Why Can't We Rein In This Ridiculous Military Spending?

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/tomdispatch-pentagon-government-military-spending

 

 

Quote

 

Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down.

It's not that the budget has never been reduced. At pivotal moments, like the end of World War II as well as the war's end in Korea and Vietnam, there were indeed temporary downturns, as there was after the Cold War. More recently, theBudget Control Act of 2011 threw a monkey wrench into the Pentagon's plans for funding that would go ever onward and upward by putting a cap on the money Congress could pony up for it. The remarkable thing, though, is not that such moments have occurred, but how modest and short-lived they've proved to be.

Take the current budget. It's down slightly from its peak in 2011, when it reached the highest level since World War II, but this year's budget for the Pentagon and related agencies is nothing to sneeze at. It comes in at roughly $600 billion—more than the peak year of the massive arms buildup initiated by President Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. To put this figure in perspective: Despite troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan dropping sharply over the past eight years, the Obama administration has still managed to spend more on the Pentagon than the Bush administration did during its two terms in office.

What accounts for the Department of Defense's ability to keep a stranglehold on our tax dollars year after endless year?

Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept thenotion that it is the God-given mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism—or just call it the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, if you will.

The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and congressional districts has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously dumped in the trash bin of history.

Lockheed Martin, for instance, has put together a handy map of how its troubled F-35 fighter jet has created 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The actual figures are, in fact, considerably lower, but the principle holds: Having subcontractors in dozens of states makes it harder for members of Congress to consider cutting or slowing down even a failed or failing program. Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congressadded two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to that company's St. Louis area plant.

The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong while being outfitted for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called "political engineering," has been a tough combination to beat.
 

The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy. In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear.

For example, the last thing most Americans wanted after the devastation and hardship unleashed by World War II was to immediately put the country back on a war footing. The demobilization of millions of soldiers and a sharp cutback in weapons spending in the immediate postwar years rocked what President Dwight Eisenhower would later dub the "military-industrial complex."

As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book Barons of the Sky, the US aerospace industry produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly, major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels.

Lockheed President Robert Gross was terrified by the potential impact of war's end on his company's business, as were many of his industry cohorts. "As long as I live," hesaid, "I will never forget those short, appalling weeks" of the immediate postwar period. To be clear, Gross was appalled not by the war itself, but by the drop off in orders occasioned by its end. He elaboratedin a 1947 letter to a friend: "We had one underlying element of comfort and reassurance during the war. We knew we'd get paid for anything we built. Now we are almost entirely on our own."

The postwar doldrums in military spending that worried Gross so were reversed only after the American public had been fed a steady, fear-filled diet of anti-communism. NSC-68, a secret memorandum the National Security Council prepared for President Harry Truman in April 1950, created the template for a policy based on the global "containment" of communism and grounded in a plan to encircle the Soviet Union with US military forces, bases, and alliances. This would, of course, prove to be a strikingly expensive proposition. The concluding paragraphs of that memorandum underscored exactly that point, calling for a "sustained buildup of US political, economic, and military strength…[to] frustrate the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will."

Sen. Arthur Vandenberg put the thrust of this new Cold War policy in far simpler terms when he bluntly advised President Truman to "scare the hell out of the American people" to win support for a $400 million aid plan for Greece and Turkey. His suggestion would be put into effect not just for those two countries but to generate support for what President Eisenhower would later describe as "a permanent arms establishment of vast proportions."

Industry leaders like Lockheed's Gross were poised to take advantage of such planning. In a draft of a 1950 speech, Gross noted, giddily enough, that "for the first time in recorded history, one country has assumed global responsibility." Meeting that responsibility would naturally mean using air transport to deliver "huge quantities of men, food, ammunition, tanks, gasoline, oil and thousands of other articles of war to a number of widely separated places on the face of the earth." Lockheed, of course, stood ready to heed the call.

The next major challenge to armed exceptionalism, and to the further militarization of foreign policy, came after the disastrous Vietnam War, which drove many Americans to question the wisdom of a policy of permanent global interventionism. That phenomenon would be dubbed the "Vietnam syndrome" by interventionists, as if opposition to such a military policy were a disease, not a position. Still, that "syndrome" carried considerable, if ever decreasing, weight for a decade and a half, despite the Pentagon's Reagan-inspired arms buildup of the 1980s.

With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait wascelebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amidvictory parades and celebrations, President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically exclaim, "And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."

However, perhaps the biggest threat since World War II to an "arms establishment of vast proportions" came with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, also in 1991. How to mainline fear into the American public and justify Cold War levels of spending when that other superpower, the Soviet Union, the primary threat of the previous nearly half-century, had just evaporated and there was next to nothing threatening on the horizon? General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the fears of that moment within the military and the arms complex when he said, "I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung."

In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the "rogue state" doctrine. Resources formerly aimed at the Soviet Union would now be focused on "regional hegemons" like Iraq and North Korea.

After the 9/11 attacks, the rogue-state doctrine morphed into the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which neoconservative pundits soon labeled "World War IV." The heightened fear campaign that went with it, in turn, helped sow the seeds for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was promoted by visions of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and a drumbeat of Bush administration claims (all false) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Some administration officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even suggested that Saddam was like Hitler, as if a modest-sized Middle Eastern state could somehow muster the resources to conquer the globe.

The administration's propaganda campaign would be supplemented by the work of right-wing corporate-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. And no one should be surprised to learn that the military-industrial complex and its money, its lobbyists, and its interests were in the middle of it all. Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson. In 1997, he became a director of the Project for the New American Century and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, his future boss Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. Many of its members would, of course, enter the Bush administration in crucial roles and become architects of the GWOT and the invasion of Iraq.

The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops in the field. Other major beneficiaries included firms likeBlackwater and DynCorp, whose employees guarded US facilities and oil pipelines while training Afghan and Iraqi security forces. As much as $60 billion of the funds funneled to such contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan would be "wasted," but not from the point of view of companies for which waste could generate as much profit as a job well done. So Halliburton and its cohorts weren't complaining.

On entering the Oval Office, President Barack Obama would ditch the term "global war on terror" in favor of "countering violent extremism"—and then essentially settle for a no-name global war. He would shift gears from a strategy focused on large numbers of "boots on the ground" to an emphasis on drone strikes, the use of Special Operations forces, and massive transfers of arms to allies like Saudi Arabia. In the context of an increasingly militarized foreign policy, one might call Obama's approach "politically sustainable warfare," since it involved fewer (American) casualties and lower costs than Bush-style warfare, which peaked in Iraq at more than 160,000 troops and a comparable number of private contractors.

Recent terror attacks against Western targets—Brussels, Paris, Nice, San Bernardino, Orlando—have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite the fact that more tanks,bombers, aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks.

The majority of what the Pentagon spends, of course, has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. But whatever it has or hasn't been called, the war against terror has proven to be a cash cow for the Pentagon and contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

The "war budget"—money meant for the Pentagon but not included in its regular budget—has been used to add on tens of billions of dollars more. It has proven to be an effective "slush fund" for weapons and activities that have nothing to do with immediate war fighting and has been the Pentagon's preferred method for evading the caps on its budget imposed by the Budget Control Act. A Pentagon spokesman admitted as much recently by acknowledging that more than half the $58.8 billion war budget is being used to pay for nonwar costs.

The abuse of the war budget leaves ample room in the Pentagon's main budget for items like the overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft, a plane that, at a price tag of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime, is on track to be the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken. That slush fund is also enabling the Pentagon to spend billions of dollars in seed money as a down payment on the department's proposed $1 trillion plan to buy a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines. Shutting it down could force the Pentagon to do what it likes least: live within an actual budget rather than continuing to push its top line ever upward.

Although rarely discussed because of the focus on Donald Trump's abominable behavior and racist rhetoric, both candidates for president are in favor of increasing Pentagon spending. Trump's "plan" (if one can call it that) hews closely to a blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation that, if implemented, could increase Pentagon spending by a cumulative $900 billion over the next decade. The size of a possiblebuildup under Hillary Clinton is less clear, but she has also pledged to work toward lifting the caps on the Pentagon's regular budget. If that were done, and the war fund continued to be stuffed with non-war-related items, the Pentagon and its contractors will be sitting pretty.

As long as fear, greed, and hubris are the dominant factors driving Pentagon spending (no matter who is in the White House), substantial and enduring budget reductions are essentially inconceivable. A wasteful practice may be eliminated here or an unnecessary weapons system cut there, but more fundamental change would require taking on the fear factor, the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, and the way the military-industrial complex is embedded in Washington.

