Posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.
If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 “regular” appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.
The latest supplemental bill is touted as an “emergency” war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.
Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.
The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.
With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.
There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.
Thank you for you honest answer, Mr. Rogers.
And I think that was ultimately my point --that we should know, before ever going in what "winning" looks like to us and specifically what we are trying to accomplish. That's important to the people fighting the war as well as the American people giving their children and their money to make it happen. Is this something we as a country want to commit to? Instead, all to often we go in, the military doing their job and secures tactical objectives, but then we are stuck there and no one knows why we are stuck there other than we don't want to lose. We don't want what we have sacrificed and accomplished to be lost, even if we don't know what the strategic objective is.
Frankly, I don't even know what a modern day "empire" would look like, with so many global economic and financial interrelationships of governments and corporations that transcend borders and even national sovereignty. Even the subject of who "we" are -- "We", the US military? We, the NATO member? We, the UN sponsor and member? We, the politicians? Or, the totally ignored "We the People" -- in the sentence "We are not an empire". I think that the American people are NOT an empire, nor is the US military who is sworn to uphold the Constitution. But if you hear our US State Department talk to other countries, they certainly sound like agents of an Empire, as do many members of Congress speaking about "global initiatives" and dividing up the world, as our own country suffers.
I am not sure if you ever watch the fictional TV show 24, but early this season there was an episode where a (female) US president had to make a decision whether to go ahead with a foreign military operation knowing that it would automatically cost the lives of several hundred American civilians on our soil. I was sitting there thinking, "Where's the question mark? You are elected by and sworn to protect the interests of America and the American people, not to save the world!" Ultimately, the president character -- after some hand-wringing and noble speeches (that were a crock) about saving America's credibility in the world decided to sacrifice the American civilians in order to meet her global political objectives. (The good news is that the president character eventually gets take down by her own political hubris, but not until she gets many more civilians killed.)
But I am very sure that more than a few real-life politicians on Capitol Hill think exactly as this fictional president does, and frankly, that scares the hell out of me.
So convenient when you let others do the critical thinking for you -- I'm sure they feel lucky to have you as a loyal reader.
Ok the paul fam has had their 15 minutes. Go away.
I understand what you're saying now.
My thoughts and words were all my own --unlike you expecting "a cracker" from the audience for a cut and paste job, parroting someone else's opinion of an issue.
Other than that, you might be okay.
So easy for you to hurl insults and ad hominem attacks rather than to actually deal with the issues using reason and logic.
Tell me, what happens to the money set aside for earmarks if no earmarks are designated by Congress? Where does that money go and who gets control of it?
Exercise your brain once in a while, instead of just your keyboard.
Yep, spend it because it's going to be spent, and then talk about how you're against spending.
The typical Paul response as well as his worshippers.
Congrats, you've got the lingo down pat.....
No, I asked you two questions that you didn't answer.
You are a Palinista, right? That's why politics are so personal for you --the issue doesn't matter, but the politician does. Because "Sarah represents all that is good and holy in the world" (even if she does say so herself), and that's all you know -- or need to know. You assume everyone is "a follower" and "a worshiper" of some politician because you are.
We are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this. I could care less the "who" of it, I am only concerned with the "what (substance)" of it. If Barrack Obama -- or even you -- said something that made me think, I'd give credit where credit is due (however unlikely such a possible scenario might be). Ron Paul says a lot that I agree with and some things I don't -- but those positions where there is agreement were generally formed in my mind long before I ever even heard the name "Ron Paul". I've been following politics since I was 14 years old, so I am not prone to being a "follower or worshiper" of any politician -- as individuals, they all too often disappoint.
But I do find it totally amusing that you see some geeky, mild-mannered Congressman from Nowhere, Texas to be such an incredible threat, that you think anyone who agrees with Ron Paul on anything must be attacked. Just what is it about Ron Paul that you are so afraid of? Being forced to think? Or that the message might be bigger than the man?
Paul, by himself is relatively harmless, it's people like you who defend the indefensible that worry me.
It's like you're in some kind of cult.
Projection is blurring your judgment.
“Paul would pay no attention to Iran pursuing nuclear bombs, he would let them have them. No more protection for American interests abroad. No more helping deter genocide in the world. No more helping expand the cause of freedom.”
You mean like we have right now as a result of the “conservative” Republican Party?
Good point.
We don’t have an Empire, but we are paying for one.
Does that make it better, or worse than having an Empire?
Then you can start saying 9/11 was our fault.
That'll really do it for ya.
I don’t even agree with you entirely, but that was well said.
Wow, now there's a question!
That's like, you don't have an expensive hotel room full of booze, drugs and hookers, but you are paying for one. Does that make it better or worse?
Template for Debating a Libertarian
___________________________________
Say:
“That’s entirely false.”
“You only say that because you are “ (insert phrase here) “.”
A. If you are a Progressive, insert “a racist”
B. If you are a Conservative, insert “a loony”
(Repeat as needed until conversation ends.)
I agree.
That was my point.
And why don’t you show me a quote from any of these conservatives you claim are willing to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons or your accusation against conservative republicans is bogus.
Paul has basically said it is there right and that he would let them have them.
“If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?” – Ron Paul - April 7, 2006
The problem we have now is that we have radicals such as Paul teaming up with the CodePink left-wing radicals in stagnating our efforts to get something done by equating terrorist sponsoring dictatorships with our allies and even the United States itself. This mentality of ‘blame America’ and of defending the rights of terrorists and/or dictatorships that oppress and murder innocent free peoples is despicable.
So the next logical question is: If we are paying for an Empire and don't have an Empire, whose Empire have we been paying for?
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.