#1 Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts06-30-2010, 06:53 PM
By Roxana Tiron - 06/11/10 12:15 PM ET
A panel commissioned by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is recommending nearly $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon’s budget during the next 10 years.
The Sustainable Defense Task Force, a commission of scholars from a broad ideological spectrum appointed by Frank, the House Financial Services Committee chairman, laid out actions the government could take that could save as much as $960 billion between 2011 and 2020.
Measures presented by the task force include making significant reductions to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has strong support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates; delaying the procurement of a new midair refueling tanker the Air Force has identified as one of its top acquisition priorities; and reducing the Navy’s fleet to 230 ships instead of the 313 eyed by the service.
Shipbuilding has strong support in the congressional defense committees, which write the Pentagon bills. Efforts to reduce the number of ships would run into resistance from the Pentagon and the shipbuilding lobby.
Frank on Friday warned that if he can’t convince Congress to act in the “general direction” of the task force recommendation, “then every other issue will suffer.” Not cutting the Pentagon's budget could lead to higher taxes and spending cuts detrimental to the environment, housing and highway construction.
The acceptance of the recommendations would depend on a “philosophical change" and a “redefinition of the strategy,” Frank said at press conference on Capitol Hill.
He said the creation of the deficit reduction commission offers the best opportunity for the reduction recommendations. Frank wants to convince his colleagues to write to the deficit reduction commission and warn that they would not approve any of the plans suggested by the commission unless reduction of military spending is included.
The task force has looked at various options to trim the Pentagon’s budget in order to reduce the deficit. Those include a reduction in Army and Marine Corps end-strength by cutting back on personnel stationed in Europe and Asia; and rolling back Army and Marine Corps personnel as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end.
The panel also looked into reforming military compensation, which could save about $55 billion; saving $60 billion by reforming the military healthcare system; and reducing recruiting expenditures once the wars wind down to preserve about $5 billion.
All of these recommendations would be expected to engender congressional opposition.
"All of these recommendations would be expected to engender congressional opposition."
Read the whole thing here
My personal favorite part of this, for sheer chutzpah, is this line:
"Not cutting the Pentagon's budget could lead to higher taxes and spending cuts detrimental to the environment, housing and highway construction."
So, we can't return the TARP money to the general fund, repeal the stimulus and return the unspent funds to the treasury or cut spending on Frank's favorite federal slush funds, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but we must cut defense spending in the middle of two wars, while numerous adversaries are in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons and the capacity to deploy them in order to ensure that we can spend money on the environment (i.e., environmental bureaucrats), housing (Fannie and Freddie, did I mention that they were DNC slush funds?) and highways (I'll concede that Massachussetts Democrats are all about highway safety, if for no other reason than Teddy Kennedy's record). The federal government can't spend money on Constitutionally mandated defense, but it can find money for things that would make the founders take up arms all over again. :mad:--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
06-30-2010, 07:40 PM
- Join Date
- May 2010
Only a Democrat would cut the defense budget while we were losing a war.
06-30-2010, 07:55 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
06-30-2010, 08:06 PM
If Dims didn't cut the defense budget in order to spend more money buying voters, they also would lose out on the opportunity to blame "big-spending" Republicans when the military must be built back up. For them, this is a win-win...at least, until the US is no longer viable as a country.-
In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.
Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
06-30-2010, 08:19 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
Barney needs to find 1 Trillion to cover his f*ck up with Fannie and Freddie (That being the mortgage intitutions not his dinner guests)
06-30-2010, 09:07 PM
At the risk of being raked over the coals I'll agree that there is money to be cut out of the total defense budget. Probably not the military budget itself, but total defense spending could be reduced quite a bit, without rendering our military ineffective. There's all sorts of research projects and whatnot that we just plain can't afford right now, those should be prioritized, and all but the highest priorities cut. However cutting military pay? Cutting tricare? He can't be serious. I mean what does a nonrate make these days, $1000 a month? If that nonrate is married and lives off base he'll get what, another $200-$500 in BAS/BAQ? It takes one hell of an asshole to even think about cutting these guys pay. They earn every cent of it and then some."In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense
06-30-2010, 09:10 PM
We need to go back to the old school method. You win a war and you haul home all their treasure.
Oh yeah and fair maidens too!
06-30-2010, 09:27 PMIn most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.
In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
06-30-2010, 09:35 PM
IIRC, when I was an E1 I made about $800/mo, lived in the barracks and ate at the chow hall so no BAS/BAQ. By the time I was an E3 I think I was up to a whopping $1000 or so. Also, in the Marines, while in garrison and not in the field, I seem to recall spending a lot of that money on stuff like shoe polish, brasso, dry cleaning and weekly haircuts.
Edit: Yup, I just checked with the dfas prior pay scale charts and I made $887 a month as an E1. Now an E1 makes $1440.
Last edited by malloc; 06-30-2010 at 09:45 PM."In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|