Only such a culture shift would allow for a clear-eyed assessment of what constitutes "defense" and how much money would be needed to provide it.  Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned Americans about more than 50 years ago is alive and well, and gobbling up your tax dollars at an alarming rate.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. His latest book is Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

 

 

[AURaptor 1,121]

I agree w/ the waste and misspending of $ in not just the military, but all through out the federal govt. 

But 'mother jones ' ? Really? 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Sometimes it takes one of the "unclean" publications to say what the ones we prefer will never say.

[Grumps 3,693]

Does the budget of any department in U.S. government ever really go down? I hope so, but I doubt it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Eisenhower was wrong?

This is why the whole private sector vs. public sector arguments, the size of government arguments are inane.  When the two come together, when profit motive meets common good, there is the opportunity for corruption.  Introduce lobbies and PACs, you have sanctioned, overt corruption.  You have undermined the most fundamental principle of our government.

[AURaptor 1,121]

18 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Sometimes it takes one of the "unclean" publications to say what the ones we prefer will never say.

I'll say defense spending needs to be curtailed. Same w/ spending $ on Israel. As far as I'm concerned, there are no sacred cows. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

7 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I'll say defense spending needs to be curtailed. Same w/ spending $ on Israel. As far as I'm concerned, there are no sacred cows. 

Yeah, but you're just one dude.  When's the last time you saw Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, TownHall, Weekly Standard, National Review, or Breitbart call for a decrease in military spending?  When is the last time a Republican nominee for President suggested such a thing?

[AURaptor 1,121]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, but you're just one dude.  When's the last time you saw Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, TownHall, Weekly Standard, National Review, or Breitbart call for a decrease in military spending?  When is the last time a Republican nominee for President suggested such a thing?

Well I'm not running for President. No matter how nice you ask !

[AuburnNTexas 7,128]

We have two issues that need to be addressed Military spending is way to high while at the same time our military readiness has gone down. If you look at how many ships the Navy and the number of planes that are available for pilots to fly into combat and to train we have an issue.  The problem is waste on programs that don't work go grossly over budget and we don't hold the contractor accountable for the overruns.

This is Corruption at its highest levels and it is not just Republicans the Democrats all have the hand in the Pork so they can get money for their states.

[AURaptor 1,121]

And we can't ignore the lack of care being given to the Vets. Fixin  that won't be free either. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

32 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

We have two issues that need to be addressed Military spending is way to high while at the same time our military readiness has gone down. If you look at how many ships the Navy and the number of planes that are available for pilots to fly into combat and to train we have an issue.  The problem is waste on programs that don't work go grossly over budget and we don't hold the contractor accountable for the overruns.

This is Corruption at its highest levels and it is not just Republicans the Democrats all have the hand in the Pork so they can get money for their states.

You also have to wonder why there is a very highly rewarding job with a defense contractor  available to almost every retiring Colonel and General.

[AuburnNTexas 7,128]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

You also have to wonder why there is a very highly rewarding job with a defense contractor  available to almost every retiring Colonel and General.

You are right about that. When my Dad was thinking about retiring from the US Navy He was a Captain in the Navy but had the honorary rank of Commodore he was approached by multiple Naval Contractors. He would not talk to them as he felt that would impact his partiality in making decisions. Once he actually retired and he tried to talk to them they didn't give him the time of day so instead he took over the USO program in Los Angeles.

[japantiger 4,051]

On 10/31/2016 at 3:17 PM, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, but you're just one dude.  When's the last time you saw Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, TownHall, Weekly Standard, National Review, or Breitbart call for a decrease in military spending?  When is the last time a Republican nominee for President suggested such a thing?

Right after a Democrat suggested cutting social programs....

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

Right after a Democrat suggested cutting social programs....

I think that's what 78 likes to call "deflection".

[japantiger 4,051]

Just now, homersapien said:

I think that's what 78 likes to call "deflection".

It's what happens everytime you marry a s*** load of money, politicians and a self serving bureaucracy...whether military or domestic affairs.    Gov't is too damn big.  Waste  and corruption are the natural byproduct.  The only way anything will change is to shrink gov't...period.  

[homersapien 11,354]

33 minutes ago, japantiger said:

It's what happens everytime you marry a s*** load of money, politicians and a self serving bureaucracy...whether military or domestic affairs.    Gov't is too damn big.  Waste  and corruption are the natural byproduct.  The only way anything will change is to shrink gov't...period.  

