Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts
By Roxana Tiron - 06/11/10 10:24 AM ET

A panel commissioned by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is recommending nearly $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon’s budget over 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 options the government could take that could save as much as $960 billion between 2011 and 2020.

Measures presented by the task force include significant reductions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which has strong support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates; delaying the procurement of a new mid-air refueling tanker which 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.

............

The task force has looked at various options to trim the Pentagon’s budget in order to reduce the deficit. Options 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.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/102677-panel-commissioned-by-barney-frank-recommends-nearly-1t-in-defense-cuts-to-close-deficit

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Excellent!!!

[sasquuatch55]

43. If only!

nt

[villager]

2. Let's see if they dare...

n/t

[timtom]

3. Now, That's what I'm talking about...

Good luck, guys.

[activa8tr]

4. That's ONLY $100 Bln a year on average, over 10 yrs!

I doubt this will fly with anyone in Congress.

Maybe if they cut $20 Bill a yr, it would pass, but $100 billion, all the incumbents would be out of a job....just sayin...

Not a bad thing really.

[Hawkowl]

54. Outrageous!

The "defense" budget needs to be trimmed about $500 billion per year. Until we get the bloated military under control our country is doomed to a similar end as the USSR.

[activa8tr]

86. $500 billion? Then you are talking about "real money"!!!! LOL n/t

[hughee99]

5. "as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end"? When the hell is that? n/t

[Phlem]

46. Exactly

as I've posted in other threads, we are fighting a FOREVER WAR.

We're fighting terrorism? That's an idea, it's not one man, organization, or country. There is no one to shoot dead and be done with the war. It's like trying to stop night from coming. Terrorism has been around forever and will always be around. As long as there is a huge contrast between filthy rich and filthy poor, we will always have terrorism.

Has anyone studied how a terrorist is born? Strikingly similar to being converted or brought to religion. Give the poor soul what they need, and help them and their families long term, then tell pound in the fact that your way (or religion) is the right way. Shazam a convert! Maybe not as simple as I've stated but you get the drift.

Anyone who say's we're fighting a war on terrorism is either incredibly out of touch, purposefully lying to you, or is dumber than a stump.

Everyone needs to see the bullshit that is the phrase "war on terror".

-p

[No Elephants]

88. Real wars end. Fake wars, like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, go on

forever--or for as long as voters let them, anyway.

[Amonester]

127. The voters did vote to end the wars in Nov. 2006...

so, don't believe anyone who tells us the voters are listened to, because that's a lie.

Voters clearly and demonstrably have NO SAY about ANYTHING.

Only corporations do.

So those will go on, not forever, but until the U.S. is flat BROKE (and that is coming up fast).

[No Elephants]

143. Sorry, we disagree.

there was no vote to end war in 2006 or 2008. If you assume there was, then everyone who voted for the Iraq and Terra wars would have been voted out in 2006. that never happened.

Everyone who not only failed to end the war 2006-2008, but voted for every funding bill, would have been voted out in 2008. that never happened, either.

BO, who promised to wind down Iraq, but ramp up Afghanistan, would never have been elected President and CIC.

We probably would have had a Peace Party, too, along with massive and frequent peace demonstrations. Maybe a general strike. None of that ever happened.

No, the only votes were to change from Republican to Democratic in the Oval Office and in some states and districts. Could have been about anything from the economy to choice to gay rights to gun control to photogenic candidates to some vague sense that changing the Party in control would improve things in general. If it had been about peace, it would have looked much different than it did.

I do agree that corporations have too much power. However, we have been, and continue to be, complicit in that, too. For instance, where's the mass movement insisting that Congress get going on a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United case and get lobbyists, soft money and corporate "donations" the hell out of government and politics? Where are those mass demonstrations and general strikes? Where have they been since the Reagan years, when this stuff started escalating insanely?

Sorry, I cannot absolve us easily.

[Enthusiast]

132. It's a replacement for

the dreadful 'Communism'.

[Divine Discontent]

67. when the Dept of Defense tells Obama they're no longer necessary

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

sorry.... for some reason, a laughing fit came over me.

[RedCloud]

78. It's a soap opera you see. As the wars end...

[pattmarty]

6. It's about fucking time. Anyone remember all the talk after the fall............

..........of the Berlin wall of the "peace dividend"? After the fall of the Soviet Union our defense budget actually went UP. Simple and easy to "fix" the deficit is drastically cut Defense and tax the ridiculously rich. We would even have money left over for Medicare for all and to really fix our "education" system.

[davepc]

68. Bill Clinton should of withdrawn all US forces from Western Europe

They were there to protect against a Soviet invasion that never came and well over almost two decades after the Soviet Union dissolved they're STILL there.

Every dollar we spend on forces in Europe is a Euro that the host country doesn't have to spend on their own forces.

[demigoddess]

121. should have withdrawn

no man will ever do it. takes a woman to make a decision like that.

[quakerboy]

150. Thats a fairly rediculous statement

It will take a man to do it, because any woman elected will be too busy trying to show that she is not "weak".

As far as I am aware, Kucinich was the only one in "serious" running who had any real position addressing the need for peace. Neither of the major female candidates involved would have touched such a thing with a ten foot poll.

[doc03]

7. That is a good start. The Republicons will squeal

like pigs about that. The Secular Progressives (Liberals) are anti Amurikan, Communists, Fascist, surrendering to Iran, yada yada yada Have you noticed the word Liberal has been replaced by Secular Progressives since Democrats started using the word Progressive. They demonized the word Liberal now the meme is demonize Progressive.

[Sherman A1]

84. Precisely

[PinkFloyd]

130. Have you also noticed this...

How they're replacing capitalism with "free market" since capitalism has fucked over so many people across the country and the country itself so badly that now even one of their favorite words has become tainted by it's very own actions?

[Enthusiast]

133. Eventually they will have to start

to demonize anyone with a reasonable thought in their heads. You know, because they are running out of words. Nevermind....

[ladjf]

8. Good idea. nt

[bowens43]

9. I have to agree with that

our military budget is obscene

[Oceansaway]

10. K&R...n/t

[tranche]

11. I wish the administration would come out and say something like this:

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with Imperial Communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own, because they are the right thing to do.

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based missiles. We will stop all production of the peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/205.html
George H.W. Bush (January 28, 1992)

[ieoeja]

20. Yeah, it isn't like he signed a new treaty with Russia to cut down on nuclear arms or anything.

:sarcasm:

"Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and non-proliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations. It fulfills our common objective to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It includes significant reductions in the nuclear weapons that we will deploy. It cuts our delivery vehicles by roughly half."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-president-medvedev-russia-new-start-treaty-signing-cere

[liberation]

34. "sarcasm" is not latin for "red herring."

a very common mistake.

[pscot]

12. They aren't really trying

n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

13. Sounds like the start of a good plan. n/t

[Drops_not_Dope]

14. Be careful Barney

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur will be going on the war path if this happens and you'll be in her sites.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Well, it's a start, anyway.

[greymattermom]

16. taxes lower?

How about connecting it to a tax cut? How about having a check off box on your tax returns to give an extra 10% to the military?

[daleanime]

17. Huh?

How about fixing a few things? What about the debt?

[Javaman]

63. It's all about you while the nations infrastructure crumbles all around.

wow.

[DesertDiamond]

18. Let's start that cut by bringing our troops home!!

[liberation]

19. Well, this panel better not fly in small planes or take strolls in convertible cars...

[DirkGently]

21. Put your teabag where your mouth is?

Okay, maybe that's too gross. But if we're going to talk "redistribution of wealth," "theft by taxes," and "fiscal responsibility," there's no question it's the war and Pentagon budget belts that need to tighten first.

Go get 'em, Barney.

[Kolesar]

27. made me do a double take

:spray:

[Jefferson23]

22. Good for you Barney, at least let there be a conversation, out loud that is. n/t

[FailureToCommunicate]

23. Good luck. Congress folks are in favor of Defense cuts...just NOT in their districts.

[kirby]

37. I was going to post the same thing, but you beat me to it! n/t

[paparush]

24. Yes! Yes! Yes! We have to do this!

[Kolesar]

25. Benjamin Friedman and Christopher Preble, Cato Institute

Wow, 'wingers on board!

[and-justice-for-all]

26. Absofuckinglutley!!!

[Change Happens]

28. [phone]

[Yavin4]

29. Our defense budget is a prime example of generational politics

Our military spending is at record levels. It's higher than it was during the Cold War, and there's no Cold War. Baby boomer policy makers feel the need to give defense a blank check primarily because of their collective guilt of avoiding service in Vietnam.

We won't have the kind of real change that we need so long as baby boomers dominate politics and the media.

[harun]

33. +1

[elias49]

138. What nonsnese! nt

[Blue Owl]

30. One of the smartest ideas I've heard lately

Watch the M$M bury any news of this recommendation.

[Lucky Luciano]

31. Good idea Mr Frank. I recommend the train as your primary mode

Of long haul transportation from this day forward. No more planes for you! Especially the small ones.

[patrice]

53. I will second that motion. nt

[h9socialist]

32. Long Overdue

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. But what if those aliens from the Will Smith movie suddenly show up? What will we do then without

our trillions in useless weaponry????!!!

[FailureToCommunicate]

51. Same thing we usually use against outer space aliens: a virus.

[Owl]

36. Too little, but it's a good start.

[old mark]

38. Great ideas, but it will never pass congress...republicans will scream, Obama will listen to them.

[rurallib]

42. That and when those defense plants start closing in congressional districts

no congressperson wants to be seen as a congressperson that loses jobs.
Plus, the repubs will gin up some boogie that we have to build up our military for.
But Oh how I wish this were true.

[old mark]

49. Me, too - we have WAY too many ships and aircraft for wars against non-existant

enemies. We are laying off cops, firemen and teachers and buying more aircraft carriers and it is just fucking stupid...but there is always politics...

mark

[liberation]

59. ... and if and when we run out of enemies, we make them!

Funny how almost no one in this country has noticed that every single conflict we've been involved in now (and during the past 3/4 decades at least), are ALL blowbacks from American policies without a single exception?

[bossy22]

92. a typical defense naiveness that i see here all the time

in the last 20 years when we procure equipment its generally not to actually grow the force, but to replace aging equipment. We buy a new aircraft carrier to replace an old one (our newest carrier being built, the U.S.S. Ford is going to replace the 52 yr old U.S.S. Enterprise). In the last 20 years we have bought 100 new ships, and retired 300. We have bought 500 new fighters, and retired 1,000 over the same period of time.

Military procurement is a continious thing; new equipment is bought to replace old equipment.

We are fighting with the military equipment that was generally procured during Reagan era- now how much longer do you think this equipment is going to last? 2 years ago the entire F-15 fleet was grounded due to a plane flying apart in mid air; it was discovered that close to 1/3rd of the entire force had stress fractures on the fusalage. Our F-16's (the backbone of our air force) are so old that our pilots are not allowed to due routine training on them- for fear that they may suffer the same fate as that F-15 that flew apart (our F-16 trainers have long since fallen apart and now much training is done on combat coded air-craft; further reducing the life span of the aircrafts). The Navy F-18 hornets can't perform high G manuevers for the same reason; also many of them are now having to undergo complete engine and wing rebuilds.

So the question stands, how much longer can we pretend that we don't need new equipment?

[old mark]

114. How much longer can we pretend we need so many aircraft carrier groups?

This is Navy career building bullshit coming out of our tax burden. We do not need the massive fleets of aircraft we have in our air force-we have many times redundancy over everyone else in the world.
We need improved equipment for our ground forces-we DO NOT need 11 carrier groups steaming pointlssly around the world to provide future admirals with command opportunities.

I am a former soldier, and have studied military history as a hobby for 50 years...I am not naive-I am fuckin gangry at the priofessional military class who regards the country they are supposed to respect as a cash cow and a career booster.

mark

[bossy22]

119. redudency?

not quite, the second largest airforce in the world, russia, has 75% the amount the aircraft we have. At the paris air show last year we couldnt send any of our super hornets since they were needed for training (due to the fact that the training aircraft were in such terrible shape).

I'm for improved ground equipment, but we have to ask ourselves, do we really need to prepare the military for the next war in asia? No, because after we pull out of our current debacle we will probably not have another major deployment for 20 years. The battlefied will be a strategic one on the high sees; most likely involving china. Therefore we should be investing in a large navy; including a decent number of large capital ships such as carriers. If you've been studying military history you should see that over the last 10 years a massive naval build-up has occured in asia. China is already planning (and building) a fleet of carriers that will number between 5-8 and russia has stated publicly that over the next 30 years they plan to field 4 large deck carriers. So if its between better equipment for the army or more ships ill choose more ships. A stronger U.S. Naval presence in the pacific will help to contain this situation; hopefully preventing it from becoming a full out naval arms race.

and even if we do have redudency, does that redudency help our aging equipment problem if all the equipment are the same age. So we will just end up having a larger amount of broken down airplanes and tanks.

