A 10% cut at the Pentagon?

posted at 9:42 am on January 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

While the Obama administration tries pushing through its trillion-dollar porkfest of Mall resodding and Medicare expansion, the Pentagon has gotten a much different mission from the White House.  President Obama has demanded a 10% reduction in the defense budget for FY2010, even while we fight a war in Afghanistan and conduct counterterrorist operations around the world:

The Obama administration has asked the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent — about $55 billion — a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year’s defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend “burning the midnight oil” looking at ways to cut the budget — looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.

Ah … those would be weapons systems that actually employ people, create jobs, and help defend the nation.  That may not be as sexy, figuratively and literally, as buying billions of condoms, but it means that a significant number of good paying (and likely union) jobs will disappear.

I’m not going to argue that the defense budget doesn’t have fat.  I’ve seen defense contracting from the inside, and it stinks.  However, unlike the Obama stimulus bill that will cost more than twice as much as the 2010 defense budget, it’s not 90% fat.  Director Blue reminds us of a few numbers:

• $83 billion in welfare payments
• $81 billion for Medicaid
• $66 billion on “education”, more than the entire Department of Education required just ten years ago
• $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
• $20 billion for food stamps
• $8 billion on “renewable energy” projects, which have a low or negative return
• $7 billion for “modernizing federal buildings and facilities”
• $6 billion on urban transit systems, dominated by unions and which, almost universally, lose money
• $2.4 billion for “carbon-capture demonstration projects”
• $2 billion for child-care subsidies
• $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that’s run in the red for 40 years
• $650 million for “digital TV conversion coupons” (on top of billions already spent)
• $600 million on new cars for government (added to the $3 billion already spent each year)
• $400 million for “global-warming research”
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

Obama’s busy expanding all of the rest of the government except for its primary, Constitutional mission: defending the nation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Entelechy on January 31, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Entelechy,
The B2 did most of the dangerous bombing that required assured invisibility to radar. The B52 has arguably been doing the bulk of the damage to the Taliban in particular and were devastating in Gulf 1.
The problem with either B1 was that it was not as invisible as they hyped them to be. This puts the pilots who fly them at much greater risk.

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Shocker.

JeffinOrlando on January 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Your comments defense contracting are not specifically wrong or outrageous, but they don’t seem to have anything to do with anything.

Why not actually address the post, just for a change of pace? Would you rather spend the $55 billion of defense money on “weapons systems” (i.e., “national defense), or on condoms, chlamydia research, sod, abortions in Africa, welfare payments, and the teachers’ unions?

This is easier than you’re making it with your devil’s advocate bs, bro.

Jaibones on January 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM

The B52 has arguably been doing the bulk of the damage to the Taliban in particular and were devastating in Gulf 1.
The problem with either B1 was that it was not as invisible as they hyped them to be. This puts the pilots who fly them at much greater risk.

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM

I need to reboot, here. It is your position that the pilots of the B1 bomber are at “much greater risk” from the Taliban because it is “not as invisible as they hyped them to be”; is that correct?

And this is supported with your sense that the B52 was quite effective in a war somewhere else 17 years ago?

Jaibones on January 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Going out to dinner, B; can’t wait to read your responses…

Jaibones on January 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM

The problem with either B1 was that it was not as invisible as they hyped them to be. This puts the pilots who fly them at much greater risk.

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Not surprisingly, entirely uninformed and incorrect. Neither the B-1A nor the B-1B were ever claimed to be “invisible.” The B-1A was designed as a mid-to-high level supersonic strategic penetator, the B-1B as a transonic terrain-following penetrator (albeit capable of supersonic speeds at higher altitudes). Both were designed to have lower radar cross-sections than the B-52 (which they most certainly do), but neither was ever invisioned as a “stealth” plane (though the intent was for the B-1B to avoid detection via terrain masking by flying at extreme low level–an effective tactic but one that should not be confused with RCS reduction). Either plane’s main defensive asset was to be a comprehensive and highly complex suite of jammers and countermeasures (the development of which has remained the major failing of the entire B-1 program).

The B-1B is an effective plane and an impressive bomb-hauler, but it is mechanically quite complex and eats up a lot of operational money by way of maintenance. Unfortunately, as the B-2A was short-sightedly terminated at only 21 airframes produced(now reduced to 20), and the B-52 fleet has been reduced to approximately 40 airworthy examples, either the B-1B has to remain flying or the USAF has to significantly undermine the credibility of its strategic bombing capability.

Needless to say this all looks like a no-win scenario for the USAF and the armed forces in general, but then that’s what it’s meant to be, isn’t it? And, of course, for the US tax-payer, too.

