Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eric Cantor vs. Robert Gates
Big Bureaucracy ^ | August 11th, 2010 | Ellie Velinska

Posted on 08/11/2010 7:29:47 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy

Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent shock waves all through the federal bureaucracy when he announced concrete cuts in the military structure and staff. It is good stuff: freeze civilian hires, cut contract payments, reduce the number of general officers, flag officers and senior civilians, and eliminate two Defense Department offices and U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Amazingly the republican whip in the House Eric Cantor stood against it. This is so wrong on so many levels! Mr. Cantor is running a YouCut campaign himself. At the times when people are craving gutsy leaders that can cut spending and get rid of redundant bureaucracies Cantor’s opposition sends a message that Republicans are not ready to give us those. Let’s hope he just misspoke.

Robert Gates proposal is not even radical. Cutting 5 thousand positions in a department that employs over 3 million people sounds very reasonable. There are many sweet federal jobs that are hard for people to give up, but the private sector is doing it and the government better follow the example or we are all going broke. The private sector is increasing productivity and the federal entities should go for increasing effectiveness too.

Robert Gates worked for eight Presidents. He presided over the collapse of the USSR. He knows the lessons from that giant crash. If the Soviet military had agreed to cut just 2% of their budget the communists may have been able to avoid all toilet paper lines and vodka rationing coupons. Those 2% spent on military instead on the folks made the difference between USSR and ‘the former USSR’.

The USA should not repeat the same mistake. With the economy in recession it is not likely that the American people will be fond of increasing the DoD budget. However, to function in the fast developing world of technologies the US military will need the money. Otherwise we may end up embarrassed like the Russian spies that got caught recently performing twenty-year-old tricks in the twenty first century.

So Robert Gates outlined a plan which cuts into the bureaucracy. The money saved will fill the budget gap and go to the modernization of the military. It is like quitting smoking and using the money saved to get a top of the line gym equipment. It is the right thing to do.

As for the Republican leadership: they better jump on the wagon and start drafting plans to reform the rest of the federal bureaucracy following the military example. Bold and unafraid!


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: cuts; ericcantor; myblog; robertgates

1 posted on 08/11/2010 7:29:50 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

The military is a legitimate Federal function.

Why not cut entire Departments that aren’t. Education, EPA, etc.

It is TIME to DownSize DC!

But national defense is not where to start.

That said, I am sure there is room for improvement there also, but not the primary target.

The disease is too much government, regulation and medling in our lives. That is what Obozo and crowd is about, destruction and subjection of the American citizens.


2 posted on 08/11/2010 7:57:07 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
The author of this article hasn't read his political history. If Secretary Gate was the first person to propose such activities I might spend a brain cell or three on his proposal - but he ain't.

At the end of Vietnam the civilians gutted the military because we didn't need such a large military since we weren't fighting in SEA anymore. That was 1975. What happened during the Carter Presidency (1977-1981)?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s there was a “Peace Dividend” that the civilians could spend because the threat of war had disappeared. Do you have any idea how many times the military was deployed into live fire situtations in the decade that followed?

How comes the current position. The threat today is higher than it has ever been because there is no homeland for our conventional forces to hold at risk. To effectively fight the current threats you need lots of manpower and equipment not currently in the inventory.

What was the bedrock of all three efforts? It wasn't the security of the nation. It is about money. In all three cases you had expansion of social spending that drove spending cuts in other areas.

For proof of statement check the spending percentages of defense spending verses the social welfare percentages. Defense is under 5 % and social welfare is over 20%.

Which group is most likely to help the nation in a time of natural disaster and defend the nation in time of war - the soldier, airman, sailor, and marine or a welfare recipient?

Soldiers make our way of life possible - no other class contributes anything but a very small percentage, particularly politicians.

3 posted on 08/11/2010 8:00:41 AM PDT by Nip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
Cantor is from Virginia where his ox is being gored.

Big surprise. ;-)

4 posted on 08/11/2010 8:02:39 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity

Every cut in the big government pie will affect people and states. Does it mean that republican politician’s calls for small government are ... just words?


5 posted on 08/11/2010 8:07:30 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

I agree with you - don’t forget the Department of Agriculture. But as you can see in Cantor’s case - when cuts are in their own state the politicians stand against it. Next thing you know - they make deals: we are not going to do cuts in your state if you don’t cut in our states. The result: the government stays big.


6 posted on 08/11/2010 8:10:41 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
The private sector is increasing productivity

No they're not. Productivity is down.

7 posted on 08/11/2010 8:11:09 AM PDT by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nip

You speak truth.


8 posted on 08/11/2010 8:12:56 AM PDT by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nip

I agree with you, however cutting a few general’s positions and a layer or two of bureaucracy is a healthy thing for the military.
Gates is not cutting the budget, nor is he reducing drastically the personnel. If they were cutting position for the low-level personnel nobody would have said a word - but try to cut some sweet, well paid federal jobs and the Congressmen start to whine about it.


9 posted on 08/11/2010 8:15:34 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

IMHO, the NIMBY philosophy prevails.


10 posted on 08/11/2010 9:49:58 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy
There is an easy way to determine where cuts in the Federal Government should come. If it is something that can be sold door-to-door, then it is not a legitimate Federal function and hence is a good place to cut. If it cannot be sold door-to-door, then it is a legitimate Federal function and should probably enjoy full funding.

For example, National Defense cannot be sold door-to-door, therefore it is a legitimate Federal function and must be fully funded as such.

Health insurance can be sold door-to-door and hence is not a legitimate Federal function and thus such programs are good candidates for major cuts.

The author of this article (and quite a few posters responding here) should keep this in mind before demonizing Eric Cantor or anyone else opposed to these cuts.
11 posted on 08/11/2010 9:56:51 AM PDT by 84rules ( Ooh-Rah! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity

Exactly - everybody wants to reduce the size of government - but Not In My Back Yard. Cut bureaucracy somewhere else.

Cantor has the YouCut initiative - he is brave in cutting stuff - until it affects his own state.


12 posted on 08/11/2010 9:57:19 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Big Bureaucracy

These cuts have NOTHING to do with drawdown or savings. It has to do with the state of Virgina poking Zero in the eye with a sharp stick, again, and again, and again.

Funny how the funds are there for bailouts, buyouts, and other assorted graft and payoffs. But the military must be cut. Not the EPA, DOE, HUD, or dozens of other ‘never made a damn bit of difference’ agencies.


13 posted on 08/11/2010 10:06:20 AM PDT by 11Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11Bush

Those have to be cut too,Don’t forget the DoE (as in Energy).
Department of Energy was created by Carter to give us energy independence. How’s that working for us?

But nothing ever gets cut, because as soon as the cuts are announced - the affected raise noise to the high sky.


14 posted on 08/11/2010 10:16:30 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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