« | »

Frank Panel Wants $1T In Defense Cuts

From The Hill:

Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts

By Roxana Tiron – 06/11/10

A panel commissioned by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is recommending nearly $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon’s budget during the next 10 years.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force, a commission of scholars from a broad ideological spectrum appointed by Frank, the House Financial Services Committee chairman, laid out actions the government could take that could save as much as $960 billion between 2011 and 2020.

Measures presented by the task force include making significant reductions to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has strong support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates; delaying the procurement of a new midair refueling tanker the Air Force has identified as one of its top acquisition priorities; and reducing the Navy’s fleet to 230 ships instead of the 313 eyed by the service…

Frank on Friday warned that if he can’t convince Congress to act in the “general direction” of the task force recommendation, “then every other issue will suffer.” Not cutting the Pentagon’s budget could lead to higher taxes and spending cuts detrimental to the environment, housing and highway construction.

You see, it’s our lavish defense spending that is causing the deficit to balloon under the Democrats.

The acceptance of the recommendations would depend on a “philosophical change" and a “redefinition of the strategy,” Frank said at press conference on Capitol Hill…

It sure as hell would.

The panel also looked into reforming military compensation, which could save about $55 billion;

Why don’t we “reform” the compensation of members of Congress, while we are at it?

[S]aving $60 billion by reforming the military healthcare system;

Didn’t we just “reform” healthcare?

[A]nd reducing recruiting expenditures once the wars wind down to preserve about $5 billion…

Sure, we spend billions in “recruiting.”

Of course no money will need to be spent recruiting, once “don’t ask don’t tell” is rescinded.

The task force also suggested canceling the V-22 Osprey program and the Marine Corps’s troubled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

The U.S. nuclear arsenal would also be on the chopping block, under the panel’s suggestions.

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear warhead total to 1,050.

Launchers would include 160 Minuteman missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines with 24 missiles (each with five warheads).

The panel also recommends retiring the Air Force bombers — “the bomber leg of the nuclear triad,” which includes land-based missiles and nuclear submarines — and ending work on the Trident II missile

The Project on Defense Alternatives coordinated the work of the task force, which included the following members: Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives; Benjamin Friedman, Cato Institute; William Hartung, New America Foundation; Christopher Hellman, National Priorities Project; Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network; Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives; Lawrence J. Korb, Center for American Progress; Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action; Laicie Olson, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; Miriam Pemberton, Institute for Policy Studies; Laura Peterson, Taxpayers for Common Sense; Prasannan Parthasarathi, Boston College; Christopher Preble, Cato Institute, and Winslow Wheeler, Center for Defense Information.

What a pathetic farce.

The only organization on this list that is not in the radical left camp is the Cato Institute, which is libertarian. And we all know how weak libertarians tend to be on national defense.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, June 11th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

20 Responses to “Frank Panel Wants $1T In Defense Cuts”

  1. proreason says:

    Obamy’s only rival for the title of most dangerous man in the world is Barney Frank.

    Both of them are filled with anger about their homosexuality, but at least Obamy isn’t fat and butt ugly to boot.

    Drooling Barney is the only person on earth who I would be more afraid to have as president than the Moron. (yes, i’m including Biden, the Hildabeast, Pelosi and Reid. I would even include the moronic preachers who have influenced Obamy, including Farrakam. The preachers are less dangerous because they aren’t professional liars.)

    Drooling Barney is more dangerous because the hatred he has for the world is galactic. He would start a nuclear war within months.

    • Right of the People says:


      I agree with all your points except the one about the preachers. I think Jackson and Sharpton are seasoned professional liars. What churches were they supposed to be minister for anyway? I’ve never seen it in writing.

    • proreason says:


      You’re right about Sharpton and Jesse. I had Wright, Pfleger and Farrakam in mind.

  2. heykev says:

    Once I finished reading, got my jaw off the floor and took a walk to get come cool water to splash onto my face to cool down. The pace at which they are dismantling this once great nation is staggering. Am still shaking my head…

    I can easily find a Trillion dollars in cuts. But cutting military spending as well as those fighting for us’ salaries is totally boneheaded and dangerous to every American.

    Once again this Congress shows us exactly how unAmerican they are. They are getting bolder daily in their attacks and unrelenting in their frequency.

    I pray we survive until 2012.

    • proreason says:

      They know they only have a few months left.

