Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alleging Republican 'blind eye' on defense spending, GOP senator proposes cuts
NBC ^ | Nov 16 2012 | Tom Curry

Posted on 11/16/2012 5:25:29 PM PST by WilliamIII

A Senate Republican fiscal hawk offered a 74-page menu of Defense Department spending cuts Thursday that could save taxpayers nearly $68 billion over 10 years. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he and his staff had identified several categories of “non-defense spending at the Pentagon,” outlays which he said had “little to do with national security.”

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Coburn accused his fellow Senate Republicans of “having a blind eye on spending.” He summed up their approach as “It’s OK to cut spending anywhere except the Defense Department.”

But, he said “to be legitimate and have any integrity on the issue … everything has to be on the table.”

In the fiscal year which ended Sept. 30, defense outlays amounted to $651 billion, 18 percent of total federal spending, which was a decline of about 3 percent from the prior fiscal year.

One target of Coburn’s proposed cuts is personnel. He said there were too many admirals and other high-ranking officers for the size of the military. “We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,” he told reporters.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: boston; cutdefensefor; losangeles; newyorkcity; seattle

1 posted on 11/16/2012 5:25:36 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Defense spending, properly administered, benefits everyone.

Entitlement spending benefits only specific groups whos votes the lawmakers seeks.

Lets get that straight first.

2 posted on 11/16/2012 5:28:09 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

OK, pizza delivery on the chopping block.


3 posted on 11/16/2012 5:32:29 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("Our president ... makes big speeches packed full of little ideas" Charles C. W. Cooke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

I know there is savings to be had in the Military. I might have an issue with replacing some military jobs with civilian personnel. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that when military gets replaced by civilians, civilians are paid a lot more. So while defense spending may go down, overall spending will go up. I could be wrong, but knowing our govt, I bet I’m not.


4 posted on 11/16/2012 5:33:17 PM PST by Sporke (USS Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
What better excuse could this administration ask for to justify eliminating, how shall I put it, less compliant brass?
5 posted on 11/16/2012 5:34:04 PM PST by null and void (America - Abducted by Aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Defense spending, properly administered

Isn’t that the whole point that Sen. Conryn is making? If you’ve got too many admirals, then spending isn’t “property administered”, and it should be cut.


6 posted on 11/16/2012 5:35:39 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

I’m not convinced there isn’t waste, but I’ll be damned if I can understand what these pricks want.

Our Navy is at 1915 levels. Our air-force numbers are disintegrating.

What are these assholes shooting for, a Davy Crockett era defense strategy?

Meanwhile, our welfare and giveaways have never been larger, are sinking our nation, and these guys never mention it.

I am mad as hell at the whole lot of them back there.

Now, quick, lets get back to naturalizing the 20 to 35 million illegals in country. That’s a top national priority! /s


7 posted on 11/16/2012 5:41:36 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 48 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

"...one thing we know for sure, is they can wipe out the Twinkie consumption at the Pentagon"

8 posted on 11/16/2012 5:43:26 PM PST by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Isn’t that the whole point that Sen. Conryn is making?

Yes it is, but I have a problem with taking money out of the department of defense and directing it into entitlement spending, which is where I think his proposal will go.

9 posted on 11/16/2012 5:49:25 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Money appropriated for defense spending will be re-appropriated by Obama for his favorite programs.


10 posted on 11/16/2012 6:05:17 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Coburn with the Gang of Six last year. First time he wore the label of RINO. Looks like he isn’t trying to shake it off.


11 posted on 11/16/2012 6:06:33 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Well,doesn’t entitlement spending get spread throughout the economy when beneficiaries go to restaurants, cinemas, etc.?

Sounds to me that you’re a proponent of military keynesianism?


12 posted on 11/16/2012 6:29:03 PM PST by olcurmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: olcurmudgeon
Sounds to me that you’re a proponent of military keynesianism?

IMO the benefit of properly spent defense spending results in a safer existence for my family, countrymen and myself.

I could care less what effect the dollars thus spent have on the economy.

As to your first point, since the taxpayers you're taking the money spent on entitlements from would have spent that money similarly (with less going to junk food, porn & booze presumably) I don't see what benefit entitlement spending has to the larger economy at all.

13 posted on 11/16/2012 6:35:53 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Coburn with the Gang of Six last year. First time he wore the label of RINO. Looks like he isn’t trying to shake it off.

I think you're totally misreading Coburn's initiative.

He's talking about $681 billion in savings over ten years!. That's 1% of the current defense budget ($651 billion).

What's more, the specific savings are perfectly reasonable. For example, is there any question that the military has more admirals and generals than it can possibly use.

Coburn is making a point that the military budget can be reduced and the GOP leadership should be prepared to include minor (and appropriate) military cuts in exchange for major cuts elsewhere.

14 posted on 11/16/2012 6:36:20 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Isn’t that the whole point that Sen. Conryn is making?

Clarification, this is by Sen. Tom Coburn, not Sen. John Cornyn.

15 posted on 11/16/2012 6:40:24 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Cut all defense and anti terror pending for New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.

They will be fine.


16 posted on 11/16/2012 6:40:41 PM PST by NoLibZone (Secession nation(s) will be free of a histroy tied to slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Cut all defense and anti terror spending for New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.

They will be fine.


17 posted on 11/16/2012 6:43:06 PM PST by NoLibZone (Secession nation(s) will be free of a history tied to slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
An admiral for almost every ship in the Navy? Sounds like the proverbial top-heavy bureaucracy to me.
18 posted on 11/16/2012 6:43:10 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Our Navy is at 1915 levels.

Please. One CVBG could wipe out the entire navies of the entire world in 1915. There is more to a navy than counting boats. The rest of the world's fleets combined couldn't match the USN today.

What are these assholes shooting for, a Davy Crockett era defense strategy?

You mean when we didn't try to police the globe and send America's best to bleed for other nations? I'd shoot for that. We've been on the offense since 1898. The renaming of the War Department was entirely Orwellian (and done by the Democrats).

Wake up. We're bankrupting ourselves with warfare abroad and welfare at home, just like Rome.

19 posted on 11/16/2012 6:46:00 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Of all the agencies and their entitlements in the national budget, defense of the country is one of the constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.


20 posted on 11/16/2012 6:48:49 PM PST by ArmyTeach ( Videteco eos prius (See 'em first) Sculpin 191)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
IMO the benefit of properly spent defense spending results in a safer existence for my family, countrymen and myself.

Do you think restoring the King of Kuwait to his throne and protecting the King of Saudi Arabia's throne is 'properly spent defense spending'?

21 posted on 11/16/2012 6:50:33 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ArmyTeach
Of all the agencies and their entitlements in the national budget, defense of the country is one of the constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government.

The problem stems from how many wars we find ourselves in when we send our military to create or prop up nations around the world. The responsibilities of an Empire differ considerably from the responsibilities of a Republic.

22 posted on 11/16/2012 7:00:02 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

While not a fan of waste or big government, one fallacy in the article is:

“The military are compensated at rates substantially greater than their civilian counterparts….”

There is no such thing as a civilian counterpart to a military member. There may overlap or similiarity in a particular skill set, but no civilian has volunteered to stand and die if needed.

I do note that SEN Coburn was born on March 14, 1948, making him 18 in 1966. How did he miss participating in the Southeast Asia war games? Perhaps if he had competed on the blue team he would understand the above distinction a little better.


23 posted on 11/16/2012 7:13:04 PM PST by redlegplanner ( No Representation without Taxation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

One thing he has referenced as an example of waste that has caught flak on other forums on this site is the military spending money on grocery stores. I can tell you the on base commisaries are great and especially useful as they allow troops stationed overseas to buy food without venturing into the local market and for troops located at remote bases (i.e. Fort Irwin) where the nearest local stores are an hour away.


24 posted on 11/16/2012 7:16:27 PM PST by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Though I support our military and our service personnel, please separate them in your mind from what the Pentagon does. First of all, look where the money goes (excluding special funding for Iraq and Afghanistan):

Operations and maintenance $283.3 b
Military Personnel $154.2 b
Procurement $140.1 b
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 b
Military Construction $23.9 b
Family Housing $3.1 b

To start with, the first two are the real “meat” of the military. Equipment and personnel we have. So these two are not really on the chopping block.

The need for cutbacks begins with the third entry, Procurement, which is *always* troublesome. If it is too easy and direct, quality suffers and there is room for graft and corruption. But if too many layers are added to insure quality and honesty, the price goes up as well, and the process bogs down. And there is still graft and corruption.

Where procurement happens, as in what congressional district, is just as important as what is being procured. There are always surpluses and shortages, though the preference is always to surplus. And surplus is very expensive to store.

In any event, R&D, and T&E, the fourth largest part of the budget, is at times downright amazing, and at other times, downright appalling. The two big agencies for this are DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). These are the people who create the future military of our country.

The trouble is that much of what they do is highly classified, so finding waste is a haphazard study.


25 posted on 11/16/2012 7:20:17 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
He's talking about $681 billion in savings over ten years!. That's 1% 10.4% of the current defense budget ($651 billion).
26 posted on 11/16/2012 7:31:40 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
He's talking about $681 billion in savings over ten years!. That's 1% 10.4% of the current defense budget ($651 billion).

That would be my mistake.

27 posted on 11/16/2012 7:35:33 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
No.

Why do you ask?

28 posted on 11/16/2012 7:54:39 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

It’s issues like runaway defense spending that separate the truly limited government activists from the pretenders.

Think about this freepers. “I want smaller, Constitutionally limited government but the military can never get too big.” Seems a tad inconsistent, doesn’t it?


29 posted on 11/16/2012 8:53:10 PM PST by LifeComesFirst (http://rw-rebirth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LifeComesFirst

We need more bases in England and Europe!


30 posted on 11/16/2012 8:59:41 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The democrats have been adding all sorts of non-defense spending into the defense department budgets, so they could pretend they were supporting the military.

There are billions of dollars for studying how global warming will effect our national security, billions for developing green technology for the military, billions for biofuels, billions for research and development of alternative energy sources.

As Coburn says, he can identify $68 billion of cuts that wouldn’t touch actual military items.

And yes, it is clear we have too many upper level manager types, that’s why two generals had time to have affairs and send thousands of e-mails about it.


31 posted on 11/16/2012 9:44:57 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01; Zhang Fei

The mistake was “$681 billion”, not “10%”. He was proposing $68 billion over 10 years, not $68 billion a YEAR for 10 years.


32 posted on 11/16/2012 9:51:11 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
For example, Seven Billion in Renewable Energy Projects for the Military.

That is how the democrats play. And you can bet that Obama wasn't going to cut a dime of this under sequestration.

33 posted on 11/16/2012 9:53:58 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

Thanks for the comments.


34 posted on 11/16/2012 10:12:59 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Hurricane Sandy..., a week later and 48 million Americans still didn't have power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sporke
I know there is savings to be had in the Military. I might have an issue with replacing some military jobs with civilian personnel. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that when military gets replaced by civilians, civilians are paid a lot more. So while defense spending may go down, overall spending will go up. I could be wrong, but knowing our govt, I bet I’m not.

At most bases, civilian pay is pretty much in line with military pay for similar areas of skills/responsibilities. The military base pay is lower, but benefits and housing/sustenance allowances raise it right up there. If you cut military personnel, there are some areas that require replacement bodies to free the military for actual military missions. I am a civilian at Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS and we train new recruits for their career fields and also provide training for specialized areas to support specific military missions. We have a core of civilian instructors that is supplemented with military. Due to the high deployment of military, we are often severely undermanned and we earn our pay. The question is whether to adequately fund so mission-essential areas remain covered. If there are drastic cuts in the military, then the result will be a cut in the civilian support staff and that is fine by me, but too deep a cut and military mission readiness will also suffer. We have had budgetary constraints applied, especially over the last few years. Squadrons used to have their own budgets and it could be wasteful due to Congressional rules - if we found ways to save a few bucks in any given year, then next year's budget would be cut - saving money could be akin to cutting your own throat so we were pretty much forced to spend every penny each year to ensure adequate funding for the next year. Now, squadrons submit bare bones budgets up to Group level and the Group maintains the purse strings which is actually potentially effective because squadrons generally had to "pad" their budget requests to handle any number of unforeseen intangibles that tend to rise up in any given year. Squadrons used to get notices at the end of each year that if they didn't spend all their money, the Group would take it to give to squadrons that wanted to buy stuff they didn't have funds for. Now, the Group does a similar thing by giving end of year calls that they have x-amount of dollars left and the units who submitted purchasing requests first would get first shot at it. The mentality continues that we have to spend all the money allocated because of the Congressional rules that say any savings over a year must be adhered to over the following years, so it's still a bit of a wasteful mess. A lot of the waste that Congress wants to cut is a direct result of Congressional rules, but that shouldn't be news...

35 posted on 11/17/2012 3:31:11 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

One way to save a lot of money for defense is to stop all TAD for one year. That would save a lot of money and have little damage to the over all military and federal government.


36 posted on 11/17/2012 5:22:03 AM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sporke

I seem to remember that when military gets replaced by civilians, civilians are paid a lot more.

Wrong! First of all civilians don’t get 30 days off a year. They get 12. Secondly, they pay health costs, retirement costs, and other stuff that military do not. A military person we pay for the rest of their lives. A government worker pays into their own retirement and health cost so in the end definitely cheaper.


37 posted on 11/17/2012 5:24:12 AM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
No. Why do you ask?

Because doing so is exactly why we've been waist deep in the Middle East morass for over 20 years now.

38 posted on 11/17/2012 8:39:37 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
I specifically referred to defense spending. Not f'd up foreign policy.
39 posted on 11/17/2012 9:27:23 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Most military don’t stay in 20 years, so we don’t pay for their health costs forever.

I have nothing against civilian workers at all, I’m sure in some circumstances it’s justified, but from my own experience I’ve seen clear examples of civilians getting paid at least twice as much as someone offbase would make doing the same kind of work. Mainly in food service and in landscaping type work.

I know the military doesn’t have the manpower to do many “menial” type jobs anymore but from what I’ve seen, whomever is in charge of contracting civilian jobs has to be on some serious medications.

I do know that it would be very easy to overpay people when it’s someone elses money you’re dealing with, which is what happens in far to many situations.


40 posted on 11/17/2012 10:32:35 AM PST by Sporke (USS Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

Bump to post # 19. With the Iraq War over, Osama dead and the war in Afghanistan drawing down, its time to trim the Defense budget.


41 posted on 11/17/2012 11:40:25 AM PST by KantianBurke (Where was the Tea Party when Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson