Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gates Warns Against Defense Cuts
WSJ ^ | Nov. 16, 2010 | Julian E. Barnes

Posted on 11/18/2010 1:29:31 PM PST by La Enchiladita

Defense Secretary Robert Gates attacked proposals by the co-chairs of the deficit commission to seek sharp reductions in military spending, arguing the cuts would be “catastrophic” to national security.

The co-chairs’ defense cuts, Mr. Gates argued, would only amount to a small dent in the deficit, but devastate the military’s force structure.

“The truth of the matter is when it comes to the deficit, the Department of Defense is not the problem,” he said. “I think in terms of the specifics they came up with, that is math not strategy.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: budget; debtcommission; defense; dod; gates; pentagon
Earlier this year, Mr. Gates announced a push to save $100 billion in defense overhead during the next five years, savings he said would be reinvested with the military to fund modernization programs.

But the commission co-chairs, former Republican senator Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles, proposed applying that $100 billion in savings to deficit reduction.

1 posted on 11/18/2010 1:29:34 PM PST by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

Gates flips and now flops.

2 posted on 11/18/2010 1:33:28 PM PST by DarthVader (That which supports Barack Hussein Obama must be sterilized and there are NO exceptions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

And I suppose Rocky needs a new pair of boxing gloves.
There is wasteful spending all accross government. I’m all for trimming the defense budget, BUT ONLY IF THEY CUT ALL OTHER AGENCIES” BUDGET BY AN EQUAL EXPENSE.
That includes all of the Capital Hill perks and other non-essential government “goodies.”
I still want to know why Barack’s lavish trip to India and the East did not require legislative budget approval?
If the president has an unlimited slush fund for these things, it needs accountability.
Well, now that my blood pressure is up, I think I’ll open a beer.

3 posted on 11/18/2010 1:38:13 PM PST by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

It is coming down to guns or butter. We can’t afford both.

4 posted on 11/18/2010 1:53:15 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
There are some government agencies that have a Constitutional mandate, that serve a real function, that benefit society and are critical to maintain at a federal level, then there is the rest of the government which Obama sees as his sacred cow but serve secondary or tertiary roles that are by no means anything the government should even have their fingers in:

ie. Department of Education, Administration on Aging, African Development Foundation, Commission of Fine Arts, Community Planning and Development, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Elementary and Secondary education, English Language Acquisition office, Institute of Peace, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Multi Family Housing Office........................... That's just through “M.”

Don't cut on things that matter and for which their is a Constitutional basis, things that amount to about a 1/4 - 1/3 of the entire federal budget when the other 2/3 - 3/4 is spent on BS that amounted to “pet projects” of Presidents past that wanted to make some symbolic gesture like Carter with the Department of Education (DE).

5 posted on 11/18/2010 2:07:31 PM PST by Red6 (IMHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

As we are being weaken, are we like we were before WWI or WWII. This current America with King Obama’s horsepooo we would have one hell of a time warping up our failing and faltering industry to conduct a war before we are wiped out. Remember we had the oceans between us with Germany and Japan to get us up to speed. Today a couple of bombs could defeat us before we get out of bed. A continued strong and ready military is all that will prevent America from being destroyed. In this time, planes, warships, submarines and such are no match for ICBM. We have to keep our military to expand with counter any ICBMs. which can be launched from submarines right off our shores. Ask us Vets what hell can be.

6 posted on 11/18/2010 2:20:32 PM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Mr(s)Red6. I hate to differ with you. The major part of the federal, and for that matter state budgets are MANDATES. That is why we are so screwed. Pork barrel projects and such should be banned, but are just a drop in the bucket. For now, I'd be happy with saving the drops. Some day maybe a cup full of drops. Who knows, and I'm afraid we are going to have to pay the piper, we'll be trying to save a bucket full of drops.
I think my parents were happy that they were leaving this country the way it was for their kids. Now, I fear for my 4 young adult kids.
7 posted on 11/18/2010 7:45:49 PM PST by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Simple answers to are often appealing, but not the best course of action.

The DoD, intelligence, federal law enforcement have some waste, but unlike many of these tertiary pet projects of the federal government actually have a necessary function.

