Cut Pentagon Budget for Jobs & Reducing the Deficit

[rastaman]

Jacqueline Marcus: Cut Pentagon Budget for Jobs & Reducing the Deficit

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 12/11/2009 - 10:08am. Guest Commentary
BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY

by Jacqueline Marcus

If the Republicans' proposal for creating jobs is "reduce Federal spending," fine! Then let's begin with cutting the Pentagon budget by 30 percent. With that 30 percent savings, President Obama can solve just about every problem we're facing right now from paying off the national debt, to creating green jobs, to rebuilding our infrastructure with money left over for college funding.

It was reported in The New York Times: "The Pentagon 2009 budget of $515.4 billion, annual military spending, when adjusted for inflation, will have reached its highest level since World War II."

And that is a conservative figure!

Estimated Pentagon spending figures are as high as $970 billion a year -- this doesn't include the supplemental spending of $600 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor does it include the covert spending for the CIA (which is another article, in itself, but certainly related to the problem of "excessive military spending").

Nearly 54 cents out of every tax dollar goes to the Pentagon budget. That's GROSSLY UNFAIR! The Pentagon hogs nearly 54% of the public's treasury for their pet weapon projects, and who knows where the money is going because there really is no Congressional oversight keeping tabs on all those billions of tax dollars -- at a time when Americans are suffering, when people are losing millions of jobs and homes, and when they can hardly afford to put bread on the table. In fact, the number of Americans on food stamps is at an all-time high.

This was Eisenhower's (A Republican President) warning regarding the Pentagon budget expansion of the military industrial complex: Defense spending would deplete funding for Americans; it will lead to an economic depression. That is exactly what is happening under our war economy, the Military Elite contractors in the Pentagon are getting filthy rich during the worst depression since the Dust Bowl days.

We are asked to make sacrifices, but the Pentagon NEVER sacrifices a dime for our country. They demand more of our tax dollars from Congressional members, and every president has bowed to their demands. The Pentagon consumes over half the annual national budget to sustain a business of producing weapons of mass destruction. Bush/Cheney annihilated Iraq, a perfectly functional country before it was attacked. Now it's completely uninhabitable due to nuclear radiation cancer exposure from U.S. weapons and from the ongoing deadly chaos. What an accomplishment! Three cheers for the Pentagon! They really put that trillion-dollar budget to use, didn't they? They can also be proud of using those billions of dollars to build new torture prisons for natives who object to the U.S. invasion. We see why the Press stopped asking if Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein in charge.

By contrast, in Denmark, college education is free for students who've made the grades. In the United States, "Most people leave college because they have trouble going to school while working to support themselves."

Why can't our Government provide college funding after Denmark's program? Why? The Pentagon budget hogs all the money. Why can't we pay off the Bush/Cheney war debt? Why? The Pentagon budget is what CREATED the debt in the first place!

Robert Gates and his Generals predictably threaten President Obama not to cut the Pentagon budget. In response, the President should say that the people can't do ALL the sacrificing, alone; it's time for the Pentagon to do a little sacrificing as well for their country. A Google search tells the story of the INFLATED Pentagon budget, a monstrosity with octopus arms raiding the treasury of billions of dollars for unnecessary projects.

The Department of Defense is equal to the military spending of 15 countries combined.

Current Military $895 billion:

• Military Personnel $129 billion
• Operation & Maint. $241 billion
• Procurement $143 billion
• Research & Dev. $79 billion
• Construction $15 billion
• Family Housing $3 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $9 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
• State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
• "Global War on Terror" $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget's grossly underestimated $38 billion in "allowances" to be spent in 2009 for the "War on Terror," which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]

If the Republicans want President Obama to cut Federal spending, terrific! Start now by cutting the Pentagon budget by 30 percent and use that savings to create new green jobs, to put Americans back to work, to rebuild our country's infrastructure. It's criminal for the Pentagon to take 54% of our hard-earned tax dollars -- Why should the "Military Industrialize Complex and their boys can continue to live high on the hog while nearly half the population in this country is begging for work and on food stamps!

[snowspot66]

Have to agree for the most part.

When our navy is larger than the next thirteen navies combined (12 of which belonging to allied or friendly nations) and they want even more ships you have to really start wondering why.

[Rigs11]

then the rightards will scream that were soft on defense. can't win with those clowns.

[TailgateNut]

Just revise the retirement programs and health care for non-military and mirror them to the private sector.

That'll fill some coffers!

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Just revise the retirement programs and health care for non-military and mirror them to the private sector.

That'll fill some coffers!

Why not revise/reform the priviate retirement pension programs to mirror the DOD retirement system so people who worked hard all their adult lives can retire with dignity?

Why not scrap the fool-hardy risky las vegas ponzi schemed 401K's that are subject to be devastated and wiped out every 15-20 years by the unregulated greedy and criminal Wall Street Syndicate. Besides, with a 401K everyone is subject to out living their 401K investment or annuity.

The 401K con job was sold to America by Reagan to allow for his Corporate Friends to incrementally reneg on their pension programs and responsibility to their workers.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

then the rightards will scream that were soft on defense. can't win with those clowns.

You are soft

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by rastaman

Why not revise/reform the priviate retirement pension programs to mirror the DOD retirement system so people who worked hard all their adult lives can retire with dignity?

Why not scrap the fool-hardy risky las vegas ponzi schemed 401K's that are subject to be devastated and wiped out every 15-20 years by the unregulated greedy and criminal Wall Street Syndicate. Besides, with a 401K everyone is subject to out living their 401K investment or annuity.

The 401K con job was sold to America by Reagan to allow for his Corporate Friends to incrementally reneg on their pension programs and responsibility to their workers.

My 401k is at mid 6 figures an counting. somehow...I think I'll be able to live of that after 60. My Roth IRA in the low 6's will help as well. Got mid 5 figures in equity in the worst housing market in a long time. The only thing I am laughing at is the FDR SS bull**** coming out of my check every week.

[cutthemdown]

So where do you guys want to cut?

To cut most of those things you would have to also cut troop levels. So remember you are saying fire a bunch of patriotic Americans who thought they could make a career in military.

So close some bases, fire some soldiers, that makes supply and procurment go down a bit. Cut NASA? Cut services to vets? Cut homeland security? How far do you liberals want to go?

I know I would rather pay tax to have a strong military over entitlements for welfare and medicare.

How about when we pay tax you check either military or domestic for where you want your money to go?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So where do you guys want to cut?

To cut most of those things you would have to also cut troop levels. So remember you are saying fire a bunch of patriotic Americans who thought they could make a career in military.

So close some bases, fire some soldiers, that makes supply and procurment go down a bit. Cut NASA? Cut services to vets? Cut homeland security? How far do you liberals want to go?

I know I would rather pay tax to have a strong military over entitlements for welfare and medicare.

How about when we pay tax you check either military or domestic for where you want your money to go?

I would love that...but I would balance it out. I think it should be done by agency. Sorry DOEdu and EPA...you are **** out of luck.

[cutthemdown]

I do agree though it has to be cut, but maybe go smaller like 15% and then set a cap on % to GDP or something.

I would assume that doing this would mean we need some sort of reconciliation and truce between the Taliban and Afghan govt. Then we could focus on Al Queda and use drones and intell to dog them instead of tons of troops opn the ground.

It's risky move though, but really unless that move made how can you cut military spending? We can't leave troops out there without proper support right? It's either spend or bring 50% of them home from around the world.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I would love that...but I would balance it out. I think it should be done by agency. Sorry DOEdu and EPA...you are **** out of luck.

What about only a smaller %. Like 3% of your tax money gets directed like you say. Either

a)- defense/military/Nasa
b)- Domestic/entitlements

[cutthemdown]

So then 97% of budget would still be politicians, but for 3% of the dough they would have to wait until we vote to see who gets to spend it. Maybe 5% I don't just something to get Americans more involved in the process.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

My 401k is at mid 6 figures an counting. somehow...I think I'll be able to live of that after 60. My Roth IRA in the low 6's will help as well. Got mid 5 figures in equity in the worst housing market in a long time. The only thing I am laughing at is the FDR SS bull**** coming out of my check every week.

That's what the "last batch" of those near retirement age thought when the market Crashed and burned.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So where do you guys want to cut?

Just like when I optimize code, I start with the biggest ticket items:

* Why do we have 12 supercarriers (11 currently operational)? That's more supercarriers than the rest of the world combined (which, by the way, only the U.S. and France fields supercarriers). Russia, the closest thing to a competitor we have, has ONE operational aircraft carrier. China has ZERO operational.

(speaking of Navy, of the four blue water capable Navies in the world, 3 are from close allies, the U.K and France)

* Why are we building more air superiority fighters when we already have an air force an order of magnitude larger than our nearest likely competitors (china/russia) combined (who have an inventory of aircraft that we can destroy, at will, in combat)?

.. and then work from there

To cut most of those things you would have to also cut troop levels. So remember you are saying fire a bunch of patriotic Americans who thought they could make a career in military.

It'll mean cuts to troop levels, engineers, workmen, etc. It also means the funds saved can be cut from taxes and new private sector opportunities will come from that. That's how it works, right?

I know I would rather pay tax to have a strong military over entitlements for welfare and medicare.