Blacklake on January 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

CP on January 31, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Funniest comment on the thread!

catmman on January 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM

My point is the same thing I have been saying for months: the American people gave the military a big middle finger on November the 4th. Obama made is plans for the military quite clear before the election, and the american people elected him anyway.

TTheoLogan on January 31, 2009 at 6:10 PM

yep

I fully expect Obama to resurrect one of Bill Clinton’s lead ballons–the reduction of military retirment to 33% of base pay instead of 50%. Clinton was capable of being shamed/embarrassed by the number of military jr officers who separated, and he reversed that policy. Obama…not so much.

And with the “historic fiscal crisis” and “everybody has to sacrifice” crapola coming out of his mouth, well, he’s got all the excuse he needs to screw veterans and not look back.

So again, a hearty Thank Screw You to all the “true conservatives” who helped to defeat McCain.

funky chicken on January 31, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM

As an Air Force vet, you shold know that any defense spending cuts are NOT going to affect contractors, not to the extent where they will really hurt.

Even if the contractors somehow had their spending cut, it would work it’s way into operations eventually. Spending cuts in the military have a way of always affecting operations which means the troops that do the work (not contractors or high profile brass, or even Pentagon types)
end up taking it up the rear.

I’ve spent 22 years in the AF and I’ve seen the results (and see how the military as a whole) is still dealing with the Clinton cuts.

I’ve spent my entire career at the operational level. Could there be some fat trimmed? Sure. But the “fat” always seems to come from the guys dong the job.

You know, it takes a lot of stones to call for a reduction in defense spending while you are right in the middle of telling the American people how we will all die if we don’t pass this largest spending bill in American history!

catmman on January 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM

I thought brer’ muslims don’t dig on swine.

seejanemom on January 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Needless to say this all looks like a no-win scenario for the USAF and the armed forces in general, but then that’s what it’s meant to be, isn’t it? And, of course, for the US tax-payer, too.

Blacklake on January 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM

And I’m still extremely pissed at Bush over this whole situation too. The USAF is now almost 2000 pilots undermanned. In the summer of 2006, they gave big separation bonuses to a bunch of Captains. Were we at war? I know lots of folks love Bush and Rumsfeld here, but they really screwed the military big time. They refused to get behind the F-22 and were still cutting active duty troop levels through 2006.

After 9/11/01 they could have gotten the American people behind a military expansion/modernization. Instead we had years of GOP porkfests, and Bush’s multi-billion increase in foreign aid to hellholes in Africa. Sorry, but isn’t the US Commander in Chief supposed to

support the troops

?

Remember, one of Bush’s big campaign promises in 2000 was that he would fix the damage that Clinton did to the military. Instead he sent the military off to war without doing what was necessary to even fix Clinton’s destruction.

funky chicken on January 31, 2009 at 6:53 PM

You know, it takes a lot of stones to call for a reduction in defense spending while you are right in the middle of telling the American people how we will all die if we don’t pass this largest spending bill in American history!

catmman on January 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM

No, it takes an American people willing to vote in a Chomskyite.

spmat on January 31, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Do I have this right? We are at war with the radical jihadists adn Russia is flexing its Putin muscles, but for Obama, it’s billions for ACORN and Planned Parenthood and the defense budget needs to be cut. Is that right?

We are heading for disaster.

Phil Byler on January 31, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Crap like this info really gets me angry-I am wondering if this is true and if Sen.Jon Kyl actually said these things. Anyone know if this is true or not?

Kyl outlined some of the “extras” in the Democrat’s bill:

$144 million for a Che Guevara memorial in San Francisco.
$949 million for gay, bi, and transsexual oriented preschools.
$1.8 billion for ACORN.
$22 million for a PBS special “Obama: The First Two Weeks.”
$437 million for the Chappaquiddick Kennedy Bridge.
$1.4 billion for inner city mobile family planning/abortion vehicles.
$545 million for the third world gay sensitivity series, “I Want To Bone Chico.”
$4.25 billion for assorted “green” things.
$776 million for a cartoon line of preteen condoms.

Wth are the Dems thinking?

canditaylor68 on January 31, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Its got to be satire….

canditaylor68 on January 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Obama: adding fat and cutting muscle.

What a tyro schmuck.

profitsbeard on January 31, 2009 at 8:33 PM

I say we fire Obama.

izoneguy on January 31, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Wth are the Dems thinking?

canditaylor68 on January 31, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Um, Palin is for it.

getalife on January 31, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Um, Palin is for it.

getalife on January 31, 2009 at 9:20 PM

so that would make it all good?

your logic is very lacking as usual

so you agree with that idiot palin?

grow up

Jamson64 on January 31, 2009 at 9:28 PM

I’m sure that he doesn’t need to hear this but…
NNtrancer– and several paranoids –you are right.
My daughter is doing some survey studies in demographics, macroeconomics, political policy and national cohesiveness in ‘Modern Europe’ (and some world wide analysis) and her evidence is scary. It was just as you, in particular, and other posters here have described it. If we cut the military we certainly show new priorities. That change may also be be realted to, if not evincing, a loss of national purpose and a weakness that could entail a failure to enforce immigration and other laws to protect our borders and our own citizens. Also, with a sufficiently weak military and loss of will, we would abrogate our position as a world power and protector of the rule of law and the weak.
However, most of our leaders seem to be happy to slide to a post industrial nirvanna and a redefined nation. I am not sure how immigration plays in all this but she sees it as very important in the transformation of a nation and a key indicia of national identy, among other things. (I did not even know that Europe had problems enforcing immigration laws)
In any event. if immigration is so important, I would mention the fact our dear Republicans have totally dropped the ball on the issue. President Bush’s addition of 325 border guards a few years ago was an illustration of this. The lack of a clear policy through the Republican years and the interminable construction of the fence was a demonstration of their failure. BTW she has found that the impact of all the illegals on our future may be greater than any but the most xenophobic predict. And she is nooo conservative.

References available — and I’m shocked at this.

IlikedAUH2O on January 31, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Jamson64 on January 31, 2009 at 9:28 PM

My logic is it is not just dems.

GOP Governors including Palin want it too.

Did you just call Palin an idiot?

getalife on January 31, 2009 at 9:31 PM

getalife 931pm

as it appears you agree with her. palin must be an idiot

Jamson64 on January 31, 2009 at 9:57 PM

/sarc

Jamson64 on January 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Jamson64 on January 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM

And you must be a lib calling her an idiot.

getalife on January 31, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Elections have consequences and one is exactly what one would expect, that the party of Political Power over Country would enact rules that guts the military and endangers the country in exchange for power was to be expected.

JIMV on January 31, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Of course. The only time Democrats care about cutting costs is when it comes to weakening our nation’s defenses – which is ironically the most proper federal government expenditure possible!

Sign of the Dollar on January 31, 2009 at 10:32 PM

He promised to go through the budget and get rid of the waste. I guess he didn’t find any in departments that start with A, B and C.

darwin-t on January 31, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Jaibones on January 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM

The post didn’t say too much about a “choice” between the two. Don’t spend money on the STD stuff either.
No devil’s advocate bro.

I need to reboot, here. It is your position that the pilots of the B1 bomber are at “much greater risk” from the Taliban because it is “not as invisible as they hyped them to be”; is that correct?

And this is supported with your sense that the B52 was quite effective in a war somewhere else 17 years ago?

Jaibones on January 31, 2009 at 6:29 PM

No, the B-1s and the B-52 can be used in Afghanistan because the Taliban don’t have the weapons/radar to take them down. The B-1 was designed for different missions. The B-52s are used extensively in the current war because they carry a much heavier load of bombs and are not at risk of being shot down. As for the hyped – they were hyped as stealth bombers and against a country such as China or Russia with more advanced radar wouldn’t fare well.
The B52s are literally being flown by grandkids of the first B52 pilots and will be in the inventory for another 40 years. Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 didn’t use them until the B2 and F22 had taken out most of the radar and anti-aircraft artillery sites.

catmman on January 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM

In one of the earlier posts I said “as long as personnel cuts are not the result”. I was there in the nineties and they killed us with personnel cuts.

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 11:33 PM

That the B52 will be in the inventory for decades more speaks to the problem – the military is having to make due with what it has because the budget process doesn’t allow for quick innovation of weapons systems.

I take nothing from the old BUFF, I love it and always have. But when your best airframe is going on 60 years old – perhaps you shouldn’t be cutting defense budgets.

As to personnel cuts. I don’t think I’d be too far off the mark in saying that when the military budget gets cut – it almost invariably leads to personnel cuts somewhere. Certainly the justification for this cut will be “we’re not going to cut personnel”. If you haven’t already seen it, the administration has been sure to publicize they are increasing manning levels service wide.

