NY Times: Why, Yes, Military Spending Should Be Cut To Reduce Debt

There are many things one can expect to hear from liberals when it comes to government spending: raise taxes (sorry, “reduce expenditures in the tax code”), increase social spending, cut intelligence spending, and, cut military spending, the last cut being to a duty of the federal government that actually appears in the Constitution….yes, I know, liberals, the Constitution is outdated and doesn’t take the modern world into consideration. Or, at least, that’s what you keep telling us. Anyhow, the anonymous Fish Wrap editorial board proposes a “rational budget for the Pentagon”

In their budget-cutting zeal, Republicans are demanding harsh sacrifices from the country’s most vulnerable citizens. At the same, they are determined to leave one of the biggest areas of wasteful government spending untouched: the Pentagon budget.

Grandma just has to learn to eat cat food…..actually, cat food is kinda expensive, isn’t it? Grandma must make do with Oodles of Noodles

The budget plan they pushed through the House this month would spend $7.5 trillion on the military over the next dozen years. And that does not include the cost of actual war-fighting. The country cannot afford to spend that much, and it doesn’t need to.

The $7.5 trillion was President Obama’s projection, which he has since lowered to $7.1 trillion. Saving $400 billion is better but still not enough, especially since it can be achieved merely by holding annual nonwar-related spending at its current swollen level, adjusted for inflation.

Can’t do that with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or any other program not required by the Constitution, though.

National security is a fundamental responsibility of government…

Actually, it is Constitutionally required, chumps. Hey, I know, maybe you should ask your president why he launched a war of choice in Libya that had no national security implications (then abdicated control of US forces).

So, what does the editorial board recommend?

  • Cutting the civilian workforce by 10%, which would put 65,000 out of work.
  • Freezing non-combat military pay (suddenly, they have a problem with government pay?).
  • “Reasonable” increases to the premiums of retired military families….yet, this same paper freaks over asking government union members to contribute a bit more to their own health and retirement plans?
  • Reducing the number of carrier groups and air wings by one each…hey, a smaller military! Liberals love that!
  • Doing away with many weapons systems, like the V-22 Osprey, F-35, and no more Virginia class subs, because we don’t need them for today’s wars.

Basically, this whole thing is a call to reduce the military, and a way to blame the military for the absurd spending on programs not required by the Constitution…don’t roll your eyes at me, Liberals. The Constitution is real, and, if you don’t like it, try and change it through the provided process.

I’m sure the Fish Wrap with provide a rational budget for Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Obamacare in the coming weeks.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “NY Times: Why, Yes, Military Spending Should Be Cut To Reduce Debt”

  1. Doomed says:

    Total**375.3 401.7 422.7 443.9 465.7 487.7

    2004-2009 defense totals.

    President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010.

    President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $708 billion for fiscal 2011.

    Obama Asks for $671 Billion Defense Budget in Fiscal 2012

    In other words……

    2004 the defense budget was 375 Billion.
    2012 its expected to be 671 Billion.

    an increase of almost 300 billion dollars.

    IN…FOOKING….SANE.

    In this case I have to side with the Democrats…..our ENTIRE GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF FREAKING CONTROL.

  2. Doomed says:

    One must realize that Obama is using the troops against the GOP.

    He is raising the budget……in another attempt to create crisis…..but in doing so he is forcing the budget to skyrocket and expecting the GOP to either shut up or be seen as NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS.

    The GOP needs to make the case that an out of control….runaway defense budget that needs to be reigned in is not anti-troop but is fiscally responsible.

    Pure and simple….Obama is a cool and caluculating Alinsky Disciple with the Cloward and Piven playbook under his arm.

    The GOP needs to find their strategy and work that strategy while the net needs to paint this for what it is.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5587 access attempts in the last 7 days.