So the end result is that after procuring almost nothing over the last 20 years the bill is finally coming due. Instead of replacing equipment little by little, we have to replace much if it in a very short amount of time (and we are not replacing equipment on a 1:1 basis).

[Enthusiast]

134. I think you are misleading us.

You are misleading us about the degree and nature of the threat.

If we were truly in danger from China and their huge fleet of yet to be made super aircraft carriers the PTB should consider keeping some of our manufacturing here in the continental U.S. instead of moving everything to China.

And what you say about Russia. Over the next 30 years they plan to field 4 large deck carriers. BFD! They will still be way way behind and those big carriers will only make big targets.

I believe you are completely full of shit. You must be a Navy man.

[Phlem]

115. Seems to me the cost of replacement

Is going through the roof.....

just sayin that I haven't a cost if "living" adjustment in almost 2 decades.

-p

[bossy22]

120. you are 100% right

there are multiple issues to why this is happening. Part of it is general inflation, mismanagement, and a declining industrial base. the latter is actually the main cause of our shipbuilding issues. Since the end of the reagan procurement era we have not had a stable shipbuilding program. What this has lead to is a massive shrinking of our shipbuilding industry to the point that there are really only 2 shipbuilding companies that are capable of building naval ships (down from about 6 in the 1980's). Independent studies (from RAND, CRS...etc) have stated that unless the navy gets a stable program going, our industrial base may shrink to the point that we would be forced to purchase ships from overseas shipyards (such as japanese and south korean yards). The estimate for a stable program (number of ships built per year) would be between 9-10 (giving us a fleet of about 300; up from our current 288); anything under that amount and our remaining yards won't have enough business to stay open.

I will restate what i keep saying on this board when it comes to defense; the bush-clinton-bush procurement holiday has put us in a terrible sport. Yes, they has a surplus from the cold war but none of them had the foresight to see that eventually that surplus equipment would become old and reach the end of their service life

[grahamhgreen]

126. War for profit is killing the military.

[cap]

39. I wonder what states will be impacted

by these budget cuts... You know the South and SouthEast are heavily dependent on defense spending and oil/natural gas.

You start moving us off of oil and into alternative energy and there goes a lot of the South. Here's a map of the oil/natural gas fields
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/topfields.pdf

Military Bases Map

You could do an overlay of red/state blue state map and you will see how much of the economy in the red states is dependent on these two sectors.

[awoke_in_2003]

70. yet we cannot keep up

this type of spending. We have to learn how to survive without sucking on the tit of the MIC. One thing about all those southern states- plenty of sun. Why not use the money that would have gone to the MIC and build renewable energy infrastructure?

[Raster]

80. Renewable energy will impact the MIC's symbiotic twin: the Petroleum Mafia.

The American Miliary Machine is the number one customer for the Petroleum Mafia. The Petroleum Mafia increasingly uses the American Military Machine as it's own private mercenary brigade.

Bottom line: the Petroleum Mafia will fight tooth and nail--or at least enlist the American Miliary Machine to fight tooth-and-nail--to preserve their monopolies.

[Raster]

77. The Military Machine specifically has installations in every state...

...this makes it harder for Congress to cut it's budget. However, *much* of the Military machine spending is redundant and excessive. President Eisenhower was right. Does the Pentagon serve the United States, or does the United States serve the Pentagon?

[bossy22]

94. president eisenhower's military industrial speech is one of the most mis-interpreted speech's

of all time.

Heres the truth; the pentagon is the largest employer in this country. The defense industry (minus the government employment) is one of the largest industries in this country. Like it or not, millions of families rely on the defense industry to put food on their tables. So do we really want to put more people on unemployment rolls? Lets not let those evil corporations like Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin- who employ hundreds of thousands of people in all different sectors- including a large manufacturing sector from getting money; hell, lets put them out of business.

What about the shipbuilding industry- which basically survives off U.S. Navy contracts. Without navy orders, we probably would not have a domestic industry at all. And that is not because the navy orders are so plush and plentiful; in fact over the last 30 years our shipbuilding industry has increased its reliance on Navy orders- even as those navy orders have shrunk more than 50%.

[Enthusiast]

135. No, we understand Eisenhower's

military industrial speech perfectly well. He could not have been more clear. Of course many wished he had not let the cat out of the bag.

After Eisenhower's presidency we went on to fight one war of choice after another throwing the nations treasury and lives away like never before.

But you are telling us that it is fine that war is our business. You are telling us war should be our business. And I am telling you that you are wrong. Piss on Navy orders. Find something constructive to spend tax money on besides war and military.

[Raster]

139. President Eisenhower's speech is not misinterpreted and is quite clear.

You've got your MIC talking points down perfectly.

[No Elephants]

142. Not good enuf. We keep paying billions for weapons or planes we don't need or want.

Re-train the employees and employ them doing things we do need and want. End the insane cycle and 1984 mentality that makes war desirable.

[classysassy]

151. Why not

have our government employ american citizens to build roads and bridges,clean up the land scape,dredge the canals and rivers,plant trees,build better schools,send our best and brightest to medical schools and provide loans to small farmers instead of subsidies for the rich farmers.Build a green economy which is good for all of us.I believe you are wrong when you state we don't understand what Ike said,he was aware of the greed in this country,especially the arms dealers.

[krispos42]

40. I think we should actually increase the size of the military

Too much bread-and-butter stuff is done by constractors, even on a domestic military base. And of course, contractors cost much more than having the enlisted guys do the work. Contractors are a corporate welfare program in peacetime and a liability in wartime.

The military should be a place where you can learn marketable skills besides how to get hired by Blackwater at $150k/year. Construction, plumbing, electrical, heavy equiptment operation, gunsmithing, helicopter maintanence, motor vehicle repair, jet engine repair, etc.


I think we should increase the size of the naval fleet (including underway replenishment) and reduce our overseas bases. We need a more general-purpose, butt-kicking replacement of the Perry-class frigate, which is now virtually unarmed.

I think the B-1B should be mothballed and the Air Force given enhanced global logistical reach... more tankers and more cargo aircraft.

:shrug:

[liberation]

55. yeah!

Let's turn our country into a gigantic military base. Nice uniforms for all. At least if we're all in the military we get free healthcare and first dibs in affordable military housing.

[wolfgangmo]

58. Actually what he is talking about makes sense and would cost less.

I think what is being suggested in #40 is something like this which is a pretty good idea. We still need a military - we've pissed a LOT of folks off.

This is a good presentation for a restructuring of the military that will still be kick ass and yet both cut expenses and actually incorporate the lessons of the marshal plan -- http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

[liberation]

61. Increasing size and scope to reduce cost

that makes total sense.


The issue with useless wars of choice is not how "efficiently" resources are allocated to fight them. When you are shooting yourself in the foot, the main issue is not whether or not you shot the bullet with the most efficient gun...

[krispos42]

65. No, that's not what I meant.

But adding 100,000 people to the military might well be a significant cost savings as well as increasing the skilled workforce and increasing military readiness.

[liberation]

79. I know exactly what you meant, I was simply disagreeing with your opinion

We should not be paying private contractors to add an extra middle man to the deparment of defense, in the same sense that we should not be paying the military to act as a middle man when it comes to people's education.

Want to educate people? Spend money on education, not the military.


If the military is so critical that needs to be expanded, then every single defense vendor has to be nationalized, not just contractors.

[krispos42]

125. Fair enough.

I see it that lots of people want to serve their country, and some of them have skills above and beyond tactical engagement, so we should allow them to serve in a dual-function capacity.

But your absolutely right... the military shouldn't be the only path to a free higher education, not by a long shot. We shouldn't be telling people "We'll help pay for college... IF you volunteer to get shot at first".

[FlyByNight]

41. Hear hear!

The current imperial posture is unsustainable. Frank's suggestion of $1T over 10 years is good but not enough. The Cold War was won spending about half the amount spent now (excluding the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations); that would be a good starting point.

Good for Rep. Frank, nonetheless!

:thumbsup:

[NewJeffCT]

44. Good luck passing even 1% of that

I doubt the cuts will be even taken up in Congress...

[Plucketeer]

45. Great News

Now if it could become something other than wishful thinking. We might well collapse as a nation, but we'll do so with some of the finest weaponry on hand!

[Uncle Joe]

47. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[The Wizard]

48. Military spending is really

welfare for defense contractors who make generous "campaign contributions" to legislators with Swiss bank accounts.

[patrice]

50. 1+ a google

[patrice]

52. P.S. plus supported politically by widespread contracts amongst the "middle class" nt

[liberation]

56. I always though it was a hoot hearing all those "self made" wealthy business people...

... who depend on captive government contracts for their fortunes, croon on and on about the virtues of the "free market."

[maxsolomon]

57. half measures

cut the DoD in half, if not 2/3.