How about when we pay tax you check either military or domestic for where you want your money to go?

I would rather my tax money go for a useful purpose (or not be taxed at all), rather than to support anything which is not necessary or useful (e.g. a military that has no purpose for existence in its current form and strength).

Bringing up welfare and medicare is just a red herring.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So where do you guys want to cut?

To cut most of those things you would have to also cut troop levels. So remember you are saying fire a bunch of patriotic Americans who thought they could make a career in military.

So close some bases, fire some soldiers, that makes supply and procurment go down a bit. Cut NASA? Cut services to vets? Cut homeland security? How far do you liberals want to go?

I know I would rather pay tax to have a strong military over entitlements for welfare and medicare.

How about when we pay tax you check either military or domestic for where you want your money to go?

Yes. Lots of patriotic civilians lost their jobs in the past few years. Unfortunately George has put us in a position where I'm not sure it's possible to cut down troop levels. Though I'm sure half the country, including myself quite often, are ready and willing to just say **** it and bring everybody home. It's been damn near ten years and I'm not sure we can say we've accomplished anything politically other than piss people off.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

That's what the "last batch" of those near retirement age thought when the market Crashed and burned.

Oh that money won't be there when I retire. I'll pay the penalty and take it early.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

That's what the "last batch" of those near retirement age thought when the market Crashed and burned.

...and then recovered by 60%. It was a great buying opportunity in the trough. And with 401k's being dollar cost averaging by nature most are not far off from where they started before the downturn.

Most 401ks have fixed or very conservative investment options for the squemish anyhow.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Just like when I optimize code, I start with the biggest ticket items:

* Why do we have 12 supercarriers (11 currently operational)? That's more supercarriers than the rest of the world combined (which, by the way, only the U.S. and France fields supercarriers). Russia, the closest thing to a competitor we have, has ONE operational aircraft carrier. China has ZERO operational.

(speaking of Navy, of the four blue water capable Navies in the world, 3 are from close allies, the U.K and France)

* Why are we building more air superiority fighters when we already have an air force an order of magnitude larger than our nearest likely competitors (china/russia) combined (who have an inventory of aircraft that we can destroy, at will, in combat)?

.. and then work from there



It'll mean cuts to troop levels, engineers, workmen, etc. It also means the funds saved can be cut from taxes and new private sector opportunities will come from that. That's how it works, right?



I would rather my tax money go for a useful purpose (or not be taxed at all), rather than to support anything which is not necessary or useful (e.g. a military that has no purpose for existence in its current form and strength).

Bringing up welfare and medicare is just a red herring.

Why ditch carriers already built? I could agree with stalling any new carriers currently in the works but to mothball powerful expensive ships doesn't seem smart to me.

As far as the fighters go we already cut the f-22 and are going to go with what we have in the pipeline. The joint strike fighter actually a bargain compared to that.

So really it comes down to troops and there supply lines to overseas bases. That's really where it would have to come from. Most of the engineering stuff you talk about already farmed out to private sector. It will be jobs for 200 thousand foot soliders you will need jobs for. To say that would hurt you politically is an understatement.

The 2 biggest ticket items are military/defense and then entitlements. If you are going to make cuts thats were it has to be so how is Welfare a red herring. Just saying where they money gets spend.

Also about the carriers I think your wrong. With those carriers we control the world oceans and thats big. Subs also. Those are 2 areas you want to stay in control. Even China knows that we could sink every cargo ship they send out if we wanted to. That type of power gives you pull in the world. You don't go mothballing the most powerful navy in the world to save some money.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

Yes. Lots of patriotic civilians lost their jobs in the past few years. Unfortunately George has put us in a position where I'm not sure it's possible to cut down troop levels. Though I'm sure half the country, including myself quite often, are ready and willing to just say **** it and bring everybody home. It's been damn near ten years and I'm not sure we can say we've accomplished anything politically other than piss people off.

I think you are downplaying how much all the killing we have done has helped. They spend there time re-organizing the new power structure as much as planning an attack on usa. They concentrate on whats going on in pakistan, in afghanistan because we are there dogging them all over. It does help even though I totally understand how people see it as a futile effort.

It's not like how war used to be where you lose 50 thousand troops, win, lose or tie, and then come home in 3-4 yrs. These new wars are more like 20 troops here, 50 troops there, 10 troops here etc etc and never seem to end. It's like a slow grinding hell that I think all of us admit has to end at some point. Not sure Obama has that type of balls yet, but maybe if he makes second term by then he would.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Just revise the retirement programs and health care for non-military and mirror them to the private sector.

That'll fill some coffers!

What are you talking about? Federal Civilian Thrift Saving Plan is similar to 401k and 403K accounts. Folks in Federal Services, everyone from teachers, police men, border agents, firefigthers to senior executives already have seen retirement saving decline just like those in private sector. Meanwhile our health care plans are just like any company in the US. We pay into them too.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I think you are downplaying how much all the killing we have done has helped. They spend there time re-organizing the new power structure as much as planning an attack on usa. They concentrate on whats going on in pakistan, in afghanistan because we are there dogging them all over. It does help even though I totally understand how people see it as a futile effort.

It's not like how war used to be where you lose 50 thousand troops, win, lose or tie, and then come home in 3-4 yrs. These new wars are more like 20 troops here, 50 troops there, 10 troops here etc etc and never seem to end. It's like a slow grinding hell that I think all of us admit has to end at some point. Not sure Obama has that type of balls yet, but maybe if he makes second term by then he would.

I think the most effective stuff has been the CIA and intelligence gathering for their drone programs. Either way I think we need to honestly question whether stopping one or two big attacks on our soil (if we had done nothing) is worth all the cost and loss of life on our part. History suggests that in the past decade maybe one major attack could have been pulled off in that time. Even when we weren't going crazy over this stuff attacks didn't happen very often. They are hard to pull off.

I'm all for more money to the intelligence branches and the drone programs. They cost a lot less, are incredibly affective, and much less risk is involved. Countless experts are on board for more drones and the old fashioned police work band wagon.

But this disaster of a joyride that George sold to the country is definitely more costly than if they had managed to take down another building or two. We passed even point in the cost/benefit ratio a long time ago both in lives lost and dollars spent. Never mind the political ramifications. Which I don't think anybody will argue have been positive.

(Although I will grant that if we had just stuck to Afghanistan this probably wouldn't even be a discussion. Things would be a hell of a lot better off. But I would also say that Afghanistan's political/social/geographic makeup also make it a truly unique scenario.)

That's one thing I do really like about Gates. He's all for the smaller, cheaper, less risk, and more bang for the buck projects. He wants more drones and smaller ships for the navy and I'm all for that. Cheaper and likely more effective in the future.

[Tombstone RJ]

I'm pretty pro-military but there is a breaking point where the pentagon budget becomes excessive and does little to actually combat the enemy...

I agree that cuts must be made.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

I think the most effective stuff has been the CIA and intelligence gathering for their drone programs. Either way I think we need to honestly question whether stopping one or two big attacks on our soil (if we had done nothing) is worth all the cost and loss of life on our part. History suggests that in the past decade maybe one major attack could have been pulled off in that time. Even when we weren't going crazy over this stuff attacks didn't happen very often. They are hard to pull off.

I'm all for more money to the intelligence branches and the drone programs. They cost a lot less, are incredibly affective, and much less risk is involved. Countless experts are on board for more drones and the old fashioned police work band wagon.

But this disaster of a joyride that George sold to the country is definitely more costly than if they had managed to take down another building or two. We passed even point in the cost/benefit ratio a long time ago both in lives lost and dollars spent. Never mind the political ramifications. Which I don't think anybody will argue have been positive.

That's one thing I do really like about Gates. He's all for the smaller, cheaper, less risk, and more bang for the buck projects. He wants more drones and smaller ships for the navy and I'm all for that. Cheaper and likely more effective in the future.

UAVS are what working for the current conflict, but most likely won't be effective in the next one. That why it hard when comes to weapons/system procurement is because many time you are trying to build a system that flexible enough to be used in many different environments. Now there is a lot things DoD can do to reduce cost and delivers products faster, but put one solution is bad idea. Beside at the end of the day the most important powerful weapon system we have is the 18 to 26 year old with rifle in his/her hand and the training to use it.

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

So where do you guys want to cut?

To cut most of those things you would have to also cut troop levels. So remember you are saying fire a bunch of patriotic Americans who thought they could make a career in military.

So close some bases, fire some soldiers, that makes supply and procurment go down a bit. Cut NASA? Cut services to vets? Cut homeland security? How far do you liberals want to go?

I know I would rather pay tax to have a strong military over entitlements for welfare and medicare.

How about when we pay tax you check either military or domestic for where you want your money to go?

I'd cut by 40% the weapons procurement and cost over runs. We don't need new generation weapons system to fight the Terrorist as if they consist of conventional armies like N. Korea or Russia. You can use 20th century weaponary to fight the Taliban and Alqueda.

The MIC and weapons procurements industry cuts would save tax payers hundred of billion of dollars annually.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Many of these cuts wouldn't be necessary if we would just roll back the Reagan tax cuts - but asking the American people to do that would be like asking an out-of-control, super-irresponsible adolescent to relinquish daddy's credit card and to start paying for the things he wants (or feels entitled to) as he goes.