitutional out of the budget. Then come talk to me about the defense portion of that spending.
But when you start with defense, your motives are highly suspect as far as I’m concerned.
You can CUT $30-60 BILLION out of the military budget without EVER touching a true military program.
Democrats have loaded the military bills up with that much Pork in the last 4 years.
Paul is right in also looking at the military. My Army service doesn’t qualify me as an expert but I can tell you that mucho money is being wasted day in and day out. Starters, military seminars on diversity, Islamic relations, etc. Build the tanks, jets, and ships and cut out all the nonsense.
Knowing the Paul family mindset, the first thing they want cut is support for Israel.
And I'm deadly serious about that.
NO, wars cost things - equipment needs repair/replacement, troops need training to maintain readiness levels that let us kick tail like we have. Clinton cut our military to the muscle and bones, Bush was barely able to prosecute the war using our Guard and Reserves. Has the world suddenly become safer? There are realities and there are unrealities. Paul is treading dangerously into unreality. We cannot afford to cut our military spending.
20% across the board ACTUAL spending CUTS for ALL gov’t. If the Defense dept needs more they can explain why they need it just like all other revenue consumers. Limited gov’t means LIMITED gov’t. No one’s PORK is better than another’s. The US is broke. Everyone PAYS.
It isn't just procurement either. If the public knew how much the military is spending on bogus environmental projects they'd be the ones up in arms.
Cutting the perks and salary of the politicians need to be on the table before any cutting of our military.
We need our military, we don’t need politician$ who make a career of instituting ‘control’ laws at our expense.
Like you, I'm glad we kept the seat, and it is certainly better than Conway, which is why I didn't really engage in any further active criticism after Paul won the primary fair and square. He's spot on, like his father, when it comes to domestic welfare program spending, repealing the health care law and implementing other reforms (like breaking the barrier between state lines)...not so much on other things.
cut the EPA, the NEA and repeal the EPA, cut the ATFE, cut the State Department, Cut NPR,Etc.
Leave the military alone.
Stay on the rails Rand!
What part of the US is BROKE do you not understand?
Military spending is not the problem!
It's entitlements, heck entitlements were out of control before Obama!
Now they are exponentially out of control.
In fact I would argue we need an increase in military spending. Our Navy is almost disastrously too small, and we are starting to border on losing our technological edge in air superiority. Now I agree that DOD spending is often misspent but that's a different problem.
This is one of the things that bother me about libertarians, they seem to be a fantasy driven in their ideology as any leftist.
True that - also need to see about innovating. Difficult when it comes to a monopolistic entity, but certainly something like military cannot be open to privatization and competition...that’s one thing that is certainly closed to such a reform.
Military spending IS a POLITICAL spending PROBLEM. I say again, what part of the US is BROKE, do you NOT understand?
I hadn’t thought of that but I think you are right. Besides, it is foolish to speak of “compromise” with the Dhimmicrats and believe that they will “compromise” on cuts to real wasteful spending and not to essential defense assets. “Compromise” means that the Dhimmicrats get what THEY want. And what they want is not good for the US, its security and its constitution.
Thank God a good chunk of the new freshman class in the House are military veterans, of THIS war.
And the House holds the purse strings, not the Senate.
As a veteran, I fully appreciate the need to have a strong military. Not only do we need a strong military, but the strongest. You cannot have a strong military without a strong economy. If it comes to a decision between nation building and America’s economic survival, I will take the latter. I supported Bush’s decision to liberate Iraq and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan; however, it is time to bring the troops home and stop the money flow to Iraq. We are NEVER going to pacify Afghanistan. It is always going to be the wild west.
The liberals' social programs are of another kind and quality of SUCK-ASS BAD altogether. They have not strengthened this country one damned bit. They have weakened it and undermined it. For Rand Paul to talk about military "wastefulness" and liberal social programs and Marxist wealth redistribution in the same breath shows he is appallingly stupid and uninformed, and that the good people of Kentucky may have made a mistake.
Senator-elect Rand Paul had better smarten up. His first steps out of the starting blocks looks like he's heading for a libertarian face-plant in the dirt.
In my opinion, hell NO.
Sorry, but shall we cut our military down as Clinton did and then spend years rebuilding it to get her back up to speed? If we have a threat, we need our military then. Not months or years later. We need several rotations of personnel, too, otherwise let’s go back to a draft. Maybe that’s the only way those of you who see little value to maintaining a strong, ready and capable military will come to understand the benefit. Too many in our most recent generations can’t comprehend a draft system. Maybe if pitifully-minded peacemakers were to actually serve with their minds, hearts, bodies and souls, our nation would come together as a united and proud America once again; where pledges were said, people didn’t speak during the National Anthem, flags displayed on homes were lit at night, our military could safely walk outside at night and not be murdered, and their votes could be protected.
Give me a break. How about ending the automatic pay raises for congresscritters first? Why not start there?
Everything needs to be looked at.
Starting with the defense budget, eh?
Cut all unconstitutional agencies, departments and bureaucracy.
That’ll cut all spending by much more than 20%. Then worry about the military, which is one of the few things the fedgov is actually supposed to do.
Franzie, all you do is come here and call FReeper's stupid because they watch TV and don't fall in line with your childish demands that they heed your ridiculous posts.
Go spew your shit at the DUmp.