Read it here everyday, something to the effect that ' you want to balance the budget cut defense spending.' Yeah. Right. What I'm talking about. But who in Congress is singing this sensible tune?
Yeah yeah yeah, the sequester has some cuts, the O Admins has proposed a pittance, but who really is leading to put us back on track we were on in the good old post-Cold War days of economic conversion?
At least we could depend on Kucinich to talk about this, and for that reason its so damn sad that Kucinich is leaving the Congress. Maybe you can tell me who is left in the House OR Senate, on either side of the aisle, calling for sensible cuts to the bloated war profiteer segment of the budget? McGovern maybe? Progressive caucus, surely?
Its also sad, no sickening, that the only Senator recently talking seriously about cutting defense is a damn Republican who is far right on social issues. Got similar problem with fricking Ron Paul-- makes some sense on military spending but on much else is crap. Gah.
But hey, look, Coburn likes President Obama!!!!
Can you believe it? Doesn't wan't him to be President, but likes him and thinks since he IS President people should get over it.
SnipAnyway, this whole rat sh*t scam of the Fiscal Cliff has been harshing my high for some time now. Even though"> I don't get high any more, but that's another story...
"I love the man. I think he's a neat man. I don't want him to be president, but I still love him. He is our president. He's my president. And I disagree with him adamantly on 95 percent of the issues, but that doesn't mean I can't have a great relationship. And that's a model people ought to follow." This statement surely sent the Obama-is-a-Muslim crowd into fits. But Coburn is clearly a true "severe" conservative who serves as a Southern Baptist deacon at his church in Oklahoma.
My inner voice is constantly screaming "Leave my social security, medicare and medicaid alone you b@stards! Why don't you do the obvious etask the obscene DOD budget !!!!!!! Stat." And I don't mean the cuts set up in the sequester that keep wall street's war profiteers raking in their billions but that first cuts back on soldiers......
Truthout carried this post that is music to my troubled Fiscal Fail soul:
To Push for Meaningful Defense Cuts, We Need Unusual PartnershipsBy Dina Rasor, Truthout | Solutions
Thursday, 06 December 2012 10:25
One would not expect that Senator Coburn, with his conservative background, would have the same concerns and convictions to reform the Pentagon. However, on the December 5 "Morning Joe," he said that at least $50-60 billion could be cut each year from the DoD budget without hurting the defense of the country. His statement startled Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, but neither questioned his assertions. But Senator Coburn has done much more than just throw out budget numbers, as many politicians do these days; he has actually produced several reports outlining how he would carve out billions of defense dollars. His reports, "Back in Black: A Deficit Reduction Plan," published in July 2011, has a large section on reducing defense spending by $1 trillion in ten years, and his more recent November report, "Department of Everything" looks at all the non-military costs that the DoD has in its budget.
The "Department of Everything" report is important because it demonstrates the waste in the DoD in a way that the general public can understand, just like my past exposés of $435 hammers and $7,622 coffee brewers. I don't agree with everything in his reports because I am very wary of outsourcing defense to contractors, which can cost three times the amount of using government workers and doesn't work in a war scenario. However, many of his examples shows a DoD bureaucracy with way too much money to spend.
Senator Coburn has drilled down to many of the problems that plague attempts to not only reform the DoD, but also to cut the enormous budget, which is, ironically, corrupting and eroding national security and military effectiveness. While he doesn't go as far as saying that we should cancel the F-35 fighter plane that is sucking the life out of the DoD procurement budget, he does suggest that the Navy and Marine versions of the plane should be eliminated. Many of Coburn's Republican military counterparts would not expect a senator with his voting record to write about the DoD in this way:SnipDespite the sacrifice, heroism, and professionalism our military personnel show in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's defenses are decaying, despite increasing budgets. The ongoing corrosion and growing expense have been with us for decades, and span numerous presidents and political parties.
Over the last thirty years, Congress increased annual appropriations to the Department of Defense by about 44 percent in constant, inflation adjusted dollars. Today's non-war defense budget is larger than the total defense budget during the Vietnam War when we had over 500,000 troops fighting overseas.
However, this significant increase has not increased the size and strength of our military as traditionally measured. Despite higher levels of funding, active duty troop levels have decreased by 30 percent, the number of Navy ships is down 45 percent, and the Air Force's fighter and attack aircraft are down more than 50 percent. Former Secretary Robert Gates noted in a speech last year that current submarines and amphibious ships are three times as expensive as their equivalents during the 1980s and we have fewer of them.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) releases an annual report of cost overruns of major weapon systems. Between 2001 and 2008, they found nearly $300 billion in cost overruns and schedule delays for major defense acquisition programs.
During the campaign the President talked about nation building back here at home.
One of the most sickening things I read recently is this:
I am not totally blaming the President for this, but we are in serious trouble in this country and we need to see more results. Here.
Really would like to see cuts like those that Coburn talks about happen. Really. With 26 million unemployed and underemployed, and 26 million left without insurance even after ACA fully kicks in, we need to make some transformations change stat.
Job Creation Per $1 Billion Spent:Why can't we get campaign finance and other reforms through Congress?
-Tax Cuts for Personal Consumption: 15,100
-Clean Energy: 16,800
-Health Care: 17,200
If we really want a society where people who want to work can enjoy a moderate standard of living, says Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “the best thing to do is to start cutting the military.”
Congressional allies for big war contractors at Lockheed Martin and Boing justify the bloated, corruption-filled war budget on the backs of job creation and security. But, unlike the war industry, people whose livelihoods are not dependent on weapons of mass destruction agree that military spending is the worst performing job creation program. Like Upton Sinclair says, “It is difficult to get a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The data proves education and infrastructure spending create 50 percent more jobs than building tanks and jets, which by the way, will not see one iota of combat.
Many progressive organizations have not given up on this and momentum is growing. Can we do it? Won't you sign on here to work for this as well?
What's at stake here? What could we do with the money Coburn talks about>
We need to reform the top of our military, for all kinds of reasons.
Look forward to hearing more very soon from the President about his plans for nation building here at home!
And hell, I would be VERY happy if the Obama Administration would just get us out of continuing to fight effing COMMUNISM!!!!!
So 0987654321, let's make this happen !!!!5/03/2011 @ 12:23PM |7,889 viewssnip
Why Are U.S. Troops Still In Korea?
Yet at a press briefing late last month Lt. Gen. John D. Johnson, commander of the U.S. Eighth Army in South Korea, said no reductions were planned in America’s garrison of 28,500. The Army even arranged transportation to allow the force’s participation in overseas exercises and immediate return to the Republic of Korea.
Gen. Johnson explained: “We can strengthen combat capabilities as well as readiness posture if [U.S. forces] take part in overseas drills and that will benefit South Korea’s security.” He added that “maintaining readiness posture to prepare for actual battles is the reason” for America’s military presence.
The point that he did not address, however, was America’s security. Why is the U.S. creating military units, stationing them overseas, and sending them back and forth for training to benefit the security of another nation, an advanced and wealthy country capable of defending itself? Why are American personnel preparing for battle to defend South Korea?
If American resources were infinite, then it might make sense to shower bases and garrisons all over the globe. If South Korea was still war-ravaged and impoverished and the Cold War was still raging, it might make sense for the U.S. to maintain a security guarantee. But neither of those conditions bears any relation to reality today.
Mr. President, how about assigning Nation Building here at home to this guy? He's all in with protecting the safety net. With all his trips to Iraq and Afghanistan he has Defense Cred....
And he's not at all afraid to confront the Repubs when they get lame...
Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 6:09 AM PT: From the comments:
He's basically bitching that US Military bases aren't run by private corporations. He's also complaining about Pentagon funding for necessary civilian programs that should be implemented by civilian agencies, while Coburn is of course advocating their outright elimination.
He uses the usual list of outrageous expenses to buttress his argument. He offers the same complaints exploited by the failed Romney campaign, bitching that a more sophisticated fleet costs more but doesn't look as impressive if your military experience is limited to playing Battleship.
Cutting the DoD budget means cutting actual defense programs, not privatizing and trimming around the edges. We need to eliminate bases, destroy boondoggle weapon systems and police the internecine turf wars that allow a fading branch like the Army to gorge on the same massive budget as its organizational competitors.
"The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."
by 2020adam on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:57:01 PM MST
[ Reply to This ]
Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 6:11 AM PT: Apparently there are Dems arguing for Defense cuts:
Rep. Barbara Lee
U.S. Representative, California's 9th congressional district
Toss Wasteful Defense Weapons Programs Off the Cliff