[fatbuckel]

60. You must live within your means.

[Javaman]

62. Fat chance. Now queue the morons from the right to verbally...

tar and feather Frank.

It's a sad day when the obvious truth is condemned as heresy.

[lurky]

64. "Commissioned by Barney Frank"

They really go out of their way to repeatedly pound that home. I assume the talking points against these findings will be that Barney Frank was involved, so the whole thing is just some gay liberal conspiracy to kill our military...

[Enthusiast]

136. I agree. It was very likely

part of the big plan. And it serves to further paint the Democrats as 'weak on defense' and 'weak on terrorism'.

[heliarc]

66. Effing Right on Barney. nt

[GoldenOldie]

71. "Defense" of the Pentagon Corporations

There is no longer a military defense for our Nation and there hasn't been one since the Pentagon along with congress decided to privatize our army. Corporations write the contract "support?" and audit its compliance. Thus contracts and contractors collect the monies and do as they damn well please. One only has to look at the 9-billion stolen or lost in Iraq, poorly constructed military gear and facilities, furnishing drinking water for our troops from polluted sources in the battlefields.......all of this and much more resulting in deaths of service members, from the very ones within the Pentagon/Corporation. .

All the assurances that privatization of our military support would prove to be more efficient and cheaper became a big joke on our military personnel and the tax payers. As with all privatization, it has proven to be filled with inefficiency and greed with no one to say enough is enough.

What did Pres/Gen Eisenhower warn us of???????

[awoke_in_2003]

69. I love Barney...

too bad this doesn't have a snowball's chance of passing

[mvd]

72. Big K&R; very needed!

:kick:

[1776Forever]

73. US Budget for FY 2010 as it Affects Afghanistan and Pakistan Graph:

http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/718

Summary

Based on the numbers compiled below (which exclude multi-country allocations, as well as indirect financial flows), it is envisaged that US economic and security assistance for:

1.Afghanistan may rise to a minimum of $10,262 million in fiscal year (ending September 30) 2010, from $8,178 million in FY2009 (25.5% increase) — of these totals, $8,009 million (78.0%) is for security assistance in FY2010, compared to $6,093 million (74.5%), in FY2009. Alternatively, of the total assistance of $10,262 million in FY2010 , $2,762 million (26.9%) is to be administered by the State Department and $7,500 million (73.1%) by the Department of Defense, compared to $2,578 million (31.5%) and $5,600 million (68.5%), respectively, in FY2009;

And for
2.Pakistan, to $3,722 million in fiscal year (ending September 30) 2010, from $2,841 million in FY2009 (31% increase) — of these totals, $2,620 million (70.4%) is for security assistance in FY2010, compared to $1,803 million (63.5%), in FY2009. Alternatively, of the total assistance of $3,722 million in FY2010, $1,582 million (42.5%) is to be administered by the State Department and $2,140 million (57.5%) by the Department of Defense, compared to $1,441 million (50.7%) and $1,400 million (49.3%), respectively, in FY2009.

(more at the link)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

74. Excellent idea. It just needs to be about 10x that amount over the ten years.

[Vattel]

75. I love Frank

Unfortunately most democrats in offcie, including our President, are absurdly militaristic.

[Dave From Canada]

76. The defense budget is not even a trillion dollars today. Cutting a trillion dollars would bring it

down to zero. A zero dollar defense budget? Good luck with that! LOL.

[liberation]

82. Reading and comprehension not your forte, I take...

[Dave From Canada]

89. Huh?

[Moosepoop]

98. The trillion dollar cut is over the course of a decade.

I think you're confusing the annual budget numbers with the decade-long proposed cut numbers.

You are correct that the yearly budget is under one trillion -- but over the decade in question the budget is expected to go over $7.4 trillion, and that's not even counting the expenses of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposed cuts are out of that figure, over the coming decade.

[Dave From Canada]

144. Where are you getting that the defense budget is going to go over 7.4 trillion? That' s impossible.

That number doesn't add up.

[Moosepoop]

147. It's from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), and is not "impossible."

Again, Dave, that number is over the course of a decade, not a yearly figure.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/06/military_budget_cut_proposals_061110w/

Those are just a few of the recommendations offered by a task force that was asked by several members of Congress to come up with ways to cut defense spending — without diminishing national security.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force unveiled its plan to cut $1.1 trillion in military spending over the next decade. Defense spending, which will reach $567 billion in 2011, is expected to top $7.4 trillion during the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will boost 2011 defense spending to $726 billion.

That's $567 billion for 2011 (not counting Iraq and Afghanistan), and more than $7.4 trillion over the next ten years (counting the two wars).

Any more questions?

[liberation]

103. Exactly...

[Paper Roses]

81. Go Barney,

If only..........

[awnobles]

83. Finally

sanity.

[OneBlueSky]

85. two things immediately come to mind . . .

1) this is w-a-a-a-a-y overdue . . . and the trillion probably is nearly enough -- but it's a start . ..

2) it's DOA -- "Dead On Arrival" . . . oh, a few reps and senators will pontificate and blow off some steam, but then they'll go back home to where the local defense contractor is providing "good jobs at good wages" -- and forget about doing anything other than raising the "defense" budget in order to provide even more "good jobs at good wages" . . .

and so it goes . . . :shrug:

[valerief]

87. I wonder who'll they'll give it to--BP or the banks. nt

[deconstruct911]

90. It's hard to cut a defense budget

when you are still in Iraq, the Taliban have fled to Pakistan, Yemen is blowing up planes with underwear, and Iran "threatens" the existence of Israel.

[bossy22]

95. you forgot

that most of our fighters are closing in on the end of their life span and that our ground equipment hasnt really been upgraded since the late 80's

[windowpilot]

91. You can do it MAN!!!

All nite long!!!

[WileEcoyote]

93. Frank is a good friend to liberals

The reason it bothers me so much when most everyone here on D/U piles on the Anti Frank bandwagon.

[Ignis]

105. It's not "most everyone." It's a few vocal "centrists" hogging the mic.

Don't believe me? Post a poll to see how DUers feel about Frank.

[WileEcoyote]

131. When Cenk bashed him and Chris Mathews,

Almost everyone here on D/U jumped on the lynch Barney Frank wagon.


So be careful folks. As my dad used to say: "The ass you chew out today is the one you kiss tomorrow".

[Ignis]

146. Hard to evaluate "almost everyone" w/o data, but...

...keep in mind that that's one incident. Overall support for Frank on DU is high. OK, maybe he's not a DU Darling like the Kooch :D, but he still has more supporters than haters here.

[RoccoR5955]

96. K & R abut friggin' time someone recommended this! n/t

[mikelgb]

97. k+r but won't be surprised if this the last I'll hear of this

[proudohioan]

99. Hallejuhah!!!!

The dawn breaks!

The MIC is the biggest recipient of government waste!

:thumbsup:

[katty]

100. good luck with that

"Throughout the world ... we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures"

[LawnKorn]

101. Divert a portion of that money to developing solar power

Let Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics bid on contracts to help people.

[LawnKorn]

102. K&R

[mopinko]

104. root out the scams, eh?

there has to be more like duncan hunter and brent wilkes. right?

[eridani]

106. This is one of the reasons why I stay a Democrat

Sure beats the bejeezuz out of the Catfood Commission, no?

[DissedByBush]

107. How about for a change

We ask the military what it really needs rather than allocate money based on what gets built in whose district?

I have no idea but I'll make a guess: No significant portion of the F-35 is built in Frank's district, none of the ships they want to get rid of are ported in Frank's district, and no ships planned to be built will be built in Frank's district.

I could be wrong, but that's how things usually roll.

[Odin2005]

108. YES! YES! DO IT!!!

[HughMoran]

109. Good. Implement them

We don't have money to be throwing around on toys for men with small penises.

[howaboutme]

110. I'm sorry but they are still words not reality

I'm very skeptical because most in our government often say the right things but nothing ever happens when reality hits the road. It may not be intentional but their hopeful words still represent a web of deceit where the establishment interests and status quo always end up being taken care of and nothing ever improves. I'll believe in change when I see it. Until then I believe the few will rule and benefit, and the masses will pay a big price.

[Oerdin]

111. A small start.

That's only $100 billion a year out of a $1.3 trillion military budget. We need to cut it around $500 billion a year and even then we'd be still have way more military spending then anyone else.

[Lasher]

112. They're reducing the DOD budget by only $100B and counting that reduction every year for 10 years.

That's chickenfeed and not nearly enough. The DOD budget doubled during the Lost Decade. We need to cut their $700B budget at least by half to get back to the relative sanity before President Cheney came along. If we reduced the defense budget to $300B, that would still be three times as much as the next highest nation.

