Skip to comments.Donít Gut Our Military: $150 Billion in Commonsense Proposals to Prevent Sequestration
Posted on 01/28/2013 1:06:01 PM PST by SkyPilot
Unless Congress acts, March 1 will trigger a $55 billion-per-year ($45 billion in 2013, as the fiscal cliff deal delayed the cuts for two months) cut in national defense, known as sequestration, which will weaken the United Statess ability to defend itself. But this does not have to happen; Congress should cut other spending to prevent the debilitating cuts to defense.
National defense, unlike most other discretionary programs, is a central constitutional duty and today represents only 17 percent of the budget. Yet nearly half of the Congress-mandated sequestration cuts$492 billionwould come from defense. These across-the-board cuts threaten our nations defense capability. (continues below chart)
------------------------- Congress could draw from $150 billion in commonsense proposals to find at least $55 billion in annual spending cuts to avoid a devastating impact on defense.
For instance, instead of slashing our ability to defend ourselves, Congress could:
Phase out or cap current farm subsidies, saving $4.5 billion annually; Eliminate Community Development Block Grants, many of which go to economically well-off communities that dont need them, saving $3 billion annually; Consolidate existing federal job training programs, saving $5 billion annually; Reduce energy subsidies for commercialization, saving $4.5 billion annually; and Rescind unspent funds from Obamas ineffective stimulus bill, saving $31 billion. These are only five examples of the spending cuts proposed by Knudsen based on The Heritage Foundations Saving the American Dream plan.
In addition, billions of taxpayer dollars could be saved by taking steps to reduce as much as $115 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse in programs like the earned income tax credit, Medicare, and Medicaid.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
Obama and the Democrats could care less, and the Republicans have decided to play a strategy that if they shoot the innocent hostage first, the criminal holding the hostage is left with a dead body, so there.
Congressman Paul Ryan appeared on Meet the Press with David "High Capacity Mag" Gregory, and referred to the Sequestration cuts in the past tense. In other words, this nation is screwed.
When all out war breaks out in the Korean peninsula, or between China and Japan, or between Israel and Syria, everyone in DC will shout to the military "Hey, do this! Do that! Fix this!"
The fact is, Obama already cut half a trillion from the US military's 10 year budget before the ill fated 2011 Budget Control Act. The $600 Billion Sequestration cuts are the coup de grâce.
Ancient Rome here we come. Enjoy your bread and circus.
The US military budget is not about defending ourselves. It’s about ruling the world.
55 Billion is a JOKE. Obama spends that in less than a month.
Let the sequestration happen. Sooner the better. We are going to get screwed anyway, so let’s hope it comes quick and MAYBE wakes up some of our fellow countrymen?
it’s also about making a whole lot of people wealthy at taxpayer’s expense. Additionally, the US military is essentially under the control of the one worlders thus doing their bidding to eliminate dictators that do not want world government. It’s all part of the pre-orchastrated war on terror. As we sit and watch this regime in DC buying up ammo and arms in preparing to take military control of the streets of America, too many of us are foolishly hoping that OUR government would never do to us what history proves otherwise. genocide happens and there are many indicators exposing activities that this government is planning to make it happen in American. the millions of genocide victims also trusted that their government would never dare to murder them. This alone is the primary reason our founders inserted that the President has to be a natural born citizen. Obozo is not and the Founders concerns are now our reality.
I seem to remember in one of the debates Obumster said sequestration would not happen...Oh wait... Obullenshiza never says what he means, or means what he says.
The differences are really between those in higher salaried positions and pensions of the various levels of government and government-connected (and foreign-connected) businesses and nearly everyone else (producers, technicians, others with incomes from present and past in the private sector). Because of the noisy propaganda, most of us simply don’t know it, yet.
In other words, the differences are between all who would be willing to produce and those regulating against and preventing production (including the misdirecting government education establishment). Our country needs much more production on its own soil. The current regime of chair-bound masters of the universe is not economically sustainable.
Look for a real technocracy in the future (leadership by the technically inclined), and not the kind of technocracy mislabeled by contemporary propagandists.
Cutting 1/38th of the budget over 10 years,oh the horror!
Gays in the military , women in combat...this is the least of their worries.
Doesn’t the pentagon still have a global warming reduction program?
Actually, I just saw an ad on Fox about our “shrinking military” and if it was dangerous...
It triggered something that jumped out at me. Democrats/liberals/progressives/obama need a crisis to do anything they want to accomplish.
In 2003 and 2006 the democrats proposed a draft. I recall the confrontation because the republicans forced it to the floor for a vote.
Flash forward to today. Cuts, cuts, cuts...Benghazi, Africa, Turkey, Syria...and we’re cutting military?
The 0bama Regime is cutting the military so they can then call for the draft. 0bama needs his reason to conscript the population...it is being manufactured.
” It is generally accepted within the political establishment that a larger military is necessary. Rangels comments have been prominently discussed in the media because they serve to legitimize discussion of the draft under conditions in which the US military is already overstretched, while at the same time there is ongoing discussion within the ruling elite on the need to increase the number of troops in Iraq and prepare for possible action against Iran. Rangels position is a trial balloon to gauge public reaction and condition public opinion for a move in this direction.
While the Democratic leadership immediately announced their opposition to Rangels proposal, there was been a lengthy discussion within the Democratic Party over the need for some form of universal service. Several books by Democratic strategists that came out before the election raised this need. Rangel made his statement as a deliberate and highly conscious introduction of this issue into political debate.” http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/11/drft-n21.html
1. He hates the idea of American prominence in the world, and he wants to weaken us so as to cede preeminence and power to China, Russia, and the Muslim Brotherhood
2. The military is an easy target for him to keep destroying financially so that he can fund more welfare and give away programs to those Americans who least deserve it
Remember 0bama said in his first election campaign...about a force internally as strong as our military...He didn’t get that in the first term.
Recent questions if officers etc. would fire on American citizens...
0bama needs a reason for conscription. Take a look at the section I quoted ...there was been a lengthy discussion within the Democratic Party over the need for some form of universal service....
They are softening up the military to roll out a draft.
Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced on 14 February 2006 a bill (HR 4752) in the US Congress which requires: “all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.”
The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age. The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would, according to the clauses of the bill, be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the “Neighborhood Watch Teams” and the “Volunteer Police Service” established in partnership with local law enforcement. www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf (looks like the pdf has been scrubbed)http://www.knowthelies.com/node/3524
There it is...Citizens Corps.... this “bill” didn’t just go away, it is waiting in the wings.
2006: “—To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.”
2010: “To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security... and for other purposes.” See H. R. 5741
2008: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Barack Obama
Well, that sounds like fascism. Federal “Neighborhood Watch” programs? I don’t doubt your facts are correct, but that would turn us into Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, and Hitler’s Germany.
Uh...yeah. I am realizing that...prospect.
And I’m not even happy that I am able to think like...THAT.
But, I’m not seeing any real contrary...
We have been worried for 4 years about the use of keyesnian economics...
The other half of that is ...this universal service DRAFT. Just when anyone with common sense would be hardening their assets....they find every way to cut them?
I’m gonna bookmark this page. 6 months from now we should revisit it. And God help me, you can call me a fool.
How many of them guessed in October of last year that Obama would issue 2 dozen "Executive Orders" on gun control before he was even inaugurated?
I think Obama wants the US military weakened so that it won't be there to fight the rise of global Islam.
Now, you can call ME crazy, but I believe that.
If that happens then it isn't Obama, it is ...prophecy being fulfilled. Although we coudl get both....LOL?
Well, as a Christian, I know that God is sovereign, and His plan is in all of this. He works things out.
I also can read the signs of the times. These are EXTREMEMLY perilous times that we live in. I foresee a major war in the Middle East soon. If there is not a war between Israel and the Muslims by the end of this year, I will be shocked.
Perhaps the Eziekiel war perhaps the war foretold in Psalm 83.
In any case, it is no secret to Bibi Netanyahu that Obama is on the side of the murdering Muslims.
That is a fact. The also uncomfortable fact that 1/2 of my nation voted for Obama and supported this atrocity makes me believe we are coming under judgement as a nation.
Obama is systematically destroying everything that was good and true about our nation: healthcare system, the military, private industry, etc.
I read today that Defense spending was down 22 percent last quarter, and that went a big way to dragging our economy into the new Depression (which we are in by the way) - despite what the smoke and mirrors crowd says.
Sequestration will drag us down further.
“I read today that Defense spending was down 22 percent last quarter, and that went a big way to dragging our economy into the new Depression (which we are in by the way) - despite what the smoke and mirrors crowd says.”
SkyPilot: Read what you posted above and come to your senses!
Government spending, including defense spending does not create prosperity. THAT is the very definition of “smoke and mirrors”. When you withdraw government spending, the illusion of depression is actually a positive thing - the reallocation of effort away from government and towards private sector endeavor IS a step towards actual prosperity.
The “smoke and mirrors” argument is coming from those who say “cut this, not that” and is almost always pomp and ceremony towards doing nothing.
In this case I sincerely doubt under sequestration government spending will actually go down. But they’ll trumpet “10 year savings” as if it were present year savings.
No, the taxpayer cant tell the difference between one spending and the other. It’s all bleeding of the productive class to prop up the non-productive class - which includes an awful lot of defense spending.
So cut it. If military leadership cannot cope with 10% reduction, they are incompetent bureaucrats that are dangerously close to being Anti-American government piglets squealing about “their budgets” not really about their concern for America. THAT is unfortunately what much of our Defense department is.
Now if you want to argue about what ELSE gets cut, fair enough - I’m right there with you. Why not cut the $150Billion they’ve helpfully identified and keep on going.
The taxpayers are real heroes in today’s America. Give ‘em a break.
OK - I will.
Here is what I said:
"I read today that Defense spending was down 22 percent last quarter....
One Google search later, let's see what we find:
"Meanwhile, government spending, which has been a drag on growth for more than two years, declined for the ninth time in 10 quarters. The biggest cuts came in military spending, which tumbled at a rate of 22.2%, the largest drop since 1972."
So I was correct in my facts.
Government spending, including defense spending does not create prosperity. THAT is the very definition of smoke and mirrors.
All government spending is not "evil." By that logic, government spending during WWII (which reached 39% of GDP) was evil. By your reasoning, Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and Booze-Allen are "bad." By your logic, all military communities are "bad." By that logic, the Space Program was horrible. It didn't create any jobs or innovation.
Do you know what spending is "bad?" Throwing 62% (and increasing every day) or all dollars (taxed and borrowed) at entitlements to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet that wants a check.
THAT is unaffordable, and is breaking our national back.
I don't know what your game is RFEngineer. You what I suspect it is? You want to protect whatever government check you are getting, or someone you live with is getting, so you are prepared to throw the nation's military on the altar of sacrifice so that your direct deposit is safe.
And think of all the money to be made to rebuild, if we get that chance.
“I don’t know what your game is RFEngineer. You what I suspect it is? You want to protect whatever government check you are getting, or someone you live with is getting, so you are prepared to throw the nation’s military on the altar of sacrifice so that your direct deposit is safe. “
Ah, you’ve been reading a previous thread where I claimed to be on government assistance in response to my leg being pulled.....
No, I am a self-employed tax payer. I pay a shitload of taxes. I hate listening to whiners complain about one bit of spending over another - or exclaiming THEIR check can’t be cut until SOMEONE ELSE gets their check cut.
All government spending past a limited threshold IS EVIL. We are well past that point.
I want to cut ALL government spending including defense - because it’s not government’s money.
So what about you SkyPilot? What’s your game? What sort of government check do you get - or from which defense contractor do you get paid?
Ah, youve been reading a previous thread where I claimed to be on government assistance in response to my leg being pulled.....
Oh, so you lie here on the board.
Great. Now at least I know what you are.
No, I am a self-employed tax payer. I pay a shitload of taxes
Well, if you are telling the truth (this time), there is:
1. No need to use profanity here
2. I pay more than my "fair share" too - trust me
As for myself, I have stated this before on the board and I am proud of it: I am a retired military officer and pilot. I get a retirement check for that - yes. In 21 years of service, three wars, and things that I refuse to divulge here to someone such as yourself, I believe I earned it, and you would be quite shocked to learn that it ain't that much. But if you or anyone else here think that retired military are "undeserving" - go right ahead.
I sure think I earned that more than 99% of most Americans, and I will say the same for each and every veteran in this nation. You will never convince me otherwise.
On top of that, I am disgusted by how ungrateful and shortsighted this nation has become. You don't get to live in Xanadu of Libertarian Land because you won life's lottery. Other people paid a price for it.
I want to cut ALL government spending including defense - because its not governments money.
And I want a pony.
“Oh, so you lie here on the board.”
You are a complete humorless idiot.
“I get a retirement check for that” so why is it you accuse me of defending a government check - when you are directly conflicted in that regard? You have a bizarre sense of right and wrong.
You aren’t the only one to serve in the military, nor does that make you uniquely qualified to comment on future military funding - Neither does my own military service qualify me. However, as a taxpayer I AM qualified to object to any and all spending of all kinds.
“you would be quite shocked to learn that it ain’t that much. But if you or anyone else here think that retired military are “undeserving” - go right ahead.”
You really are a patronizing doofus.
“I sure think I earned that more than 99% of most Americans, and I will say the same for each and every veteran in this nation. You will never convince me otherwise.”
The problem is oh, wise one, is that we don’t have the money.
So budgets and checks of all kinds are under direct threat of being severely reduced. Check recipients such as yourself always think they deserve “their” check over someone elses check - which is why we have $16T in debt and counting.
“On top of that, I am disgusted by how ungrateful and shortsighted this nation has become.”
Oh ungrateful are we? I served because I felt duty-bound. You apparently did it for an ongoing revenue stream. To each his own.
If you actually understood how dire a situation we are in financially, you would realize that I seek to preserve some sort of check for those recipients that are truly deserving of government benefits. But you feel that is being “ungrateful”. Good grief.
“And I want a pony.”
See you are really warped in the humor department. The “I want a pony” comment should be more appropriately applied to those who RECEIVE government benefits than to those who PAY and PAY and PAY.
So which government contractor do you work for SkyPilot? I have your number, don’t I? He who dips double complains most when defense budgets are cut.
I am an "idiot" and a "doofus."
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
In your last two posts to me, you violated the first two. Why don't you throw in some racism and make it a Trifecta?
“In your last two posts to me, you violated the first two. Why don’t you throw in some racism and make it a Trifecta?”
LOL.....piece of work SkyPilot.
Standards for ME but not for THEE.
The revolving door of defense contracting is an ethical travesty from which the DoD cannot easily recover it’s credibility.
You sheepishly avoid the subject in favor of complaining that I called you a “doofus” and that I used a curse-word to describe my personal tax burden.
So where were we, you poor, poor victim of an “ungrateful nation” that provides you a lifetime pension and medical care along with a cushy defense contractor job (wink-wink)?
Ah yes, we were discussing that there may be room for a 10% cut in the defense budget, and you argued against it.
I engaged in my own "mind reading" of your motives, which I shouldn't have done. My apologies for that.
You can question my motives sir, my patriotism, or whatever else you wish. I have a great and abiding esteem for this nation's military and those who have served it. In my humble opinion, the military get used and abused by our civilian masters, and this latest outrage is par for the course.
My interest in serving was never "financial" as you stated (that was your own "mind reading" of motives). I joined, and stayed, because of patriotism. You can choose to believe that or not. I really don't care.
Military spending is not what is bankrupting this nation. Does all spending need to decrease? Yes. Has the military already paid it's "fair share?" It sure has enough pounds of flesh taken from it lately, with no decrease in mission, and no other entitlement or government programs have coughed up to the same degree. Moreover, sequestration takes 50% of the cuts from 17% of the budget, and hte military is constitutional. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANF, Section 8, Social Security, and SSDI are not. They pay nothing towards this latest cut.
Thank you for returning to rational budget discussion.
All things must be cut. There is just not enough money to pay for it all.
Agreeing that a defense budget should be cut does not say that nothing else should be cut. That is an overused debate tactic for any announced cut for anything. Sure, in this administration, it’s probably the outcome, but I doubt even defense budgets will suffer to the extent that it could even remotely be described as “gutting”.
I don’t take the personal stuff too personal for long, and I can dish out as well as I take. No permanent offense taken or intended. You’re just as much of an asshole as me, and I mean that as a compliment.
Please do me a favor. Please dispatch the the profanity. Please. It isn’t allowed here and we don’t need it. Thanks very much.
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.