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.
*Ping!*
The government should fund government and that is all. No more grants and handouts to non-government organizations, no more corporate welfare etc.
It needs to stop.
Ron Paul is a nut.
Um, defense spending is one of the few assignments given to the federal government by the US Constitution.
This is exactly whereas Paul is dangerous to this nation. He of course would slice our military spending down to merely protecting the borders. 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.
From Mirriam-Webster:
Empire
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control.
You make so many good points, Ron. Then you throw crap like that in the middle so that you and your followers can be marginalized as kooks.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Um....if you think that policing the world has anything to do with the intent of the founders (who had a phobia of large standing armies), you don't know your history very well. BTW, the proper term to describe the status quo is "military spending" not "defense spending."
We have bases in 160 countries. If that isn’t an empire, what is?
So I guess then you like seeing large portions of the world ruled by genocidal anti-American dictators? Whatever floats your boat.
“Ron Paul is a nut.”
Thanks for that cogent contribution to the thread.
Read (and understand) the definition of an empire. Having allies or having bases does not make an empire.
As in ... Somalia? North Korea? China? Where do you draw the line? More importantly, what Presidents and Congressional Leaders do you trust to make those decisions?
I think Rand Paul is going to have a tough time getting elected if he doesn’t support national defense and the war on terror.
After the events of July 16th, 1945 at the White Sands Proving Grounds in the New Mexico desert, ISOLATIONISM IS NOT AN OPTION.
“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.”
I agree.
Russia imploded because Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher drove them broke by upping the arms race and reviving the economies of the west.
Paul is crazy nuts, every bit as nuts as the senator we all disdain, Sir Rabadash Rabs. Your worship of him is more than slightly unsettling........
“...policing the world...” is a Leftist phrase created and used to demean and undermine our Constitutional treaties with allies. People who use it expose themselves as the tools they are. That usually means, Libertarians.
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.