Skip to comments.More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex (Ron Paul)
Posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another supplemental appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.
If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 regular appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.
The latest supplemental bill is touted as an emergency war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.
Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.
The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.
With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.
There is nothing conservative about spending money we dont have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.
I’ve heard said that the purpose of a federal government is to provide for the nation’s defense. Ron Paul and his surrender monkeys can still KMA.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I think instead of needing to worry about a military-industrial complex we need much more to worry about all of industry being tied to government as we are seeing today. Virtually two-thirds of the world live under some sort of tyranny right now. I do not see how we need to withdraw more from the world in regards to military might.
I don't disagree with any of that, especially the 'invite the world' part.
But I think it's foolishly naive to believe that we can just stand idly by while a nation with a loon dictator who has an apocalyptic death wish and has repeatly threatened to annihilate not only our ally Israel, but the USA as well obtains the ultimate weapon. It is our duty to us and to our posterity to do everything in our power to prevent that from happening, up to and including a full-scale land invasion and occupation of Iran. Or simply bomb them back to the Stone Age.
Unfortunately, with this bunch in DC now, the Iranians will get the bomb. And one way or another, we'll pay the price for our inaction.
"Ron Paul is a nut."
So is Congress not going for another supplemental appropriations bill, HospiceNurse? Is government spending "under control" and Ron Paul is wrong about our overspending? Are our military and foreign aid packages not worth $1 Trillion a year?
This is always the problem with any post to FR that includes the name "Ron Paul", because the detractors are unwilling to deal with the facts of the issues. Instead, they take turns skeet-shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message.
The fact is that Congress is spending us into bankruptcy and we can't afford the same kind of spending behavior that bankrupted and eventually destroyed the Soviet Union.
Perhaps Ron Paul is a little too much of a purist on only acting militarily when it is purely in defense of the US, perhaps not. That does not mean that he is all wrong when it comes to us looking at what we can afford in terms of foreign commitments and military spending. Maybe we need to look at taking care of ourselves and our own country's needs instead of stretching ourselves so thin patrolling the world for conflicts -- and our politicians need to worry about taking care of America, instead of being focused on championing the world.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
we go after little countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, little East European countries who most in this country never heard of.
China, Russia, North Korea are exempt from this "benevolent" policy? What are we,? The Big Bullies on the block? The war on terror is an excuse. If it were not, US Presidents would stop kissing(Bush)and bowing(Obama)to the same Saudi Princes that fund Wahhabi's in this country and who finance terrorist Sunni's' and madrassa's worldwide. The worst genocidal dictators are in Africa. Why no interest in stopping the genocide there? No oil?
With so much target rich fun to be made, why would I reduce to hatred?
Btw, it's a liberal idea that the Soviets imploded by themselves without Reagan, and that should give you pause.......
But it won't.
You must mean North Korea right? Why did Bush allow crazy Kim to build nuclear bombs?
I KNOW who was responsible for driving the old Soviets broke. I was part of that, still serving all through Reagan’s terms. THIS is about the simple fact that they spent and overspent on military things until they went broke. And the simple fact that we cannot afford to do the same.
But isn't the intertwining of the military and industry simply a major facet in the tieing together of government and industry, whether it's government controlling the industry or the industry controlling the government?
Easy, but they still won’t get it. It’s the flip side of liberals justifying billions in social spending based on the idea that “if it saves the life of one child, it is worth it.” Reason goes out the window, and “traitor” gets used the way liberals use “racist”.
Paultards and liberals are pretty much on the same side of the fence on most issues. They agree with us conservatives on very little.
The Paultards run on the Republican ticket in order to infiltrate and damage the conservative cause. They go around puffing up their chests and telling us what is "really conservative," and get angry to the point of apoplectic when they fail to convince us with their silly arguments.
Now as to your Paul worship, why do you let him get away with being the biggest (R) spender and earmarker in congress while he claims to be against spending too much?
another one of the anti war rags.
Most who write for that rag thought since Hitler was not a threat to the U.S. we shouldn’t have fought him.
It must have been tough for you when you found out about
the Easter Bunny.
You think National Security is the equivalent of welfare and entitlement spending? Wasnt our nation recently attacked? The next 9/11 could be 300,000 dead American civilians or even 3 million but you want to treat it as if it needs to be cut because it is an abuse of government? Over two-thirds of the world is struggling for freedom living under the thumb of some sort of tyranny. WMD are getting smaller and smaller and more abundant. Paul supporters are dangerous because they do not have the common sense to see the importance of National Security.
Then his worshippers have the nerve to say he has or is some kind of answer......
Well....I agree that the strict wording of the text would contradict the label of empire as applied to the U.S. Of course, strictly speaking, it would also contradict the use of that term for the Brits who at the height of their “empire” shared power with native local rulers in India and elsewhere. Indeed, nearly empire in history, has been a power sharing arrangement.
You lie and you know it! Ron Paul is not a truther. He has said many, many times, that Bin Laden did it. Your case against him must be pretty weak if you have to make things up. Oh...don't bother to use the Alex Jones guilt by association response. That smear can easily be transfered. Palin also has many truthers in her corner but that doesn't make her a truther.