Tea Partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts

SamAca10

SamAca10

10-Year Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,045
WASHINGTON – Back home, tea partiers clamoring for the debt-ridden government to slash spending say nothing should be off limits. Tea party-backed lawmakers echo that argument, and they're not exempting the military's multibillion-dollar budget in a time of war.

That demand is creating hard choices for the newest members of Congress, especially Republicans who owe their elections and solid House majority to the influential grass-roots movement. Cutting defense and canceling weapons could mean deep spending reductions and high marks from tea partiers as the nation wrestles with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Yet it also could jeopardize thousands of jobs when unemployment is running high.

Proponents of the cuts could face criticism that they're trying to weaken national security in a post-Sept. 11 world.

House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans' programs from spending cuts in their party's "Pledge to America" campaign manifesto last fall. But the House's new majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.

The defense budget is about $700 billion annually. Few in Congress have been willing to make cuts as U.S. troops fight in Afghanistan and finish the operation in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a recent pre-emptive move, proposed $78 billion in spending cuts and an additional $100 billion in cost-saving moves. While that amounts to $13 billion less than the Pentagon wanted to spend in the coming year, it still stands as 3 percent growth after inflation is taken into account.

That's why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military's budget needs to be part of the mix.

"The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. "It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are 'off the table' must be taken off the table."

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, leaders of the group FreedomWorks, recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that "defense spending should not be exempt from scrutiny." On Gates' proposed savings of $145 billion over five years, they said, "That's a start."

Just about all Republicans — and plenty of Democrats, too — favor paring back spending. But when it comes to specific cuts — eliminating money for schools, parks, hospitals, highways and everything else — the decisions get difficult. Every government expenditure has its advocate and no one wants his or her program cut.

Fault lines have emerged within the Republican ranks over how deep to cut and where to whittle. In the coming weeks, lawmakers will feel the pressure from constituents and colleagues.

"Everything is ultimately on the table," said Rep. Jon Runyan of New Jersey, a freshman Republican and a tea party favorite.

That view could produce a rough tenure for the 6-foot-7 former football player, who just earned a coveted spot on the House Armed Services Committee, a fierce protector of military interests. The congressman's district is home to Fort Dix, which merged with neighboring McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station to make the military's first three-branch base.

Runyan expects a committee fight over Gates' proposal to cancel a $14 billion program to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines and use that money to buy additional ships, F-18 jets and new electronic jammers. Already, several members of the panel, including the chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., have signaled they will challenge Gates' move.

Runyan says he will decide after he's heard arguments from both sides.

No matter how much defense spending is trimmed, none of the cuts is likely to reduce the money that's available to the military to spend on the war fronts.

"We want to make sure men and women put in harm's way have the resources they need," said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who recently traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan with several of his GOP colleagues, including a number of other freshmen. "That doesn't mean the entire defense budget has to be taken off the table," he added.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said he didn't think "anything ought to be off-limits for the effort to reduce spending." He told "Fox News Sunday" that "I don't think we ought to start out with the notion that a whole lot of areas in the budget are exempt from reducing spending, which is what we really need to do and do it quickly."

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has proposed cutting total government spending by $153 billion, including deep reductions in defense and elimination of several weapons programs. Brady called it a "down payment" on getting the country's finances in order.

In an unusual political pairing, liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.

"I'll work with anybody," Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans.

The schism within the GOP is philosophical as well as generational. Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a tea party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.

For all the talk, one tea party group is willing to give lawmakers some leeway, provided that they adhere to the movement's values.

Sal Russo, chief strategist of the Tea Party Express, said the defense budget should be part of the calculation and his organization expects lawmakers to "responsibly bring spending down." He added that his group will give them "flexibility to do their job."

Tea party-backed Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said lawmakers "at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget." But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military — one in the Air Force, the other in the Army.
Click to expand...

HTML: 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_defense_cuts#mwpphu-container
 
Of course, they like to compare military spending with hospitals, schools, highways, etc... As though, those are the only things competing for the limited resources. They don't like to talk about the millions upon millions spent on supporting illegal immigrants "IN" our country. Or on welfare programs. But those areas are made up of people that "NEED" the government; and therefor are people that are more important voters.

Not saying that there isn't waste in the military. ANYTHING government related has a lot more waste than if it was a commercial operation. But politicians politicize these things. The poor and the hispanics are more important towards reelection and maintaining power than senior citizens and the military.

So I'm sorry if I don't seem to have any compassion. I would be saving money in many other areas if I was in charge. Unfortunately, politicians can't benefit from that. Want to balance the budget; first step: Make our country not attractive to illegal poor immigrants. Make them prefer to stay where they are at. That means no government assistance to ANY illegal immigrant. Next: Welfare. Change it to workfare. Any person receiving government assistance, must contribute to the system. Cleaning highways, parks, rivers, etc... Make them prefer to work than to receive welfare. And for what it's worth, I have/had family members who are/were "Receiving" government assistance. I know exactly the scam that's going on. It pays better to receive government assistance than to pay to get a job, transportation, child care, etc... Why? Because the government WANTS YOU to NEED THEM. Government politicians don't want or need money. They want power. They need the citizens to NEED them.

Anyway; thanks for letting me vent. Not saying that the military doesn't need to be cost conscious. Just that they at least have a purpose. Cut spending from ALL other areas first; then we'll talk. Make a 25% cut in all assistance to illegal immigrants: This means medical, legal, and education. Make a 25% cut to ALL government assistance to individuals. Make a 25% cut in ALL government subsidies. When I say ALL, I mean ALL. Corporate, international, other countries, etc... Stop giving bailouts to companies. NO COMPANY IS TOO BIG TO FAIL. It would have been cheaper for the FDIC to reimburse individual's bank/savings accounts, and forgive all loans, and let the particular bank go under; than it is/was to Bail them out. It would have been cheaper to let GMC go under and let another company take them over; which would include rehiring the employees at a possibly lower rate; then to bail them out. The bailouts, the unions, the social programs, etc... That's what's costing our country everything. Most people have no concept of how the real political "Game" is played. Take care of these areas, THEN people can come after military spending.
 
Christcorp said:
Of course, they like to compare military spending with hospitals, schools, highways, etc... As though, those are the only things competing for the limited resources. They don't like to talk about the millions upon millions spent on supporting illegal immigrants "IN" our country. Or on welfare programs. But those areas are made up of people that "NEED" the government; and therefor are people that are more important voters.

Not saying that there isn't waste in the military. ANYTHING government related has a lot more waste than if it was a commercial operation. But politicians politicize these things. The poor and the hispanics are more important towards reelection and maintaining power than senior citizens and the military.

So I'm sorry if I don't seem to have any compassion. I would be saving money in many other areas if I was in charge. Unfortunately, politicians can't benefit from that. Want to balance the budget; first step: Make our country not attractive to illegal poor immigrants. Make them prefer to stay where they are at. That means no government assistance to ANY illegal immigrant. Next: Welfare. Change it to workfare. Any person receiving government assistance, must contribute to the system. Cleaning highways, parks, rivers, etc... Make them prefer to work than to receive welfare. And for what it's worth, I have/had family members who are/were "Receiving" government assistance. I know exactly the scam that's going on. It pays better to receive government assistance than to pay to get a job, transportation, child care, etc... Why? Because the government WANTS YOU to NEED THEM. Government politicians don't want or need money. They want power. They need the citizens to NEED them.

Anyway; thanks for letting me vent. Not saying that the military doesn't need to be cost conscious. Just that they at least have a purpose. Cut spending from ALL other areas first; then we'll talk. Make a 25% cut in all assistance to illegal immigrants: This means medical, legal, and education. Make a 25% cut to ALL government assistance to individuals. Make a 25% cut in ALL government subsidies. When I say ALL, I mean ALL. Corporate, international, other countries, etc... Stop giving bailouts to companies. NO COMPANY IS TOO BIG TO FAIL. It would have been cheaper for the FDIC to reimburse individual's bank/savings accounts, and forgive all loans, and let the particular bank go under; than it is/was to Bail them out. It would have been cheaper to let GMC go under and let another company take them over; which would include rehiring the employees at a possibly lower rate; then to bail them out. The bailouts, the unions, the social programs, etc... That's what's costing our country everything. Most people have no concept of how the real political "Game" is played. Take care of these areas, THEN people can come after military spending.
Click to expand...

