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.
Don’t get me wrong, the military is a crucial priority in our government spending. But, in order to have it means cutting a bunch of seniors off from all entitlements like.....yesterday.
Easiest way to cut the military budget is to stop fighting wars.
Except that in some situations, we don’t get to choose when or if we can fight or not. And this is one of those times.
The tradition system was to treat all enlisted personnel E-3 and below as single, providing no additional benefits for spouse or children. A return to this policy seems a logical step in the future, since manpower costs since the early 1980’s have risen some 80%, to a great extent attributable to junior enlisted spouse and family benefits.
Likewise, private quarters would only be provided to those E-4 and above. And minimum frustration in the ranks is created by phasing in such a program with new enlistments.
The bottom line is that cutbacks are coming, because they must come. The money is no longer there to maintain our current force structure, and cutbacks will be made based on the needs of the service, not its personnel. As was always the case.
I’d say that we instinctively understand that, in many cases of limited government, if cut the government’s budget... then we’re going to get less from the government.
But when we start talking about defense, everyone still wants a military that can do all the things it has done in the past... but we are no longer willing to pay for it. If you want to cut defense, then you must reduce their burden to match.
And outta South Korea, too. What with a global top-10 economy now, methinks that they can afford to defend themselves against the North Koreans.
Plus, they don’t particularly like us in the first place.
Maybe because the uniformed members of the Defense Department aren't unionized like the rest of the federal government? And that they control the civilians/contractors (well, outside of the Secretary of Defense, that is)...
We don’t have to look at just the 2 wars. We are still in countries around the world from wars decades ago. Why are we still there? If we brought home everyone in Europe and Japan, thats alot of money saved right there! How about North/South Korea? Everyone knows that if the North decides to take out the South, our troops will be toast. So why are they there? We really should not be nation-building either. That is NOT the job of the military. When it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, we are not going to change 200 years of war to make them see things the way we do. Democracy is not going to work in either of those countries. All these people know is fighting and killing. Only God can stop that, not us.
To be honest, the main reason we have our bases in Western Europe is so that we can more rapidly deploy troops to the Middle East, should it be necessary. After all, it’s a lot closer than deploying/supplying them from the States.
Or for that matter, the Department of Homeland Security.
The last time I checked, the job of defending the homeland fell to the Defense Department. So what’s up with having a second, bloated, unionized government agency trying to do the job that the military has held for the last 200+ years?!?
You actually think that our military is actually living better than this?!? BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
During my last tour in Korea(2007-8), I arrived at Yongsan Army Garrison and found that the Garrison Commander had just dictated that all E-9's and below were required to move into barracks. And that those with families would have to relocate them back to the states.
Needless to say, even us E-6's (at the time) were sharing barracks rooms. In fact, outside of my time in the states... and this current tour in Korea, I've never had the chance to live outside of the barracks. And that's coming from a 14-year Master Sergeant.
And that's how the friggin' *Air Force*, supposedly the best service for accommodations, lived.
So what's this 'private quarters' for E-4's and up? To do that, we'd have to *INCREASE* the defense budget.
Personally, though... I'd have to say that outside of combat zones, the military should not be in the business of providing housing to any of it's members. The Defense budget already includes the total amount of BAH/OHA that is necessary for every serviceman. However, by forcing it's members into barracks, the services can then divert the difference into other projects while then going back to Congress for barracks/family housing funding.
So by eliminating the military housing business, you don't have to pay for housing construction and maintenance... and you also see the proper utilization of BAH/OHA moneys authorized by Congress in the defense budget.
And you'll see the troops have better accommodations at the same time.
Well, a broken clock is right twice a day. The problem is not our military spending. Our problem is ENTITLEMENTS that have ballooned out of control. Our problem is EPA and Dept of Ed, and Dept of Energy and their uncontrolled growth.
When you get to cutting, it has to be prioritized. If it means cutting senior 'entitlements' to keep the country safe for the rest of us - well you do the math.
SCOTUS ruled back in the 1960s that SS was actually a tax and that it had the power to alter, amend or outright eliminate the benefit. I have paid in over $250K into the system the past 20 plus years. I should easily have over $500K in a retirement account of my own that I could see go to $2 million in another 20 years without having to add another dine to it.
but noooooooooooooooooooooo
I’m probably in the same situation. Get our money back by no longer funding sex studies of the red throated zip picker and other congressional waste. We get our money’s worth out of our military - I know, I’ve been there. And military spending is now dwarfed by the ‘entitlement’ spending throughout the rest of government. We’ve cut the military to the bones twice in my lifetime - and nothing good has ever come from it - no savings, no benefit - just more waste in other sectors of gov’t.
The rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the rotten tree.
What amazes me is that a state like Kentucky, which contains a large military base and therefore many military families, voted this libertarian poser into the Senate.
It should hardly be any surprise that carpetbagger Rand Paul is pushing the libertarian agenda of his truther Pop, Ron.
I also expect Senator Paul to caucus with the Dems on amnesty for illegals. Count on it.
Hey, Kentucky had plenty of time to figure this fool out beforehand.
That is exactly right, and in fact pretty much the only expenditure of public funds allowed for in the Constitution. Isn't it ironic that libertarians like the Pauls who spout "constitutionalism," seem to know nothing about our founding document.
Libertarian is just another name for progressive DUPE.
Yeah, because people like Wesley Clarke and Joe Sestak would never fudge, because they are military men. Look at the political leanings of General and Admirals and you will find some staunch socialists.
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.