David Stockman: "We are at the point of no return..."

[mhgaffney]

A new political alignment is taking place in our country. It's why I post Paul Craig Roberts' stuff on the OM.

The local rightards don't get this. They keep trying to portray things in right left terms -- but they are clueless.

Check out this recent article about David Stockman, Reagan's former budget director. He is no lefty -- yet he agrees with the lefties like me calling for an end to the wars.

MHG

RAW STORY Exclusive: America has ‘reached the point of no return,’ Reagan budget director warns

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/america-has-reached-the-point-of-no-return-reagan-budget-director-warns/
The Obama administration's $78 billion cut to US defense spending is a mere "pin-prick" to a behemoth military-industrial complex that must drastically shrink for the good of the republic, a former Reagan administration budget director recently told Raw Story.

"It amounts to a failed opportunity to recognize that we are now at a historical inflection point at which the time has arrived for a classic post-war demobilization of the entire military establishment," David Stockman said in an exclusive interview.

"The Cold War is long over," he continued. "The wars of occupation are almost over and were complete failures -- Afghanistan and Iraq. The American empire is done. There are no real seriously armed enemies left in the world that can possibly justify an $800 billion national defense and security establishment, including Homeland Security."

Short of that, he suggested, the United States has "reached the point of no return" with its artificial creation of wealth, and will eventually face a sharp economic decline.

Stockman last fall criticized the extension of the Bush tax cuts while the federal government continued to borrow money abroad to pay for its public welfare and warfare programs. His solution to deficit spending -- a huge across-the-board tax increase -- is contrary to the current anti-tax ideology shared among tea party activists as well as fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party.



Stockman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 to run the Office of Management and Budget, offered two models for the US military's compulsory demobilization: the one after World War I in 1920 and the one after World War II in 1946.

Calling today's military spending running at 5.4 percent of GDP "simply an absurd level that begs for radical contraction and surgery," he said that a "reasonable target" to shrink the defense establishment would be 3 percent of GDP by 2015.

What budget cuts?

Republicans, who were elected to a majority in the House of Representatives on promises to cut government spending, promised to cut $100 billion from the budget in their first year. Relatively few have proposed significant decreases in defense spending, and GOP leadership has outright dismissed the possibility.

Some prominent members of the House GOP caucus have even suggested the sum of their austerity measures could fall to only $30 billion, if that.

Republicans in Congress have instead championed their success in extending President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The Congressional Research Service reported (PDF) that extending debased tax rates to the wealthy will add an additional $5.08 trillion to the US deficit over the next 10 years.

The Bush-era tax rates that Republicans had set to expire were continued for another two years in a legislative compromise that cleared the way for a series of Democratic legislative victories in Congress. President Obama vowed to press the issue again in 2012.

Among their first actions as the House majority, Republicans also pushed for a repeal of President Obama's health care reform laws, even as the Senate's Democratic majority vowed to block the measure. Repeal of the laws would cost an additional $230 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (PDF), and would likely drive the number of uninsured Americans to over 54 million by 2019.

But with the US national debt ballooning past $14 trillion in recent days, even a debasement of the military-industrial complex might be too little, too late.

Some analysts have warned the next debt crisis could be municipal bonds, where a $2 trillion market bubble currently exists. One, who correctly predicted the Citigroup credit crunch, even suggested that over 100 US cities may default in the process.

But very few, if anyone, in Congress, the National Security Council, the State or Defense Departments have even dared to publicly raise the prospect of reducing the military establishment and its spending to offset the national debt, Stockman said.

"Unless you have a profound change in foreign policy, you're not going to have the possibility of a radical change in defense spending. The later follows from the former," he said.

"This is a profound disappointment that there's not even a debate -- a serious debate about dramatic change in our imperialist foreign policy and war-making establishment in this administration -- allegedly the most left-wing administration that we've had in modern time."

"I don't have much hope that what needs to be done will be done until it's finally forced on us by a world bond market crisis, which will happen sooner or later," Stockman added.

The 'Ponzi scheme' of 'artificial prosperity'

Stockman, who described himself as a libertarian during a recent interview with Reason.tv, told Raw Story that the economy got into this mess because of the public and private sectors' addiction to "guns and butter Keynesianism," an economic policy that amounts to a Ponzi scheme that has ballooned since 1990.

"If we see what's going on carefully, we've reached the final unmasking of the Keynesian illusion, that Keynesianism is really nothing but borrowing, stealing from the future to induce consumption today," he said. "There are no multipliers. Every one of these programs we've had from 'cash for clunkers' to housing purchase credits have disappeared as soon as they expired and simple shifted activities in time by a few months."

Stockman explained that before 1980, it took about $1.50 of new borrowing -- public or private -- to generate $1 of GDP growth. By the mid-1990s, it was $2.50 or $3 of borrowing for a $1 of GDP growth. By 2007, before the big collapse and meltdown finally came, $7 of public and private debt was added to the national balance sheet in order to get $1 of GDP growth.

"When you get to the point of $7 of borrowing to get $1 of income, you're obviously on an unsustainable path and pretty close to hitting the wall, which more or less we have," he said.

"So the addicts in Washington are now unfortunately terrified to stop all this borrowing whether it's for guns or butter for fear of the economy will collapse.... That's why we're just at the beginning of solving this massive financial collapse we had in 2008 and not in the process of healthy recovery as some of the pals in the White House or on Capitol Hill or on Wall Street would have you believe."

America's "massive debt-created, artificial prosperity" is unprecedented in history, he continued. The dependence on consumption supported by public and private borrowing, not income, is a new stage for Western Europe as well.

A global public debt crisis was inevitable and likely unstoppable, given the political conditions, Stockman added.

"We've reached a point of no return. The size of the government. The massive size of the deficits and the national debt that has been created. The precedents that have been established for bailouts and intervention in every sector of the economy. The K Street lobbying system which totally dominates the Congress. All of these are very unhealthy developments.

