Levin: Expect painful defense cuts
To go along with all of my other warnings of cuts in Defense spending (here, here, here and here), TSO sends the latest;
It happens every time the Democrats get control of Congress and the White House. They take money from defense and put it into social patronage programs. They win elections without the military vote, so what can it hurt them? Then when a Republican gets into office and tries to fix defense, they (and the media) scream to High Heaven about their spending. Reagan had to fix Carter’s neglect of the military, Bush had to repair the damage done by the Clinton years. Think there were shortages during the Bush years, you just watch – the difference now is that our troops are under fire (despite their best attempts to change the language so it doesn’t seem so). What happens when there’s no ammunition for training now? What happens when there are no more cruise missiles this time?
And you have to ask yourself why Levin isn’t being specific about the cuts. More than likely it’s because there’ll be some major cuts in personnel expenses. Things like pay, bonuses, recruiting, retention and training. That will place a drag on manpower needs. Lucky for Obama, Jimmy Carter brought back draft registration after Nixon ended it. Then watch the cuts to veterans’ benefits. BOFO.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, John Murtha, Liberals suck, Support the troops, Terror War
They certainly aren’t going to cut some of these wasteful acquisitions that benefit key congressional districts. Military personnel are analogous to the American taxpayer in that they’re always getting boned first. Eisenhower wasn’t joking about that military-industrial complex thing.
“They certainly aren’t going to cut some of these wasteful acquisitions that benefit key congressional districts.”
Esp. stuff like shipbuilding, that would cost them peeps like the Boilermaker’s Union! We’ll have ships, just no missiles & 5 in shells to fire from them…
I will be fun to watch the BOFOs (IAVA, Vote Vets, etc) perform mental gymnastics when they try to explain how less money is good for the military.
’95 and ’96, we had no fuel to take the tanks to the range or the field. We had no ammo for casual training, and just enough for annual quals. Thank you Liberal asshats.
It will be much worse under generalissimo Zero.
21 more months until I expect to retire. Gonna be a long 21 months.
Can you say squander the dividends? Jesus H. Christ. I am so over the Zero President. Really and truly.
BUDGET (FUNDED BY THE NUMBER)
The Federal budget should be done by the numbers. Every agency, committee, etc. would have a rating. The military would be #1. It would be the only #1. They are the ones keeping me free. I want them to have whatever they need to keep keeping me free. The Veteran’s Administration would be included as #1. I want the ones who lost a part of themselves to keep me free to live the best life they can under their circumstance.
After #1 is funded they would go to #2, #3, #4, etc. until the money runs out or all are funded. If the money runs out before the higher numbers get funded, that is it. No more money means nobody else gets any. The rest of us have to live this way. Why shouldn’t my government have to live under the same standards? “Don’t spend more than you have.”
Gotta cut defense, so we can “fully” fund ACORN, not to mention put more Fannie/Freddie money in the dems pockets. Oh, and we have to fund the “Invasive Species Study” in the Detroit river, that’s one of Karl’s pet earmarks.
Make Love Not War…
Aside from their stubborn fixation with ideology and polices that have been proven not to work (to put it nicely) time and again, perhaps the most damaging consequence of Democrats’ existence is their repudiation of the maxim that stupidity is …
There’s an excellent article on Fox News regarding a new vehicle nicknamed the ‘baby MRAP’ that would be excellent for the Afghanstan theatre. The MRAPs that were effective in Iraq’s urban areas are much too heavy for Afghanistan’s unimproved roads and rural terrain. This new vehicle is much lighter and has better off-road capibility, while keeping the v-shaped hull and protective armor of its larger cousin. Sadly, according to Levin’s statement, it doesn’t look like the troops will ever see this vehicle.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512006,00.html
“‘95 and ‘96, we had no fuel to take the tanks to the range or the field.”
But we did have the $$$ to go from “Peacekeeping” to “peace enforcement” in Somalia, intervene in Haiti & maintain a force there for a few years, and take sides in two Balkans wars that were none of our business… Can anyone give me one good reason why we flushed money down the toilet on these affairs??