-
Obama’s Drone War
May 23, 2013 | 16 comments
-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
Loose Canons
Super Dud
The supercommittee was bound to fail. Naturally, the Pentagon will be the fall guy.
(Page 2 of 2)
The Army, Navy, and Air Force will not be able to sign long term money-saving contracts for anything from healthcare to new ships and aircraft. Contractors will have to wait through the whole campaign year before they will know what the Pentagon can do.
If Republican congressional candidates — and the Republican nominee for president — play their cards uncharacteristically right, they can defeat the Democrats comprehensively. The question will be whether they can distinguish among the defense spending we need, the defense spending we may want, and the defense spending that the Democrats say we can afford.
A preview of this argument is in a new study by MIT’s Cindy Williams, released on 28 October. Entitled “The Future Affordability of U.S. National Security,” Williams finds that defense spending now comprises about 4.7 percent of our GDP, to which she adds another 1.5 percent that is made up of Homeland Security, veterans’ affairs, and intelligence.
Williams says that the affordability of defense spending should be determined on the basis of five factors:
• Public perceptions of the security threat.
• The degree of debt-induced fiscal and economic risk policy makers are willing to run.
• The level of taxation the public is willing to bear.
• Whether and how much the costs of federal entitlement programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, can be reined in; and
• How much money is devoted to running the rest of the federal government.
Notice, please, the complete absence of any mention of what threats we expect our national defense establishment to defer or defeat except as the public’s perception of it can be measured. Notice also the preconceptions that pervade this theory.
Williams apparently believes that defense spending cannot be supported without taxation to fund it, that funding defense is an economic risk rather than a national security issue, and that if entitlement programs cannot be reined in, defense must be sacrificed. As nonsensical as what she writes is, it presages the terms of the debate next year.
Williams comes to the conclusion that affordable defense spending would be between 2.1 and 3.4 percent of GDP.
Defense-minded Republicans should study Williams’s paper carefully. Not because she is right on what defense we can afford, but because it poses the issues they should make their top priority next year.
First, what is the public’s perception of the threats we face? The public has been lulled by the constant tides of war since 9/11. Few Americans look beyond Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan to believe there is a continuing threat from Islamic terrorism. All the Republican candidates’ protestations that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable fall on deaf ears because we’ve heard it all, from Bush and Obama, so often that those protestations are meaningless.
The public is apparently unconcerned with the vulnerabilities we face. Last week’s cyber attack against a water pumping station in Illinois is a very big deal. Has anyone thought about what we’d suffer if some of our military and intelligence satellites were disabled or even turned against us in a similar attack?
Republicans need to think about what the public needs to know in order to understand what the threats really are. They have to step up and lead the public to an understanding that defense spending is not a question of what we can afford. It’s a question of what we need to spend — based on a thorough analysis of the threats — to deter or defeat them.
Defense spending can, perhaps, be cut. But not before we determine what is fat and what is muscle.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (94) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/21/super-dud
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- The Vast and the Tiny
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 11.21.11 @ 1:12PM
No. Not spending cuts, but defense cuts. I'm happy to see 90% of government social spending go away.
But on defense, "you spend what you need"---RR.
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 4:19PM
Occam: We need a lot lot less spent on the agressive military. Defense should never be cut. War should always be avoided unless absolutley necessary. Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq wars, the 10 year fiasco in Afaginistan and any future war against a backward Iran, who is no threat to anyone, should have been avoided. But if there is a war people like you and Babbin should be the first ones to enlist for the front lines.
TrueBlue| 11.21.11 @ 7:09PM
Jack, by not having a military capable of significant deployable strength we make it clear to every other country in the world that they can attack us with impunity. Why? Because if they know we can't come after them they have no reason not to attack us. People can rag on Bush all they want, but did you see any other successful foreign-based terrorist attacks while he was in office?
Were the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts handled well? I'd say not particularly, but then I'm of the opinion that we should stop with this humane warfare bs and go straight for the throat. Someone attacks us, or even threatens our country with the ability to attack us, then we should squish them. Go in, drop serious firepower on their facilities and ruling body(s), then get out. Nation-building can be done (if anyone actually feels the need) AFTER we have squished whatever country it is into the ground and gotten the point across that messing with us is a BAD BAD IDEA.
That's why after WWII we've had a hard time actually declaring victory, we've gotten soft in how we deal with those we have gone to war against. War is not friendly, it's not meant to be, it sucks. The idea is to make it suck more for the other guy so that he gives in.
Defense spending should ALWAYS be the last thing cut from the federal budget, for the simple fact that out of all the things Congress does it is the ONLY item on the budget specifically listed as a power of the federal government in the Constitution. Everything else they have done for the past 70 years has been questionable, but it's so ingrained in people's minds now that it takes a situation like the one we're in now to get people to realize we can't keep going like this.
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 10:35PM
Nonsense: A worldwide military is bankrupting this country. We are less then 5% of the world's population. We have this huge spread out empire that is doing no good for anyone. Germany lets us pay for their defense and we are subsidizing their Social Security systems. All these forces overseas are nothing but a trigger point for people who want us out of their countries. The Japanese, German, Korean, and most other populations want us gone. The Phillipines showed us the door decades ago. They never wanted us there to begin with.
We have our own borders and shores to defend and should have a the best Air force and Navy in the world. But the rest of the world can just defend their own borders and shores, with their own blood and treasures. Nothing we have done in the last century with these wars has turned out well. The world and this country would have been far, far better off if we had maintained out traditional foreign policy of no entangling alliances with anyone. Peace and trade with all and we mind our own business.
SGT Baker (Native Coloradean)| 11.22.11 @ 3:58AM
Most Filipinos I have talked to (and I am married to one) wish we had not left. As a matter of fact there are 500+ servicemembers still in the Philippines in advisory roles, and that is not to even mention the countless Filipinos that join our Military every year.
TrueBlue| 11.22.11 @ 1:21PM
Agreed, some of my best friends in the military have been Filipino. Heck, two of them on my bowling team I'll be hanging out with this evening.
TrueBlue| 11.22.11 @ 1:20PM
Also, the Japanese don't want us gone either, with exception of a small portion of their population. Ironically that small portion are pushing to protest by foreigners. Most of the protests I ran into during my time over there were led by Russians and Norwegians. Funny hearing them shout, "Go home gaijin."
That said, I agree with you on leaving Germany to their own devices, their enemies are all internal these days. Japan, Korea, and the PI though, I have to completely disagree with you on. Not only do they like us there (and a few protestors in comparison to the entire country doesn't change my opinion, we have protesters in our own country that think we're an evil nation), but it is in the best interest of not just us but the entire region. Why? Because of CHINA. If you think China would hesistate to take over the region either literally or through military/political pressure the second we were gone then you don't have a clue about international politics.
Of course, given the fact that you agree with Ron Paul that it is our fault the Muslim nations of the world hate us and attack us that doesn't surprise me. Neither of you want to admit it's because they have a completely different moral and philosophical outlook on how the world works. That's why we can't seem to beat them. We accepted that that was the case with the Japanese, and now they're one of our best friends.
Minding out own business doesn't work anymore, travel is too easy. There will always be people with mass domination in mind, better to stop them elsewhere than have to fight them on our own shores. But that bit seems to be list on the isolationist folks.
Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 3:03PM
We can't be the world's policeman any more. The Phillipinos fought us for a decade in the beginning of the 20th century to keep us out. They lost over 200,000. To say that the vast majority of people want any military presence there is idiotic. The Japanese, Korean, Arab, and European masses are sick of us and our interference in their lives. Everyone would be happier if we just went home and minded our own garden. Nobody wants the British back or the French or any other colonial power. Just bring them home and let the world solve it's own problems.
TrueBlue| 11.22.11 @ 4:53PM
You have obviously never been outside the country. You're listening to what the MSM tells us the rest of the world thinks of us instead of actually seeing it for yourself. Other than the Arabs none of them actually want us gone. Heck, even the French don't want us gone if you take Paris out of the picture. Go out to the countryside, they love Americans and still remember the fact that we fought and died for them in WW2.
I'd be all for leaving the Middle East entirely too, if it wasn't for the fact that so much of the world's oil comes from the region. If we were allowed to use the resources we actually have in our own country I'd say get us out of that region tomorrow. Sadly THAT ISN'T REALITY.
The Japanese and Koreans don't want us gone. They both realize that if we left China would be all over them demanding they pay for access to any of the China Sea. Heck, China has already tried to stop Indian vessels from docking in Vietnam, claiming that area is their waters and not International of Vietnamese territory.
The Filipinos that fought us to get rid of us, that wasn't the majority of the population. Those ones are still fighting their own local government even, though about half of their forces are not even Phillipine citizens. They're also majority Muslim FYI.
Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 11:41PM
I have been to 45 countries and I am going to 5 more this summer. The Phillipino people may like Americans but they don't want our military in their country or want us sticking our nose in their other business. When we left our bases the vast majority of people were glad to see our backsides.
SGT Baker (Native Coloradean)| 11.23.11 @ 2:44AM
Do you actually live with the people in the countries you visit, or do you just stay in the tourist areas? There is a difference in perception based on where you stay. In the Philippines I actually stayed with those masses you speak for in your post and they liked America very much, with the exception of *drumroll* the Muslim community. Not that it was a shock that segment of the population did not like us........
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 10:57AM
Jack, you're an idiot. We left the PI because of Mount Pinatubo (sp?) blowing up. Subic and the air base were drown in ash. You're obviously on the net, so let me advise you check out Google and read up on some history.
skip| 11.21.11 @ 12:46PM
In forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty not only to ourselves but to all our future generations - less those 54 million or so 'legally' aborted Americans, of course, they don't count as 'our posterity'- cutting spending on 'constitutional' providing for 'the common defense' at the expense of promoting even more 'unconstitutional' promoting of 'the specific welfare' at the expense of 'the general welfare' is so bizarre only emotionally prattling pathetic and despicable liberals wholly lacking in reason and experience based on intelligence and honesty could possibly fail to comprehend the utter idiotic stupidity of it all.
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 11:03AM
So only Reagan in your "blame list" huh? Wow. Another idiot. Reagan pulled us out of Carter's wasteland. Yup, he spent too much as well, but he spent it on the military in response to the USSR, not excessive and unconstitutional social engineering.
skip| 11.22.11 @ 12:20AM
vtwin vtwin vtwin
This is pathetic even from you, quoting a rolling stone article, citing Bruce Bartlett.
Bartlett, the idiot who is a big supporter of the thoroughly discredited economics of keynesian theory, the idiot who was fired from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the research organization that advocates free market solutions and opposes federal regulations, and the idiot who has been thoroughly discredited by the Wall Street Journal, among others. You might as well cite daily kos, huffington post, msnbc hosts, or any random occupy wall street genius, as the credibility wouldn't drop off any from the asinine dreck you linked to rolling stone.
You're just messing with us. You're not really this pathetically idiotically stupid are you?
ds80| 11.21.11 @ 8:00PM
Ahhh... the Liberals' trusty canard: the fallacy of False Cause. Really, vtwin, you're sorely lacking in persuasive argument.
carnot| 11.21.11 @ 6:20PM
you aren't this hopelessly stupid/dishonest are you? care to review the facts that led to the financial crisis? better...see Reckless Endangerment for details....
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:15PM
Not much on history are you. We had the largest economic boom in history after Reagan's tax cuts. And keep in mind, it is Congress, not the president that makes the budget. So it was the democrat controlled congress that did this.
And quoting Rolling Stone as the source of your information is laughable. As if they are any kind of authority.
Drop-In| 11.21.11 @ 6:10PM
Reagan is a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man should be.
beebop2| 11.22.11 @ 5:51AM
You appear to have some standing in this premise.
Drunken Sailor| 11.22.11 @ 9:02AM
And Obama is a smart man's idea of what a smart man should be? And under which of these two were we in the best shape under? Try again.
skip| 11.22.11 @ 11:18AM
You appear to be proclaiming Reagan a genius of such magnitude that by comparison Einstein is found wanting.
Mal_Content| 11.21.11 @ 1:11PM
You know many Liberals that want to cut everything across the board, skip? Because that's what I want.
It seems that you want to keep those precious subsidies to our defense industry intact...a Liberal position. So what benefits to American citizens should we cut so that you can keep your precious foreign welfare?
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:16PM
Everything that the federal government does that is not part of the 18 enumerated powers must go. They are unConstitutional and must go.
Quartermaster| 11.21.11 @ 5:54PM
Amen!
There goes about 98% of FedGov too! My feelings won't hurt at all, either.
Clint| 11.21.11 @ 7:47AM
" The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion).
The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. accounts for 40% of the world’s yearly defense outlays."
George S| 11.21.11 @ 8:07AM
If we are "overspending" on defense by 698 billion, cutting defense completely would not even be close to balancing the budget. Obama needs 10 billion a day to fund the federal budget. Defense's contribution is 69.8 days out of the year (how do China and Russia compare to that?).
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.21.11 @ 7:08AM
"In short, it was a SCAM."
Indeed.
They say that "There's no Honour among Thieves". I disagree. It looks to me, that we have a DEN OF THIEVES who get along quite nicely, thank you very much. They go about their business of making themselves RICH, all the while being sure to cover one anothers' asses, because, to do otherwise, could shine the light on them. They stick together. "Bros before Hoes."
How is it that Charlie Rangel is STILL THERE? How is it that Dianne Feinstein could get away with Steering MILLION$ to her Husband's Companies, through her position on the Senate Military Appropriations Committee? How does Super Union B*tch, get away with using ILLEGALS, and other Non Union types, at her Restaurants and Vineyards? How does the Rich Widow Chasing, Scumbag, POS - John Kerry - get away with having his $15 MILLION YACHT, built in New Zealand, and Berthed in Rhode Island, instead of Taxachusetts?
Because they're all in this TOGETHER.
Why have a Super Committee? Everybody knew that there would NEVER be a deal. NEVER. But they did it anyway, because they didn't want to have to go OUT ON A LIMB, and be forced to take a position that might come back to haunt them, later. They end up giving up something on BOTH sides: Defense and Medicare. Even Steven. "Hey. We tried." And, they all lived Happily Ever After. Passing Legislation, coming up with Regulations, and holding Committee Hearings. All good stuff. Especially when you've got a FREE PASS on Insider Trading. Especially when you can count on your "FRIENDS" on the other side of the Aisle. As long as you STICK TOGETHER.
It's like the old saying: There's never a Plane hurtling toward the Capitol, when you need one.
I'm just saying.
Melvin| 11.21.11 @ 7:49AM
Timothy's correct in his analysis this worthless political body of horsesqueeze.
I for the longest time since this select group of jellyfish was picked, had the nagging feeling that this was all political theater. The real cuts have been made in some smoke filled back room.
I'm just sick and damn tired of this bunch, not just the super committee but all of those loutish, corrupt, arrogant bastard who rob us blind at every corner.
Now our Nation's military is going to be hacked to pieces. In 1980 while training in the Kahuku Training area o f Oahu, grown men had to go bang, bang with our rifles because we didn't have the money to purchase blank ammunition for training. We also were supposed to qualify with life ammunition once a year, but at the time that was stretched to two years again we didn't have the money.
Vehicles were deadlined and cannibalized so that other vehicles could operate, at times we had more deadlined vehicles than running.
Prior to reading Jed's article this morning I read John Griffing's article in American Spectator that painted a even more deathly picture of the death of our National Defense.
People, I really don't know how to explain this to you. We're still going to have an semblance of a military, but it will ineffectual at the least.
For those of us who have been in a fire fight, and requested assisted, it is a extremely terrified feeling of know that when the requested is made and the response is with a pause. "There are no additional forces or support, hold position."
Those omnipotent fools of Congress and the Senate have no idea what it is like in the field when the platoon commander or platoon sergeant has to turn to his men and tell them, "We're on our own no help is coming."
I thought I would never have this feeling that I have right now towards our elected representatives. Loathing, anger, hate, and a feeling of ill will to become of them.
"Ill will," I guess that is putting it mildly, I wish more than that to them. I wish them to be crushed as the corrupt worms that they are. If one of them extended they're hand I would spat on it, and demand they leave, before worse happens to them.
To me, today, right now. The apparatus of this Nation is now my enemy. For I swore an oath, to protect this Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that oath still is in force.
RND| 11.21.11 @ 11:09AM
(Well expressed, Melvin. I can relate to just having to say "bang, bang" and having to scream that we hadn't ever enough rounds (ammunition) to adequately train, let alone qualify our guys on their weaponry.)
To add insult to injury....
Pay attention to where many of these politicians will go on Wednesday. Some to Iraq even. Certainly Afghanistan. Kosovo. Bahrain. Qatar. Kuwait. Fort Hood. Fort Bragg. San Diego.
Why?
The priceless images they'll have courtesy of those PHOTOS with the troops and sailors.
These bums WILL be having some Thanksgiving PhotoOps with the troops --- At your expense.
Get it? They try to show (feign) solidarity and a heart for the American servicemen. Simultaneously undermining the very safety of these same young people.
Quartermaster| 11.21.11 @ 5:59PM
It could get worse. When the Brits went to take the Falklands back, they were so under supplied they would throw Grenades without pulling the pins. They would rush in behind them because of the upset just the sight of the grenade caused among the Argie draftees.
It can get worse. And it most likely will get a lot worse.
Occam's Tool| 11.21.11 @ 1:09PM
Naughty boy, Tim. Not necessarily wrong, just naughty. Have a great Thanksgiving, Tim, and G-d Bless.
Timothy L. Pennell| 11.21.11 @ 4:50PM
Thanks buddy. You too.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.21.11 @ 7:18AM
The whole incident just goes to show the wisdom of the saying:
"No man, woman or child in America is safe while Congress is in session."
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 7:19AM
Mr Babbin and the rest of his ilk want this country to be in wars all over the world in perpituity. There is no way back from fiscal insanity until we close down these wars and the 900 bases in 130 countries. Such lunacy is unsustainable. The whole operation should have been shut down 20 years ago when the Cold War was settled. Then we would be debt free or close to it.
Foreign and foreign adventures have bankrupted this countrty. Now Mr Babbin and the other neocons, want to kick granny off dialysis and slash grandpa's Social Security just so that we can keep a worldwide military presence to be ready to come to the aid of Israel or some other one off the elites pet projects like the oil lobbies.
Ron Paul has put forth the only sane program for ending this nightmare and returning our country to a normal course. His plan would close down the wars and foreign aid as well as five departments. He would bring home our troops and defend these borders and shores not those of Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Korea, Germany, Japan, Saudia Arabia, Afganistan and Pakistan etc. His plan would slash 1 trillion dollars in the first year and balance the budget in 3 years. Get a copy of it on line and read it.
The military industrial complex has been sucking the life out of theAmmerican economy long enough. This looney and agressive foreign policy has done nothing but make us the second most hated country in the world, after Israel. All the countries I mentioned above, can defend their own borders. Most don't even want us in their countries. The German, Japanese, and Korean masses as well as those in the Middle East, would love to see us gone. These country's can well handle their own defenses ,and if they can't, we can't do anything about it. We are broke and our troops are broken. 71 years of war and preparation for worldwide war have finished off the American empire. This empire died of it's own hubris, like all empires eventully do.
martin j smith| 11.21.11 @ 7:32AM
Our great leaders of the Republican Party allowed this so called agreement on the deficit to happen. Boehner has to go and McConnell as well. When there is better leadership there is a chance policies made will make sense.
Those who talk about wor mongering are themselves the war mongerers --that is by weakening our nation and making us vulnerable to attack. Ron Paul and Barack Obama are the same. America Last.
But I do not want the likes of any Bushes --they play games with the nation and our troops. I certainly do not want Obama any more or Ron Paul--extreme danger.
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:18PM
Not even close Jack. The Iraq and Afghan wars combined cost us 1 trillion. BO blows more than that each year he's been in office. Eliminate all departments that the Constitution does not authorize.
R Martin| 11.21.11 @ 7:41AM
• The level of taxation the public is willing to bear.
One hopes Ms. Williams is referring to the level of taxation taxpayers are willing to bear.
PattyMor| 11.21.11 @ 8:08AM
Sorry Paulistas, but Ron Paul is NOT going to shut down 5 departments without the okay of Congress. Even the mighty Ronald Reagan never managed to shut down the education dept. For every line the budget, there are contituencies that will fight tooth and nail to keep it there. Same for Rick Perry and HIS three departments he is going to shut down.
And the stupid wars in the Muslim countries must be shut down. Bring our troops home and let them rest. We can no longer be the watchdog of the world. The Muslims will have to defend themselves; the same goes for Europe. Shut down some welfare programs and fund your own military.
And the budget will never get close to balance unless Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are reformed. If not, we all go down with the ship. Except George Soros who is sitting on his pile of gold.
Jack in Wi| 11.21.11 @ 9:53AM
If you don't like Ron Paul's plan where is your candidates? Ron has put his up for all to see. Read it and call me back when your candidate has anything better. All we are gettting from the Republican elite candidates are platitudes, calling Obama names and generally acting like fools. The only honest debate on our problems and the long term solutions ar coming from Ron and his followers. This party and country is in deep deep doo doo. Whe need an long and honest discussion before we nominate a candidate. Instead all we get is talking points, and other nonsense.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 3:01PM
you forgot "promote the general welfare" ... was that conveniently on purpose, since the very word is anathema to you?
Al Adab| 11.21.11 @ 3:08PM
That is in the preamble, written by Gouvenour Morris who was the Committe on Style. It is not one of the enumerated powers and it is not what The Left construes it to be by redefining the meaning. The general well being, the welfare, of the people has nothing to do with their economic condition or their standard of living.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 3:18PM
Preamble is still part of the Constitution voted on and signed by the legislature and the States. Your opinion doesn't mean anything in this context. I believe in defense - why don't you believe in welfare? They are both foundations for America.... or are you interested in a less perfect union?
Con Chef (NB) | 11.21.11 @ 3:44PM
Law is NOT derived from the Preamble. As for welfare, I'll go with Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."...James Madison
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."...James Madison
W| 11.21.11 @ 6:11PM
Article 1, section 8, gives Congress specific enumerated powers to establish armed forces, and declare war.
While the term "general welfare" also appears in the preamble it also appears in Article 1, section 8. Congress, both Dem and Rep, have used this "elastic clause" to write the legislation it wants, and the Supreme Court has upheld Congress' decsion as the will of the people.
If the people don't want this elastic clause stretched then it can vote for a different Congress. The Tea Party is a response. But, unfortunately, we have gotten fat and lazy accepting government spending for student loans, home mortgages, school lunches, food stamps, section 8 housing, and all other so called benefits doled out by the government from taxes imposed on us. There are too many people receiving these so called benefits who believe they are entitled, and believe it is ok because the government is paying for it, meaning someone else is paying.
chuck| 11.21.11 @ 9:09PM
Purple, that was one of the absolute dumbest comments I ever read. You have really outdone yourself.
The preamble is simply a statement of what the Constitution aims to do. It provides no powers, enacts no law.
Good Lord, can you just go away? No, on second thought, please stay, you are a shining example of the idiocy of the left.
carnot| 11.21.11 @ 6:23PM
well...what can I say..but FU. I was informed today...after serving a full career and returning to support my compadres in the field through a contractor...that my job is going away. as many, many already are. again.....screw U. cuts are needed...but it's being done, true to form, in a holy undisciplined, disorganized, destructive fashion.
Top 1%| 11.21.11 @ 4:19PM
Raise tax on me, cut wasteful military spending, HELL NO, rob the elderly and poor!
John Navratil| 11.21.11 @ 9:53AM
PattyMor,
Think that Carter created the Dept. of Education. It had only been in existence for a year or two when Reagan tried to kill it. Can anyone kill this behemoth now?
I think the answer just might be yes.
(1) Reagan had a Democrat Congress with Tip O'Neill heading it.
(2) The people were not it high dudgeon over government spending in general and the federal intrusion into education in specific.
I am hopeful.
Then on to the EPA and Dept. of Energy...
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:21PM
YES
Warrior | 11.21.11 @ 1:22PM
Patty, as always, to the point and correct. If a Republican is to win the White House, it will be more important to be clearly conservative and possess a lot of charisma. Unfortunately, this eliminates pretty much everyone running.
Quartermaster| 11.21.11 @ 6:03PM
If something is not constitutional, POTUS does not need to ask "mother may I" of Congress. He can close it down with the stroke of a pen. If Congress tried to revolt, well then, POTUS takes an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and he has the Military. How long do you think the battle will last? POTUS has the authority he needs.
SGT Baker (Native Coloradean)| 11.22.11 @ 4:23AM
He has the military until the money runs out which Congress controls, not the President, more specifically the House controls the money. This is one of the safeguards of the Constitution to prevent a President from using the military to control Congress.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 3:15PM
Specious argument at best. Once again you go to hyperbole "cutting defense spending completely" is idiotic and no one advocates that. But you combine Defense cuts, increases in revenue and domestic cuts to the tune of 300 Billion EACH, and now you're talking budget balancing range. The problem with it all is that that money doesn't go in a furnace, it goes to pay people for goods and services. Cutting the Federal Budget will eliminate jobs too. So where are the jobs Mr. Boner? You promised Jobs, Jobs, Jobs ... where are they?
carnot| 11.21.11 @ 6:25PM
going down the GM, Solyndra rathole.....a hole.
Clint| 11.21.11 @ 8:14AM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
"Much of the waste in defense is directly attributable to the appropriations process. The vote delays on the MX missile and the suspension of the B-1 bomber cost this country billions of dollars--dollars that were lost forever as those systems that were set back had to be reprogrammed at higher cost.
"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."
The President particularly praised the commission's recommendation for five-year spending projections and two-year budget cycles for the Pentagon. "We are the only major country in the world that rewrites its defense budget every year," Reagan said.
"The waste that results is immense," he said. "No company in the private sector could survive if it couldn't plan for the future. The effect of funding programs this way is less defense and more cost."
Reagan appointed the commission, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, last June and asked it to propose reforms that would end "horror stories" about $600 toilet seat covers, $400 hammers and fierce interservice rivalries."
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 9:51AM
I PROPOSE:
1. Embrace the Tea Party plan to cut $7 trillion debt
2. Pass the Balanced Budget amendment (BBA), restricting on tax-hike and spending
3. Abolish several departments and agencies (commerce, energy, education, EPA, FDA, FEMA,USDA)
4. Abolish the public sector unions (SEIU), that's gonna be a hard sell, but with 242 conservatives in the House, we should be able to accomplish demolish the unions
5. Eliminate the Death Tax and the Capital Gain Tax.
6. Repeal the Obamacare.
7. Defeat Obama and all the Democrats in 2012.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 3:24PM
None of that will happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:22PM
Abolishing public sector unions doesn't require an act of congress. It was authorized by executive order and they can be terminated by executive order.
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 11:18AM
I'm with you Bill. That is exactly how I'll be voting too. Is it too sarcastic to state that NO democrats are for even one of your great points? hahahha
Drunken Sailor| 11.21.11 @ 10:16AM
"The massive defense cuts (theoretically) imposed by sequestration will affect everything the Pentagon does next year"
I disagree, it is affecting them already in their budget planning. Yes, there is fat that needs to be cut. But as this article states we must determine what is fat and what is muscle. The cuts the Dems propose is simply slicing off parts to match a $ amount without looking at the consequence or need.
Al Adab| 11.21.11 @ 10:16AM
It was designed to fail in order to provide cover for the Congress who now need not vote in order for cuts to take place. They avoid responsibility for job performance so no constituant group gets mad when the program of choice is cut. Watch the disclaimers from each and every office.
Drunken Sailor| 11.21.11 @ 10:55AM
Bingo Al! They not only passed the buck, they passed the blame as well.
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 11:20AM
Actually, I heard a few of the political commentators say that this would fail and was just political theater months ago. Ever hear of Patriot channel on Sirius? Check out Andrew Wilkow. Not sure off the top of my head, but I think Glen Beck and Sean Hannity were all over this as well.
RND| 11.21.11 @ 10:48AM
It took Spectator a L-O-N-G time to finally post a very critical article on the SuperCommittee.
Why?
A blind man could see 6 weeks ago that these duffos in D.C. wouldn't meet their own imposed deadline (rules and goals set up on their own, with their own created committee).
In my line of work, when middle managers are *repeatedly* needing to work into overdrive (creating extra errors and mistakes due to their self imposed haste and fatigue) to meet deadline,
we show them the door.
It might take time due to paperwork, but we fire them.
Sophomores in college try to get away with finishing projects at the 11th hour. Don't you remember? The ones up at 3:45 a.m. on the day the project is due.
Yet this is what we have as elected "leaders?" for the nation.
How many times now do we see them frantically trying to muster up something late at night? A pattern.
In the work world (real world), such a pattern earns scorn, derision, no confidence. No trust. A pink slip.
crooked wren| 11.21.11 @ 11:05AM
Grim comments indeed. Appropriate for grim times.
Obama WANTS us to be focused on blaming Congress. Yes, they are to be blamed, but let's not take our eye off the current necessity: "making Obama a one-term President."
That is paramount right now.
And I'm leery of that Obamacare in the Supreme Ct. First the WH was trying NOT to get it in the Court. NOW they want it there.
WHY? WHAT HAS KAGAN TOLD THEM?
Kagan was not only solicitor general, she was something else before that. What was that? Oh, yes, didn't she have something major to do with some law school? YOU KNOW the school I'm talking about -- that one that Lenin and his followers visited in the US -- the one that welcomed him?
As for the Super Committee, WHY was it created? To solve problems? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Didn't we have an earlier committee to do EXACTLY the same things? That didn't work either.
diviz| 11.21.11 @ 11:18AM
part of the trouble with the military is the size of the standing army has resulted in so many legacy costs that there is not enough money to focus on new weapons and threats.
martin j smith| 11.21.11 @ 11:21AM
Bill #7 is absolutely required without which none of you other great ideas will not happen. Then again we need someone who will not only roll back Obama and the Socialist economic agenda but roll back the extremely irresponsible foreign and defense of Obama's leadershit. We need some one who puts American interests first--not last. The truth is Foreign powers such as Russia and China have conflicting interests with us. Thus since Raegan is being quoted--"Trust and Verify" should be part of the new polices. There is also a great difference between getting entangled in conflicts in the world ( being the world's policeman ) and defending your territory and your interests abroad. Also morally supporting real democratic movements, not the fake that Obama supports as in the Muslim brotherhood.
Louis Jenkins| 11.21.11 @ 3:55PM
Excuse me, but Britian just sold all of her Harriers to the US Marine corp.
vtwin| 11.21.11 @ 4:35PM
Con Chef (NB), American business, controlled by the TOP 1%, is investing billions of dollars in China, direct investments into the technological and manufacturing infrastructure China is using to builds the military treat you write about. Get into the streets and support the 99% NOW or learn Chinese.
vtwin| 11.21.11 @ 5:01PM
Con Chef (NB) , The Harrier is obsolete. The Royal Navy has no use for Harriers because they are building two Queen Elizabeth-class CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery capable) aircraft carriers to replace the now obsolete Invincible-class aircraft carriers STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) aircraft carriers requiring the Harrier. The British plan is to use the carrier variant of the F-35 or should the F-35 fail to enter production to use a carrier-ised Eurofighter persently under parallel development.
Con Chef (NB) | 11.21.11 @ 10:25PM
Purpleguy:
The funding for their new carrier in not even in the pipeline. And prudence would dictate that you upgarde those Harriers as we have done with OUR planes. And Ark Royal was all the power projection that the Brits had, aside from their sub force. And you can't conduct close air support for a mission like the Falklands without it. Sure, you can interdict shipping & fire cruise missiles, but no air support for boots on the ground. And remember how badly the initial effort to re-take Goose Green cost the Brits without the benefit of CAS.
vtwin| 11.22.11 @ 2:01AM
Queen Elizabeth-class carriers: are presently under construction, sea trials being in three years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzLmY9SFDUY
Falkland Islands; new airfield constructed after the war with Argentina, four Eurofighters are on permanent station along with, VC10, C130, several helicopters, and a British Army infantry company.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipmen.....ighter.cfm
The British Parliament, unlike our Congress, has come to terms with its financial reality.
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 11:59AM
Defense cut ? No deal! America is more vulnerable than ever under Obama's failed policy. We need more manpower, arms, and technology on the ground. Cutting defense will embolden our enemies abroad and undermine our efforts to defeat the Islamic Fascists around the world. Say NO to the defense cut.
Who Knows?| 11.21.11 @ 12:00PM
I just saw some of "Patton", and was lucky to catch the scene when the General was told what the answer was to the Germans, to their demand that the holdouts in Bastogne surrender---
NUTS!
Well, freedom-loving Americans, here we are in 2011, for decades having been attacked by the power elite nomenklatura of the socialist Democratic Party, who keep demanding that we surrender to their big government takeover, and we keep on saying NUTS!!!
I think Jed Babbin is onto something, with his prickly and very un-PC question---“Are you nuts?”
We are WAY PAST the point of polite debate, folks!
There’s no doubt in my mind that the Axis of Nuts, Obama-Pelosi-Reid, is, consciously or not, leading the last, and best hope, essential, and most exceptional country, America, on a suicidal course.
They ARE nuts!
Maybe the self-annihilating mood has so overwhelmed most Americans that it’s the “will-of the people” that the Great Freedom Experiment known as the USA self destruct, and the leading NUTS in DC are simply doing their duty, as they so self-deludingly see it.
We’ll see if enough Americans still want to live free. And actually---given that the USA is the ONLY country keeping the world from lurching back into widespread war: picture the days when Germany and Japan “flexed their muscles” in the 1930’s---whether the rest of the world can “hope for the change” to be more like us. Or, whether they want to be like Russia and China, or even Iran.
Yes, there are WAY TOO MANY NUTS in power!
Clarity is good, though. So, with respect to this latest iteration of a “super committee”, and its predictable failure, I scream---
HALLELUJAH!
Al Adab| 11.21.11 @ 2:43PM
Oh c'mon Franco, it was a movie. There aren't a lot of Tiger IIs ( or Shermans) running around these days.
nohussein| 11.21.11 @ 12:01PM
I think it is unconstitutional to cut defense, after all that one of the primary reasons for a federal government.
JFGalt| 11.21.11 @ 12:17PM
Why are Republicans so entrenched with spending recklessly on a bloated military-industrial complex that can't account for trillions spent and has a hard time winning wars despite having the best trained soldiers on the planet. They are spoiled with unlimited budgets. Ike warned us but we don't want to listen!
buzzword| 11.21.11 @ 1:27PM
You ask good questions, JFG. Yes, there are very, very dubious projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, our former presence in Bosnia. All the places we go, deploy, stay for awhile. Unaccountably of taxpayers' dollars spent is the military way.
Not sure about your best trained soldiers on the planet comment. Best funded and best equipped, yes. That is true. Best trained? I liken our present-day military to the public school system. Just as we per pupil fund the best public school system in the world (while getting very poor quality student results), well, so too it is in the US military. Oftentimes.
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:30PM
Why are progressives so entrenched with spending recklessly on unConstitutional programs, EPA, FDA, USDA, DOE, other DOE, Social Security, Medicare, etc.?
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 12:25PM
That Super-committe is the Obama's reelection team.
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 12:33PM
Those soldiers sacrifice their lives every day to defend America, you stupid liberals will never get it right. We will support the military and give them a "blank check" they deserve it.
Purpleguy| 11.21.11 @ 3:30PM
Your "blank check" goes to the generals, not the "Military" ... supporting the troops has nothing to do with spending money wisely.
vtwin| 11.21.11 @ 4:20PM
Only a small part of the "blank check goes to the generals” the lions’ share goes to the owners, top %1, of the means of war production.
carnot| 11.21.11 @ 7:40PM
riiiight. hmmmm...defense budget is X...aggregate salaries of CEOs of major DoD vendors is Y. Which number do you think dominates the other? oh...you mean the millions of shareholders? you know...the ones you have no friggin clue who they are dispersed as they are through mutual funds, etc.
vtwin| 11.22.11 @ 2:09AM
Over 60% of American Corporations, outstanding stocks and bonds, are owned by the top 1%.
JohnPatrick| 11.21.11 @ 10:46PM
The lion's share of the budget goes to welfare/entitlements/medicare type programs that are rife with fraud. By some estimates, 40% unwarranted. Cut those first. Then we need to bill the rest of the world their fair share for the defense provided the last 40 years.
Franco| 11.21.11 @ 12:41PM
Hosecrap. There is a military-industrial complex, whether as good conservatives (like meself) you want to admit it or not. And it does suck up too much money. Bring home all the troops from Europe and let the rest of the world pay its own way. How many freaking wars are we supposed to fight?
BTW, if anyone can top my idea for a coin-operated machine gun, let's hear it!
FDavis| 11.21.11 @ 5:31PM
Hahaha, that's a good one. A coin-operated machine gun. The only exception I would make is if Congress actually does declare war. Then we give the guys the money. Otherwise, no money.
Storagesteve| 11.21.11 @ 1:07PM
One area that can be cut is TSA. It isn't helping defend us by corralling us into an area that a bomber could walk into and kill 1-200 people before there is any checking for explosives. We would be better served by having trained plain clothes officers throughout the airport looking for suspecious behavior. I think its only a matter of time before there is a coordinated effort by bombers on a holiday at a few major cities that could kill 4-500 people in total. I'd rather spend the money on our military and use them to patrol the borders than be asked to fight in the M.E. without the full ability to defend themselves.
ABNCP| 11.21.11 @ 1:12PM
Are you kidding me?? The Super Committe was always a joke. Obama and his administration were laughing about it from the start. Look who they put on it. Kerry the famous pro military hero. Yeah, one of the biggist anti-military asshats around. This is all part of Obamas agenda. Do as much damage to this country as possible while he still can. Nothing of any real value to this country will come out of D.C until we throw these bastards out in 2012. Then we have a chance to capture the Senate, keep the house and have a real American in the White house. Until then buckle you chin straps, there will more s**t rolling down hill from this progressive marxist cancer we have in D.C.
Ron| 11.21.11 @ 1:55PM
Bullets, spare magazines, belts of SAW and M60 and .50 Cal ammo, Tomahawks, uniforms, packs, K-Pots, bayonets, tires, gasoline, oil, lubricants, Breakfree, aircraft, all start to add up...Dr. Paul's idea of magically withdrawing from everywhere and chopping the US military down to bare-bones minimum sounds wonderful, but look at reality...Keeping a military "battle ready" (not just trained) is still a large investment in dollars.
I agree with the premise that if we are not going to go the distance and actually combat our enemies (versus this nation building BS, or if the native population is not willing to do for themselves) then we should have no business putting our troops in harms way.
buzzword| 11.21.11 @ 2:19PM
Ron, a good comment. Thanks for the memories. Aren't so many around anymore who know what a K-pot is, let alone wore one.
"I love the smell of Break-Free in the morning."
Bill| 11.21.11 @ 2:29PM
The reason we have military: Defend and protect America.