http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-19/defense-cut-hypo...He’s an anti-tax Republican representative from Ohio. She’s an anti-war Democratic senator from Washington state. Jim Jordan and Patty Murray have little in common, save this: Protecting multibillion-dollar defense projects in their states from budget cuts.The Pentagon’s largess is so sprawling that, through military bases and contracts, it touches all 535 members of Congress -- money that translates into jobs and revenue for companies that are major campaign donors.Members of Congress are de facto lobbyists for defense companies, inviting colleagues to tour plants and organizing letters to pressure the Pentagon. Still, across-the-board defense cuts may be more palatable than attacking individual military programs because “the constituency for each factory and workforce is deeply embedded in the Congress,” Adams said.Ike’s WarningIn his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”The best congress money can buy.It is the same in regard to ag subsidies when farm state congresspersons cry about saving the family farmer, when most production & land ownership is by large corporation farm concerns.Or base closures. Cannon AFB has been on the chopping block twice. Just after WW II & 2006. Both times New Mexican legislators have staved off closure.We're DOOMED!
I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans would be willing to close military bases and cut defense spending to keep their Social Security and Medicare benefits.That will eventually filter through to members of Congress. It's also the reason that the Paul Ryan Budget was dead on arrival once good, Christian middle-class voters realized what was in it.intercst
I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans would be willing to close military bases and cut defense spending to keep their Social Security and Medicare benefits.That will eventually filter through to members of Congress. It's also the reason that the Paul Ryan Budget was dead on arrival once good, Christian middle-class voters realized what was in it.intercstIt certainly hasn't filtered through to the current administration. If one listens to Panetta; sequestration will gut US defense capabilities.http://www.cnbc.com/id/100371049/Crisis_Looms_if_Defense_Cut...As "time went on and the erosion that would take place in our capabilities,instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we'd turn into a second-rate power," Panetta told the committee. "That would be the result of sequester."Sounds like fear mongering to me. But then its not so surprising to me. The Obama has turned out to be a Dubya third term in war on terror Well actually he has stepped up the war on terror.http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/ind...Covert drone strikes are one of President Obama's key national security policies. He has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration's drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration -- somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618.Obama has broaden & expanded surveillance portions of the Patriot Act. And now has the right to kill American citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists.And has enacted the National Defense Authorization Act which affords the option to have US citizens detained by the military indefinitely without charge or trial. Sounds like jingoism to me.
intercst:"I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans would be willing to close military bases and cut defense spending to keep their Social Security and Medicare benefits.That will eventually filter through to members of Congress. It's also the reason that the Paul Ryan Budget was dead on arrival once good, Christian middle-class voters realized what was in it."Yeah..but first you got to stop the Hillary Clintons, who blocked closing military bases in NY state when she was a Senator from NY.....heh hehand all the other Senators who manage to over ride the Commission set up to close unneeded and obsolete military facilities. Of course, that means more layoffs and loss of jobs.....We could of course simply take our troops out of Europe..which we should have done 20 years ago..and let the French stew in their own socialist stew. Heck, they don't even have planes to fly their troops and supplies down to Mali in AFrica...they had to have us do it. I'd rather see farmers not get paid for not planting crops. I'd rather see no more turtle tunnels for millions of dollars under roads to let 100 turtles cross or butterly museums for millions of dollars built with taxpayer money. or roads to nowhere or 100 million dollar airports used by 3 planes a day so a Congressman could get to his summer place in PA. There's 125 billion that the Obama administration says it has in waste and fraud.....Yet Obama hired 10,000 new IRS folks to go after collecting ObamaKare taxes.....but not a single new person to go after the 125 billion in fraud and waste. Go figure.The liberal dems really have no interest in spending a dime less. The only have an interest in collecting hundreds of billions or trillions in new taxes for an even bigger bloated government. t.
Yet Obama hired 10,000 new IRS folks to go after collecting ObamaKare taxes.....but not a single new person to go after the 125 billion in fraud and waste.Tele channeling Jon Lovitz again?For those who don't/can't remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkYNBwCEeH4
We could of course simply take our troops out of Europe.We pretty have except for airman & navy personnel for air & naval bases in Europe. " In 2000, just 69,203 American military personnel remained."**http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/05/global-us-t..."American troop strength in Europe will drop from its the 112,000 in 2003 to around 50,000 by around 2010."http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/eucom.htmThe liberal dems really have no interest in spending a dime less.And neither does the democrat lite party eg republican party.