      I’ve been predicting for more than a year that things are going to get really ugly as the inevitability of the Nov elections finally sinks into the criminals’ brains.

      Obamy isn’t the one to worry so much about this November. He knows that he will still have enormous power after the criminals are booted out of Congress. As I’ve said before, he doesn’t need any new laws at all. He just makes shit up as he goes.

      But the Pelosis and Franks of the world see it all slipping away RIGHT NOW, and they will do everything they can to punish the country before the new congress is seated.

      After they destroy what they can, Obamy will get really bold for his last 2 years, particularly if the next President emerges fairly soon. The only limit on his crimes will but what he thinks he can get away with. Expect unilateral executive orders (mostly stealth commands that won’t get publicized) at a pace even faster than now. He will appreciate the cover the Republican Congress will give him for a while. But when it becomes clear that he will get booted out in 2012, that’s when the real danger will emerge. He will be desperate to create an emergency, and failing that, to destroy as much as possible before his defeat.

      The Republicans ought to be thinking right now about creating a shadow government to reassure our allies that we will reverse everything that the monster has done.

      That may be the only thing that will prevent a nuclear war between Iran and Israel.

  3. JohnMG says:

    A trillion-dollar defense cut shouldn’t be too hard to manage if we use the tried-and-true democrat method of finding savings.

    First, we calculate the cost of implementing the newly-dictated abolition of DADT that will occur within the military. Things like mandatory sensitivity training, the reprinting of training manuals to expunge any offensive references and render them gender-neutral…..you get the idea…….say, one trillion dollars

    Next, we eliminate all funding for programs designed to bolster the self-esteem of a bunch of insecure faggots. Programs that don’t exist.

    Then, we call a press conference to announce how we’ve just saved the taxpayer a trillion dollars in non-essential expenditures without affecting our military’s combat effeciency.

    Wouldn’t that work?

  4. GetBackJack says:

    What I want type will get me investigated and Steve a hard look from the Nanny Staters, so … use your imagination.

  5. U NO HOO says:

    Millie Tarry is Barney’s girl friend.

  6. Rusty Shackleford says:

    I “predicted” this several weeks ago when the health care scam “passed”. I knew they had an ace up their sleeves in the form of how to pay for it. While they tout the “marvelous positives” about the healthcare piece of crap-islation, they will simultaneously deride military spending as the “monster that got us into this mess” and therefore paint cutting it as an “inevitability”.

    Thus, we shall further mirror Yurp. Those nations, members of NATO all, had military/defense spending as a sub-fraction of their GDP when compared to the US…therefore allowing them to look to the US for “help” if/when the time came. (Sidenote:) If we knew they were going to destroy themselves from within, maybe we should’ve taken a different tack)

    Well, the time is now drawing near where the existing form of government may just totally gut our military, putting tens of thousands more out of work, creating problems in all of our infrastructure and turning us into the laughing stock, ripe for the picking, of the world. Meanwhile, India and China and even Russia are continuing to build up military strength. China, due to more open trade with the US has taken apart every micro-processor it can find and has moved its military technology from the 1950’s to the late 20th century. Russia, likewise. India, lacking in several areas needed to be a manufacturing powerhouse, is lagging behind in home-grown defense capabilities and still looks to Russia or the US to buy weaponry from.

    By the democrats account, the next world leaders in military hardware production will be Russia or China.

    This is to say nothing of how long it would take to sustain a warfighting capability if hostilities broke out and threatened our shores. Indeed, it’s as if the liberal democrats have no idea what it takes to keep yourself protected. But…LOOK who I’m talking about. These are the people who feel that “because you put rules in the way, everyone will have to follow them (except us, cuz we wrote them and they don’t apply to us)”

    They live in this rainbow world where treaties and sanctions and empty rhetoric all seem to have “actual” value. They are not people of action, unless it’s the absolute 180 degree wrong action to take.

    I think they actually believe that disarming the US will make the “world a safer place” because they also believe that the only reason bad people exist and want to hurt the US is because we built up our arms in the first place. The fallacy of their logic runs wide and runs deep.

    We stayed safe at home because we have the biggest, baddest mo-fo’s in the world who also happen to value freedom and understand why it is so important to defend. While a US soldier is hanging his or her life on the line, drooling barney is enjoying his freedom by playing hide-the-sausage with the pool boy. Yet he is oblivious to the fact that his freedom to do that is the direct result of blood spilled by a patriot who wanted our society to be free.

    Freedom isn’t some mythical magical entity that is the result of sitting on your ass, barney. It’s the result of pushing those out who would seek to enslave you and keeping them out by either active aggression or having them think twice about starting any s___ here because you have the best weapons and know how to use them and will fight like mad to keep the place your own.

    They talk so much yet understand so little.

  7. I seem to remember a time when a couple of strikes into Iran failed because the scrap parts used to repair the helicopters used in a rescue attempt didn’t cut the mustard.

    That, as a result of the diminishing of our military budget by a one term president.

    no never mind.. those things don’t happen.

  8. crosspatch says:

    How about:

    Completely eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    Completely eliminate the FDA and replace it with a private underwriting group such as UL
    Completely eliminate the EPA and hand the responsibility to the states.
    Completely eliminate all Congressional pensions.
    Completely eliminate defined benefit pensions for federal employees.
    Greatly reduce the IRS by replacing income tax with a national sales tax.
    Completely eliminate federal unemployment benefits. States should handle that or not.
    Raise the social security age to 75.

    There, that should reduce spending by more than 1 trillion

  9. bill says:

    LOL … How about $2 Trillion in reparations cutbacks …

  10. jackal40 says:

    Umm, how do you cut almost $1,000,000,000,000 from a budget of $535,000,000,000? We know these people arn’t rocket scientists (no offense or belittlement intended) and that they seem to have a problem with numbers – BUT, even eliminating EVERY SINGLE ITEM in the defense budget doesn’t equal $1T.

    This, of course, ignores the fact that congress is REQUIRED to provide for the common defense – and I would argue that should come before any other funding of any type.

  11. bobdog says:

    Here’s $2 Trillion: Repeal the healthcare bill.

    Here’s another half trillion: Cancel the unspent portion of the 2009 Midterm Elections Financing Bill, otherwise known as the Stimulus Bill.

  12. Liberals Demise says:

    Can everyone standing beside and behind Ho-Ho Moe Franks.
    Strip all of the benefits these dog robbers bequeath themselves in the middle of the night.
    Once they fall from power, seize the war chests of money they have stolen or have been bought off with.
    A public flogging sounds damn good to me, too!

  13. bronzeprofessor says:

    Hey all, I hate to be the outlier on this issue. Barney Frank is a tough individual to defend. But I do think there is a lot of wasteful spending in the military, which often has nothing to do with real security needs or providing for servicemen and servicewomen.

    I’m here in Ft. Benning and maybe the military has simply changed dramatically — it has become, in fact, an extremely liberal institution — but my sense from within the current Army is that the armed forces mirror many of the big-government excesses of other government branches. There are a lot of wasted resources. While I don’t agree with libertarians on defense policies, my views on defense spending differ from a lot of other conservatives. I’d like to see some scaling back and more careful accounting of spending.

    As for Barney Frank, yes, everything being said about him here is true. I wish that a proposal to reduce military budgets could come from a better source. But I would not oppose cutting defense spending as a general principle in itself.

    As for the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, I am sorry to disappoint a lot of the older veterans on this site — the truth is, almost none of the younger folks, even in this supposedly homophobic military, seem to be worried about gays serving in their units. I have been in the Army for a year and gone through four different units; in all of them there have been open lesbians and in most of them there have been fairly open gay men. People don’t care as long as they’re discreet and do their jobs. We’re so worried about the pressures of our jobs and I guess we’ve all been desensitized to homosexuality because of the trends in popular culture. Here in small-town Georgia, some of my colleagues have been going to gay weddings and the like. They joke a lot against gays but when asked about DADT they are, as a whole, indifferent to the debate. Most folks assume that nothing will change because the gays who would be flamboyant or indiscreet aren’t going to sign up anyway. And it seems like heterosexual males have more difficulty with being Soldiers because the separation is so hard on our wives and kids; there are probably so many secret gays in the military because the lifestyle is easier for homosexual men than for straight guys.

    • proreason says:

      Hey BP, we know there is waste in military spending….it’s government after all and therefore inevitable.

      But to target military spending when there are ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS that are 100% waste is ludicrous.

      Military spending is the least of this country’s problems with government spending. In fact, military spending as a % of GNP is already lower than it has been since 1937.

      As far as homosexuals in the military go, it strikes me that that there were always probably many who could care less. But If only a few % are concerned about it, it’s a problem. Moreover, lesbians aren’t the concern at all. Anybody who thinks that there aren’t tons of lesbians in the military is a fool. Finally, the decision should be made by military leaders…..not by criminal politicians.

