View Full Version : Why is Military Spending Never Cut?
I heard the republicans came up with spending cuts but took cuts to "military spending" off the table.
Why do they protect military spending so much?
Why get so mad about programs that are supposed to help US citizens but treat military spending like it can do no wrong.
Well, now THERE'S the elephant in the room! Why indeed?
We spend about as much as the rest of the planet combined. That seems simply absurd to me.
ApatheticNoMore
1-28-11, 5:12pm
Haha, yea it's an interesting question (note Obama is not much better in this regard).
Possible explanations:
1) there is a large and powerful constituency benefiting from military spending. The Blackwaters of the world don't get rich based on how people spend their disposable income afterall.
2) there are certain parts of the country benefiting a great deal from military spending (?)
3) the u.s. economy as it is currently structured can't actually survive at all without a large degree of government spending (?) (Stimulus, job programs, etc., the military is all these things). But this has to be wrapped up in certain ideologies to be acceptable to many.
4) the political and economic interest in certain resources (such as um oil) gained by, let's be blunt, violence and killing is just that great that it is perceived as sacrosanct
5) massive military spending can be marketed as consistent with certain limited government beliefs (see #3). Isn't defense a legitimate function of government? Well suppose I accept it is, you still can't get from A to B that way. You can get from the military is a legitimate function of government to spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense somehow makes sense!!
6) even these republicans fear being outflanked from the right and defeated in elections if they should try to cut the military any? Vested interests (see #1) can help this electoral defeat along
Well, now THERE'S the elephant in the room! Why indeed?
Exactly. We could come up with some bogus reasons such as 'national security' or 'defense'. But I think the real reason? War is Big Business. People are profiting, and they have some very powerful lobbyists.
As much fun as it can be to blame the high earners at the top of the defense food chain there are MILLIONS of people that are dependent on defense spending one way or another. While I would absolutely agree that reductions are in order you can't just slash and burn the defense budget without risking critical damage to the economy. A gradual transition away from the business of making war to something like infrastructure development will benefit everyone, but transitioning workers into new industries takes some doing. A relatively simple redeployment of troops from Iraq to other duties back home would be a nice baby step to start with.
Well, the other elephant in the room is that our country is grossly dependent on oil. The oil magnates who had such a hand in starting our current economic system and continue to see some of the world's largest corporate revenues would like it to stay that way. Unfortunately that oil we need is now mostly under someone else's soil, but hey, if they can convince the US people and government to fund the largest military on earth to ensure our access to it and therefore our continued dependence on it because why not, it's easier than changing, and then still make a profit from it, why wouldn't they. It's only threatening the future of mankind on a habitable planet, after all. >:(
Personally I think Afghanistan might just be a side show to ensure our military budget doesn't shrink while we contemplate who our next oil-rich "enemy" might be.
And I heard, surprisinlty from the mainstream media known as my local liberal big city newspaper, that the Tea Partiers are ready to rock and roll with the military budget as well. USually mainstream media likes to portray budgets cutters as stoooidly unable to see the biggest place to cut:the military.
So everything is up for cuts. yay.
As much fun as it can be to blame the high earners at the top of the defense food chain there are MILLIONS of people that are dependent on defense spending one way or another. While I would absolutely agree that reductions are in order you can't just slash and burn the defense budget without risking critical damage to the economy.
Our GDP is ~$14.25 trillion (2009).
The 2010 military expenditures are ~$1.35 trillion.
I don't think our economy will collapse if we redeploy, oh, say 50% of that money to foolish, wasteful things like education, bridges, health care, inner city renovation, nuclear power plants, lawn chair factories, and so on. We'd still be spending more than China, the UK, France, Russia, and Germany combined. If you cut it by 90%, I think we'd still be spending more than the next-most-spending nation...
Taxing people to flush the money through the efficiencies of the military R&D, procurement, and staffing processes seems a really foolish way to stimulate the economy...
I have heard some Republicans and Tea Party people talk about cutting military spending. I hope our president gets on board. Those of us who have spent time in the military know there is a lot of waste. We have more generals now than we had during Vietnam and our military is half the size. Generals are not cheap.
loosechickens
1-29-11, 12:03am
I have read that one reason it is so hard to get Congress to do any reductions of military spending, even to axe projects that even the Pentagon says they don't need, is that the defense industry very cleverly sees that the jobs and money is spread out all over the country, with lots and lots of Congressional districts and many states.
For example, there was a plane in the last few years (I'm sorry, I can't remember which one and don't have time to Google to look it up) that even the Pentagon said they didn't need or want and were willing to see it cut from the budget, but the parts for that plane were manufactured in FORTY-FOUR states, so the jobs for producing it were spread all over the country, with each district's Congressperson fighting to keep the jobs for their district.
And, that's just ONE reason.
Our GDP is ~$14.25 trillion (2009).
The 2010 military expenditures are ~$1.35 trillion.
I don't think our economy will collapse if we redeploy, oh, say 50% of that money to foolish, wasteful things like education, bridges, health care, inner city renovation, nuclear power plants, lawn chair factories, and so on.
That is correct. LC said what I was getting at a lot better than I did. My point is not that military spending at the current level makes any sense at all, it doesn't. Like most people here and (apparently) around the country I would rather see those funds invested in ways that produce long term benefits rather than short term gains. My point is more that 10% of anything is a big deal and military spending at a little under 10% of GDP has a huge impact on the economy. Precisely because of the web of interdependence LC mentioned its not just a matter of redeployment of funds. Workers need to be retrained, plants need to be retooled, new markets need to be opened, etc. The munitions makers don't have the tools to make lawn chairs and the average consumer of lawn chairs buys less units that the average consumer of bullets. Just throwing a switch would likely do more harm than good regarding the impact it would have on most Americans. To do it right is a process, not just a bill to pass in Congress. It is encouraging to see people from all sides of the spectrum now saying we need to start that process. I'm all for getting it going as soon as possible and would probably even support more incentives to businesses in the transition than most other members here. What I'd hate to see is a couple million people lose jobs because demand for what they made dried up over night and there was no plan to transition into a "new economy".
I have read that one reason it is so hard to get Congress to do any reductions of military spending, even to axe projects that even the Pentagon says they don't need, is that the defense industry very cleverly sees that the jobs and money is spread out all over the country, with lots and lots of Congressional districts and many states.
For example, there was a plane in the last few years (I'm sorry, I can't remember which one and don't have time to Google to look it up) that even the Pentagon said they didn't need or want and were willing to see it cut from the budget, but the parts for that plane were manufactured in FORTY-FOUR states, so the jobs for producing it were spread all over the country, with each district's Congressperson fighting to keep the jobs for their district.
And, that's just ONE reason.
Actually, that's probably one of the main reasons. Everyone, for example, knows we don't need all these stateside bases, and everyone wants to close some, but EVERYONE wants to close someone else's base, not the one in their district. So whenever anyone proposes closing some, everyone, democrats and republicans, try to shut that down pretty quick. I don't think there is a single congress person out there with the courage to admit the base in their district is redundant, and there never will be. They wouldn't get re-elected. Period.
It's kind of like term limits (which by the way would help solve this particular problem, along with others). I don't want term limits to get my bum out of office. I want term limits to get your bum out of office.;)
ApatheticNoMore
1-29-11, 11:50am
What I'd hate to see is a couple million people lose jobs because demand for what they made dried up over night and there was no plan to transition into a "new economy".
Wow and yet this happened in so many other industries, that actually made real things that people often need but at least want. From heavy manufacturing, to clothing, to computer hardware, to even some software, and it is even increasingly happening with food! The very manufacturing and agriculture we rely on every day.
Even though I don't buy much stuff, everyone buys durable products sometimes, and they aren't made in the U.S.. If you actually let this sink in and don't pretend you never buy anything but food and non-durables, if you REALLY grasp how much you depend on trade when you think about more relocalization maybe being necessary for peak oil reasons, you sigh. And where was the safety net and retraining for all these workers? Haha, well what became of Detroit? But for some reason war is sacrosanct.
Mind you I don't mind seeing these workers retrained, my quibble is not with "provide a safety net and retraining". I just find it amazing that war can't be cut after all that has been eliminated from the U.S. economy in the last 3 decades.
loosechickens
1-29-11, 1:31pm
well, President Eisenhower did warn of the dangers of the military/industrial complex, and perhaps where we find ourselves now with this extremely bloated military budget (larger than the rest of the world's put together), is just one more manifestation of that danger.
We have made war a "career" for many, producing of war materials a huge part of our GDP, and it's hard to wind that down in any reasonable way.
The Tea Party kind of folks may have the right idea in that they want to see cuts, but many don't seem to have much understanding of the huge damage to our economy big cuts quickly may do. The "bending of the curve" isn't as sexy as "slash and burn", but has a better chance of reducing deficits over time without big shocks to the economy. And more shocks to the economy we really don't need at present, that's for sure.
Yeah, Peggy.....the closing of bases is a HUGE one, because every one of those bases, however redundant, is usually a big part of whatever local economy they are in, especially since many are located in rural areas where that base is a major employer and a huge piece of the local economy. And any Congressman who ever wants to hope for re-election, is probably not going to advocate closing one in his or her district.
It's like anything else in life......we want to throw out our sweetie's junk, our stuff is "good stuff".......
My point is more that 10% of anything is a big deal and military spending at a little under 10% of GDP has a huge impact on the economy. That reasoning was also used during the effort to reform our healthcare system. It seem that we can rationalize anything when it comes to jobs.
As far a military budget, the majority has very little if anything to do with the "defense" of the United States. It is so sad that we cannot channel this money for the good of our nation and not towards supporting the over 800+ military bases we have around the world. The US taxpayer is basically providing the defense of many of our allies and when our Political Heroes are questioned about the spending they seem to always bring in the terms "Patriotism" or "Security" into the issue. Just look at what happened John Murtha a few years ago. The Sheeple have no shame.
Support the Troops!! ;)
Peace
That reasoning was also used during the effort to reform our healthcare system. It seem that we can rationalize anything when it comes to jobs.
Jobs.
Are jobs worth taking food, medical care, and education away from poor children in the US to buy bullets and bombs? Bullets and bombs that will end up killing innocent children in other countries that we feel compelled to flex our muscles in?
How many people is it ethical to kill in foreign lands, in order to keep the checkout lines at WalMart full of happy shoppers?
I was just listening to a podcast the other day where the usual question came up: if we support non-consumerism, isn't that hurting the economy? The answer was interesting: "the economy" needs to transition into being something else. A gradual withdrawal of support is going to encourage retooling of the workforce currently providing things we don't need into one that provides things we do. Supporting the status quo as far as consumption while Talking about change isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.
I think exactly the same thing could be said as far as becoming non-supporters of our military complex. Not to yank the fuse overnight, but to use some social muscle to encourage transition. Unfortunately we have no economic muscle when it comes to supporting the military or not, but I for one am tired of having to preface every breath I take with "... of course I support The Troops ..." No, I really don't, and I'm fed up with the propaganda that says I have to be polite about it. There's no draft, these people willingly and knowingly chose to enter this profession and bloat a really, really bad machine that needs to be shrunk dramatically. I support getting them home safely and re-educating them to do something useful. But I have no love of The Soldier. The least I can do is put my voice out there to that effect. Make it socially unattractive to be a soldier, stop the warnography. It's about the only voice we have.
kib, I love that term, "warnography." I too feel the same way about the cult of military adoration. I say, let's respect them, but do not glorify them.
Would we have been so quick to go into Iraq if we did not have so much excess military power. Now many people want to invade Iran. When will it stop. Our military toys cause people to want to play with them. The cost of our military is breaking the bank just like it has done to other great empires. In fact I believe the use of the military and trying to rule the world has caused all great empires to fall.
ApatheticNoMore
1-29-11, 6:07pm
Meanwhile, while we are ever so careful to make sure the military is cut very carefully (yes, yes, I know, just a little off the top), the states have reached the point that slash and burn in their budgets is almost inevitable.
kib, I love that term, "warnography." I too feel the same way about the cult of military adoration. I say, let's respect them, but do not glorify them.Honestly I try to respect every individual and make an effort to imagine what they might personally be going through or the good they are doing, but I don't particularly respect what a lot of professions are all about (or have devolved into). I don't run around saying "oh the lawyers, the lawyers, I Support the lawyers!" "Used Car Salesmen, they should get a medal!" "Thank God for the braintrust running Wall Street, whatever would we do without you." In today's world where there is no country actually threatening ours, why exactly should I respect the vocation of paid killer or the institution of war creation?
loosechickens
1-29-11, 7:43pm
very good points, especially since we have morphed into a "professional military" as opposed to a "citizen military" with the elimination of the draft. I often find myself wondering how that has changed the mix and outlook of the military, since it is, after all, made up of the people who chose it, as opposed to a cross section of the population that was called to serve.
maybe a good place to start is to resist that jingoistic "support the troops" meme, as though supporting the men and women who are serving means that it's o.k. to be the world's 800 pound gorilla, just because we can, and have the hardware and personnel to do so.
This comes from a person who got a letter from his friends and neighbors and was drafted in 1965. In looking at the backgrounds and education level of those who were drafted and those who volunteer today I do not see much if any difference, except they get paid better. The enlisted person today like those in 65 come from the middle to lower middle class without much education. We did have a few college grads in 65 but most college grads figured out how to get out of the draft.
I was afraid that when the US went to the all volunteer army there could be a chance that the military would act like it does in 3rd world countries and it has not.
Well, the other elephant in the room is that our country is grossly dependent on oil. The oil magnates who had such a hand in starting our current economic system and continue to see some of the world's largest corporate revenues would like it to stay that way. Unfortunately that oil we need is now mostly under someone else's soil, but hey, if they can convince the US people and government to fund the largest military on earth to ensure our access to it and therefore our continued dependence on it because why not, it's easier than changing, and then still make a profit from it, why wouldn't they. It's only threatening the future of mankind on a habitable planet, after all. >:(
Personally I think Afghanistan might just be a side show to ensure our military budget doesn't shrink while we contemplate who our next oil-rich "enemy" might be.
I think this is what it's all about too, and couldn't have said it better.
Well, you can support the troops without supporting war, just as you can support the farmers and still hate cabbage. It's not all killing people and breaking their stuff! Yes it's bloated, and redundant, and needs to be trimmed tremendously, even 'the troops' will tell you that, but lets not turn this into verbally 'spitting on the troops'.
Well, maybe I'm overstating that, but they DO serve a purpose. Even in times of peace, cause when you need them, you need them!
And they aren't really a bunch of ignorant boobs either. Well, maybe some are, but I know that at least with the air force, education, and continuing your education, is strongly emphasized throughout your tenure. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I'll bet a majority of servicemen leave with a degree or well on the road to a degree.
Just as we are the government, and the government is us... we are the military and the military is us. What we need to do is reduce the military to a point where we can defend our country and our interest overseas, but this small, tight military is limited in a way where our leaders (us) can only use it judiciously.
How can we do this? Well, for starters, write your congressperson and insist they put 'your' military bases and posts on a real review to close. It's easy to yell about 'other' bases and ones overseas, and not so easy to insist they start with the one in your community. This is where the rubber hits the road.
Please, please do not turn the military, like some have turned the government, into some separate enemy we need to hate and fear and fight against. I know this is a tidy way of absolving ourselves of responsibility for what we have or can /can't do, but it's wrong, and the cowards way out. The government is not our enemy, and the military is not our enemy (nor are they just a bunch of 'trained killers') We are them, and they are us. As soon as we realize that, as soon as all those tea partiers realize that, then we can get some stuff done. Take your protest and signs and slogans and pick something. The military industrial complex is a good place to start. (on many levels) And keep it local. Start with the closest base or post to you. That's courage of conviction.
It's not my intent to spit on the troops or make the military into an enemy, but I'll say it again: I'm not going out of my way to create adoration or even respect to a profession I believe should be drastically minimized. Since I have no economic clout in this arena, one other effective voice I have is to try to make the profession a socially less acceptable choice. Encourage people not to choose this profession, encourage people currently in it to - of their own volition - move on to something else. Want to be a hero? Be a fireman. Or an organic farmer, if you want to be a hero in my eyes. :~) We need to shift people away from wanting to be in the military, and as long as the financial incentive is as strong as it is - especially in the current climate where it's difficult to find a job at all - creating a social downside may be the only mitigating factor to further increases. I think the military complex is well aware of this, most of their strongest marketing is playing the hero card.
i don't understand what the difference is between supporting our troops and not supporthing them. is it the care packages? I could be willing to send a care package to someone, but then again, i'd be willing to send it to anyone, troop or not.
We are still spending money on the cold war. Russia and China are really not a threat. We are buying military hardware like stealth fighters that can go a million miles an hour to fight an enemy hiding in caves with AK47. This is an area where the military industrial complex is in control.
ApatheticNoMore
1-30-11, 2:55pm
Yes, if you don't "support the troops" you are spitting on them. Isn't there some kind of excluded middle here? What if your actual position is "the war machine is the devil incarnate/the wars are immoral/whatever ...... BUT I DON'T BLAME THE TROOPS"? Some would say that that is exactly what the phrase "support the troops" means. For many people it probably is. But the language is *DELIBERATELY* slippery, "supporting the troops" can also be used (and will be used) as a cover for militarism. Militarism is dangerous (probably far more dangerous than the risk of a military member being physically spit on by some anti-troop zealot) and should never be um .. supported. Neither should slippery language perhaps. Enough said.