This is why every other developed nation on earth has universal health care and we don't. This is why Republicans and some Democrats have been trying to gut Social Security and other social programs; so they can spend money instead on defense and tax cuts for the wealthy elite.

[hay rick]

113. Gotta crawl before you can walk.

If we cut our military spending IN HALF, it would still be 3 times larger than the next largest military budget. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

With 4.5% of the world's population, we currently account for close to 48% of the world's military spending. Our military spending should be based on our needs for self-defense rather than the desire for worldwide hegemony.

[defendandprotect]

116. The MIC budget should be cut in half . . . but good start --

Anyone remember the "peace dividend" -- or maybe the Clinton SURPLUS??

[The Midway Rebel]

117. Ka-ching! n/t

[Overseas]

118. Yes Please Give Me 1 T from that Unsustainable Offense Plan the Bushies left behind.

Sustainable Defense is what we all need.

For the Democratic majorities that sustained the elections of Democrats in hopes of winning our way out of disastrous Bush Rule, it would be refreshing to have a deep, serious discussion about military efficiency and the fraud that privatization has brought about. We can trim that fat substantially.

Kicking the contractors out and doing things in house once again would have the added benefit of being bigger job creators and job training programs. One of the most useful aspects of military enrollment was diverse job training-- learning to cook for 300 people, or how to do electric wiring on the base. And you didn't have a multinational corporation overseeing the work from afar, you had to win the approval of your immediate military supervisor. In-house operations led to more cross training and adaptability of our fighting forces. Shopping the work out to multinational corporations that don't even pay taxes in the USA seems like the essence of wastefulness. I pay my taxes to the house to run the house, not to shop things out for an additional mark-up and shoddy workmanship to boot. I can't imagine a crew of military privates serving moldy food to their fellow troops. Or electrocuting them in the showers.

Hey Hey Ho Ho, Privatizing has got to go
Under the Microscope
Yes, Please!

[humbled_opinion]

122. Democrats don't have the balls to do this

Its exactly what is needed but it is a losing political position... The Repubes will only support cuts in Welfare, Medicare, SS, Soup Kitchens, Education Grants, etc.... They will claim anyone that cuts defense is trying to destroy the country and let our "ENEMIES" win....

LOL

[No Elephants]

145. If you mean courage, it has less than nothing to do with testicles.

[AmericaIsGreat]

123. hate to repeat but that ain't shit

It's a start I guess.

[alp227]

124. Should've been planned a while ago given the 10s of trillions in debt NOW.

But still this is a good start.

[Stumbler]

128. Rec, even if it is only a tiny drip-of-a-drop in the defense-budget-bucket

[Joey Kidd]

129. K&R

[Enthusiast]

137. I want to add something.

If there is truly a threat to the nation. If that threat is war worthy, worthy of being fought, then there should be a military draft. That way we won't be lining the pockets of KBR/Halliburton and Blackwater/Xe. That way the disadvantaged won't bear an unfair burden as they do now. Besides, privatization is far far far more expensive. And private forces don't appear to answer to anyone except their CEO.

[clarence swinney]

140. 800 MILITARY BASES

CUT HOW MANY?

CUT PRIVATIZATION WHICH PAYS 2-4 TIMES AS MUCH AS SOLDIER PAY

[clarence swinney]

141. $250,000 Bill $10,000 Bill

How many workers can pay such bills?

Open Heart Surgery=$250,000 and two lens implants = $10,000

Hospital charged $600 for a bit of Gauze to wrap around an arm..
Pal bought a roll for $20 and took it to them. Changed to $100.

One family Dr uses little hand tool to check Bone Mass(Marrow). 10 minutes

Another Dr part of large Clinic with specialists sends to a specialist.
ten minutes and cost is $$$ who knows. I will know after next Monday

annual physical for healthy people a waste and, historically, the doctors petty cash fund.
My Dr will not give them until needed.

olduglymeanhonest

[dorkulon]

148. Too bad nobody has the guts to do it.

And it should be more anyway.

[ProudDad]

149. NOT NEARLY ENOUGH...

The war budget could be cut from its present $1.2 TRILLION to less than half and still be more than quadruple the next "competitor".

But the permanent war economy is more about controlling the USAmerican population than anything else. It's the smoke screen and wealth drain and fear producing mechanism for pauperizing and controlling USAmericans.

This is not even a good beginning...

[Blue_Tires]

152. major kick

[DebbieCDC]

153. That's a start