The problem is that if you think this “10%” cut will be it, you are at best being extremely naive. When they come down in a year or two – or expand this current cut – guess what’s gonna end up on the chopping block?

catmman on January 31, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Hussein is a fool.

christene on February 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 6:02 PM
If you cut 10% off major military purchases that has the effect of making the defense contractors…

That ten percent could be used for military pay raises, along with a ten percent cut in entitlements, a ten percent cut in congressional salary, one hundred percent cut in the endowment to the arts, public broadcasting, planned parentthood, acorn and the alcu and then we could pay these folks a decent wage for their sacrifices. Hell, we pay our sport stars, movie stars, entertainers and executives millions. I think that the folks in the military are equally deserving. After all, not many people leave their families, go to a foriegn country and fight and die for folks, many who wouldn’t give them the time of day. Mr. Obama, Congress, do what is right.

Johan Klaus on February 1, 2009 at 12:22 AM

catmman on January 31, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I take nothing from the old BUFF, I love it and always have.

You may not love it if you rode one for ten or twelve hours.

Old Buff rider.

Johan Klaus on February 1, 2009 at 12:26 AM

Nitpick, Amtrak is not federal anything other than government owned.

Amtrak is a private corporation rather than a formal part of the government. Its sole investor is the Federal government, though. It may sound like a distinction that is no distinction at all. But there are times that distinction does matter when you try to deal with them.

{^_-}

herself on February 1, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Remember this old bumpersticker?

“It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the military has to raise money with bakesales.”

Well, I hope the services start breaking out the cookbooks.

/sarc

silverfox on February 1, 2009 at 1:33 AM

I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

Obama is in control of this, all he has to do is reach out his hand using the powers that are bestowed to the liberal, malevolent, lightworker and everything will be alright.

If you want an example of his incredible powers of “change”
look at his State Dept. and marvel at the brilliance:

i think the only way Robert Wood could come away from this looking dumber, was if he had a dunce cap on and his pants on backwards.


Excerpt From State Department Daily Press Briefing

Robert Wood/Acting Spokesman

January 29, 2009
http://rantvillereborn.blogspot.com/2009/01/look-dumber.html
(via instapundit)

QUESTION: About a month or two ago, there was an IG report that warned that Blackwater was likely going to lose its license to operate in Iraq. That has now happened. Considering that you guys have been aware of this impending decision for some time, I presume that contingency plans have been made. What are those? What are you going to do to protect your people?

>MR. WOOD: Well, let me just say, first off, you know, contingency plans are obviously being looked at, but I think it was on January 23rd when the Ministry of Interior informed the Embassy in Baghdad that Blackwater’s applications for an operating license was not going to be approved.

We’re right now looking at the implications of this decision by the Iraqis for us.

QUESTION: Well, what do you mean you’re looking at the implications? Isn’t the implication that they can’t work there anymore and that you’re going to lose your main contractor?

MR. WOOD: Well, again, we’re looking at, you know, the decision and we’re going to study and see what the implications will be, and then we’ll go forward.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, maybe I’m being dense here, but it seems to me that the obvious implication that you should already be aware of is that Blackwater can’t work in Iraq anymore.

MR. WOOD: I understand the decision. They were not granted an operating license

QUESTION: What more is there to look at?

MR. WOOD: Well, we have to study and see what we’re going to do next.

And this idiocy from the “smart ones” goes on and on and on
showing just how clueless Obama’s administration is.

But don’t worry,super smart foreign policy experts like Samantha Powers are on the case,they know just how to handle international problems like Iran obtaining Nukes:

Samantha Power and Obama’s Foreign Policy Team

By Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

Also of note is a recent opinion piece Power wrote for TIME, titled “Rethinking Iran,” the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes:

The war scare that wasn’t [the recent incidentbetween Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration’s allegations about the advanced state of Iran’s weapons program-allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate.

Wow,what a genius!!!!!
Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is all in Bush’s head.

Rest easy,Obama is in total control.
We really don’t need to defend ourselves anymore because all these problems were made up by Bush/Republicans and Obama’s incredible presence and “soft power” is all the world needs to stop the jihadist and lunatics like Ahmadinejhad.

Remember what the “smart ones” have been telling us for years,”THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT”.

So let’s use the Clinton model of gutting the military (during a time of war) because it worked out so good for us then,except for al-qaeda becoming stronger than ever,it worked just great.

Baxter Greene on February 1, 2009 at 1:54 AM

Actually, this cut of the Defense Budget is a good thing for several reasons:

1.) The US won’t be able to support “rogue” nations like Taiwan, Georgia, Colombia,and Poland defend themselves from the “righteous” nations of the World, like Russia and China.

2.) Old Europe, Japan, and South Korea wil have to defend their ‘decadent’ capitalistic systems and assert their petroleum needs themselves.

3.) There’ll be less Afghan civilians human shields killed, so Karzai wil grow in popularity.

4.) Samantha Powers’ plan to invade and destroy Israel will be that much harder to prosecute.

