Posted on 11/07/2010 2:06:31 PM PST by fabrizio
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.
The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be “on the table.”
Paul tells ABC’s “This Week” that he supports a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.
They cut them the same way they cut Social Security benefits to those who paid into the system their whole lives and are counting on the payback.
The difference is that defense is needed. A Dept of Education, or HHS is not.
Vague response and foggy analogy. Veterans and military retirees pay into soc sec too. So they would be cut on both. You never explained where the lines would be drawn? AFTER they retire? or those that are just ready to retire?
Vague response and foggy analogy. Veterans and military retirees pay into soc sec too. So they would be cut on both. You never explained where the lines would be drawn? AFTER they retire? or those that are just ready to retire?
I expect a broke government to treat their obligations to its citizens similarly.
Military retirees, Retired Civil Servants, Social Security recipients will all receive less.
The best you can hope for is means testing.
Cut whatever needs to be cut.
It would seem defense should be way down on the list, though.
This doesn’t look good, given the fact that it’s coming from Paul.
Military spending has gone up because of two wars. Shouldn’t the military be decreased as those wars wind down?
NO, wars cost things - equipment needs repair/replacement, troops need training to maintain readiness levels that let us kick tail like we have. Clinton cut our military to the muscle and bones, Bush was barely able to prosecute the war using our Guard and Reserves. Has the world suddenly become safer? There are realities and there are unrealities. Paul is treading dangerously into unreality. We cannot afford to cut our military spending.
EXACTLY RIGHT. “Peace Dividend”, my ass.
Congressman Paul will soon learn when he gets to DC that he is one of 100. He’s not alone. There are other GOP that will steer him in the right direction.
Do you think Frantzie likes television? I’m not sure of his/her stance yet.
That doesnt mean we shouldnt cut parts of the Defense budget. If you really want to lower govt spending, you will have to lower defense spending.
Come on!
Actually, I do. And I also know military history. When there is a RIF, the married junior enlisted can be chosen as first to go, and there is no problem adding marriage as an exclusion for entry in the first place.
Much is dependent on a sour economy with many people wanting in, as well as cutbacks.
Other restrictions are on familial travel outside the US, as well as any perks or privileges given to military families.
Things change. Constitutionally, congress has wide latitude with the composition of the armed forces, despite what some federal judges think.
So is cutting the military the first specific suggestion for budget cuts from Rand? If so, we have another fruitcake from the Paul dynasty.
“When there is a RIF, the married junior enlisted can be chosen as first to go, and there is no problem adding marriage as an exclusion for entry in the first place.”
The Marines tried that...backed down in the face of impending legislation from Congress and a huge public uproar. And if you treat family like lepers, you won’t HAVE any mid or senior level enlisted...they won’t stay. Nor will young officers stay to mature.
Congress has latitude, but they need a draft to force people in. And once forced, they would need laws to keep them in, if they behave as you recommend.
My experience as an Air Force Civil Engineering structural planner, having worked closely with supply squadrons and appropriations units, tells me that there are $$billions that could be trimmed off waste in the armed forces without touching vital defense systems of numbers of personnel.
Agrred! all military spending in the area of “nation building” could and should be cut.
Not to mention the toilet manufacturer.
Cost plus, man, you know that’s the refrain...
Stop sending money overseas to people who hate us..
Exactly. And I keep getting heated replies on how there’s wasteful spending in military budgets too and so on and so forth.
Where have I said that military budgets are perfect and immune from irrational use of taxpayer money? And yet - leaving aside the liberal trap/myth embraced by libertarians on cutting military spending to help the economy - I wonder how anyone would seriously believe that a “compromise” with dhimmicrats will actually result in more rational budgets and not in further damages to national security. Do we understand what this administration and these Demoncrats are all about or not?!? What part of “NO COMPROMISE on ANYTHING with these bums period” is hard to get? Let THEM propose and vote anyhting they like, because if they like it, it’s a sign that it hurts the country and that they think they are going to gain ground by having it passed.
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.