As for this spitting: is it actual or metaphorical? How much actual spitting even happened after Vietnam? Nobody knows anymore, it's become mythical. To actually go from even morally condemning the troops to actually physically spitting on them would also require some belief that aggression of that sort (spitting) on the lowest members of an organization, was is in some way productive, no? I'm not sure many who even morally condemn the troops believe that.
I have some sympathy with arguments for morally condemning the troops. If the wars are immoral and they carry them out .... still I can't really go there entirely.
In the early 90's, at least. I was in then, and I remember the folks a couple years younger than me in ROTC being told "you're free to go, we don't need you".
Of course I'm torn about the defense budget. On one hand, I've earned money from them. First in the Navy, then working for a company that worked on defense contracts, which my husband still does. It really is one of the industries where you can reliably earn a decent salary. Much of industry, manufacturing, etc. has moved overseas - at least there is a fair amount of industry in defense that CAN'T move overseas due to clearances.
On the other hand, I've seen some waste in defense spending for sure. So if we spend less on defense and more on roads, schools, and healthcare, how many jobs is that? Because if it's a "jobs for jobs", that's fine. But if all we are doing is taking jobs away from thousands of people, and giving that money to other organizations that don't create jobs (and fattening CEO's wallets), what have we gained? And what is the pay of the jobs? We seem to have replaced skilled labor with a lot of un-skilled jobs. Like it or not, as other countries increase their standards of living, ours will even out. As a non-entrepreneur who basically works for a living and tries to save as much money as possible, I don't know the right answer.
It's not my intent to spit on the troops or make the military into an enemy, but I'll say it again: I'm not going out of my way to create adoration or even respect to a profession I believe should be drastically minimized. Since I have no economic clout in this arena, one other effective voice I have is to try to make the profession a socially less acceptable choice. Encourage people not to choose this profession, encourage people currently in it to - of their own volition - move on to something else. Want to be a hero? Be a fireman. Or an organic farmer, if you want to be a hero in my eyes. :~) We need to shift people away from wanting to be in the military, and as long as the financial incentive is as strong as it is - especially in the current climate where it's difficult to find a job at all - creating a social downside may be the only mitigating factor to further increases. I think the military complex is well aware of this, most of their strongest marketing is playing the hero card.
Yea, let's make them all, prostitutes or something. Because of course, anyone who joins the military is stupid, or delusional, or not quite right some how.. certainly worthy of our disdain! Please! There you go. You have effectively made them 'not one of us'. some sort of 'enemy' to fight against.
Here's a thought that many forget. "The Troops" don't plan, decide, declare, or otherwise commit us to war. Our government, which is us, remember, does.
Now, let's see a show of hands of who voted for Bush. Next, a show of hands of who voted for him the SECOND time. You, who voted the second time, knew who and what he was, and what he had done (lie us into a war) There for, you, who voted for him the second time, are as responsible as your politicians, again who are us, for this war. We certainly can't hold those of you who voted for him the first time responsible. Many of us didn't vote for him, knowing him to be an idiot, but we never thought he would lie us into this.
kib, in your state there are 2 air force bases, 2 army posts and 1 marine. And you don't really need to vilify them in order to effect change.
apatheticnomore, in your state there are 3 army, 12 navy/marine, and 5 air force bases. Surly you can say something about that to your congressperson. And you don't even need to 'morally condemn' the troops to do it.
I don't want to glorify war anymore than anyone else. My husband actually went to Iraq, even though he was against that war and certainly didn't vote for Bush, but, you know, it was his job. The troops you so casually morally condemn, or advocate socially shunning, don't have the luxury of quitting whenever some idiot with a god complex gains office. Most of the professional military are there because it's a job that needs to be done, and it affords travel, education, and opportunities they may not have otherwise had. The ones to discourage are the young bucks who just want to 'shoot' someone, or play war, or 'fight for our freedom' which was the particular lie used to sell this latest war to the young. And again, you don't need to 'morally condemn' them or socially shun them to do this.
A military is necessary. There are bad people out there who really really want you, and your way of life, to disappear. Acknowledge that, and acknowledge that we can do it with a smaller, tighter, more efficient force, and you can reduce the whole footprint, without condemning or shunning anyone.
Remember, we are the government, and the government is us. Look what the tea party accomplished by yelling and stomping and shaking their fists. The entire republican party is shaking to the core, and trips over each other to please them. Now, lets turn our attention to the military industrial complex. Something we can all agree on.
We can? :~)
FWIW, my husband's job is at Fort Huachuca, civilian military in the finance dept. He's been in Afghanistan for 6 months. Neither one of us is particularly thrilled about that and we're looking for alternatives, which are slow coming. No, I don't think people should spit on my husband in the street or jeer at him for making what was an economically intelligent career choice, but I also don't think clapping him on the back and giving him a medal for it is a strategy for enacting change. Offhand, "I love you, so let's see what else we can come up with that meets your needs" seems appropriate to me.
I don't think we're going to dismantle or shrink our military from the top down. At least I can't think of an instance in which the people at the top making a financial killing were ever inspired to stop doing so by the people on the bottom.
However, while 'the troops' don't make the decisions that fuel wars, they are "the bottom" that makes it possible. And this is a voluntary decision. Choosing not to join the military, and providing better or more socially attractive alternatives to joining the military is a place where we the people DO actually have some power.
We can? :~)
Well, I guess I was mistaken. I thought you were railing against the Military Industrial complex, but I guess I was wrong. Not sure exactly what you were wanting to socially shun the troops for. Perhaps you just find the idea of a military distasteful. That's certainly your choice. I hope your husband finds other employment soon, even though it was fortunate he had the opportunity to take this financially advantageous job, even if his co-workers are socially unattractive.
I"m afraid you still seem to be confusing the military with your elected leaders. We don't vote for the military leaders, who aren't 'making a financial killing' by the way. Your elected leaders just might be. The elected (by you) leaders are the ones who control the purse, ask for the big contracts, lunch with the lobbyist, declare war, etc... Putting pressure on a general, or shunning a troop, won't get you anywhere. Putting pressure on your elected official might.
No, we shouldn't hand out medals like candy, but sometimes, when a young man or woman has been horribly killed or wounded, even in an unjust war, it's the least we can do to hand their mother a medal. It costs us very little and may be the only thing she has left. Trust me, they know it's a lie, but it's a lie they have to tell themselves and each other just to get through each day.
We are still spending money on the cold war. Russia and China are really not a threat. We are buying military hardware like stealth fighters that can go a million miles an hour to fight an enemy hiding in caves with AK47. This is an area where the military industrial complex is in control.
Agreed that Russia does not present much of a threat these days. China, OTOH, may present one of the biggest threats we've ever faced, just not militarily. Every month we, the US, continue to sell of another chunk of our country and the Chinese are the biggest buyers. A reduction in military spending is but one change that will be necessary to reduce that outflow.
Peggy said it best, you can support the troops without supporting the war(s). And it is necessary for us to do that if we wish to maintain the lifestyle we currently enjoy. True, it is difficult at best to justify war, but a standing military offers several distinct advantages to a society. Security is a buzz word that has been twisted and abused to answer for all kinds of inappropriate behavior, but at its core it is also an important concept to most of us and our military does provide a large degree of that.
I find it interesting that military commanders often rise to the top because, among other things, they have the ability to think efficiently. Think of things like the logistics involved in moving a division of soldiers to another country. At the same time the people in charge of the military budget have a very long track record of lavish spending, pandering to special interests, they have been prone to corruption, pedal influence and rarely, if ever, vote in ways that will benefit the entire country because they have no incentive to do so. Its difficult for me to blame the military for its budget. When congress basically goes to them and says you need to spend $1.3B this year or you will probably get less next year what do we think the outcome will be???
How 'bout going to the military and telling them that they only get $1.2B next year. Let the people in charge of protecting the rest of us decide how best to do that; which bases are redundant, which bombers are unnecessary, etc. We, as in Congress with the rest of us shoving them, can end the wars so the military minds don't have to worry about that expenditure. Give them a 10 year plan with each year having a smaller budget than the year before. I guarantee the military has the talent to draw out a very efficient plan that will phase out "non-essentials" and I can not even grasp the level of resources that would be thrown out by the private sector to develop new equipment and new procedures that are more efficient and more economical than our current methods if the request for them comes from the military. That form of deliberate and methodical reduction in spending would create new jobs replacing the jobs that would be lost from cutting back the current bloated spending levels and would allow workers to transition into them. Keep in mind that the military buys alot more than just bullets. For example, using less fuel would benefit a military with less spending money and figuring out how to do that just might benefit the rest of us, too.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.