It certainly hasn't filtered through to the current administration. If one listens to Panetta; sequestration will gut US defense capabilities.It is a game of chicken. Sequestration was supposed to be something was so unpleasant that nobody would willingly let it happen. Panetta's comments are an attempt to pre-blame Congress if the cuts come about. Boehner is trying to pre-blame Obama. However, I think Boener has the much weaker hand here. The Sequester preserves Medicaid and Social Security, food stamps, etc. but makes deep cuts to defense and other discretionary spending. Medicare gets a slight cut, but it comes out of the provider's end, not the patients. So if/when the sequester hits, it will mostly affect defense contractors and doctors, which are located in every single Congressional district. Obama's thinking goes like this: Republicans are against government spending, unless it is government spending that affects their district. Then they are strongly in favor of it. Once defense contractors start laying people off they will start screaming bloody murder for Congress to get something done to restore the money. Same with the doctors. They will want the money restored even if it means a slight tax increase (a small tax increase, by the way, is a fairly popular idea that enjoys broad support even among Republicans). Boehner's thinking goes like this: Tax increases are bad, and if it comes down to it, the public will accept the defense cuts for a while until the President caves on spending cuts without a tax increase. A whopping 19% of Americans agree with this line of thinking:http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/21/if-no-deal-is-struck-...Next, Boehner is also betting Congressional Republicans won't be influenced by the defense contractors in their district screaming for the restoration of their money and they will hold fast until Obama caves. I don't think that is a good bet. Republican defense hawks are already pushing back:http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/2...A subset of Boehner's thinking is that perhaps the public will primarily blame the President for any pain the Sequester causes, and again that will force the President's hand. I'm not sure that will be the case. Obama is fairly popular right now, while Congress is extremely unpopular. Boehner's talking point is that the Sequester was Obama's idea. First of all that's not true:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/the-powerpo...And Boehner thought it was a *great* idea at the time:http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-stateme...But even if it was true, a majority of Republicans in both houses including Boehner and McConnell voted for it, so I don't see how they avoid taking at least some ownership of the thing they were once so proud of.In short, I don't see how Boehner escapes this one. Boehner is hoping that doing unpopular things will help him achieve unpopular goals. And that is why Obama is basically telling him to pound sand.
It is a game of chicken. Sequestration was supposed to be something was so unpleasant that nobody would willingly let it happen. Panetta's comments are an attempt to pre-blame Congress if the cuts come about. Boehner is trying to pre-blame Obama. How silly of me. Its a game. And I had thought the parties were elected to govern. Instead they are posturing to their respective cheering crowds who are rapt in waiting to see who "wins".In this particular example; they are posturing over sequestration of $85 billion or approx 2.5% of a $3.6 trillion budget. There are no draconian cuts here. Though one won't know that from media* reports:The grim picture is emerging as the White House and lawmakers count down the days until the government is forced to trim $85 billion in domestic and defense spending with hardly any leeway to save some programs from the budget knife."I've been very clear that these kinds of arbitrary, automatic cuts would have an adverse impact on families, on teachers, on parents who are reliant on Head Start programs, on our military readiness, on mental health services, on medical research," Obama said Friday. "This is not a smart way for us to reduce the deficit."To me this brings to mind 2 images 1)Nero fiddling while Rome burns & 2)Circuses[games] & subsidized bread[entitlements] to distract the public on how dire the situation of Rome is. I'm just curious when the American people will realize that we do have a spending problem brought on by BOTH parties. That indeed there are limits to what our government can provide for us.My inner self is screaming "Wake up Americans!" There are solutions & compromises. We just won't git there by accepting the pablum fed to us the respective political parties who BOTH are in lobbyist's /special interest's pockets.*Our media is a mere shell of what the media once was. Obama's President's weekend illustrates that perfectly. The media was in a frenzy & outrage at their lack of access. Who really cares what Obama does on his time off or the amount of time & previous presidents take off. Perhaps we rather need critical & penetrating look at the "game" our leaders are playing at the expense of our country's economic future?
Sequestration was OBAMA's idea.Even more so the 'across the board' cuts and defense cuts...and not a cut of one dime or reform of the Entitlement programs which are the bleeding cause of the problems. ----So Obama gets the 'raise taxes' part of the deal back in January....giant 850 billion tax hike.as part of the deal.....he's got to cut 850 billion in spending or take the sequestration cuts....and what did he do?Nothing!.....not a thing...Just sat on his fat bum and played golf with golf buddies....-------Now...he wants no spending cuts and another 850 billion in new taxes.Sorry...you don't get to raise taxes almost a trillion dollars twice in 3 months. CUT SPENDINGREFORM ENTITLEMENTSt.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |