Well it looks like both sides of the aisle have found something to agree on again. As the politicians start angling to keep their district's share of the US Defense subsidies flowing into their communities.
CNN Congress Prepares to Defend Districts from Defense Cuts
Fox News War Fighters Bear Brunt
CS Monitor Why the Warthog
How are we evr going to cut government spending when so many people seem to think they need it? Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The answer is that you're never going to see the level of cuts that you desire because there's no political will for it.
It is hard to argue with you there...
Forbes Its the Spending
G2A Just say No
G2A Up is Up
What I find amusing are the Liberals who want to cut the military until it impacts their local community.
And the Conservatives are always amusing when this discussion comes up. "Government is too big, yet it is okay to have 1000's of bases and maintenance facilities.
Wiki Marines, Navy, Air Force
Wiki Army
What I find amusing are the Liberals who want to cut the military until it impacts their local community.
I am amused by conservatives who argue that government spending isn't stimulative except when it occurs in their districts. For myself, I am a believer in the broken window theory, that breaking windows is good for the economy. It's just that so many other things are better.
--Hiram
Defense has been steadily declining as a percent of GDP, while entitlement spending has been increasing. Common sense would dictate that we get more "savings" by going after the fat than we do the muscle. And commonsense constitutionality would notice that defense is the number one function of the federal government, and that most of this other spending is not a proper constitutional function of the federal government at all.
Like Newt Gingrich, I believe, once said, "I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk." These cuts can be undertaken, but they should be done by increased efficiency rather than by cutting effectiveness. Obama's plans are obviously the opposite.
I would like to know how you replace a Warthog A-10 with an F-35, anyway. Radically different aircraft, and a sign of non-thinking anti-militarists.
It seems to me that % of GDP shouldn't be a consideration when making the defense budget. It should be based on needs. If you only need 1% of GDP, fine. If you need 10% of GDP, fine.
Hold on everyone... Jerry and Mother Jones are aligned on something.
MJ A10 vs F35
F35 Page
Just to notice something else: Defense is a part of "discretionary spending" but an essential constitutional obligation of the federal government. "Entitlements," while NOT a Constitutional requirement, are NOT "discretionary." Indeed, in the sequester, half of the cuts came from defense and the other half came from other "discretionary" spending, leaving fully 50% of the total budget unaffected. That's not reasonable when you're doing an "across the board cut." If defense is 20% of the total budget, than only 20% of the "cuts" (or less, since it is "required" spending) should come from there. That's what bothers me most, is that Obama seems to be driving these cuts without regard to what the military ought to be doing and the funds needed to do it.
Some interesting graphs.
National Priorities Spending
Technically I think it was Congress who cut the Defense funding. The President and Defense Secretary just have to figure the best way to live within what they were allocated.
What we are discussing here is the President's budget blueprint to the Congress, and the likely opposition to the defense cuts based on the "special interests" lined up for that money. You know, just like the special interests that line up for the other 85% of the budget.
I agree, with almost all of us receiving something, it will be hard to cut anything...
Post a Comment