Why the ignorant and forgetful should just shut up
I don’t know why I keep reading his column, but I clicked on Eugene Robinson’s verbal diarrhea this morning at the Washington Post entitled “Trimming a bloated defense budget” in which Robinson, unsurprisingly, takes the Administration’s position that the way to balance the budget is to freeze military pay and cut spending on weapons systems. Why?
The United States accounts for 46.5 percent of the world’s total defense spending, according to a widely accepted recent estimate. The next-biggest spender is China, which has undertaken an immense buildup to become a military as well as economic superpower – yet accounts for just 6.6 percent of the world’s total.
Yeah, because China is the next largest military economy. The same China that paralyzed the young Bush Administration by knocking our plane out of the sky and capturing it’s crew. The same China that protects Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs in the Security Council. Basically, no one needs a military as large as ours because the countries arrayed against us get to use the whole rest of the world against us. Because of complete idiots like Robinson.
The Democrats keep going back to the same solutions to “reduce the size government”. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both dismantled the military and slashed spending. Their successors, in turn, had to rebuild that which had been destroyed and left us vulnerable.
Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.
Robinson neglects to mention the waste of Defense money on unnecessary contracts for planes and tanks the military didn’t want during the last two Congressional sessions to prop up certain members’ district employment numbers. Nor does he mention Nancy Pelosi’s personal military transport to and from her district every week.
Robinson claims that withdrawing from Afghanistan will save lives and money – not in the long term. It just kicks the can down the road. I just wish that morons like Robinson would recognize the fact that their anti-intellectual blather only extends the war against terrorists. And causes more defense spending.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Media, Terror War
The military is one of the biggest social welfare programs the government has and I don’t mean that in a negative way. The military provide JOBs in both the government and civilian circles. The military provides job training. For every civilian job there is a related military job. I guess the Liberals just want to take money away from ppl who do work and provide a service to the country to ppl who are burdens on society.
Ol Man Eugene may THINK that defense spending is discretionary, but the Constitution MANDATES that Congress create, equip and maintain the Navy. The Army is budgeted on a biannual review, but the Navy is a permanent force by law.
Robinson postulating on it’s view of the world, and he gets his head handed to him, via“It just kicks the can down the road. I just wish that morons like Robinson would recognize the fact that their anti-intellectual blather only extends the war against terrorists. And causes more defense spending”. Exactly right, Jonn. Don’t want to pay the bill today? Fine, when it finally does come due, it’ll cost way more, in treasure and in lives, than it does today.
But, if we invest in the military, we can’t “redistribute” the wealth to those who want the money but not the work to get the money./sarc.
AW1 Tim:
“…the Constitution MANDATES that Congress create, equip and maintain the Navy. The Army is budgeted on a biannual review, but the Navy is a permanent force by law.”
For some strange reason I was wondering about this the other day. So if this is the case, then it is safe to say that the U.S. Navy will NOT go the route of the British or the French?
Completely agree with you Jonn. I get exacerpated just of thinking of responding to this nonsense.
When liberals want to make a case like this they always point to raw GDP numbers. Why not look at military spending in terms of PPP, they do when it comes to educational spending and the like.
Better yet, look at those groups in terms of percent of the federal budget…”human resources” spending (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, etc.,) accounts for 2/3 of the federal budget. DoD? 18 percent.
Spockgirl:
True. Unless and until the Constitution is amended, the Congress is required to establish and maintain a Navy. The Colonists bad experiences with a standing Army, however, made them write the Constitution so as to allow Congress to raise and Army, but only fund it for 2 years at a time.
AW1 Tim:
Thank you. Now that I think about it, it does make sense. At the time your Constitution was written, the only feasible threat they would have foreseen would be by sea, thus the necessity for an enduring Navy presence.