Finally.......this is so refreshing to hear. If you ever need a campaign manager .....sign me up! :shake:
 
Christcorp said:
Stop giving bailouts to companies. NO COMPANY IS TOO BIG TO FAIL. It would have been cheaper for the FDIC to reimburse individual's bank/savings accounts, and forgive all loans, and let the particular bank go under; than it is/was to Bail them out. It would have been cheaper to let GMC go under and let another company take them over; which would include rehiring the employees at a possibly lower rate; then to bail them out. The bailouts, the unions, the social programs, etc... That's what's costing our country everything.
Click to expand...

Actually, based on the reports I've read, the government ended up earning a profit on the financial bail-out and was only marginally in the red (so far) with the auto bail-out but looks like it will at least break even there in the future.

That's not to say I agree with it philosophically, but it's a bad example to use in this case for budget cutting per se.

I agree with LITS though. Having done a little work on acquisitions for RAND, I was appalled at the defense waste. It was insane, on the order of billions in just a couple programs, let alone all of them.
 
marginally in the red
Click to expand...

Is that like "Sort of being pregnant"? LOL!!!

Point is: It is not the government's job to bail out private corporations. What makes capitalism work, is that if a company, private business, etc... can not run their business well enough to make a profit; then they are "SUPPOSE" to go under. There will be someone else there to pick up where they left off. "Assuming there's a demand for the product or service". Tax dollars are not suppose to be risked saving a company. The concept that a company is "Too big to fail" is political speak for: "Us politicians have to protect our lobbyists and special interests; or we can't get reelected and maintain our power".

I believe in giving all sorts of tax breaks for companies. They provide jobs. They are risking their own money. They are part of the economy that keeps the distribution of wealth moving. However; if their business scheme is bad, and they are going out of business, then so be it. If the product or service is indeed wanted by the consumer, someone else will pick up the slack. Either buying out that business or increasing the size of their similar business. Lost jobs will be picked up. It's the government's job to simply ensure that the playing field stay level. That there's no illegal activities and anti-competition going on. Other than that; they need to back off. Unfortunately, that will not happen, because our politicians have been elected with the money directly from these banks and companies. Including the likes of Goldman Sach.

But this is about cuts in military spending. My point, which I know is completely true, is that there is a lot more money wasted in government spending, that is outside of the military. The politico will let the ignorant believe that the money has to be chosen between "The Military" and "Schools, education, health care, poverty, etc..." What they don't want the ignorant to know is about the BILLIONS used for foreign aid, illegal immigrants, welfare, subsidies, etc... I challenge voters to contact your legislators and mention these articles; then ask them: "Are you going to vote to reduce spending for foreign aid, to illegal immigrants, to generational welfare recipients, bailing out companies, etc...?" And while you're at it, ask them why they approve a freeze in retired military yearly cost of living increase; yet they approved yearly pay raises for themselves in congress?

Nope; until the American people hold our government officials accountable, and make them balance the budget in an honest approach, I will never support military funding cuts. The military should be the last place we cut. It definitely needs to be smarter with their money; but until true government waste is addressed, they need to back off of military spending.
 
Congress voted to freeze its pay.

Go look up how much you'll save by cutting foreign aid, support for immigrants, and bailouts (which as pointed out, were somewhere between profitable and barely in the red depending on which one we speak of).

I think you'll find that will barely make a dent, and any serious budget solution will require defense cuts.
 
Good. We spend far too much on far too little anyways.
 
SteveHolt243 said:
Congress voted to freeze its pay.

Go look up how much you'll save by cutting foreign aid, support for immigrants, and bailouts (which as pointed out, were somewhere between profitable and barely in the red depending on which one we speak of).

I think you'll find that will barely make a dent, and any serious budget solution will require defense cuts.
Click to expand...

Remember: I never said that there shouldn't be cutbacks in the defense budget. Only that other areas should be cut first. You mention the bailouts, yet the TARP budget is set at $700 BILLION for bailouts. The CBO believes that we won't actually need all that. That TARP will only actually cost $20-$30 BILLION. Sorry; but I'm not going to buy that large of a difference. Maybe not the entire $700 BILLION; but I'll bet a lot more than $20 BILLION. Foreign aid is in the $20+ Billion Area. Welfare and Unemployment is around $320 BILLION. The food stamp and AFDC alone are $30 BILLION. The state of California alone, claim to have spent close to $10 BILLION dollars in a year just on illegal immigrants. The federal government subsidizes $20 BILLION a year currently, JUST ON FARMERS.

That's the problem with this debate. Too many people think that you take the highest cost expense, and that's where you cut first. Doesn't matter if Defense is a necessity or not. Instead; we need to find the waste in areas like illegal immigration, welfare, bailouts, subsidies, etc... Make a dent??? That's one hell of a dent.

I've already said that the defense budget needs to be cut. But a president, congress, JCS, and citizenry with balls, should demand that some of these other areas need to be cut first. Some of them totally. "Sorry, but I don't believe in ANY WELFARE for illegal immigrant". Anyway; not arguing that the department of defense doesn't need to be more accountable for their spending, and probably needs some cuts. But some of these other areas need to be looked at first. You don't grab the most expensive area and start cutting. You find the areas that are "Honey Pots" used towards buying votes; e.g. welfare and illegal immigration; and you cut those first. Then come back and talk about military spending.
 
I watched "Meteorite Men" and then the Wyoming vs UNLV basketball game. MUCH MORE INTERESTING!!! :popcorn1:

In all honesty, you can't expect much from the state of confusion speech. It's like a coach giving a pep talk before a game. It's not actually the game; just a speech intended to motivate. It doesn't matter if it's Obama or Bush or Clinton, etc... You're not going to get real details. There's a lot of "Rodney King - Can't we all just get along" in it. How we all need to work together for our future. How we all need to be willing to sacrifice. How things are on the right track, but not going fast enough. The amount of this type of speech is dependent on whether the congress is of like mind or not with the president. Now that the president doesn't have the house; there will be more "Let's work together". 2 years ago when he took office, it was "This is our plan, and the republicans can ride along if they want". All presidents do this.

But what wasn't discussed; "Yes, I read the transcripts and some of the replay"; was that since starting the hundreds of billions in stimulus and aid, unemployment has gone up. We are borrowing more. Our debt has increased. And there doesn't seem to be any change in the near future. Also, what wasn't discussed in enough detail, was that except for "Obama-Care"; which hopefully will be retracted; none of his campaign promises have been fulfilled or even advanced on. Guantanamo is still there. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally; I never thought these were doable campaign promises, and I don't support them. However; a lot of his supporters from 2008 are very upset with him.

So, what i saw on the replay and in the transcript, was typical political B.S. Same happens from both sides. Usually however, there are some points throughout the speech that are key to the nation. I didn't see that tonight. I'm all for the across the board spending freeze, but that isn't even a band-aid. Spending freeze means that you are still spending. There are at least a dozen programs that I know of personally, that I would totally cut off. And yes, these deal with subsidies, welfare, illegal immigrants, bailouts, etc... Spending freezes isn't what's needed. Spending CUTS are what's needed. I don't mean $70 Billion from the military. I mean "PROGRAMS" need to be cut. Unfortunately, most politician's "Voting Base" is in programs that need to be cut. So those areas won't be touched.
 
Last edited:
Christcorp said:
except for "Obama-Care"; which hopefully will be retracted; none of his campaign promises have been fulfilled or even advanced on
Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head:

Credit Card Reform
DADT
START
College Loan Reform

And those are just some of the big ones.
 
SteveHolt243 said:
Just off the top of my head:

Credit Card Reform
DADT
START
College Loan Reform

And those are just some of the big ones.
Click to expand...

Sorry; but except for DADT, I don't remember those others as big "Campaign Promises" during the election and primaries. I remember gitmo, iraq, afghan, heathcare, and balancing the budget. Except for the heathcare, none of the others have been touched. The budget is worse, gitmo is still gitmo, we're still in irag and afghanistan, etc... Has some things been accomplished? Yes. But remember; the president doesn't present bills or make laws. Congress does. All the president can do is approve or disapprove. Then again; during the SOTU address, he mentioned again how he would veto bills/laws that had pork in them. He promised that too during the campaign and hasn't lived up to that promise either.

But this thread is about military spending cuts. And the truth is: military spending cuts is a smoke screen. Not that there shouldn't be some cuts. Definitely should. Better management of existing funds is even more important. However; the smoke screen is that the politicians can spout the large sum of money used by the department of defense, attack them, and keep people's attention off of areas that need to be cut, but won't be, because they provide votes. Doesn't matter if it deserves to be cut or eliminated; if there are a lot of voters with interests in those areas, then they won't be as eager to cut from there.

EXAMPLE: Budgeting your household income. You pay $1200 a month towards rent/mortgage. There's all these programs, incentives, stimulus, etc... to help you refinance and lower your payments. Other programs and companies out there to help you to refinance your debt to lower your payments. They concentrate on these, because they are your largest debt. However; a "REAL FINANCIAL ADVISER" and someone who actually cared about your financial position and future, might mention and bring up that you and your wife, with no kids, own 3 cars. 2 have payments. That you have maxed/high credit card balances because you're buying crap you don't "Need", but rather "WANT". That you're eating out 4 days a week. That you're spending $100 a week on cigarettes. That you go out for drinks, movies, etc... twice a week. Etc...

Not saying that maybe it would be nice to refinance and get a lower mortgage rate, and thus lower monthly payments on your house. But why in the hell would you go after the one area you NEED MOST, without totally eliminating debt in other areas that are strictly luxuries first? Matter of fact; I personally chose to eliminate LUXURY debt first, and apply those monthly payments towards my mortgage, which actually will net less interest and total cost of my house, than if I refinanced the house. Even the bank, who was trying to get me to refinance, when pressed, said: The amount I payed at the time; including the additional principle I used from eliminating the other debt, towards my mortgage will pay off the house sooner and result in less overall cost, than ANY refinancing. Of course, they didn't WANT this. It didn't make them more money. But they couldn't argue it.

Point is: The government wants it's citizens in a certain level of debt. Businesses NEED consumers to be in a certain level of debt. Government WANTS you to NEED THEM help you with debt. However; the government and businesses don't want to help you totally eliminate debt. If you have no debt, then you are not in need of anyone else. The government will not cut foodstamps, welfare, aid to illegal immigrants, unemployment, etc... If you become independent from the government, you won't need them. They will no longer have power over you. Same with the credit card companies and banks, and mortgage companies. And certain politician in the government will convince you that defense is the first thing that needs to be cut. Why? Because that doesn't promote "Dependency" by the citizens on the government. Even though the military; like your house; is one your most important expenses, and can be trimmed, but it's one of your MOST IMPORTANT EXPENSES. Our military is what ALLOWS US everything else. But instead of looking at the Luxury expenses, the government will tell you instead that they'll have "Spending Freezes" instead of CUTS. Which they'll reserve for things like the military. So, while you're lowering your mortgage payments and pushing out the loan further; you're still spending too much on luxuries.You will never gain in your financial future. Neither will our country. Credit card companies and banks only give people high interest rates and sell you homes that you can't afford, because are ignorant and have no idea. Personally; most times, if a person's house is going to be foreclosed on, IT SHOULD BE!!! I say most times. As with everything, there are exceptions. But MOST TIMES, they should lose their house. The banks SHOULD go under. Companies SHOULD NOT BE BAILED OUT. And while the military needs to be smarter with their money; they shouldn't be the first place looked at for spending CUTS. They should be one of the last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top