Actually,  nothing will change if we approach the problem with bumper sticker logic.

[Grumps 3,693]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually,  nothing will change if we approach the problem with bumper sticker logic.

I think that you might have hit on the reason that Trump is the republican nominee for POTUS.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

14 hours ago, japantiger said:

It's what happens everytime you marry a s*** load of money, politicians and a self serving bureaucracy...whether military or domestic affairs.    Gov't is too damn big.  Waste  and corruption are the natural byproduct.  The only way anything will change is to shrink gov't...period.  

No.  When you combine profit motive with public interest, you promote corruption.  You might want to look at HOW the government has grown.  Unqualified, indiscriminate statements serve little real purpose.  Little is growing other than costs.  How is this possible?  Why does inflation seem to be centered around government?  The total number of government employees has dropped since the 1960s.  Corruption is not a function of government and it's size.  Corruption is a function of private profit motive having too much influence, enough influence to undermine public interests.  Here in the real world of capitalism, we keep score.  You can tell who is winning.  You can discern why.  To watch our representation taken over by lobbies and PACs who overtly represent the "winners" is foolish.  Corruption is a cancer on the government of the people.  Do not blame the patient. Do not start indiscriminately cutting off body parts hoping for a cure.

Our system has been fundamentally corrupted.  Equal representation is no more.  Representation is on a pay for play basis.  This is not limited to a party or, individual.  It isn't even arguable.  It is right in front of every one of us.

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I think that you might have hit on the reason that Trump is the republican nominee for POTUS.

I don't think either of you guys understand what it takes to get real change.  If  you can't agree on the problem; and the problem must be simply stated; then you won't ever get any change.  If you don't agree that any entity as large as the Fed is too big, too corrupt and too ineffective; then we might as well just take the political forum off this board and focus all our attention on sports.  Because everything else after that point is mental masturbation.  On numerous occasions I have proposed real changes to address real problems...which quickly degenerates into the usual "oh my God, you want to starve the old people" or "oh God, you want to leave us defenseless" or "oh my God, it's racist to point out that 95% of all murders are committed by 4% of the population"  sloganeering.    The problem we have is this will only get worse unless you can cut it down to something that can actually be "administered, managed or dealt with" and this gov't cannot be adminstered, managed or dealt with based on current course and speed.  

You don 't agree with my "bumper sticker", then what's yours?  How about actually jumping into the discussion.  My bumper sticker was a direct response to a direct question (the question was "when has a R every proposed a defense cut").  It is a direct attempt to point out that both parties are completely ****** up....and it all needs to change...not just band-aided; but really changed.  Hell, even Bill Clinton understood you can't spend money you don't have forever...whether that is for defense or social programs.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I don't think either of you guys understand what it takes to get real change.  If  you can't agree on the problem; and the problem must be simply stated; then you won't ever get any change.  If you don't agree that any entity as large as the Fed is too big, too corrupt and too ineffective; then we might as well just take the political forum off this board and focus all our attention on sports.  Because everything else after that point is mental masturbation.  On numerous occasions I have proposed real changes to address real problems...which quickly degenerates into the usual "oh my God, you want to starve the old people" or "oh God, you want to leave us defenseless" or "oh my God, it's racist to point out that 95% of all murders are committed by 4% of the population"  sloganeering.    The problem we have is this will only get worse unless you can cut it down to something that can actually be "administered, managed or dealt with" and this gov't cannot be adminstered, managed or dealt with based on current course and speed.  

You don 't agree with my "bumper sticker", then what's yours?  How about actually jumping into the discussion.  My bumper sticker was a direct response to a direct question (the question was "when has a R every proposed a defense cut").  It is a direct attempt to point out that both parties are completely ****** up....and it all needs to change...not just band-aided; but really changed.  Hell, even Bill Clinton understood you can't spend money you don't have forever...whether that is for defense or social programs.

 

Okay, instead of starving the military and the old folks, why don't we just eliminate the corruption and unnecessary overhead in both?   What is the problem?  Size of government or, waste and corruption?  You can't even measure size.  What metric are you using?  You are flailing around in a meaningless generalization.

[japantiger 4,051]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Okay, instead of starving the military and the old folks, why don't we just eliminate the corruption and unnecessary overhead in both?   What is the problem?  Size of government or, waste and corruption?  You can't even measure size.  What metric are you using?  You are flailing around in a meaningless generalization.

Good lord, are you just naturally this big a tool or do you have to make a conscious effort?  Your wife told me that you were the one that had problem measuring size.

I would propose just absolute $...that is, Gov't is $4T.  You could use % of GDP; but then Gov't could still grow outrageously if the economy was good and there's no inherent reason why Gov't size should correlate to GDP.  

So, the starting point should be; Gov't can only be $3B.  So cut 25%...no sacred cows...GO....

Since I am a R and you ass clowns seem to think an R can't cut the military, I'll start with some obvious ones:

• Eliminate the Air Force...a strategic bomber force and specialty was necessary during the Cold War...not today... each branch has their own air wing anyway...roll the aircraft under the existing branches, eliminate Pentagon staff's, eliminate the duplicate command structure, etc...
• Eliminate the Marine Corp...duplicate mission with the Army now...the old mission of advanced air and naval bases can be done by the Army...eliminate Pentagon staffs, eliminate duplicate command structure....this is particularly painful for me personally, but we have to be realists...we don't need it anymore.
• Eliminate the Green Navy bull****...spending $$B to save; literally nothing
• Put every system under review....e.g., B1 bomber...not enough of them to matter and their mission is largely obsolete...they've been flown for a combined 8% of the Air Force missions over the last 15 years...there's a ton of opportunities like this...Boomers....the new Littoral ships....the list goes on...
• Close 25% of military bases
• Take 75% of the savings of the above and reinvest 25%back  into actual programs we need;  and that will work;  and into additional combat readiness;  and forces such as advanced missile defense; "cruise missile like" and massive drone strike capability for standoff strategic strike capability and ground combat flexibility

So there...I think I've done my part...without near as many boondoggle programs, the waste and corruption will naturally shrink...there's not much corruption in old tried and true programs...there's not much corruption in adding people, extending the life of the B52 and the Warthog and other more conventional programs...they just don't have near the level of graft as the sexy new programs...presto.....

Now, how about you take your cut of the largest part of the budget...after all, the military is only about a $650B annual budget...(so my 25% is worth about $165B) so the real $$ are in social and doogooder programs (about $2.4T)...so if we want to get real money out...then you have to go after this.....and $$ and Corruption are found in the same places....want to end corruption, go after the real money...$$ and corruption are as old as civilization...Oh, I almost forgot, you liberal boyo's don't like it when you have to look at the progress of civilization over the last 10,000 years and actually learn from it do you....$$ and corruption go hand in hand....need a head start on where to cut...the Dept of Ed, the Commerce Dept, Obama-friggin-care, cut food stamps in half....I assume you've got it from here...., Oh, by the way, in spite of what she tells you, your wife said size does matter...........

[icanthearyou 4,462]

On 11/3/2016 at 8:50 PM, japantiger said:

Good lord, are you just naturally this big a tool or do you have to make a conscious effort?  Your wife told me that you were the one that had problem measuring size.

I would propose just absolute $...that is, Gov't is $4T.  You could use % of GDP; but then Gov't could still grow outrageously if the economy was good and there's no inherent reason why Gov't size should correlate to GDP.  

So, the starting point should be; Gov't can only be $3B.  So cut 25%...no sacred cows...GO....

Since I am a R and you ass clowns seem to think an R can't cut the military, I'll start with some obvious ones:

• Eliminate the Air Force...a strategic bomber force and specialty was necessary during the Cold War...not today... each branch has their own air wing anyway...roll the aircraft under the existing branches, eliminate Pentagon staff's, eliminate the duplicate command structure, etc...
• Eliminate the Marine Corp...duplicate mission with the Army now...the old mission of advanced air and naval bases can be done by the Army...eliminate Pentagon staffs, eliminate duplicate command structure....this is particularly painful for me personally, but we have to be realists...we don't need it anymore.
• Eliminate the Green Navy bull****...spending $$B to save; literally nothing
• Put every system under review....e.g., B1 bomber...not enough of them to matter and their mission is largely obsolete...they've been flown for a combined 8% of the Air Force missions over the last 15 years...there's a ton of opportunities like this...Boomers....the new Littoral ships....the list goes on...
• Close 25% of military bases
• Take 75% of the savings of the above and reinvest 25%back  into actual programs we need;  and that will work;  and into additional combat readiness;  and forces such as advanced missile defense; "cruise missile like" and massive drone strike capability for standoff strategic strike capability and ground combat flexibility

So there...I think I've done my part...without near as many boondoggle programs, the waste and corruption will naturally shrink...there's not much corruption in old tried and true programs...there's not much corruption in adding people, extending the life of the B52 and the Warthog and other more conventional programs...they just don't have near the level of graft as the sexy new programs...presto.....

Now, how about you take your cut of the largest part of the budget...after all, the military is only about a $650B annual budget...(so my 25% is worth about $165B) so the real $$ are in social and doogooder programs (about $2.4T)...so if we want to get real money out...then you have to go after this.....and $$ and Corruption are found in the same places....want to end corruption, go after the real money...$$ and corruption are as old as civilization...Oh, I almost forgot, you liberal boyo's don't like it when you have to look at the progress of civilization over the last 10,000 years and actually learn from it do you....$$ and corruption go hand in hand....need a head start on where to cut...the Dept of Ed, the Commerce Dept, Obama-friggin-care, cut food stamps in half....I assume you've got it from here...., Oh, by the way, in spite of what she tells you, your wife said size does matter...........

Until you eliminate the factors that create a bought and paid for congress, you won't find the political will necessary to significantly cut anything but entitlements.  You don't know the difference between rhetorical politics and, the reality of politics.  You don't seem to be able to follow the money.

The welfare programs you mention are relatively insignificant when you remove the entitlements.  The entitlements should/would be funded if the government were not playing accounting games when borrowing from them.  Why does the government owe the S.S. trust fund 2.8 trillion?

In order to be realistic, you have to separate mandatory and discretionary spending.  Discretionary spending is 1.2 trillion.  Military is almost 54%.  Then, you have to look at the "spending" that is virtually unaccounted for, tax breaks and loopholes.  The annual undeclared expenditure is 1.3 trillion.  More than all discretionary spending.  It includes everything from mortgage interest deduction, to the cap on employment taxes, to the absurdly low capital gains rate.  Who do you think benefits the most?

It is also significant to look at where the revenues are coming from.  Payroll taxes are almost as significant as individual income taxes.  This means, not only do the uber-rich pay the lowest (capital gains) rate but also, passive income is not subject to payroll taxes.  In a world where the relative values of capital and labor are growing further apart, does this make any sense?  Is it even remotely fair?

So, while your comments are long on arrogance, anger, and rhetoric, they are woefully short on practicality, humanity, intellect, realism.  The problems will not be resolved until, thinking becomes practical rather than political and, the fundamental corruption of paid for representation is eliminated.  Your anger is compelling.  However, it is also misdirected, irrational, and foolish.

[japantiger 4,051]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Until you eliminate the factors that create a bought and paid for congress, you won't find the political will necessary to significantly cut anything but entitlements.  You don't know the difference between rhetorical politics and, the reality of politics.  You don't seem to be able to follow the money.

The welfare programs you mention are relatively insignificant when you remove the entitlements.  The entitlements should/would be funded if the government were not playing accounting games when borrowing from them.  Why does the government owe the S.S. trust fund 2.8 trillion?

In order to be realistic, you have to separate mandatory and discretionary spending.  Discretionary spending is 1.2 trillion.  Military is almost 54%.  Then, you have to look at the "spending" that is virtually unaccounted for, tax breaks and loopholes.  The annual undeclared expenditure is 1.3 trillion.  More than all discretionary spending.  It includes everything from mortgage interest deduction, to the cap on employment taxes, to the absurdly low capital gains rate.  Who do you think benefits the most?

It is also significant to look at where the revenues are coming from.  Payroll taxes are almost as significant as individual income taxes.  This means, not only do the uber-rich pay the lowest (capital gains) rate but also, passive income is not subject to payroll taxes.  In a world where the relative values of capital and labor are growing further apart, does this make any sense?  Is it even remotely fair?

So, while your comments are long on arrogance, anger, and rhetoric, they are woefully short on practicality, humanity, intellect, realism.  The problems will not be resolved until, thinking becomes practical rather than political and, the fundamental corruption of paid for representation is eliminated.  Your anger is compelling.  However, it is also misdirected, irrational, and foolish.

The Welfare programs are where all the money is Ichy..$2.4T...stop ignoring it.....there is no such thing as mandatory....every $$ is a choice...you're just a pathetic tool of the political interest group that made up the slogan that something the Fed does is mandatory in the interest of getting votes.  If you won't accept that basic fact, we are done.   Actually offer a proposal and drop the McGovern platitudes.  Nothing I proposed above was a platitude or is out of bounds...are you seriously telling me you think we still need a military branch that was founded due to the cold war need for a strategic bomber command?  Really?  You buy that s***?  You think the Marines aren't redundant (as much as this pains me to say)?  All it takes is the courage to challenge the runaway train that is the gov't Status Quo....

Glad you think my anger is compelling....I get that way when people piss away what I work so hard for...and the legacy of my children....and I especially get pissed off at pajama-boy tools that think they are entitled to what I earn.  Gov't is about confiscation and plunder...it has nothing to do with fairness.    “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  GW....  Gov't is a parasite that needs to be constrained and entrusted only with what we think can be wasted...because that is what will happen to whatever it is given.  Anything as remote and unaccountable as the US Fed will never function effectively and will be rife with corruption, waste and do relatively little good.  We did a hell of a lot more with a hell of a lot less in the past...we could do it again.    

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, japantiger said:

The Welfare programs are where all the money is Ichy..$2.4T...stop ignoring it.....there is no such thing as mandatory....every $$ is a choice...you're just a pathetic tool of the political interest group that made up the slogan that something the Fed does is mandatory in the interest of getting votes.  If you won't accept that basic fact, we are done.   Actually offer a proposal and drop the McGovern platitudes.  Nothing I proposed above was a platitude or is out of bounds...are you seriously telling me you think we still need a military branch that was founded due to the cold war need for a strategic bomber command?  Really?  You buy that s***?  You think the Marines aren't redundant (as much as this pains me to say)?  All it takes is the courage to challenge the runaway train that is the gov't Status Quo....

Glad you think my anger is compelling....I get that way when people piss away what I work so hard for...and the legacy of my children....and I especially get pissed off at pajama-boy tools that think they are entitled to what I earn.  Gov't is about confiscation and plunder...it has nothing to do with fairness.    “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  GW....  Gov't is a parasite that needs to be constrained and entrusted only with what we think can be wasted...because that is what will happen to whatever it is given.  Anything as remote and unaccountable as the US Fed will never function effectively and will be rife with corruption, waste and do relatively little good.  We did a hell of a lot more with a hell of a lot less in the past...we could do it again.    

Good grief. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 hours ago, japantiger said:

The Welfare programs are where all the money is Ichy..$2.4T...stop ignoring it.....there is no such thing as mandatory....every $$ is a choice...you're just a pathetic tool of the political interest group that made up the slogan that something the Fed does is mandatory in the interest of getting votes.  If you won't accept that basic fact, we are done.   Actually offer a proposal and drop the McGovern platitudes.  Nothing I proposed above was a platitude or is out of bounds...are you seriously telling me you think we still need a military branch that was founded due to the cold war need for a strategic bomber command?  Really?  You buy that s***?  You think the Marines aren't redundant (as much as this pains me to say)?  All it takes is the courage to challenge the runaway train that is the gov't Status Quo....

Glad you think my anger is compelling....I get that way when people piss away what I work so hard for...and the legacy of my children....and I especially get pissed off at pajama-boy tools that think they are entitled to what I earn.  Gov't is about confiscation and plunder...it has nothing to do with fairness.    “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  GW....  Gov't is a parasite that needs to be constrained and entrusted only with what we think can be wasted...because that is what will happen to whatever it is given.  Anything as remote and unaccountable as the US Fed will never function effectively and will be rife with corruption, waste and do relatively little good.  We did a hell of a lot more with a hell of a lot less in the past...we could do it again.    

B.S.  You are a liar, again.  Entitlements are NOT welfare.  Do you know what payroll taxes are?  Do you have any idea how much revenue payroll taxes represent?  No need to go any further.  You have zero grasp of how our system works.  All you know is the angry rhetoric of ignorance.  You will remain angry and stupid.  Probably explains why you would vote for Trump and his tax plan that will only serve to further increase our federal debt.  BTW, this is NOT the past.  The world is a dynamic place.