« | »

Obama To Double Defense Cuts To $800B

From the Politico:

Obama: Cut $400B from security

By: Josh Gerstein and Charles Hoskinson
April 13, 2011

The mention of defense-related spending was brief and came late in President Barack Obama’s Wednesday speech on deficit reduction, but the low-key treatment may have obscured the potentially far-reaching implications of his call to reduce security-related expenditures by $400 billion over the next 12 years.

The language Obama used was vague and confusing to both reporters and policy analysts,

No kidding. The only time Mr. Obama was even close to being ‘perfectly clear’ was when he was talking about raising taxes.

[B]ut lawmakers and defense officials warned that cuts of that magnitude were virtually certain to cause a dramatic reduction in U.S. military’s global footprint, size and capabilities.

“Over the last two years, Secretary Bob Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again,” the president said.

What a round about and chicken livered way to present this. If you are going to destroy our military, at least be man enough to announce your intentions openly.

By the way, why is it only defense spending that get such rigorous reviews? Is there no "wasteful spending" anywhere else in government?

We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we’re going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.”

Isn’t it time to conduct a fundamental review of government’s missions, capabilities, and its role in a changing world? How come everything has to get more efficient and effective except for the federal bureaucracy and our welfare state?

White House and Pentagon officials later confirmed that Obama was proposing another $400 billion in cuts on top of the savings projected over the next decade in the administration’s fiscal 2012 budget. The already-detailed cuts would produce more than $400 billion in savings through fiscal 2021, officials said.

And this is the one time when the cuts will probably vastly outstrip the projections. But don’t worry. That money will never be returned to the American taxpayer. It will be ‘invested’ in some other social program to buy votes for Democrats.

Obama’s announcement Wednesday amounts to an abrupt doubling in proposed spending cuts just two months after he proposed his fiscal 2012 budget, which has yet to be acted on by Congress.

Well, it’s not like we are in the middle of three wars. Or that we are facing the threat of Muslim terrorism both at home and abroad.

Gates learned of the president’s goal Tuesday, just a day before Obama speech, two administration officials said. Both Obama’s speech and other comments from the White House seem to reflect an awareness that the announcement had placed Gates in an awkward spot.

Through a spokesman, Gates offered generic support Wednesday for the process contemplated to consider cuts, but was also blunt that further reductions would mean a major shift in expectations about the military’s size and what it can do.

“The secretary has been clear that further significant defense cuts cannot be accomplished without reducing force structure and military capability,” Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said in a prepared statement. He added that the process to propose further cuts will require “identifying missions that the country is willing to have the military forgo.”

“Secretary Gates believes the Department of Defense cannot be exempt from efforts to bring federal deficit spending under control. However, it is important that any reduction in funding be shaped by strategy and policy choices and not be a budget math exercise,” Morrell added

It is clear that Mr. Gates is headed out the door. And he is one of the few grownups in the Obama administration.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, April 14th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Obama To Double Defense Cuts To $800B”

  1. Rusty Shackleford

    We have come to the crux of the matter. Chairman Obie wants the utter destruction of this nation. He hates it and is being very patient but moving with shocking speed. He has done most of what he can to undermine what was a functioning economy and also has let the muslim world know he stands with them. Next up..as predicted and expected, destroy the military. He has enough tree-huggers and national socialists in his posse to accomplish this…and people like Lindsey Graham will tout it’s necessity.

    Oddly, out of one side of his face, he has slammed the republicans for the money spent on two very necessary wars in the middle east to protect our nation from terrorists, and yet has committed us to a third one of questionable validity and need. Cutting the military budget is one thing that I’m pretty sure congress won’t allow. However, given Boner’s propensity to get on his knees quickly and obediently, I’m not filled with confidence.

    Eliminating, or at least seriously damaging national security is one thing the petulant angry boy has patiently been waiting to attack. He thinks our military is bound by imperialism and thinks that any and all military campaigns undertaken by this nation were imperialistic in nature, perhaps the reason he didn’t want to put boots on the ground in Libya as that’s where he sees hypocrisy (in spite of the obvious in everything else he does). But making our military, already hollowed out thanks to Gramm, Rudman and Hollings Act that was gerrymandered and manipulated to destroy the military:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What.....5_and_1987

    Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act officially the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, U.S. budget deficit reduction measure. The law provided for automatic spending cuts to take effect if the president and Congress failed to reach established targets; the U.S. comptroller general was given the right to order spending cuts. Because the automatic cuts were declared unconstitutional, a revised version of the act was passed in 1987; it failed to result in reduced deficits.* A 1990 revision of the act changed its focus from deficit reduction to spending control.

    *Note: The money originally slated for military spending got spent, instead, on give-away programs, thus keeping total debt the same (as expected).

    The main target of the act was to cut military spending and it resulted in reducing same by monumental amounts, base closures, and many towns suffering premature failure due to the loss of revenue from military members buying from local suppliers/homes, etc. Victorville, California is an excellent example.

    But national socialists, hating the notion of having a strong defense capability, figured out a way to hogtie Reagan. Using his success in making the USSR give up, they then said, “So, then why do we need such a strong military?” and the majority(of the ruling class) bought into the argument…not understanding that to create a modern, capable, effective standing military, it has to be in place the moment bad things happen. Not some months or years after. But also because tax money that goes to the military, results in more republican voters. Perhaps, also, they learned nothing from WW-II.

    In 1939 the US military had a minuscule budget and that was partly due to FDR and his desire to use taxpayer money to grow the government and fork over money to the people who didn’t work (sound familiar?) and he didn’t really see the “need” for a large, strong military. Dec 7, 1941 changed all that. Perhaps the biggest irony there is that his administration was directly responsible for the attack in the first place by really ticking off the Japanese delegation.

    But he committed an underfunded military with insufficient personnel and the tide of WW-II took years to turn around. Had the US already had a strong military, the war would’ve been curtailed much more quickly. Now, “would’a, could’a and should’a” are useless terms…but I will say that it is highly doubtful that the US would’ve had to use the atomic bomb in 1945 because by 1943, the war would’ve been largely won.

    But the bottom line is this: National socialists never see the need for a strong military until that need arises. They are too stupid to realize that having large numbers of personnel and equipment “at-the-ready” is necessary. But chairman Obie’s goals are far more dangerous. He wants to eliminate the military while he is in office and you will see him do anything and everything he can, with Holder’s help and the rest of the flamers and other activist groups to do it.

    And besides, he wants that tax money funneled into his fellow national socialists’ pockets.

    Hopefully, this is a fight that, once he’s in it, will so annoy the people that he will find himself truly at odds. But I’ll bet he has a very interesting blueprint, using Oprah and other notables and the rest of the anti-war, anti-gun weak-kneed malcontents to get the message up to the right temperature. Just watch.

    • TerryAnne

      Amen! If Zero wants to keep slashing DoD…let’s start with his helos. He can suffer in the traffic like the rest of us. That will also free up a few good Marines to actually defend our country versus acting as chauffers for a few years. Then let’s turn AF1 into a much smaller aircraft (and get rid of the extra ones). He can have one plane with a crew of no more than 15. I say a C-130.

      Good of you to bring up Oprah; methinks she’s going to be VP on the next ballot.

    • proreason

      “Chairman Obie wants the utter destruction of this nation.”

      yep.

      That’s what it’s all about.

    • tranquil.night

      Yep, I don’t have much left to say either. Ever since my first post here, we’ve been trying to make this case. Now he’s finally being as close to honest as he will ever be.

      If the country does reelect this guy, what else is there to say? inDependence will have won.

  2. artboyusa

    I don’t think Obama hates America; he just doesn’t think its anything special. In that, and in many other ways, he’s a typical boring liberal. He doesn’t want to destroy America, per se, he just wishes it could be more like, um, Belgium, say, or the Netherlands. A modest, inwardly focused, welfare state with its pride humbled; welcoming to all others and not stuck on itself or its history. That’s his vision for America.

    • proreason

      He has been taught from his mommy forward that the US is bad. Mommy, barack sr,, grandpa, Frank, marxist professors, pakis, palestine sympathizers, Wright, Ayers, Chicago communists, Acorn, socialist fellow travelers, Michelle, many others. It’s almost impossible to identify a single normal American. All of his infuencers hated America.

      I don’t see how he could NOT hate the America that most of us grew up in.

    • tranquil.night

      “Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. ‘There but for the grace of God go I,’ we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.” – BHO

      If I had the chance to ask one question of the Republican candidates this primary, it would be to respond to this assertion. Judging from this one answer, I’d know everything I need to about whether they understand this current political era, and whether they’re qualified to lead this country.

      My point is whether Obama loves or hates America is nuance. He loves the country he sees through his prism, the one he’s building (or finishing construction on), and he fears and loathes the one we see through ours.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »