Replies

if we need to balance the budget the pentagon should not be immune from cuts. in fact, it is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting needless military spending. SS/medicare are about 55% of the budget; 10% is interest on the debt (which cannot be cut); defense spending is 20%, and remaining discretionary spending is 15%.

to balance our budget the military must share the pain, especially as the wars in afghanistan and iraq come to an end. the alternative is borrowing more money from the communists in peking

“Tonight, I want to explain to you what this defense debate is all about and why I’m convinced that the budget now before the Congress is necessary, responsible, and deserving of your support. And I want to offer hope for the future.

But first, let me say what the defense debate is not about. It is not about spending arithmetic. I know that in the last few weeks you’ve been bombarded with numbers and percentages. Some say we need only a 5-percent increase in defense spending. The so-called alternate budget backed by liberals in the House of Representatives would lower the figure to 2 to 3 percent, cutting our defense spending by $163 billion over the next 5 years. The trouble with all these numbers is that they tell us little about the kind of defense program America needs or the benefits and security and freedom that our defense effort buys for us.

What seems to have been lost in all this debate is the simple truth of how a defense budget is arrived at. It isn’t done by deciding to spend a certain number of dollars. Those loud voices that are occasionally heard charging that the government is trying to solve a security problem by throwing money at it are nothing more than noise based on ignorance. We start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all the possible threats against our security. Then a strategy for strengthening peace and defending against those threats must be agreed upon. And, finally, our defense establishment must be evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any or all of the potential threats. The cost of achieving these ends is totaled up, and the result is the budget for national defense.

There is no logical way that you can say, let’s spend x billion dollars less. You can only say, which part of our defense measures do we believe we can do without and still have security against all contingencies? Anyone in the Congress who advocates a percentage or a specific dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defenses he would eliminate, and he should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or both.” ~ Ronald Reagan

And your back ground in military readiness comes from what university or academy. The sequestration does not touch contingency operations, only maintenance, personnel/payroll and morale/welfare funding, or “OPTAR” funds. Cutting the Corps to below 9-11 levels is insane. Because of the addition of MARSOC (spec warfare) this is the equivalent of cutting the general war fighting capability of the Corps by 10% of its pre war level. As the charts clearly show it is not the military, it is all the welfare programs that are eating your tax dollars. The GOP had the opportunity to negotiate an increase in OPTAR funding, they choose not to. Ironically, the Dims wanted to bring DOD back to the levels originally recommend post-war. That would keep the Corps at 184,000 down 18,000 personnel from their war time peak. Note nearly a 10% reduction with corresponding reductions in costs.

Defense was already cut in 2009 and 2011, before Sequestration dealt the final blow.

Entitlements were exempt from Sequestration. Our wonderful friends, the "upright and moral" Democrats saw to that.

Only a very small portion of reimbursement to providers for Medicaid was hit - but zero cuts to all other Entitlements (including Social Security, Medicare, and the 70+ unearned Entitlements).

So, Defense has been "sharing the pain" - and too many in this nation have not, and still aren't.