      What bugs me about queers is that a tiny, in-your-face fraction of 2% of the population seem to be dominating the decision-making for the entire country…..and you will have a real hard time convincing me that making life special for homosexuals is good for families, good for children, and good for the population as a whole. Encouraging perversion is as bad for social stability as actively demonizing homosexuals.

    • JohnMG says:

      Just because today’s military members have been bombarded with this incessant PC garbage doesn’t mean they embrace it.

      My grandson is home on leave and will be leaving for LeJeune on Sunday–next stop, Afghanistan. I asked him about this just last week. Yes, he said, there were open lesbians, but no one openly homosexual males.

      I can’t speak for the Army, and you are living the life now so I’ll accept your assesment, but this doesn’t seem to be the case in any of the commands in the Marine Corps to which my grandson’s been assigned.

      To further underline my assertion that those who are opposed to an openly gay lifestyle are reluctant to express their feelings, I would point to all of the heavy “brass” that overlooked one Major Nadal while he methodically plotted and then carried out his evil deed, all because they were more concerned with what outcome “outing” him would have on their career.

      Not one servicemember should have his/her safety compromised just to accomodate what everyone knows is an aberrant behavior.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Well, for the lesbians, I am glad at least that the mullet hairstyle will last a little longer. Long live the 80’s!

      But seriously folks, often the first place where social experimentation occurs is in the military and yes, bronze is correct when it comes to the military being a fairly liberal establishment. The sheer volume of “social actions” courses a military member is required to take is staggering.

      However, as regards military waste. My uptake is that The Banking Queen wants to shut down the military and, like Carter, shut down re-supplies, have people use equipment that is aged, run-down and obsolete. In 1979, I was a newbie in the USAF. The line trucks we had were shot, the ground equipment in serious disrepair and our FMC (Fully mission capable) rate was atrocious. When Reagan was sworn in, it didn’t take long for new equipment to show up, parts bins to get replenished and our FMC went to unheard of heights.

      Sure, there is waste in the military. But budgeting in the USAF is handled very carefully….though unfortunately, if you don’t spend every dime you got by the end of the fiscal year, you will get less the coming year. Simple ignorant human tricks.

      However, I also think that drooling barney wants an end to research and development of new weapons systems because he, himself doesn’t understand the evolution of weaponry. By his uptake, he would prefer we use WWI biplanes to fight in modern wars and the ground soldiers to have pikes and bows and arrows. To the committed liberal, the study of war and war materiel is abhorrent to them and makes them sick.

      Carter canceled the B-1 program. Reagan brought it back. Good thing, too. By the way, our main bomber force is still the B-52, first flown in 1952. The newest B-52’s we have were flown by the fathers and in some cases GRAND fathers of the pilots who fly them now.

      Although it has evolved and is still a very viable weapon system, there is something definitely wrong with that approach.

      I am also against new weapons systems for the sake of “modernization”. The new F-35 program is going along in fits and starts. It is hard to develop a versatile and dynamic new weapons platform in aviation. The F-22 first flew in 1990. It went operational in the early 2000’s. My point being that it takes a good decade to design, develop and make operational a new airborne weapons system. Not like 1939 where it took about 6 months from paper to first flight. But if the likes of butt-boomer barney get their way, money for research and development will dry up, any new projects will die on the CAD screen and if/when that moratorium is lifted, we will be so far behind the rest of the world, it won’t be very funny. Carter hurt us in a huge way.

      And, in the back of every liberal’s mind is that they somehow think that our disarming will have everyone farting rainbows and making s’mores to share with the radical terrorists.

      No, jeehadists don’t operate expensive or complicated military hardware…but we can fight them without having to spend as much as if we had to fight a more technically adept enemy. People forget but the reason Bush 1was able to have the military go in and wipe out Iraq in a couple of weeks is because we had the advantage in spades. Imagine if we had to liberate Kuwait with technology similar or equal to what Iraq had on the battlefield.

      They don’t get it. They never will. “Guns are ikky” and “war is bad”. I will say this: Losing one sucks…..permanently.

  14. Reality Bytes says:

    The sick justice is that when Sharia becomes the law of the land, Barney Fwank & his pot smokin’, prostitutin’ ticket dodgin’ boyfriend will be the first ones hanged at lunch time.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »