If a chained CPI is foisted upon seniors to curb their annual budgets, why can't the Department of Defense's bloated military budget have a similar burden placed upon it?
It seems that every year, despite promises to the contrary, the budget of the Pentagon and the Department of Defense grows by leaps and bounds while seniors are obliged to pull crumbs off their tittle of resources to feed the fat military and the other giants of finance who feed luxuriantly off our economy:
Of the many facts that have come to light in the scandal involving former CIA director David H. Petraeus, among the most curious was that during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion. Although most of his trips did not involve a presidential-size convoy, the scandal has prompted new scrutiny of the imperial trappings that come with a senior general’s lifestyle.Then, there is the man who calls himself Peter George Peterson, a man worth nearly $3 billion but that's not enough for Mr. "Peterson". He wants the resources of Social Security and Medicare in his pocket as well. And he has the access to media to pull it off:
The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir..
The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.
I have been posting about the media enablers of Pete Peterson's war on social security and Medicare since 2010.... Do you think it is appropriate that a billionaire hedge fund owner who has dedicated his life to the destruction of social security and Medicare is permitted to insinuate his think tank policy positions into news reporting and commentary at the Washington Post without that influence being disclosed in a disclaimer? How exactly does this comply with so-called journalistic ethics and standards? Shouldn't the media establishment be policing propaganda in hard news reporting? Or is "Foxification" of the news now complete? .... The American people have the right to full disclosure of the relationship between deficit hysteria groups like Pete Peterson's and others who want to destroy social security and Medicare and supposedly objective news organizations, like the Washington Post, that publish their propaganda as news.Ah, the never ending class war. But I cannot afford to be blasé about it .... because I am standing in the immediate sights of the muzzle-loading shotgun of the bigshots in class warfare.