"And I'm not sure how they are going to be reversed or eliminated," he concluded. "It may be a permanent way of life. Then, if it is, it'll be both a corruption of democracy and a serious weakening of the private capitalistic economy."

With additional reporting and editing by Stephen C. Webster.

[baja]

These cuts will come to pass the question is will it be done rationally with a plan covering several years of downturns or will it be a forced chaotic event that happens suddenly with catastrophic consequences?

[DenverBrit]

Stockman is exactly right about the Military industrial complex.

It's obscenely bloated and loaded with corruption.
But who has the balls to take it on and get it reduced to a manageable and relevant size?

The country needs another Eisenhower:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[cutthemdown]

With China building there military it's not the time to cut back. If anything we should add troops. I do agree though we should wind Afghanistan down. Obama's surge has been a dismal failure. I guess it's the generals fault for having a poor plan that won't work in a dog **** country like Afghanistan. I mean we are talking about a country where they screw little boys as matter of culture.

The only way to put them under control is how Taliban did it by cutting off heads. Well our version would be blowing up whole villages where no one is really left alive. Just send Marines into the outskirts of a village. If they come under attack then you call in fuel air bomb strikes on that village. Village destoryed and move on. By the time you do that 40 or 50 times the war would be over. But instead they are trying to win with small arms fire? no tanks to speak of? No airstrikes that threaten civilians? cmon you can't ever win like that.

So yeah I agree just end the war and bring the troops home. Then work on building military up even stronger.

[Obushma]

I guess it's the generals fault for having a poor plan that won't work in a dog **** country like Afghanistan. I mean we are talking about a country where they screw little boys as matter of culture.


Yeah it's crazy, we actually have corporations here in the USA that sell those little boys to the Afghan police our military is training. Definitely just need to "wind it down" though.


The only way to put them under control is how Taliban did it by cutting off heads. Well our version would be blowing up whole villages where no one is really left alive. Just send Marines into the outskirts of a village. If they come under attack then you call in fuel air bomb strikes on that village. Village destoryed and move on. By the time you do that 40 or 50 times the war would be over. But instead they are trying to win with small arms fire? no tanks to speak of? No airstrikes that threaten civilians? cmon you can't ever win like that.

Christ, no wonder they hate us because of our freedoms. Any chance you'd be willing to go over there and help your fellow Americans out? Infantry, maybe those guys who drive around looking for roadside bombs? Hell, you might even get lucky and get moved up the ladder to when you retire you can work for DynCorp.

[baja]

With China building there military it's not the time to cut back. If anything we should add troops. I do agree though we should wind Afghanistan down. Obama's surge has been a dismal failure. I guess it's the generals fault for having a poor plan that won't work in a dog **** country like Afghanistan. I mean we are talking about a country where they screw little boys as matter of culture.

The only way to put them under control is how Taliban did it by cutting off heads. Well our version would be blowing up whole villages where no one is really left alive. Just send Marines into the outskirts of a village. If they come under attack then you call in fuel air bomb strikes on that village. Village destroyed and move on. By the time you do that 40 or 50 times the war would be over. But instead they are trying to win with small arms fire? no tanks to speak of? No airstrikes that threaten civilians? cmon you can't ever win like that.

So yeah I agree just end the war and bring the troops home. Then work on building military up even stronger.

No need to worry about China's military thy can destroy the USA any time they want to without firing shot, just dump dollars and stop loaning us money. That will turn the USA into a third world country.

[mhgaffney]

With China building there military it's not the time to cut back. If anything we should add troops. I do agree though we should wind Afghanistan down. Obama's surge has been a dismal failure. I guess it's the generals fault for having a poor plan that won't work in a dog **** country like Afghanistan. I mean we are talking about a country where they screw little boys as matter of culture.

The only way to put them under control is how Taliban did it by cutting off heads. Well our version would be blowing up whole villages where no one is really left alive. Just send Marines into the outskirts of a village. If they come under attack then you call in fuel air bomb strikes on that village. Village destoryed and move on. By the time you do that 40 or 50 times the war would be over. But instead they are trying to win with small arms fire? no tanks to speak of? No airstrikes that threaten civilians? cmon you can't ever win like that.

So yeah I agree just end the war and bring the troops home. Then work on building military up even stronger.

Before the war began in 1979 -- Afghanistan had a Sufi tradition known for moderation and tolerance.

30 yeas of war has destroyed the country.

We are there because the US elite believe that whoever controls central Asia controls the whole Asian continent. And whoever controls Asia controls the planet.

It's about controlling China, Russia and India.

It's a US power play to dominate the world.

9/11 was only the pretext.

[SoCalBronco]

Gaff, be honest, do you FAP to PCR-type articles?

[mhgaffney]

SoCal,

We are drowning in acronyms. Please spell out your question. (FAP = ?)

[Bronco Yoda]

For those interested.

http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman190110.htm

[Boomhauer]

These cuts will come to pass the question is will it be done rationally with a plan covering several years of downturns or will it be a forced chaotic event that happens suddenly with catastrophic consequences?

Probably the later. There's an incredible amount of waste due to local jobs/interest of the Legislators that are nearly immune to cuts, so essential programs will probably be axed if a numeric goal is pursued.
Programs of shear waste include C-17 and F-18 production, Stryker, MRAP and B-52 maintinence, scatter-gun FCS development that's being wound down, two seperate LCS aquisitions, apparently overweight JLTV competition, and most of all - the counterproductive bidding wars ongoing in the Middle East.

[TailgateNut]

With China building there military it's not the time to cut back. If anything we should add troops. I do agree though we should wind Afghanistan down. Obama's surge has been a dismal failure. I guess it's the generals fault for having a poor plan that won't work in a dog **** country like Afghanistan. I mean we are talking about a country where they screw little boys as matter of culture.