If you did away with the Department of Education tomorrow in its entirety and simply funneled the money the federal government “takes” back into the hands of those paying and doing the actual work, NOTHING would change. In fact it would change to the better! In essence the only thing the DE does is take your money, and then decide based on some philosophical and political basis how to give it back with strings attached (you get this money “if” you do this or that the way we want). There is no real product, there is no real service or tangible thing that they do besides sell themselves usually by adverting how much of “your” money they spent according to their agenda. This is literally the case!

MOST of the federal budget today is actually on these secondary and tertiary functions that have no Constitutional basis other that the Commerce Clause which in some perverted way is used to expand government far beyond its intended reach. Defense is in reality 23% of our federal budget (That's now with Iraq and Afghanistan!) with Social Security alone rivaling it in expenditures, the actual amount of waste is fairly low, it serves a defined purpose/function of the federal government and neglecting or saving money in this aspect can have unimaginable consequences (Think in five years if missile defense isn't robust and N. Korea sends something our way). Almost all programs/initiatives are based on some clearly defined need that is borne in some threat. What difference does it really make if an endangered fish species goes extinct in California? While just saying “cut” seems appealing (Simple answers for simple minds) it's ignorant. It's the problem that is simple to understand but the solution isn't. We have a federal government that has grown beyond it's practical and useful scope. A government that today is feeding/subsidizing 3/4 of all lunches served in schools, paying for abortions, subsidizing the majority of kids going to college, a Piss Christ with the National Endowment for the Arts and is using “stimulus money” to pay for research of Mormon crickets and teaching men in Africa how to use condoms. While reducing fraud and waste is surly not the answer alone, as you suggest, the answer is also not to cut on those core functions that are essential, clearly defined as a federal role, that have severe and long reaching effects, for which there is no real substitution or role at a state or local level. Believe it or not, health care existed and ran well even before the government decided to get their fingers into that market as they do EVERYWHERE else where money is found. Why do we need a Federal government through the FTC meddling in organized sports? Really?!?!?!?! At a federal level, defense, intelligence and federal law enforcement are the last dollars you cut. I'm not talking about reducing fraud or waste which are happy feel good things all can agree on, I'm talking about cutting billions for farm subsidies so we can tell farmers NOT to grow food on that land, doing away with the Department of Education all together............ The “majority” of the federal budget is spent on things the government has no business sticking their fingers in, now the solution (to some) to our problems is to cut on those things that are essential and clearly defined roles that the federal government should fill. Does that make sense? It's upside down! It makes about as much sense as a federal government that can't find the money or balls to do anything about our Southern Border (and deal with the TB, drugs, crime) but pays for schools and medical care for illegals. Got to get your priorities straight buddy.

We essentially have a government that is doing EVERYTHING except what their job is. You can't buy votes in Harlem with defense issues, can you? But Rangle knows you can buy those votes by bringing them “mo gubbermint cheese.” Because politicians buy voters by bringing home the bacon, because their campaigns are ruled by special interests..... because the electorate is quick to jump on the gravy train if they think they can benefit from it (no principals), because the Constitutional role of the federal government has become so perverted that what we have today is even seen as normal (Madison, Jefferson are rolling in their graves), we have a government that is essentially delinquent in it's actual job but telling you want light bulb you should buy, giving tax breaks on cars they deem green and contemplating taxing soda drinks “for the children” of course.

It's the upside down world of the US gubbermint.

8 posted on 11/20/2010 10:08:39 AM PST by Red6 (IMHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
In light of what is happening now with N. Korea, do you still think that it's a good idea to cut on defense?

Defense cuts always sound good when nothing is happening and those that are for them apply the same logic as a young kid that says he doesn't need health insurance because he's healthy. You don't need it until you need it, and if you waited and saved in this aspect you often end up paying a dear price. You end up with you pants around you ankles.

By cutting defense you are cutting investment in our security. The “Peace Dividend” sounded like a good idea all the way until 911. Suddenly the idea of having cut ~30% of our intel and ~37% of the defense budgets in real dollars from there 1988 level didn't seem so good anymore. You are starving the funds needed to equip those men we send to fight for us from the resources that can provide them the best tools to do their job. You are starving resources that behind the curtain are providing the real security, because it's not the TSA.

Instead what we will get are bogus rationalizations for defense cuts that have ALREADY happened with FCS, Missile Defense, Zumwald, F22........ All which in reality are needed.

9 posted on 11/23/2010 8:28:12 AM PST by Red6 (IMHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson