« | »

Shocker: Democrats Want More Defense Cuts

From an unrelenting Associated Press:

Struggling with debt, Congress talks defense cuts

By DONNA CASSATA – Associated Press
July 29, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Once unthinkable in a time of two wars, Democrats and Republicans alike are insisting that the billions spent on the military can be significantly cut back over the next decade as the nation struggles to reduce its spiraling debt.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to slash spending and increase the government’s borrowing authority would cap spending by the Pentagon and other government agencies at $1.2 trillion. Conservative Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has called for just over $1 trillion in defense cuts in his "Back in Black" plan, including fewer weapons, fighter jets and personnel. A bipartisan group of six senators envisions reductions of more than $800 billion in 10 years.

The proposals reflect a rare bipartisan consensus driven by a dire economic outlook. The numbers even outpace what a Democratic commander in chief called for earlier this year. In April, President Barack Obama instructed the Pentagon to find $400 billion in defense savings over 12 years and said no decisions on specifics would be made until the Pentagon had completed a review of options for achieving such reductions.

In typical fashion, the AP neglects to mention that the Pentagon’s budget has just been cut by $400 billion over the last two years. In fact, Robert Gates and others have objected strenuously to Mr. Obama’s additional cuts.

So these cuts are not unprecedented. Nor are calls for more cuts unexpected, since that is always what the Democrats always want to cut. (Barney Frank has been demanding that trillions to be cut from defense for years.) And this is exactly what can be expected from any ‘bi-partisan’ Congressional panel, such as those envisioned by both the Boehner and Reid bills:

No matter which plan emerges in the latest debt showdown — Reid’s or the House GOP plan by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio — both call for creation of a 12-person, House-Senate bipartisan committee to find trillions in deficit cuts. Defense spending will be a ripe target, especially since the money would come from cuts in projected increases.

Of course, much of these would be sham cuts, because they cut the baseline increases that assume that the Iraq and Afghan wars will continue for the next ten years. But it should also be noted that these "savings’ assume there won’t be any other wars over the next ten years, either. 

Defense budgets, not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, consistently have gone up in recent years, from just over $370 billion in the late 1990s to around $550 billion today.

Since the late 1990s there was 9/11 and all of the security measures implemented as part of the war on terror. Are we going to be cut back on those?

By the way, non-defense federal spending has gone up 24% in the last two years. Why is that never mentioned? Why can’t that ever be cut?

Military leaders and lawmakers on the congressional committees overseeing the Pentagon warn of creating a "hollow" fighting force.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Obama’s choice for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel this week that cuts of $800 billion or more "would be extraordinarily difficult and very high risk." Leaders in the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy told a House panel that cuts of that magnitude would force them to restructure their respective services and cause problems meeting the demands of commanders in the field

What do they know? Obama killed Osama. He is the greatest military genius since the little corporal. (And we don’t mean Napoleon.)

The demands for defense cuts come as Republicans fiercely oppose increases in taxes and Democrats say hands-off on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. That leaves the billions for defense and the scores of other government programs, from education to transportation to agriculture, for reductions as the nation grapples with a $1.5 trillion deficit…

Again, defense has just been cut by $400 billion dollars in the last two years. Nothing else in the budget has been cut. Nothing else is even allowed to be mentioned as a candidate for cuts.

Why is that?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, July 29th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Shocker: Democrats Want More Defense Cuts”

  1. TerryAnne says:

    And, yet, the military is being forced to repeal DADT in the middle of all of this….which has resulted in contracts and the like to make this move “smoothly” and ensure the proper training is done.

    We can’t have new F-22s and the F-35 is being reconsidered…but we can now all properly recognize openly gay troops and let them flounce around uninhibited.

    Priorities anyone?

  2. JohnMG says:

    ….”Since the late 1990s there was 9/11 and all of the security measures implemented as part of the war on terror. Are we going to be cut back on those?…”

    Let’s start with the TSA and work our way upward. I say we arm every passenger and let the problem of airport security correct itself. Same way with border security. Maybe some sort of vigilante justice is the tonic we need.

    And yes, a 24% jump in non-defense spending should stick out like a wart on Miss America’s nose when it comes to looking for places to pare back spending.

    Oh, I forgot. Investing in the future is different than spending. Sorta gives dual meaning to the letters WTF.

    • Right of the People says:

      The problem with trying to cut the other spending that’s up 24% is soldiers for the most part don’t vote Dimocrat, but the leeches getting the money from all the programs that where spending is going up, do.

      What good is spending guvmint dollars if you can use it to buy votes?

    • JohnMG says:

      I fully agree. But they are such shameless liars. It would take someone of incredible stupidity (or extreme chutzpa) to opine that in all of a 24% spending increase there was no fat to be trimmed, while advocating for additional reductions in funding for the military……the very military budget that had already been trimmed by $400 billion. The only justice to be realized from such blatant irresponsibility would be if those traitors would be the first (or only) people affected by those same actions.

      Democrats fill me with disgust. A long time ago I used to vote split tickets, but I have not voted for a Democrat in the last 31 years. Not since Reagan in 1980. If I don’t like the Republican I may abstain from voting for him, but I refuse to empower even one single Democrat. I have friends who vote Democrat, and I tell them at every opportunity they are fools. Most of them currently agree that Obama is a walking “man-caused disaster”, but they will vote for him again if any of the current crop of Republican primary hopefuls are on the ticket. When I ask who the WOULD vote for they look at me as if I were daft.

      As for gridlock? Please! Let’s have some more of it. At least then, Obama & Co. aren’t eff-ing something else up worse than it already is. If those idiots wishing to cut defense can’t stand behind the troops that make their lives possible, I would ask they stand in front of them.

  3. Papa Louie says:

    “Once unthinkable in a time of two wars…”

    Two wars? Did Obama surrender in Libya?
    It’s just like Democrats to get us involved in another war and then cut military spending.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »