Monday, April 04, 2011

Republicans: Give the Pentagon billions more - take it from the poor, the kids, teachers and the elderly

How anyone could vote Republican is beyond me! If I sound outraged, I am!!! Here's the latest on their budget proposals (See article in blue type below).  Take from the kids, the poor, the elderly and give to the Pentagon.

Let's see...what has the Pentagon done with the gazillions they already have?  Oh, here's a sample:  The F-22 Raptor planes cost $350 million each! and, after 26 years! in the making, have yet to see combat duty, because of maintenance/corrosion problems. De
fense officials in the know have been quoted in the media as saying that the aircraft can just about manage 1.7 hours of hassle-free flying before contracting a 'critical' ailment.  Others point out that the Cold War-era conceived fighters are just not a priority in an age of small wars and terrorist threats.  But the Pentagon keeps building them--presumably to keep in hangars. For more fiascos from the Pentagon, just plug in "Pentagon Waste" into Google and settle down for a long year's read.  Here's the beginning of one such article:

This year, the United States will spend at least $700 billion on defense and security. Adjusting for inflation, that’s more than America has spent on defense in any year since World War II—more than during the Korean war, the Vietnam war, or the Reagan military buildup. Much of that enormous sum results from spending increases under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Since 2001, military and security expenditures have soared by 119 percent.

For most of that time, of course, the United States has been fighting two wars. Yet that’s not the cause of the defense-spending explosion. Even if the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are subtracted, the defense budget has swelled by 68 percent since 2001. (All money figures in this article are stated in 2010 dollars.) The U.S. defense budget is now about the same as military spending in all other countries combined.

In a historically unusual twist, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican appointee and a former CIA director, has repeatedly acknowledged that military costs are untenable and decried the Pentagon’s “culture of endless money.” But despite Gates’s advocacy, and Obama’s backing, not much has changed. Congressional leaders nod in agreement at talk of reform—then demand that their pet projects be fully funded. A recent Gates proposal, received as if it heralded dramatic cuts, seeks merely to constrain Pentagon budget growth to 2 percent to 3 percent over inflation. At that pace, defense and security costs will hit a ruinous $1 trillion annually by 2030.

Pentagon profligacy is not a new phenomenon. But an ugly melee is brewing regarding America’s unsustainable government spending—and defense and security costs cannot be exempted from tough decisions over what the country can and cannot afford. And yet, security spending and military deployment are presented to the nation as virtually untouchable. If the Pentagon wants something, the logic goes, then it must be necessary. This is far from true.

Gee, let's give the Pentagon more money to flush down the toilet! And take away food from poor kids in the Head Start program. And hey, we don't need Medicare for the elderly--or Social Security, for that matter. Take the money and give it to the Pentagon instead. That sounds like a good plan if you're a Republican politician.  WHERE do these people come from???? And how do they live with themselves???
*******************************************************************************
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/defense-spending-budget-as-pa_n_844692.html

WASHINGTON -- While media attention focuses on the cuts to government spending demanded by House Republicans and broadly accepted by Democrats, the Pentagon is poised to reap billions more in federal funds, according to sources close to the discussions. The confines of the budget negotiations established by the two parties results in a system where every extra dollar going to military spending ends up being offset by a dollar reduction in spending on domestic social programs.

Last week, Senate Democrats came to the table with $10 billion in proposed cuts to the military budget but, a House GOP aide said, the offer was immediately rejected. Democratic sources confirmed that the party had proposed defense spending reductions but disputed the amount.

Democrats and Republicans are now moving toward an agreement that would increase defense spending. But Democratic sources close to the talks said the Democrats' spending recommendation remains roughly $2 billion shy of that of their Republican counterparts. A spokesman for the Senate spending panel declined to comment, citing ongoing talks. A spokesman for Senate Democratic leadership did not respond to requests for comment.

During an Appropriations Committee meeting last weekend, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats proposed funding the Pentagon at $513 billion. That spending level is the same as Senate Democrats’ December proposal, but it also offers a $5 billion boost to the Pentagon's current budget.

Still, it's not enough to placate Republicans, who have demanded funding be set at $514 billion, even though, an administration official says, the Department of Defense has "signed off on" the $513 billion level.

Sources say the two sides have also failed to come to an agreement on money designated for military construction. While Democrats are pushing for a $73.1 billion construction budget, Republicans have countered with $73.94 billion, a difference of $840 million.

Combined, the differences between the two parties' plans are trivial in the face of the $14 trillion federal debt. But in the context of discussions over how to keep the federal government funded through the end of September -- and avert a shutdown in the process -- aides say the disagreement is proving critical.

"If you plus up those areas together,” one high-ranking Democratic official said, “what happens is you have to take it from somewhere else. And where are you taking it from? From Labor, Education, the NIH [National Institutes of Health], health care, the social safety net. That’s how they are trying to jam us.”
Share:

0 comments: