This week, President Obama announced draconian cuts to the one area he should not have-the military. The numbers in dollars and personnel are outrageous. If our military personnel represent the best we have to offer, does it make sense that we have less of them? Does it make sense to send so many back into a jobless market in this economy?
More importantly, this is not a matter of a peace dividend. The last I checked, we are still engaged in Afghanistan. How many have had to deploy to Afghanistan (and Iraq) multiple times? Has international terrorism, directed largely against us and the West, suddenly disappeared? Has North Korea come to its senses now that Kim Jung Il has died? No.
Then there is that matter of Iran. You can whistle past the graveyard all you want, but we are headed for an eventual war with that outlaw nation that creeps closer and closer to having nuclear weapons-and will not hesitate to use them. Unless the people of Iran overthrow that fanatical regime, which appears unlikely, war will come, no matter who is in the White House.
It was irresponsible to decide that if that super committee that was appointed to find cuts could not come up with a plan, cuts would be spread evenly between the military and social programs. Obama forgets-or never knew-that the primary responsibility of the government is to protect its people, not provide them with all kinds of social programs.
So now, Obama joins the last two Democrat presidents, Carter and Clinton, in slashing our military to the bone, something the next Republican president will have to fix.
Sour grapes, Mr. Fouse.
ReplyDeleteIF it is true that we have to shrink government and cut spending, then we have to cut military spending, among others.
You want to have your military cake and eat your tax cut too. The numbers don't add up.
This is sheer hypocrisy.
(Not to mention, the president spent many hours talking with the top military commanders about their priorities and plans, before offering this budget).
How about we cut Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, Welfare Payments, etc... Or better yet, we remove all immigrants from every Federal entitlement program. It is only proper since these programs should only be for citizens. And since children are not legally allowed to register for programs, there is no need to allow these families to have such a benefit.
ReplyDeleteLook at California. No money in the kitty. Millions on the dole. And millions of dollars being spent on pensions, etc...
It just wouldn't add up to much Findalis. Those are favorite punching bags, but a miniscule portion of the federal budget.
ReplyDeleteHow about cutting the perks extracted by the California prison guards' union, and sort out who really needs to be in prison for public safety, vs. those who could be better supervised in a controlled setting. If West Virginia can get lower recidivism rates while spending less tax money on prisons, any state should be able to do it.
The trouble with that is the prison guards in California are State employees, not Federal employees.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with cutting the military budget is quite similar to that of cutting the Medicare (or virtually any other) budget.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Siarlys that we should cut all spending, including military. In the case of Medicare,I believe it is to be cut by $500 billion (if I am not mistaken, but I may be)over the next decade, to come from waste, fraud, abuse, etc.
What is quite predictable is that we will be absolutely unable to realize $500 billion from these areas. The priority will then become the saving of the promised $500 billion itself, rahter than the source of the savings,and the cuts will therefore come at least partially from benefits, etc., to the detriment of seniors, rather than waste, etc. The exact same thing would/will happen to military (and other) spending in terms of significant, even vital, programs. Been there, done that. Count on it.
Last I knew, California is in a bit of a budget mess itself. Right, Gary?
ReplyDelete