The only way to put them under control is how Taliban did it by cutting off heads. Well our version would be blowing up whole villages where no one is really left alive. Just send Marines into the outskirts of a village. If they come under attack then you call in fuel air bomb strikes on that village. Village destoryed and move on. By the time you do that 40 or 50 times the war would be over. But instead they are trying to win with small arms fire? no tanks to speak of? No airstrikes that threaten civilians? cmon you can't ever win like that.

So yeah I agree just end the war and bring the troops home. Then work on building military up even stronger.


LOL


What one should expect from Mr. Rock-em Sock-em

[TailgateNut]

Yeah it's crazy, we actually have corporations here in the USA that sell those little boys to the Afghan police our military is training. Definitely just need to "wind it down" though.







Christ, no wonder they hate us because of our freedoms. Any chance you'd be willing to go over there and help your fellow Americans out? Infantry, maybe those guys who drive around looking for roadside bombs? Hell, you might even get lucky and get moved up the ladder to when you retire you can work for DynCorp.

He is just a cheerleader for the MIC and "loves him some war". To much of a "kitty" to actually serve.

[orinjkrush]

our foreign entanglements have necessitated our operational military costs.
but they pale in comparison to our federal entitlements.
what is needed is a review of entitlements. those that are earned and those that are not.
too many people receive too much largess without having earned any of it.
GI entitlements are earned.

[mhgaffney]

OK -- just so you don't include social security -- which is NOT an entitlement.

It is paid for -- directly out of your and my paychecks.

The SS was set up on a sound basis -- until the politicos raided the SS fund.

The answer would be to prosecute the people who did this.

Of course --the lunatic right wants to destroy SS -- and every other social program. They want everything privatized -- even the air we breathe and the water we drink.

[Jay3]

We need to close bases, lots of them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Military bases are like giant pork barrel projects -- previous politicians loved to bring them home to their states, and current ones don't want them touched.

We could spend a lot less if we reduced the footrpint of the military, and maintain a lot of the same core capability, just not the spread out reach of it.

If you support reduction in military spending, support base closings. That's something that left, right, hawk, and dove ought to be able agree upon.

Do that first.

[Boomhauer]

OK -- just so you don't include social security -- which is NOT an entitlement. ...

Of course SS is an entitlement and must be cut, just like welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, education, farm subsidies, green subsidies, ethnic subsidies, etc. Military spending, as well as National Security and clandestine ops, is on the chopping block with them, just like investor-class tax relief programs.

Decades have been spent fattening the Government and it's time for liposuction ... with a chainsaw.

[mhgaffney]

Boom,

You do not know how to listen. Evidently you watch too much FOX.

SS is not an entitlement. The funds come out of YOUR paycheck every month. It is YOUR money -- that is put aside -- and later returned to you when you retire.

I expect you are another example of the dumbed down American who always votes against his own interests.

MHG

[orinjkrush]

many receive SS entitlements without having contributed (spouses, children, our parents etc.)
reducing our military commitments is key to reducing military needs.
fairness should be built into our entitlement systems: you get what you have contributed plus interest.
we should appropriate all bankster profits for the foreseeable future, in the national interest. (they have not earned any of them, they are unfair exploitation, nothing more than financial predation.) usury should be banned. making products and services should be rewarded, not credit default swaps and securitization of insanity.

[Jay3]

Boom,

You do not know how to listen. Evidently you watch too much FOX.

SS is not an entitlement. The funds come out of YOUR paycheck every month. It is YOUR money -- that is put aside -- and later returned to you when you retire.

I expect you are another example of the dumbed down American who always votes against his own interests.

MHG

It's an entitle, disguised as a pension plan. It redistributes wealth. Many receive back an amount that would never result from their contribution. Many receive back far less that their contribution would justify.

It is a program designed to get us accustomed to the idea of collective security, of the idea that getting back our own money is something we should look to the government for.

It performs horribly as a program, and is the single greatest loss of opportunity in government programs. If we set it up right, it could really empower the lower classes to have intergenerational capital.

[mhgaffney]

Jay,

I can tell you are young -- and not collecting SS.

You sound like GW trying to sell the public on his plan (correction: scam) to replace SS with an alternative based on the stock market (correction: Russian roulette).

No thank you. The second operative word in SS is security. The idea here is to keep down risk.

If Bush had had his way -- our old folks would have lost everything when the derivative bubble went splat -- and would be selling apples or begging for hand outs on the street corner.

40-50% of the US economy is either speculation or illicit activity (money laundering etc)

[Jay3]

Jay,

I can tell you are young -- and not collecting SS.

You sound like GW trying to sell the public on his plan (correction: scam) to replace SS with an alternative based on the stock market (correction: Russian roulette).

No thank you. The second operative word in SS is security. The idea here is to keep down risk.

If Bush had had his way -- our old folks would have lost everything when the derivative bubble went splat -- and would be selling apples or begging for hand outs on the street corner.

40-50% of the US economy is either speculation or illicit activity (money laundering etc)

No, I'm 41 and quite aware of how it works. You're free to read up on all of the entitlement aspects of Social Security, how it pays benefits in excess of contributions (as it should, it serves a needed purpose). And you're free to do the math about how well it performs when one considers how much it takes out of every man's paycheck.

Any normal retirement plan pays the accumulated wealth to the retiree on death. If he dies at 66 before it's spent up, he has some wealth to devise to his heirs. In Social Security, the government says "thank you for your money! The government wins this one!"

What it means is the working man never gets the wealth accumulation that is possible with all that money, while those who are well paid have designed an entirely different approach for themselves -- a 401(k) style defined contribution plan, whereby the accumulated value is never dissipated.

And so once again, government throws up hurdles to class mobility.

[Odysseus]

Stockman is exactly right about the Military industrial complex.

It's obscenely bloated and loaded with corruption.
But who has the balls to take it on and get it reduced to a manageable and relevant size?

The country needs another Eisenhower:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

IKE was widely panned back in his day for things that we consider now to be common sense. IKE's speech is amazing to me because it's pure common sense but it is the opposite of what "we the people" are doing, supporting, or paying for.

The thread regarding banks controlling things and what is happening with currency is every bit related to what is going on in Afghanistan.

The biggest thing the military needs to do is get ride of mid level officers, install direct chain of command leadership, focus on the what the Non Commissioned officers are concerned about and instead of working with the lowest bidder on contractors focus on performance as the measurable. There needs to be a criteria for a QUALITY military instead of having piles of new raggedy equipment.

I do not think base closures is as critical an issue as establishing what is the end game size of our military. We keep cutting the wrong things and getting rid of things that we will need. Military needs a team of Project Managers who do bottom up evaluation. There needs to be a complete audit of how contractors are being used and instead of applying them everywhere come up with a way that a soldier (who contracted to be that) can do the job he signed up to do or better yet have an opportunity to be all that he can be. :)

[Odysseus]

We need to close bases, lots of them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Military bases are like giant pork barrel projects -- previous politicians loved to bring them home to their states, and current ones don't want them touched.

We could spend a lot less if we reduced the footrpint of the military, and maintain a lot of the same core capability, just not the spread out reach of it.

If you support reduction in military spending, support base closings. That's something that left, right, hawk, and dove ought to be able agree upon.

Do that first.

The entire military is a gianormous pork barrel project. Fraud? Waste? Abuse? How do you know? We don't have any kind of quality audit. Why go with lowest contractor? Why not build a Six Sigma process where you evaluate BEST offer and opportunity?

I am against base closings. I would rather focus on building the right bases in in the right locations with the NATIONAL interest as the main focus instead of the current political Catch 22..

[Odysseus]

No, I'm 41 and quite aware of how it works. You're free to read up on all of the entitlement aspects of Social Security, how it pays benefits in excess of contributions (as it should, it serves a needed purpose). And you're free to do the math about how well it performs when one considers how much it takes out of every man's paycheck.

Any normal retirement plan pays the accumulated wealth to the retiree on death. If he dies at 66 before it's spent up, he has some wealth to devise to his heirs. In Social Security, the government says "thank you for your money! The government wins this one!"

What it means is the working man never gets the wealth accumulation that is possible with all that money, while those who are well paid have designed an entirely different approach for themselves -- a 401(k) style defined contribution plan, whereby the accumulated value is never dissipated.

And so once again, government throws up hurdles to class mobility.

I don't think there are 10 posters on this board who know what to do with $500,000 if you gave it to them. Retirement is a very tricky business. How much is our dollar worth in 20 years? I can't get people to get on the same page about money because we have such a wide strata of incomes, solutions, and/or problems that the real issue is staggering.

That all said give ME my freaking money. I am more than happy to sort this out for myself and yes you are right. Class mobility is a critical issue rather than restoring the middle class. We don't have the baby boom anymore. We don't have the industrial backbone or national will power to even possibly consider that. The divide between haves and have nots will continue go expand in the face of options that are being clearly ignored.

I like your points and I wish that people were able to talk about these issues without devolving to personal attacks over literally nothing. We have become a nation of infants and there isn't a tit big enough in the world to get either party to stop crying and start taking action.

[Odysseus]

our foreign entanglements have necessitated our operational military costs.
but they pale in comparison to our federal entitlements.
what is needed is a review of entitlements. those that are earned and those that are not.
too many people receive too much largess without having earned any of it.
GI entitlements are earned.

We need to audit return on investment as a broad application of applying our national wealth. Our military, for a lack of an alternative, are our new middle class. I think it's sad that the only thing our nation is good at is war and right now we suck at it.

War should be brutal, fast and then over with. Police actions belong to the local populace. If it's a police action it's no longer a war. A smaller footprint can accomplish the same goals.

[Odysseus]

These cuts will come to pass the question is will it be done rationally with a plan covering several years of downturns or will it be a forced chaotic event that happens suddenly with catastrophic consequences?

We seldom do the right things for or with the military. We cut the sniper teams, go to war, find out we have no sniper, rebuild the sniper teams, and then cut the sniper teams again. The military needs to streamline leadership and get rid of officers trying to justify positions that are not needed.

We need to make the Army more skilled base instead of giving away knowledge to contractors retain skillset jobs with the military and help the soldiers bring skill based mindsets to America instead of landing on our shores looking for their next entitlement.

We need to rebuild the NCO core and focus on helping the soldiers who are in the trenches and listen to THEIR needs instead of surveying the guys who never do jack ****.

[mhgaffney]

Odysseus,

You are looking at the problem through a fisheye. Predatory capitalism has won. Today everything is outsourced. I read there are more hired Whackahut type soldiers in Iraq than GIs.

This is called war for profit. That 30's era hero general Smedley Butler called it when he wrote War is a Racket.

HIs book is now at the top of my list.

The only people who benefit from these wars are the bankers and industrialists. Everyone else loses-- including the GIS.

[mhgaffney]

Here's a review of Butler's book war is a racket. (42 five star reviews at amazon)

This book is a real gem, a classic, that should be in any library desiring to focus on national security. It is a very readable collection of short essays, ending with a concise collection of photographs that show the horror of war--on one page in particular, a pile of artillery shells labeled "Cause" and below is a photo of a massive pile of bodies, labeled "Effect."

Of particular interest to anyone concerned about the current national security situation, both its expensive mis-adventures abroad and its intrusive violation of many Constitutional rights at home, is the author's history, not only as a the most decorated Marine at the time, with campaign experience all over the world, but as a spokesperson, in retirement, for placing constitutional American principles over imperialist American practice.

The following quotations from the book are intended to summarize it:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." [p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

This decorated Marine, who understands and documents in detail the exorbitant profits that a select few insiders (hence the term "racket") make from war, proposes three specific anti-war measures:

1) Take the profit out of war. Nationalize and mobilize the industrial sector, and pay every manager no more than each soldier earns.

2) Vote for war or no war on the basis of a limited plebisite in which only those being asked to bear arms and die for their country are permitted to vote.

3) Limit US military forces, by Constitutional amendment, to home defense purposes only.

There is a great deal of wisdom and practical experience in this small book--Smedley Butler is to war profiteering what S.L.A. Marshall is to "the soldier's load." While a globalized world and the complex integration of both national and non-national interests do seem to require a global national security strategy and a means of exerting global influence, I am convinced that he is correct about the fundamentals: we must take the profit out of war, and restore the voice of the people in the matter of making war.

[Boomhauer]

The entire military is a gianormous pork barrel project. Fraud? Waste? Abuse? How do you know? We don't have any kind of quality audit. Why go with lowest contractor? Why not build a Six Sigma process where you evaluate BEST offer and opportunity?
...

The following is an overview I gave of Gate's intended DoD scale-back posted on another site back on Jan 8th. Reposted here for anyone that want's an idea of current direction.
----------------------------------------------------------

The more I read about what is proposed, the more I like. The overall theme is chopping administrators, contractors, departments and unnessisary programs to make room for needed programs and reducing cost. There is still plenty more waste that can be cut and I don't agree with planning troop cuts on the assumption we'll be out of the Mddle East, but it's a very good start to addressing the bloated DoD budget.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-defense-gates-announces-budget-cuts-010611w/
-snips-
"Gates said the White House would propose a DoD base budget of about $553 billion in 2012, which is about $13 billion less than projected in last year’s five-year spending plan. But it would also be, in real terms, about 3 percent higher than 2011 spending under the current continuing resolution and about 1.5 percent higher than the Appropriations Committees 2011 defense bills.
...
Gates said the White House’s decision to cut $78 billion over five years won’t keep the military from doing what leaders expect it will have to do. He said $54 billion would come from DoD-wide overhead reductions and efficiencies, including a freeze on government civilian salaries; about $14 billion from lower interest rates and other economic shifts since last year’s plan was formulated; ...the services and DoD agencies took a number of steps, including: paring staffs, eliminating redundant organizations and headquarters, consolidating e-mail data centers, eliminating positions, driving down construction costs, and other moves.
...
The efficiencies effort also will help offset unplanned-for expenses that creep up every year for things like fuel costs, maintenance, health care and training — a collective $28 billion bill that officials said would have forced them to dip into hardware programs to pay.
...

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-defense-cuts-6000-sailors-back-to-sea-010611w/
-Navy snips-
"The Navy proposes reassigning 6,000 sailors to sea, eliminating various staffs including that of one carrier strike group, and disbanding the Norfolk, Va.-based 2nd Fleet, according to defense officials. The changes mean the end of the Navy’s lean manning experiment and enact some recommendations of the Balisle fleet review panel, which found in February that years of crew reduction and cost-cutting initiatives had degraded the surface fleet. ...
Some of the Navy’s priorities:
• Purchase more of the latest model F/A-18 fighters and extend the service life of these aircraft, in case of production delays with the Navy variant of the joint strike fighter.
• Accelerate development of next-generation electronic jamming systems.
• Buy more ships over the next five years, including a destroyer, a littoral combat ship, an ocean surveillance vessel and fleet oilers.
• Design the next generation of unmanned aircraft, capable of strike and surveillance missions, and launched from the sea.
..."

My take; I don't see a reason for buying more F-18 E/Fs except as a jobs program. We have plenty and extending service life will keep them running until the F-35C is in full production. This might have something to do with the F-18 being pitched to Brazil and India. The littoral combat ship (LCS) is another issue that needs to be addressed. It's a two-ship competition, and both are being built, but only the Austral is feasible. That last unmanned aircraft (X-47 UCAV) is a huge breakthrough for the Navy...if it works.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/01/airforce-budget-010711w/
-AirForce snips-
"The Air Force plans to consolidate several units, reduce fuel consumption and implement an array of other cost-cutting measures over the next five years to save $34 billion, money that would be poured back into acquisitions — including a long-range bomber. ... At a news conference at the Pentagon, Gates told reporters that the cuts are aimed at eliminating “wasteful, excessive and unneeded spending.” He identified five ways the Air Force plans to cut:
• Consolidating four air operations centers, two in the U.S. and two in Europe. ...
• Consolidating the staffs of three numbered air forces. ...
• Saving $500 million by reducing fuel and energy consumption within Air Mobility Command. Mobility aircraft use 39 percent of the military’s fuel supply, and most airlift belongs to AMC. ...
• Improving depot and supply-chain business processes to sustain weapons systems.
• Reducing the cost of communications infrastructure by 25 percent.
Some of the cost-cutting measures that Gates wants affect all of the services. He called for eliminating 100 general- and flag-officer billets, reforming information technology and reducing the number of intelligence officials and contractors across the military, as well as downgrading the four-star Army, Navy and Air Force commands in Europe to three-star commands The commands in Europe, he said, are “too large and too senior given the number of troops they lead and the military operations they oversee.” ...

The military’s proposed cuts leave it with more than $70 billion, and Gates announced five areas in which the Air Force will invest:
• The development of a long-range, nuclear-capable bomber. ...
• Increasing procurement of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.
• Modernizing radars of F-15s. Air Force officials want to extend the life of the fighters because of delays in the F-35 and the smaller order of the F-22. ...
• Buying more simulators for F-35 pilot training.
• Purchasing more unmanned MQ-9 Reapers. ...
Gates also wants to move intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs from the temporary war budget to the defense budget. ...

My take; I've been waiting to see how the AirForce will adress the ageing bomber fleet and I hope this, and a extension/redersign of the B-1, allows the swift retirment of the B-2 and B-52. The F-15 is too good not to keep flying forever, though I wish the F-16 would go back into production as a lowest-cost option for the AirForce and Navy. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) is the AtlasV and DeltaIV rockets built by ULA for satellites and the X-37 OTV. Until NASA pulls their heads out, the AirForce will have to keep buying AtlasVs as a hedge, but the DeltaIV should be around for decades.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/army-cuts-let-army-keep-soldiers-010611w/
-Army snips-
"...Starting in 2015, the Army will begin to reduce the size of its active-duty force by 27,000 troops. However, until then, it will be able to maintain a force larger than 547,000. Under Gate’s plan the Army will cut 13,500 soldiers in 2015 and another 13,500 in 2016 and end up with an end strength of 520,400.

... the Army made funding cuts and identified redundancies in other areas, according to Gates’ announcement. Some of the savings comes from canceling weapon programs, including the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile [and]... the Non-Line of Sight launch system... “Through comprehensive capability portfolio reviews, the Army proposed savings by terminating or reducing weapon systems with declining relevance or unnecessary redundancy,” Army Secretary John McHugh said...
The service is also reducing staffing by more than 1,000 positions by “eliminating unneeded task forces and consolidating six installation management commands into four. ”By sustaining existing facilities rather than spending on new construction, the service says it can save $1.4 billion. And, by consolidating the service’s e-mail infrastructure and data centers, the Army should save $500 million over five years, it says.

...the Army plans to invest its savings... to upgrade its fleet of ground vehicles, including Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and Stryker wheeled vehicles. ...to accelerate fielding of the Army’s new tactical communications network and its new MQ-1C Grey Eagle UAVs ... buy more MC-12 reconnaissance aircraft, as well as begin development of a new vertical unmanned air system...

My take; As mentioned, planning on troop reductions is a bad idea. Do it when you can, not when the budget says you should. There's no reason to upgrade the Bradley and Stryker. They should be replaced(Ground Combat Vehicle) with remaining Strykers converted to artillery(M1128). I do like the idea of an unmanned helicopter if it has a manned option like a Blackhawk with autopilot.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-defense-gates-announces-budget-cuts-010611w/
-Marine snips-
"...Gates also moved to terminate the Marine Corps’ next-generation amphibious troop hauler, but said the service will build a more-suitable vehicle. And he announced yet another restructuring of the embattled F-35 fighter program, placing the technically challenged vertical take-off-and-landing variant on a two-year probation and making it the last of three models to hit production. ...
Gates has said that the EFV’s [amphibious troop vehicle] seemingly endless and complicated requirements led to “an 80,000-pound vehicle” costly enough to swallow much of the service’s weapon-acquisition budget. ...The Marines already are budgeting for a more suitable — and cheaper — amphibious vehicle program, as well as building in funds to upgrade and re-engine its existing Amphibious Assault Vehicles, Gates said.
The decision to place the STOVL variant of the F-35 on probation was made because fixing technical problems might add weight and delay production. If those fixes cannot be made in two years, “then I believe it should be canceled,” Gates said. He also altered the F-35 production schedule, making the Marines’ STOVL variant the last to be produced. As a hedge, the Navy will buy more F/A-18E/F fighters, he announced. ...The Marines’ freed-up funds will allow the Corps to repair and refurbish war-worn equipment.

My take; Not surprised the EFV got the axe and plans are in place for a better version. It's been miss-managed for years. The absence of V-22 cuts is a relief as it's a core tech for the Marines. The F-35 has bloated by about 10,000lbs since first envisioned, so it's no surprise the vertical take-off version is facing problems. The other two versions would also benefit from a Jenny Craige program. I'm not concerned that production has moved back a few years, but that bird needs to be built. Most appealing is the idea of them stationed on the Navy's Austral LCS like a mini-carrier.
A bit off-topic, but I've believed for a while that all Special Forces should be transfered to the Marines. That would substantially cuts costs and return Marine operations to "first-in first-out", rather than "go where the Army's too afraid and incapable of handeling".

[NUB]

Cuts don't really hit the heart of the problem, though, which is why Stockman is talking about demobilization. There is no way that happens, though, by either "side" in Washington.

[orinjkrush]

ever notice when budget cuts come, its personnel that usually take the hit?
weapons systems and technology development rarely do. we need a new bomber? please.
contractors have louder voices than GIs, mostly because there are few ex GIs but many contractors in our elite corps of politicreeps.

[Odysseus]

Odysseus,

You are looking at the problem through a fisheye. Predatory capitalism has won. Today everything is outsourced. I read there are more hired Whackahut type soldiers in Iraq than GIs.

This is called war for profit. That 30's era hero general Smedley Butler called it when he wrote War is a Racket.

HIs book is now at the top of my list.

The only people who benefit from these wars are the bankers and industrialists. Everyone else loses-- including the GIS.

None of this is going to change no matter we say think or do. The military was politicized years before you or I were born. We cannot kill the monster and should call it a good day if we teach it to be greedy in a beneficial way.

The Rich are loathe to give back what they have stolen.

[Rohirrim]

None of this is going to change no matter we say think or do. The military was politicized years before you or I were born. We cannot kill the monster and should call it a good day if we teach it to be greedy in a beneficial way.

The Rich are loathe to give back what they have stolen.

Yep. Ike warned us a long time ago. Too late now. It's a self-perpetuating monster.

[alkemical]

None of this is going to change no matter we say think or do. The military was politicized years before you or I were born. We cannot kill the monster and should call it a good day if we teach it to be greedy in a beneficial way.

The Rich are loathe to give back what they have stolen.


How should we approach at building a system to change the habits of the monster?

[Obushma]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oMaVEOK1ONA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oMaVEOK1ONA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Obushma]

IKE was widely panned back in his day for things that we consider now to be common sense. IKE's speech is amazing to me because it's pure common sense but it is the opposite of what "we the people" are doing, supporting, or paying for.

The thread regarding banks controlling things and what is happening with currency is every bit related to what is going on in Afghanistan.

The biggest thing the military needs to do is get ride of mid level officers, install direct chain of command leadership, focus on the what the Non Commissioned officers are concerned about and instead of working with the lowest bidder on contractors focus on performance as the measurable. There needs to be a criteria for a QUALITY military instead of having piles of new raggedy equipment.

I do not think base closures is as critical an issue as establishing what is the end game size of our military. We keep cutting the wrong things and getting rid of things that we will need. Military needs a team of Project Managers who do bottom up evaluation. There needs to be a complete audit of how contractors are being used and instead of applying them everywhere come up with a way that a soldier (who contracted to be that) can do the job he signed up to do or better yet have an opportunity to be all that he can be. :)

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/13zCc9JW_wI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/13zCc9JW_wI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[mhgaffney]

On the order of 40% of the DoD budget is black -- meaning the money disappears down hundreds of rabbit holes into black projects.

The oversight process broke down a long time ago.

Some of this black technology was used against the American people on 9/11. It's another reason why the 9/11 issue is key to the solution.

The way they skirt reform is by staged terrorism -- scare the people and they will forget the corruption and keep the $$$ flowing to the military industrial complex.

But the corruption is at the heart of it.

[Odysseus]

How should we approach at building a system to change the habits of the monster?

Ron Paul is very stoppable. He makes good points but he needs support from a wider base with common interests. If I were him I would go after the Hispanic votes and speak with Black leaders. Do not promise anything other than a voice and a willingness to listen. He has to portray himself as listening to ALL the people. Rand Paul might be better suited for this and Ron take a decidedly less active role in front stage.

You are not going to eliminate secret budgets. You can only build accountability on the money they will let you touch. If you can get the $3,000 hammer to be worth $500 that would be brilliant. If we could empower our soldiers instead of treating them like wards of the state not only would we have better soldiers but better citizens.

The system is poisoned. If you get rid of corruption the organism dies. All you can do is replace one sort of evil with a lesser evil. We need a President like Ike who is focused on the business of America. Obama, like Bush, made some choices early on that is limited them.

Our "free press" is the wild card that keeps crapping on progress. If you think that our press is better than the Orwellian nightmare you are mistaken. More types of lies does not mean you have truth. A lie is and always will be a lie.

The millions of people that are wanting to retire soon are in serious trouble. If you change currency, leave currency the same, or do not take an active consideration over these citizens a cascading rain of problems is coming like a Tsunami and our only solution continues to be a robbing the bank and refusing to invest in our collective future.

All of these issues are connected and anyone looking at these as seperate is taking advantage of you. If the problem is systemic then it's not the parts we are talking about but the whole.

[Odysseus]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/13zCc9JW_wI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/13zCc9JW_wI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This is the cartoon kiddy and cleaned up version. It is worth paying attention.

[Odysseus]

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/companies.asp

Military Command + Major Corporations + Government support = Military Industrial Complex

"Free Press" + Global Currency issues + Corporate owned government = Corruption

We have to either open the floodgate of information or select a kinder gentler dictator.

[elsid13]

ever notice when budget cuts come, its personnel that usually take the hit?
weapons systems and technology development rarely do. we need a new bomber? please.
contractors have louder voices than GIs, mostly because there are few ex GIs but many contractors in our elite corps of politicreeps.

Not exactly true. Major Acquisition Programs (MAP) rarely get cut, because military officers need to punch a ticket to get that star and MAPs are one those things that bring you to front when comes to the boards. Also, currently military medical and personnel benefits are strongly affecting procurement and R&D accounts and we are looking a looming problem in the next decade when comes to addressing our technological edge.

[Odysseus]

Odysseus,

You are looking at the problem through a fisheye. Predatory capitalism has won. Today everything is outsourced. I read there are more hired Whackahut type soldiers in Iraq than GIs.

This is called war for profit. That 30's era hero general Smedley Butler called it when he wrote War is a Racket.

HIs book is now at the top of my list.

The only people who benefit from these wars are the bankers and industrialists. Everyone else loses-- including the GIS.

100,000 contractors and 150,000 soldiers is the number I heard. Contractors are largely worker bees and are not as insidous as the upper echelon rats in our budget.

J. P. Morgan made his money selling weapons during the Civil War. His greed was later intstrumental to what we are now experiencing with J.P. Morgan / Chase and our current banks that are "too big to fail."

War has alway been for profit. Who fights a war for free?

[alkemical]

Ron Paul is very stoppable. He makes good points but he needs support from a wider base with common interests. If I were him I would go after the Hispanic votes and speak with Black leaders. Do not promise anything other than a voice and a willingness to listen. He has to portray himself as listening to ALL the people. Rand Paul might be better suited for this and Ron take a decidedly less active role in front stage.

You are not going to eliminate secret budgets. You can only build accountability on the money they will let you touch. If you can get the $3,000 hammer to be worth $500 that would be brilliant. If we could empower our soldiers instead of treating them like wards of the state not only would we have better soldiers but better citizens.

The system is poisoned. If you get rid of corruption the organism dies. All you can do is replace one sort of evil with a lesser evil. We need a President like Ike who is focused on the business of America. Obama, like Bush, made some choices early on that is limited them.

Our "free press" is the wild card that keeps crapping on progress. If you think that our press is better than the Orwellian nightmare you are mistaken. More types of lies does not mean you have truth. A lie is and always will be a lie.

The millions of people that are wanting to retire soon are in serious trouble. If you change currency, leave currency the same, or do not take an active consideration over these citizens a cascading rain of problems is coming like a Tsunami and our only solution continues to be a robbing the bank and refusing to invest in our collective future.

All of these issues are connected and anyone looking at these as seperate is taking advantage of you. If the problem is systemic then it's not the parts we are talking about but the whole.

I need to let this marinade for a bit.

[Boomhauer]

ever notice when budget cuts come, its personnel that usually take the hit?
weapons systems and technology development rarely do. we need a new bomber? please.
contractors have louder voices than GIs, mostly because there are few ex GIs but many contractors in our elite corps of politicreeps.

Personnel get cut because that's the only part of the DoD's budget they can directly control. 2011 budget in $bil:
200.2 = Operation and Maintinence
138.5 = Military Personnel
16.9 = Construction
1.8 = Family Housing

While Gate's can request systems, it is largely Congress and lobbyist that determines what the Taxpayers buy and fund.
112.8 = Procurement
76.1 = Research & Develpoment
2.4 = Outsourced management

That's the $553 bil figure Gate's oversees, but the US spends over $700bil on defense once International Politics is included. ie: bases, forign weapons development and military assistance, clandestine programs and blood money, etc.
159.3 = Overseas Contingency & Coast Guard
4.4 = American Recovery Act

As many have pointed out, if the US is to ecome serious about cutting defense spending without diminishing ability, it is the later two catagories that must be addressed. Procurment is a problem, not in total, but in quality. Oversight by Congress is required, but they must take the role seriously rather than selfishly. I'd also suggest a 50% cut in Overseas Contingency should be required and focusing R&D on nessisary projects like the bomber and ballistc sub, rather than futuristic dreams and industrial welfare, could see equal reductions. Combined with the $40 bil Gate's was able to cut in outsourced personel and military management, that's a 22% drop in total Defense spending or $157 bil. Further reorganization of personel and branches could see greater savings.

[Obushma]

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Where Your Income Tax Really Goes

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1267/piefy09.gif

[Odysseus]

I need to let this marinade for a bit.

Ron Paul is asking to replace imaginary numbers with real numbers it is not possible with accountability at the highest levels. Our best attempts at moving forward will be compromise positions.

If your free press is compromised where do you get your support? If common sense, in American terms, is self interest not National interest where exactly do you get past a plurality?

The increasing pressure that is coming from shifting currency markets, retirees, collapse of consumerism, and recovery from global economic meltdown are going to continue for years.

How do you compete when corporations can out spend you?

[alkemical]

Ron Paul is asking to replace imaginary numbers with real numbers it is not possible with accountability at the highest levels. Our best attempts at moving forward will be compromise positions.

If your free press is compromised where do you get your support? If common sense, in American terms, is self interest not National interest where exactly do you get past a plurality?

The increasing pressure that is coming from shifting currency markets, retirees, collapse of consumerism, and recovery from global economic meltdown are going to continue for years.

How do you compete when corporations can out spend you?

I understand these paradigms, but I'd need more time and some education on the topics to get a more in depth answer.

[Odysseus]

I understand these paradigms, but I'd need more time and some education on the topics to get a more in depth answer.

I do as well. I am still trying to break down some of the numbers posted and figure out a short reply. I fail at short replies.


Sometimes! :giggle:

[BroncsRule]

Wow, Odysseus - like Aames, I'm going to have to re-read some of that and let it simmer for a while..

Re: Ike: It was already too late on the day he gave that speech.

Re: the military budget/long rang planning, I'm in favor of killing the F-35 JSF.

I know I know - in for a dime, in for a dollar. Yes, we'd be flushing hundreds of billions in development costs. But continuing to fund that turd is just throwing good money after bad.

Other than that, I like much of what Boomhauer proposes.

Except for consolidating CC of Spec Ops under the Marines.

Never put the jar heads in charge.

[Odysseus]

How do you ruin a contractor? Give him a mission to do, castrate his means to do it, punish him randomly for things out his control, force him to do things out of contract, abuse him whenever if suits you, and treat him as disposable.

How do you ruing a soldier? Take his job away, give that to someone who you pay a pile of money to in order to abuse them, reward people who don't deserve it, punish people who don't deserve it and force then endure insult after injury or worst just injury.

I promise I don't have all the answers but what concerns me is that many voters do not even have the right questions to begin to sort this nightmare of bad business.

It is like a bad joke. We are essentially asking the Military Industrial complex to police itself because there is no accountability. Congress? Corporations? Military?

[Boomhauer]

^^^
By including contractors, you're addressing America's "4th Branch" of government that has its roots in the State Department, though also saps funding and legitimacy from the DoD. The simple answer for the DoD is to stop buying their 'intel', mercinary and business services and leave the State Department as their only means of employment.

[alkemical]

How do you ruin a contractor? Give him a mission to do, castrate his means to do it, punish him randomly for things out his control, force him to do things out of contract, abuse him whenever if suits you, and treat him as disposable.

How do you ruing a soldier? Take his job away, give that to someone who you pay a pile of money to in order to abuse them, reward people who don't deserve it, punish people who don't deserve it and force then endure insult after injury or worst just injury.

I promise I don't have all the answers but what concerns me is that many voters do not even have the right questions to begin to sort this nightmare of bad business.

It is like a bad joke. We are essentially asking the Military Industrial complex to police itself because there is no accountability. Congress? Corporations? Military?


Also, what happens when the "vendor's" goals, don't match the "contract" hired for?

[mhgaffney]

Odysseus,

You are not seeing the contractor problem accurately.

The move to outsource the military is straight globalist ideology. This is the logical result of applying Milton Friedman's economics.

It's predatory capitalism pure and simple. There is no value placed on the common welfare (the commonweal). It's take the $$ and run.

This is also why the so called reconstruction of Iraq never happened. The contractors stole $9 billion of Iraqi money. It's why even today Iraq has no reliable electric grid. The contractors cheated on their contracts and got away with it.

They faced no accountability -- neither in US court nor in Iraqi court.

The "reconstruction" program was the continuation of the raping of the world's greatest cultural museums in Baghdad. recall, Rumsfeld joked about it -- at the time -- but the rip off of Iraq's crown jewels was worse than anything the Nazis did in Europe in WW II.

The neo cons -- and their Zionist allies - are responsible. But we allowed this to happen.

The nightmare continues as I write.

[mhgaffney]

The Milton ideology is about moving wealth from the public sector to the private -- any way you can.

[alkemical]

I think Ody might have a good POV when it comes to contractor issues.

[baja]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IFQxEx3NwnQ" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>