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

Skip to comments.

House GOP prepares stopgap spending bill to avoid shutdown
The Hill ^ | 13 Feb 13 | Erik Wasson

Posted on 02/13/2013 4:32:12 PM PST by SkyPilot

House appropriators are finalizing a stopgap spending bill to prevent a government shutdown after March 27, and the bill could see a vote before the end of February.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he is crafting a continuing resolution at the current level of spending, thereby separating the issue of a government shutdown from the question of how to deal with automatic sequestration cuts.

The stopgap spending bill would be set at the current level of $1.043 trillion for the entire fiscal year that began Oct. 1. It would specify that the $85 billion sequestration is allowed to take place unless it is separately turned off.

The bill would contain full-year appropriations bills for the Defense department, and also cover military construction and veterans' affairs spending.

By going from a stopgap bill for these areas to a detailed appropriations bill, Rogers hopes to help the Pentagon cope better with the effects of sequestration. The CR alone was slated to cause an $11 billion shortfall for the Pentagon's operations and maintenance account and the Rogers plan would allow the Pentagon to work around that limitation.

Impacts were projected to affect matters from Joint Strike Fighter procurement to the building of medical facilities to treat wounded soldiers.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: budget; house; sequestration; shutdown
This new, quite frankly, convinces me even more that the GOP will allow the Sequester to happen and harm national defense.

Our government seems to be able to clear every hurdle, EXCEPT the Sequester cuts that force the Dod (at about 18% of the budget) to pay for 50% of the massive cuts.

The Congress agreed to tax increases, but would not solve the Sequester. The Congress agreed to a debt limit extension, but would not address the Sequester. The Congress agreed to debate amnesty, but would not re-address the looming Sequester.

The House is now admitting to what the Joint Chiefs told them yesterday and today - that the CR (on top of the $487 in cuts started in 2011 and the Sequester that has now risen to a 13% cut) was killing the military.

This is a "bone" - but does not remove the threat to the military. All of the Sequester money has to come from Operations and Maintenance, because Obama said they could not address military pay and service contracts are off the table. So the military O&M budget is going to be raped.

I wish they would simply get beyond this. Our military deserves better.

The fact is, the US military is being held hostage by both parties because of......Medicare. The Republicans admitted as much this week, saying it was the biggest deficit driver, and Jay Carney said Obama would not put raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67 (as he did back in 2011) back on the table.

So, the gutting of Defense will remain on the calendar.

1 posted on 02/13/2013 4:32:19 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Out of two or three issues where the GOP House has the upper hand, they just hand it to Obama and say "Oh plueeze don't call us bad people - we do not want to be blamed for a shutdown".

Gimme a break - I know why I am registered Ind.
2 posted on 02/13/2013 4:39:31 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
They waited to see if Obama was going to do anything to stop it....since he caused it. Nope...

Ball is in our court.

3 posted on 02/13/2013 4:48:39 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

New promises same crap.....


4 posted on 02/13/2013 4:51:19 PM PST by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Sheesh, whose side are they on anyway?! Oh wait, nevermind.

As someone once said, “We don’t need a third party. But a second one would sure be nice.”


5 posted on 02/13/2013 4:52:13 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
> The fact is, the US military is being held hostage by both parties because of......Medicare

This one is simple, are more voters in the military or on medicare?

6 posted on 02/13/2013 4:53:22 PM PST by SecondAmendment (Restoring our Republic at 9.8357x10^8 FPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Considering the options, I might favor continued spending for the next four years at 2012 levels. It’s harder to call it is “cut” if there is no agreement, particularly if it is exactly level with last year. That might be our best bet for a step toward responsible spending. Granted, it’ll take a couple decades to balance the budget if they won’t cut, but at least we’ll be moving in that direction. Considering the republicans we have, that may be the best option we can get.


7 posted on 02/13/2013 4:57:10 PM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“All of the sequester money has to come from Operations and Maintenance”. Not correct. Only military pay and wounded warrior programs are shielded. All other programs and activities are taking the same cut. The biggest problems are in the operations and maintenance accounts but that is because the other programs may have more flexibility in how they deal with the cuts.

Much of the size of the impact is due to political decisions made by this administration not to allow the services to plan for sequestration.


8 posted on 02/13/2013 5:24:25 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
You are actually correct in part of your statement, but here is the real impact.

Military pay is exempt as you said. For now. Obama ordered that in July because he didn't want to deal with the political fallout in an election year with criticism that he "cut the troops pay." Now, he is going to cut troops - big time. He could care less about them.

The Army alone is going to gut their personnel strength:

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said sequestration would force large end strength cuts, the extent of which are not yet known. For fiscal year 2014 and beyond, it will result in “the loss of at least an additional 100,000 personnel, soldiers, from the active Army, the Army National guard and the U.S. Army reserve,” he said. “Combined with previous cuts, this will result in a total reduction of at least 189,000 personnel from the force -- but probably even more than that.”

So, 26% of the DoD budget is off limits. The 19% that procurement takes looks like a player, but it isn't. We are halfway through the fiscal year. Many of those contracts are already signed. We get into legal territory now. Some of them could possibly be broken through a pause in orders, modifications, or partial terminations. But in the end, the lawyers always win. The DoD may end up owing more, so they are holding off with doing that....for now.

That leaves a very, very small piece of the pie to "pay" for this massive, massive cut (again, halfway through the fiscal year).

They can furlough civilians (funded by O&M funds), but that only buys the DoD $5 Billion between March and September, they need another $41 Billion, just until the end of the fiscal year!

In October, this all starts all over again.....for another 9 years!

And that is why the hollowing out of the force is going to be so drastic, so rapid, and so deep.

What really has to happen is Entitlement reform. Entitlements are out of control.

9 posted on 02/13/2013 5:44:19 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Much of the size of the impact is due to political decisions made by this administration not to allow the services to plan for sequestration.

See this thread:

use GOP blames DOD on sequester

The "fail to plan" blame game is a disingenuous political game that is boob bait for the bubba public. The House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee member of both parties privately told the DoD the sequestration cuts would not happen.

That is, until, the January Fiscal Cliff "deal" dealt with the tax issue half of the Fiscal Cliff, and only delayed sequester for 60 days. Congress refused to deal with it because it was too hard.

Obama actually gave in on the Social Security COLA reform in his negotiation with Boehner, but he wanted a raise in the tax rates for individuals making $500K a year - and Boehner would not go for it so he abandoned the talks and began his ill fated "Plan B" exercise that collapsed with a failure in support from even his own party.

Ashton Carter was correct today when he said that if the DoD had "planned" for this train wreck, Congress would have thought the DoD could live with it - and it cannot! They TOLD Congress this, and have been telling them that, for 16 solid months.

So no, I am not buying the "failure to plan" suitcase full of goods. I am not "planning" on catching Ebola tomorrow either. If I do, someone can't "blame" me for failing to plan for it. It is a disaster either way.

10 posted on 02/13/2013 5:52:36 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Much of the size of the impact is due to political decisions made by this administration not to allow the services to plan for sequestration.

See this thread:

use GOP blames DOD on sequester

The "fail to plan" blame game is a disingenuous political game that is boob bait for the bubba public. The House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee member of both parties privately told the DoD the sequestration cuts would not happen.

That is, until, the January Fiscal Cliff "deal" dealt with the tax issue half of the Fiscal Cliff, and only delayed sequester for 60 days. Congress refused to deal with it because it was too hard.

Obama actually gave in on the Social Security COLA reform in his negotiation with Boehner, but he wanted a raise in the tax rates for individuals making $500K a year - and Boehner would not go for it so he abandoned the talks and began his ill fated "Plan B" exercise that collapsed with a failure in support from even his own party.

Ashton Carter was correct today when he said that if the DoD had "planned" for this train wreck, Congress would have thought the DoD could live with it - and it cannot! They TOLD Congress this, and have been telling them that, for 16 solid months.

So no, I am not buying the "failure to plan" suitcase full of goods. I am not "planning" on catching Ebola tomorrow either. If I do, someone can't "blame" me for failing to plan for it. It is a disaster either way.

11 posted on 02/13/2013 5:52:50 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

‘Massive’ cuts, pretty funny.

Maybe the GOP should have looked a bit further down the road than pass the 60B in Sandy ‘relief’ (90% that had NOTHING to do with Sandy). Possibly, shut down all those duplicate programs/etc. that cost $B; that report came out and was quickly shelved. No? How about 0-balance those Unconstitutional departments, I’ve got a long list if they need a few examples, and use the funds to do one of the FEW things they are obligated.

Hell, they should just pass amnesty. Then they’ll have a whole new pool of taxpayers to suck dry.

Let ‘em own it. They kicked the can down the road and raised the dept limit while, as usual, waiting for the ‘catastrophe’ to ‘run up’ on them. The party should die a horrible slow death...I can only dream it’s soon, so we can get REAL/good people to FINALLY represent We the People.


12 posted on 02/13/2013 6:17:26 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
The stopgap spending bill would be set at the current level of $1.043 trillion for the entire fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Idiots. If you are going to pass a stopgap spending bill, then REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SPENDING INSIDE THE BILL!

13 posted on 02/13/2013 6:33:59 PM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
So, the gutting of Defense will remain on the calendar.

It was always on the calendar, and no deal will take it off. Obama gets everything he wants and the GOPe gets the blame.

14 posted on 02/13/2013 6:42:14 PM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesnÂ’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Accurate assessment.


15 posted on 02/13/2013 6:44:13 PM PST by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Maybe you think differently, but I’d rather have the cuts than have a tax increase on “the rich”.


16 posted on 02/13/2013 7:15:54 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

It’s funny that here you note correctly that the real problem is that they didn’t plan ahead, so too much of the budget is now off-limits. But in another thread you posted, you attacked a congressman who said exactly the same thing — that the problem is that the DoD didn’t plan for sequestration, because they believed Obama.

The GOP was clear — there would be no sequestration, IF Romney won the presidency. He didn’t. And we aren’t going to increase taxes.


17 posted on 02/13/2013 7:20:53 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
They didn't "plan" for it because it was never supposed to happen, and both parties said that.

The only way they could have "planned" for this rapid a draw down would have been to take actions like stop awarding contracts, fired the term employees last year (which the DoD would have been destroyed by Congress for doing), and started to cut back on training and operations last year.

Ashton Carter was correct - "planning" for it would have enabled taking actions detrimental to national security before the election, some reversible, some not so reversible.

We raised taxes, but didn't apply ANY of that revenue to the sequester. The White House and Congress discussed all options (including entitlement reform), but it all fell apart.

So the DoD got nothing out of that whole mess except a delay. It wasn't the DoD that came up with this jacked up concept, or the formula that punished defense inordinately. It isn't the DoD who that is bankrupting the nation. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP is at historic lows. You can thank entitlements for that, yet, DC is trying to balance 3/3rds of the budget by cutting the 1/3 that is discretionary spending, with again - defense paying the biggest price.

Defense is Constitutional. Food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, TANF, and unemployment checks are not.

No segment of society has sacrificed more for this nation in the last decade since 911, and Defense is being pushed to the front of the fiscal firing squad by Washington.

18 posted on 02/13/2013 7:41:32 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
but I’d rather have the cuts than have a tax increase on “the rich”.

Ha. Completely understand that.

I don't want to see any more taxes. Even the payroll tax increase on Social Security is already slowing down the economy. The decrease in defense spending by 22.1% last quarter help put the nation's economic growth into the 0.1% negative territory.

What the nation must do is reform entitlements.

The problem is, there are millions upon millions of citizens who get them (both earned like Social Security and unearned like Food Stams). Everyone who gets entitlements wants them to continue, and does not want them cut.

So....here we are. In a very bad place.

19 posted on 02/13/2013 8:03:55 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks SkyPilot.
to prevent a government shutdown after March 27

20 posted on 02/13/2013 8:37:17 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

We didn’t raise taxes. By budget, taxes were going to go up more. So the deal in January actually increased the deficit, which they then had to pay for by setting up a continuing resolution that slightly cut spending.

All the big deficit numbers were ASSUMING that all our taxes were going back up to pre-bush-year values.

It’s sad that a small decrease in the rate of growth of spending is considered a “rapid draw-down”.

The military was going to have some shrinking pains anyway, because they weren’t going to keep spending a lot of money for support personnel in this country for the wars we aren’t fighting anymore.


21 posted on 02/13/2013 9:06:06 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Cutting entitlements will also “slow down the economy”. The federal government has been adding a trillion a year to the economy by borrowing the money. It’s just a macro version of the problem when a family keeps using their credit card.

One day, they are maxed out, and realize they have already spent all the money they are going to make next year — and maybe even the year after that. Coming to terms with the idea that you have to work 2 years without spending a dime before you can even break even is a harsh reality.

But the only way out is to stop spending. And when you do, now your “economy” has shut down. You aren’t spending, so the stores you buy from aren’t able to employ people, and they lose their jobs, and they can’t spend, and it’s a hard thing.

But not as hard as trying to keep going until you are 3 years in debt.

We’ll survive the sequester. It’s not the right way to cut spending, but it’s better than not cutting spending.


22 posted on 02/13/2013 9:12:31 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Charles,

While I respectfully agree with you that entitlement spending would have economic impact as well, and that our borrowing and over spending is out of control, I fundamentally disagree with your premise that cutting the military to this degree with sequestration is an acceptable avenue. It isn't.

The Republicans have done great damage already towards their reputation as the traditional vanguards of the military, and they continue to do even more damage to that end every day.

The entire sequestration scam is a blatant attempt to do "something" - and the Faustian bargain only touches discretionary spending and leaves all automatic spending (which is 62% of the budget) consisting of entitlements virtually unchange. The Democrats took entitlement spending (the greatest problem we have) "off the table" and the Republicans agreed. It was political and fiscal madness.

Even if we fiscally pummeled the military completely, and zeroed out her funding, look what we have:

The Republicans do want entitlement reform, the biggest problem right now is Medicare. Obama won't go along with it. He did agree in 2011 to raise the age from 65 to 67. That would have solved sequestration and a host of over budgetary problems all by itself. But, now the White House has said they refuse to even discuss it.

So here we are, playing the game that we can balance 3/3rds of the budget by playing with 1/3rd of the budget, and of those 1/3 cuts, the Pentagon takes 50% of them even though they are about 17% of the budget.

Moreover, we are punishing the most loyal child in the room - the US military. No organization has sacrificed more or answered the call as much as the US military, and it is the one organization paying the biggest political price.

I know why the Republicans and Democrats would rather scream at the captive audience of the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of staff at a hearing on Capitol Hill. They much prefer that than to tell a bunch of 65 year olds they must wait until they are 67 to collect Medicare. Or telling Social Security recipients their COLA will be computed to be less.

But that is what we must do.

I really don't have a problem with the other $600 Billion in cuts to domestic agencies. In fact, I would eliminate half the departments. But the keg they are tapping is naitonal defense, and they are doing it indiscriminately, broadly, and unequally.

From a morality standpoint, not a fiscal one, this action is absoulutely immoral for a nation to take.

Every single department of the military is affected by these cuts (they say the wounded warrior program is exempt, but that means little). Every aircraft, hospital, and even TRICARE for the military, families, and veterans is affected.

And all because we can't tell Americans that their entitlements are out of control?

Our nation is going to pay a terrible price for this shortsightedness.

23 posted on 02/14/2013 3:23:45 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Apologize - here is the chart showing spending and debt with the military funding completely eliminated.


24 posted on 02/14/2013 3:25:17 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

When do you think they should cut defense and by how much? Can’t a few billion here and there add up to 50 billion? It is pretty myopic to think otherwise. Defense is very myopic, we don’t need billion dollar nonprofits like MITRE full of useless twits. You said in another thread we need airbases in Europe and elsewhere. Does that require 80,000 personnel in Europe and over $3B a year? Your whining is endless but your solutions are sparse.


25 posted on 02/14/2013 3:52:24 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Our nation is going to pay a terrible price for this shortsightedness.

**
Shortsightedness? How about blistering stupidity and selfishness? This country deserves what it’s going to get —a state of increasing vulnerability to attack — meanwhile, we fatten up illegals and deadbeats on welfare, and old folks who bought into this communistic plan - who will eat up the last crumbs while the REST of us face future bankruptcy as the benefits will eventually just shut off anyway.

What a country. We’re hurtling now it seems, into third world status. Our leaders are immoral, evil and inept. But we sit here and do nothing about it, so who are we to complain?


26 posted on 02/14/2013 4:16:25 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Tell it to all the FReepers who balk at cutting medicare and social security. “It’s not an entitlement”. Yes, yes, it is.

Even here, medicare and social security > funding for the military.


27 posted on 02/14/2013 4:36:37 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Yeah, we young people are f***ed.


28 posted on 02/14/2013 4:39:51 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks
This country deserves what it’s going to get —a state of increasing vulnerability to attack — meanwhile, we fatten up illegals and deadbeats on welfare, and old folks who bought into this communistic plan - who will eat up the last crumbs while the REST of us face future bankruptcy as the benefits will eventually just shut off anyway. What a country. We’re hurtling now it seems, into third world status. Our leaders are immoral, evil and inept.

Amazing, isn't it?

I just don't understand what the Republicans are doing these days. We know what the Democrats are, and what they stand for. Why are the Republicans so bent on destruction?

You're right about the state of the nation. We are in serious, serious trouble. We need God.

29 posted on 02/14/2013 6:15:41 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Even here, medicare and social security > funding for the military.

Yes, unfortunately, that has been a painful education for me.

30 posted on 02/14/2013 6:17:09 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Now, he is going to cut troops - big time. He could care less about them.

It seems like you are correct. He is more interested in arming the CIVILIAN Army to be used against the "bitter-clingers".

stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets.
31 posted on 02/14/2013 6:19:39 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You seem to have a real, personal vendetta against the MITRE Corporation. I worked with a few of them back in the 1980's. Not particularly useful, some of the were. And yes, I agree - vastly overpaid on that contract. They were sort of "Uber-Contractors" in that they thought of themselves as contractors, but better than DoD civilians.

Cut them some? Sure. Why not. But Sequestration is an across-the-board meat ax that cuts into (primarily) O&M funds for the military.

Guess what? During this go-around of Sequestration (and we get to look forward to 10 years of this mess), the contractors make out much, much better than the military and DoD civilians. The DoD civilians will get furloughed, the contractors will fare much, much better.

We do need airbases in Europe. Yes, it is expensive. We spend $3B a day on liberal garbage in this country. For the strategic advantage and operational capability they provide this nation during crisis and wartime, that is worth every penny. I am sorry you don't feel this way, but it is the truth.

32 posted on 02/14/2013 6:23:49 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
MITRE is just an example which I use based on my experience, not a vendetta. I have a bit of experience with a couple of the national labs and they are a little better but have much of the same problem which is essentially grabbing for as many defense dollars as possible without ever honestly self-evaluation (never mind external) whether they can actually accomplish the work. My own employer is guilty as well. I am myself guilty of writing proposals for which I could not perform the work (even though I thought I could). Fortunately I have a colleague who is the gatekeeper on that now.

The broader point is that the defense industry is a pork-filled mess and needs the meat ax, not a little tweaking. It's too bad if, as you say, contractors will not get cut under sequestration. They need to be cut.

My experience with DoD civilians is that they are very inefficient, not because they want to be, but because they are mired in the bureaucracy. Telework is a joke and real work often only takes place a day or two a week. Often they will simply twiddle their thumbs for a week or two while someone higher up holds up the work for some stupid reason. My experience with active military is limited. The worst of the worst in my experience are various groups whose only job is paperwork and they can't turn around a document in less than a month or sometimes many months. Those groups are on bases in various parts of the country that are politically protected.

The biggest picture is that the military could easily meet its mission on 1/2 or less of the current budget, but it's not possible due to a million feifdoms and politically-motivated interest groups. It's a mess. If I had a choice I would fire everyone and start over.

33 posted on 02/14/2013 7:04:57 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

What is the point of deadline solutions if your just going to ignore them.

For the love of god and country just let the cuts take place!

We should only be so lucky to have Washington bug out of our lives for a few days. But even federal republicans treat that like some kind of apocalyptic. I find theses republican to be the lowest of the low.

I will not vote or campaign for theses ‘republican’ lowlifes. They can and should rot in hell next to their beloved democrat & socialist colleges.


34 posted on 02/14/2013 9:36:04 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

I don’t know about you, but seeing liberty drop like a fly in the self made imperial capital of Washington.

I don’t value the Federal military, for it is at the end of the day nothing more than Washington’s brutal enforcer.

I know most of the officers & personnel of the army are good men & women who believe in liberty. But i also know that they all will be forced to answer Washington’s call to impose tyranny upon their own people one way or the other.

So I do not support funding this organizational, Let the patriots of the army, & air-force join their state’s national guards. Let them answer more to the honest convictions of their own hearts rather than the corrupt edicts of a lawless Washington.


35 posted on 02/14/2013 9:41:51 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

Do you honestly believe that foreigners are more of a threat to our liberty than our own Washington D.C. at this point?

If you do then you have simply traded one theoretical tyrant for anther very real and very effective tyrant.

I for one do not fear China one iota as much as I fear the imperial edict of Washington.

China has yet to mandate my behavioral, nor tax me into poverty, nor crush my opperunity. Washington has already done all of theses oppressive things.

To put it bluntly:
To China I am at best a distant rival.
To Washington I am a slave.

Who do you think should I fear and resent more?


36 posted on 02/14/2013 9:48:34 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Your right of course That medicare and “social security” are unaffordably expensive “entitlement” but your also not doing justice to the fact that these entitlements have been sold to a lawless majority and forced upon the rest of us as “investments”. Much like a casino entices you to “invest” in their product.

Even then the Federal Government’s employees in black robes acknowledged that theses were merely taxes with no obligation on the part of Washington to keep it’s politicians political promises.

It mattered not then just as it matters not now for most people(the “mob”) hears only what their political leaders say and sees only what they get in the hear and now.

The whole point of a Constitutional republic was to severely limit what political leaders could do in the hear and now so that people would at least see the truth.

But when that Constitution was made subject to the sole discretion of 9 hand picked Federal employees in black robes it largely ceased to exist as any “law” ceased to exist when the one bound by it can simply choose to disregard his bindings.

So dispute efforts to keep up apperences reminiscent of the early Roman empire the Federal Constitution and the Federal republic it once defined are dead.

This fact could not be made more clear than the effective boundlessness of Washington as they themselves defined it.

We need to be preparing the political landscape for a Republican revolution, not continue to wast time & money playing their pointless power game.

Surely you must recognize that a sad but necessary part of that will involve the downsizing and/or dismantling the Federal military machine.
Like it or not this machine has in the past always proven to be little more than a tool of Washington, not liberty, and certainly not the now dead Constitution.

(When is the last time a military officers successfully refused an unconstitutional order by the president?)

The Constitution means nothing at all when it is so easily and callously swept aside by those who have sworn to uphold it. The oath theses men take is but a joke for most, and a self-serving joke for them who wear black.


37 posted on 02/14/2013 10:26:49 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

“Now, he is going to cut troops - big time. He could care less about them.

It seems like you are correct. He is more interested in arming the CIVILIAN Army to be used against the “bitter-clingers”.

stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a ‘b’) bullets.”

Obama’s civilian army will win too unless we organize ourselves against them, they will simply pick us all off one by one.

We may need to transform part of our political movement & organization into a military type organization of something similar to Minute men in effect on the local level. (Men a thousand miles away cannot help you defend yourself.)

To do this we must establish a system of commutations & coordination. Preferably something that Washington will have difficulty decifering and halting. But that preference at this point is of course a distant 2nd in priority to usability & universality.


38 posted on 02/14/2013 10:36:42 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Our defense is one of the few right purposes for government spending. Federal funding to state and local civilian governments is too high (pork). There are extreme numbers of planners and inspectors doing nothing except plotting and scheming detrimental efforts against production and property rights. There’s nearly no building development happening except for federally funded projects.

There are increases for salaries and ever more hiring in public education, while most schools see fewer children each year. As our population gets older, social services is no more than a support for drug abuse (and its associate, alcoholism). Funding for environmentalism and animal worship is deleterious and shouldn’t be happening.

There’s plenty of money for our military forces. It needs to be rightfully stopped from going to useless/counterproductive civilian programs.


39 posted on 02/14/2013 11:17:05 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Meanwhile, it appears that there are endless funds for "empowering" government day care babysitting.

Obama to push universal preschool proposal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2988474/posts


40 posted on 02/14/2013 12:17:20 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
To do this we must establish a system of commutations & coordination. Preferably something that Washington will have difficulty decifering and halting. But that preference at this point is of course a distant 2nd in priority to usability & universality.

When things go that bad, the old CB radio would work locally.
41 posted on 02/14/2013 3:22:36 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“So, 26% of the DoD budget is off limits. The 19% that procurement takes looks like a player, but it isn’t.”

The law requires procurement accounts to take the same percentage cut as the O&S accounts. The reason the procurement accounts are not as impacted is procurement funds are three year money O&S is one year money. This means the procurement accounts can take the cuts out of 11, 12, or 13 funds. O&S has to take it out of 13 funds.

“Many of those contracts are already signed. We get into legal territory now. Some of them could possibly be broken through a pause in orders, modifications, or partial terminations. But in the end, the lawyers always win. The DoD may end up owing more, so they are holding off with doing that....for now.”

Not really. DoD is under a Continuing Resolution Authority funded at 50% of 2012. The procurement accounts have only received 50% of their funds so many of these contracts have not been ‘signed’. That doesn’t help the O&S accounts because you can’t use procurement funds for operations and maintenance. The procurement accounts can also defer further contracts to preserve funds to pay for their personnel, etc.

“They can furlough civilians (funded by O&M funds), but that only buys the DoD $5 Billion between March and September, they need another $41 Billion, just until the end of the fiscal year!”

Not all civilians are paid by O&M funding. Depends on where they work. They are paid for by the type of funds their parent agencies receive. Furloughing civilians paid for by other than O&M funds does not help the O&S problems.

“That leaves a very, very small piece of the pie to “pay” for this massive, massive cut (again, halfway through the fiscal year).”

Make up your mind. Did DoD fail to plan for this? DoD kept the funding pedal all the way to the floor even though the law said their could be a sequestration. Not the fault of the service chiefs but the political appointees. Had these appointees allowed the services to plan for this, then the impacts would have been spread over 12 not 6 months.


42 posted on 02/14/2013 4:11:02 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

“Surely you must recognize that a sad but necessary part of that will involve the downsizing and/or dismantling the Federal military machine.

Like it or not this machine has in the past always proven to be little more than a tool of Washington, not liberty, and certainly not the now dead Constitution.”

It is constitutional and one of the powers of the federal government.


43 posted on 02/14/2013 7:39:51 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | 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