Beck on radio this morning. He claims that the scandalizing of four top flag officers in the past several weeks is just the first step by Obama in destroying the credibility and legitimacy of the US military.
Predicts and ever increasing number of firings and resignations so that when he guts the military budget the voters will say, “They had it coming.”
by Ed M
In my last article I posed a question which I believe is relevant in today’s discussions about the many proposed budget cuts that we have heard from those with some idea of how the Defense Department works and by some who have military experience. We’ve also heard at least a thousand more ideas by those who haven’t a clue about what it does and doesn’t take to provide adequate defense for our country.attson
It may all sound simple to most citizens during every day, street corner discussions, after all, we are talking about a portion of the federal budget of around $700 billion dollars. In 2009 for example, the U.S. military budget accounted for approximately 40% of global arms spending, and the 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion it is estimated that China will spend on its military. $700 billion is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. The United States and its closest allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world’s military spending with the United States picking up most of the tab. So, making some cuts should be simple…right?
“As a Doctor, an Air Force Veteran, and Congressman, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee and has always fought for the best interest of our troops, I am appalled at President Obama’s disregard for the health and well-being of America’s military families and his continued fealty to union boss special interests.“
The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget would require military families and retirees to pay exceedingly more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched.
This is unacceptable.
Rand Paul: Supercommittee Failure May Be Best Option to Force pendingCuts
Newsmax.com ^ | 11-20-11 | Amy Woods
Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2011 4:56:11 PM by MNJohnnie
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said that, if the congressional supercommittee fails to reach a deficit-reduction agreement before Thanksgiving, that might be the best way to force the government to cut spending.
“It’s sort of like telling your children that, if you don’t clean up your mess — or else,” Paul said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Really, maybe we need the ‘or else’ because Congress isn’t behaving the way they should be behaving. Maybe sequestration is our only way we will get any kind of cuts.”
Boehner appears to be balking at the debt ceiling deal that … Reid of Nevada has signed. Mr. Boehner is concerned about provisions in the deal that could lead to sharp cuts in military spending, say people familiar with the situation. House aides have warned that just because Reid has signed off on the deal doesn’t mean the deal is done.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com …
President Obama continues to push the notion that he wants a “balanced approach” to budget cuts, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the only spending cuts he is willing to contemplate are cuts in defense spending. The vast entitlement system that now eats the majority of tax dollars is, by contrast, not only on his list of programs to be sustained, but expanded. Mr. Obama seems determined to protect the welfare state. He lacks the courage and the candor to admit to the unsustainablity of an entitlement system which has pushed the nation to the brink of insolvency as our debts continue to mount. Instead of addressing the source of the spending problems, it is becoming clear that Mr. Obama intends to hollow out the military. What folly!
Only weeks ago, Obama signaled intentions to cut $400 billion from Defense, but key Democrats are already talking about even large cuts of $1 trillion to Defense. Such a move would signal a broad American retreat from the world and erode our national defense for many years to come. Obama’s military budget shenanigans are yet another reminder that the key characteristic of Obama’s involvement in any aspect of U.S. life–economics, policies or participation on the world scene—is that Obama’s policies have left Americans with a weaker world presence as a result of his involvement.
Military spending is an area which, traditionally, in past years, Dems have loved to cut. Democrat eagerness to cut military spending is the result of a fundamental, ideological difference: the GOP believes the U.S. is served best by a strong military, both at home and abroad, while Dems believe that a more kumbaya, we-are-the-world, approach is the way to best protect America. Obama, who first launched his apologize-to-the-world tour on this premise, has never been a keen supporter of endeavors military. Obama’s recent threats, that our veterans might not receive their retirement and disability checks if a debt ceiling-budget compromise is not reached by 2 August, just prove that point.
It seems clear that the $100 billion in defense cuts proposed in the FY2012 budget are merely the tip of the iceberg. Further cuts will likely be proposed because the budget dollars for defense are so big and because cutting in this area will appease at least one faction of the Dems ideological extremist base.
The Gang of Six proposal called for almost trillion dollars ($886 billion) in cuts from defense. Others have proposed that some direct cuts could come from canceling air craft carrier construction (not surprisingly, the Dems have pointed to the USS George H.W. Bush) as one of the possible candidates for cancelation.
Other proposals include the reduction of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia, as well as at home. Others propose to implement cuts to military health care, reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reduce the military research and development efforts and even revise the military pay and compensation scale.
Certainly, any of these proposals would reduce the amount of military spending, and thus reduce overall federal spending, but we would be weaker as a nation as a result. George Washington said: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite.” Obama seeks to render our military neither well-armed nor well-planned which calls into question our nation’s ability to remain a free people for long.
Meanwhile, over at NASA, the U.S. space program has, essentially, been canceled. Instead of pushing the agency to focus on its core mission and core competencies, Obama has allowed NASA to take itself out of the space business, and thus take the country out of space for the next 30 years. NASA’s reduction of mission will result in thousands of jobs lost” as contractors for the shuttle program begin to lay off workers.”
Worse, to put a man in space, America will now be required to pay Russia for shuttle space. Not too surprisingly, Russia has already stepped forward and declared that the next decade will be “the era of the Soyuz” as Russian space exploration continues.
The next U.S. president will inherit an economic disaster of a country on an epic scale, courtesy of the bungling of Obama, and his team of advisors, whose repeated efforts to stimulate the economy through government subsidies and increased regulation that punishes small business owners, has failed to yield significant growth in the economy or in jobs. The next president, courtesy of Obama’s bungling, will also face a monumental, uphill task to restore the superior force and prestige of our military at home and abroad. For that, a new president, who believes in our country and believes in American exceptionalism is mandatory.
November 2012 cannot come soon enough.