"...one thing we know for sure, is they can wipe out the Twinkie consumption at the Pentagon"
Posted on 11/16/2012 5:25:29 PM PST by WilliamIII
A Senate Republican fiscal hawk offered a 74-page menu of Defense Department spending cuts Thursday that could save taxpayers nearly $68 billion over 10 years. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he and his staff had identified several categories of “non-defense spending at the Pentagon,” outlays which he said had “little to do with national security.”
At a Capitol Hill press conference, Coburn accused his fellow Senate Republicans of “having a blind eye on spending.” He summed up their approach as “It’s OK to cut spending anywhere except the Defense Department.”
But, he said “to be legitimate and have any integrity on the issue … everything has to be on the table.”
In the fiscal year which ended Sept. 30, defense outlays amounted to $651 billion, 18 percent of total federal spending, which was a decline of about 3 percent from the prior fiscal year.
One target of Coburn’s proposed cuts is personnel. He said there were too many admirals and other high-ranking officers for the size of the military. “We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,” he told reporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com ...
Entitlement spending benefits only specific groups whos votes the lawmakers seeks.
Lets get that straight first.
OK, pizza delivery on the chopping block.
I know there is savings to be had in the Military. I might have an issue with replacing some military jobs with civilian personnel. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that when military gets replaced by civilians, civilians are paid a lot more. So while defense spending may go down, overall spending will go up. I could be wrong, but knowing our govt, I bet I’m not.
Defense spending, properly administered
Isn’t that the whole point that Sen. Conryn is making? If you’ve got too many admirals, then spending isn’t “property administered”, and it should be cut.
I’m not convinced there isn’t waste, but I’ll be damned if I can understand what these pricks want.
Our Navy is at 1915 levels. Our air-force numbers are disintegrating.
What are these assholes shooting for, a Davy Crockett era defense strategy?
Meanwhile, our welfare and giveaways have never been larger, are sinking our nation, and these guys never mention it.
I am mad as hell at the whole lot of them back there.
Now, quick, lets get back to naturalizing the 20 to 35 million illegals in country. That’s a top national priority! /s
"...one thing we know for sure, is they can wipe out the Twinkie consumption at the Pentagon"
Yes it is, but I have a problem with taking money out of the department of defense and directing it into entitlement spending, which is where I think his proposal will go.
Money appropriated for defense spending will be re-appropriated by Obama for his favorite programs.
Coburn with the Gang of Six last year. First time he wore the label of RINO. Looks like he isn’t trying to shake it off.
Well,doesn’t entitlement spending get spread throughout the economy when beneficiaries go to restaurants, cinemas, etc.?
Sounds to me that you’re a proponent of military keynesianism?
IMO the benefit of properly spent defense spending results in a safer existence for my family, countrymen and myself.
I could care less what effect the dollars thus spent have on the economy.
As to your first point, since the taxpayers you're taking the money spent on entitlements from would have spent that money similarly (with less going to junk food, porn & booze presumably) I don't see what benefit entitlement spending has to the larger economy at all.
I think you're totally misreading Coburn's initiative.
He's talking about $681 billion in savings over ten years!. That's 1% of the current defense budget ($651 billion).
What's more, the specific savings are perfectly reasonable. For example, is there any question that the military has more admirals and generals than it can possibly use.
Coburn is making a point that the military budget can be reduced and the GOP leadership should be prepared to include minor (and appropriate) military cuts in exchange for major cuts elsewhere.
Clarification, this is by Sen. Tom Coburn, not Sen. John Cornyn.
Cut all defense and anti terror pending for New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.
They will be fine.
Cut all defense and anti terror spending for New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.
They will be fine.
Please. One CVBG could wipe out the entire navies of the entire world in 1915. There is more to a navy than counting boats. The rest of the world's fleets combined couldn't match the USN today.
What are these assholes shooting for, a Davy Crockett era defense strategy?
You mean when we didn't try to police the globe and send America's best to bleed for other nations? I'd shoot for that. We've been on the offense since 1898. The renaming of the War Department was entirely Orwellian (and done by the Democrats).
Wake up. We're bankrupting ourselves with warfare abroad and welfare at home, just like Rome.
Of all the agencies and their entitlements in the national budget, defense of the country is one of the constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.
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.