Cut Defense Before Raising Taxes (The Supercommittee backs budget hawks into a corner)

National Review ^ | 09/14/2011 | Michael Tanner

[WOBBLY BOB]

Everyone’s sacred cows must be hit or nothing will get done.

that being said, nothing consequential will get done.

[whd23]

Since defense is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be lumped in with all the other non-Constitutional crap that the Federal government spends our money on. Once all the non-Constitutional spending has been eliminated, then we can talk about cutting defense.

Just my 2 cents.

[snowrip]

Boy, I never saw that one coming.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Because the economic threat to America is far greater than that posed by some Muslim hotheads who want to murder us, I suggest that military spending be reined in by an arbitrary 10%.

Find the cuts. No organization can’t do that.

It may be that we can’t afford to bankrupt our nation even for military efforts that are honorable and well-intentioned.

[snowrip]

Boy, I never saw that one coming.

Also, a big Thanks to Boner for caving on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING while allowing the creating of the latest Gang Rape of 12, or whatever they are calling this utter lunacy of a committee.

[AndyJackson]

there will be automatic cuts of about $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, roughly $564 billion of which will come from defense, homeland security, and the State Department.

That works out to $56.4B per year out of State, Defense and DHS. Does anyone here think that between those three bloated organizations slicing off a few pounds of belly-fat would not be therapeutic?

[Protoss]

Defense is already poised to take a cut. Some things should remain sacred.

[blueunicorn6]

I think they should look at Defense....right after they lay off 500,000 federal GS employees. Oh, and after they cut welfare and unemployment.

[blueunicorn6]

The only way you’ll know if you’re actually doing any good is if the Democrats and the old media start screaming.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Defense is already poised to take a cut. Some things should remain sacred.

---

A real cut, or a fake cut that makes the budget less than it would have been if it grew fast? or a cut that hold the budget at an all-time high while we are fighting multiple “wars”?

God is sacred. Government isn’t. Military is government.

[SVTCobra03]

“Since defense is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it shouldn’t be lumped in with all the other non-Constitutional crap that the Federal government spends our money on. Once all the non-Constitutional spending has been eliminated, then we can talk about cutting defense.”

Especially since 85% of fedgov is unconstitutional.

[Protoss]

The Constitution is sacred. According to the Constitution, the government will provide for the defense of the nation. With the world economy crashing down, threats will continue to emerge, and we must be able to deal with them. And, we can afford it, if we are smart where we spend money.

[rabscuttle385]

Since defense is specifically enumerated in the Constitution...

You're right, the Federal government's role to provide for "a common defense" is specifically noted in the Constitution.

However...

Let's not confuse spending for the Big Military™ arm of Big Government™ with spending for genuine defense. They are not the same.

Let's also remember that on 9/11, despite the official narrative, the real first responders were not in fact government employees but ordinary men and women, young and old, private citizens - like Rick Rescorla in the World Trade Center and the passengers of UAL 93 over the skies of western Pennsylvania - who saved thousands of their fellow citizens' lives by acting decisively, selflessly, and courageously on that clear early autumn day in 2001.

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

View past Libertarian pings here

[rabscuttle385]

According to the Constitution, the government will provide for the defense of the nation.

The government can not provide anything that was not originally taken from you.

[ken21]

i’ve often wondered

what are our legitimate defense needs?

does “conservative” = council on foreign relations?

[justiceseeker93]

Is that photo from the ill-fated UAL93 before it crashed? (If so, it's the first I've seen anything like it.)

[gogogodzilla]

Bingo!

I agree wholeheartedly.

[gogogodzilla]

Find the cuts.

Well, that's easy. Pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The spending on these two wars is more than the 10% you reference.

That said, they aren't listed in the defense budget, but as an additional line item in the federal budget. So would you consider that the 10% cut or not?

[gogogodzilla]

We need to remember that in the case of Defense, their budget is a direct representation of the cost to do whatever mission the President has said he wants the military to do.

So, that means if we want to pay less for our defense, we need to have a national discussion over what we no longer want to defend. Shall we abandon South Korea or Germany or Japan or England? If we do, then we no longer have to pay for the bases, the operating costs, the personnel, the military moves, the equipment, etc, etc, etc.

Shall we no longer be the protector of the world’s shipping lanes? That would drastically reduce the number of Naval carrier groups we need to field. That’s a lot of personnel and equipment that we have to pay for right there.

What is really being discussed, however, is demanding that the US military keep on meeting the ever increasing demands that the President and public request... but for less and less money. And that’s been going on since the end of the cold war.