Win/Win!

/sarc

dmh0667 on February 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM

And what did we expect from a liberal POTUS!

sabbott on February 1, 2009 at 6:12 AM

Obama said he would do this as well as not weaponize space, and make terrorists criminals rather than combatants. Carter did the same thing in cutting Pentagon spending. But ACORN

adamsmith on February 1, 2009 at 6:42 AM

Sorry, hit a button on the keyboard by accident…..Continuing, ACORN gets how many millions? Government policy is now completely upside down. Eventually, most of the Obamamaniacs will wake up, and the pendulum starts the other way. I wouldn’t want to be Obama in 18 months. The Messiah’s own flock will want him crucified…………..

adamsmith on February 1, 2009 at 6:45 AM

csdeven on January 31, 2009 at 5:52 PM

…….damn csdeven, don’t sugar coat it guy, tell it like it is….lol

try again later on February 1, 2009 at 7:50 AM

A democrat president, a democrat majority in Congress, I’m not the least bit surprised at this. My surprise is it’s only 10%. This is democrat history and legacy – socialism before defense.
I guess Obama never heard of “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”.
Clinton tried the same thing in 92. He wanted to slash the budget and 80% of the cuts would come out of DOD and he would dump the savings into social programs. But the Repub minority, before they became political eunuchs, put a stop to it.

abcurtis on February 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM

I will admit that I did not read every comment. But a couple of points I did see that I’d like to address:

1. Enlistments are up. The main reason this is so is because Congress authorized, and the previous President signed, an increase in size for the Marines and the Army. The Corps went from 178k to 202k. To meet this goal more recruiters were put on the streets and greater incentives were offered for current Marines to ship over. It worked. The plan was to make the target size by 2011. The Marines will meet the goal in 2009. However even with the increase in size the Army is not near making up in size the 8 Divisions that were eliminated in the Clinton years. So yes, elistments are up. It has nothing to do with likeing, supporting or believing in Obama.

2. Obama is targeting the military for cuts while we are in the midst of a war. Yes, we are drawing down in Iraq. The indicators are that we will be successful there. But, plans are already in place to shift the 20,000~ Marine force to Afghanistan. And AQ and the rest of the Islamo-facistists know no boundaries. The war will go on while they exist.

3. The 10% cut is even more scary than it looks on the face of it. Obama is bringing his touchy-feely policy to DoD. Initially some big programs will take the hit. The Strategic Defense Initiative is going to take a big hit. And that at a time when the threat in this area is growing with more nations gaining access to nuclear warheads and ballistic missile technology. The Marines will probably lose the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, planned replacement for the Assault Amphibian Vehicle that’s been around since the 70′s. Most likely the Joint Strike Fighter airframes will be purchased in reduced numbers. We are also going to see shift in DoD funding from the “fighting” military to the other functions. Obama’s military advisors see engagement as the way to prevent wars rather than having to actually fight. They believe that small numbers of troops bringing local security and engineering, medical and other assistance projects will “prevent” conflicts. This is foolish. It assumes that the bad actors in the targeted area will respond to, and care about the betterment of the people overall. History shows this not to be true. The guys are driven by ideology, hatred, lust for power and could not care less about the well-being of the people. This is a foolish utopian strategy that ignores reality.

SoonerMarine on February 1, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Add up the cost of a GPS or laser guided bomb against that of a free-fall dumb bomb and see what you get.

Bishop on January 31, 2009 at 10:42 AM

So true, and on all the points you made. I call it the video game syndrome rules of war. Ammunition is replenished miraculously, and there is a reset button when you screw things up badly enough. That ‘reset button’ thingy could apply to Obama’s Economic Policy as well. With tech kids, like Obama and his huckleberry, everything’s a game. Things like employees, testing, research, production, storage, distribution, security, and all the other related items that go into our military technology are nebulous code to these people. Like the old saying that if it’s the paper in print it must be true and I saw it in a movie so it must be true, these people think if it’s in a video game it must be true.

RickZ on February 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM

No offense Blue, but [KBR and Hallibuton] in particular have been given a very bad and unfair rap.

hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE

RickZ on February 1, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Well… at least Obama can will take credit for this…

Iraq wraps up election with no major violence

Pianobuff on January 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I will give the credit to our soon-to-be-gutted military, where it belongs. Obama has nothing to do with this.

Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Obama, our commie douchebag of a president, already gave credit to the UN. By giving the obstructionist scuzzbuckets at the Den of Thieves on Turtle Bay any credit for Iraq, I KNOW Chicago Jesus hates our military.

RickZ on February 1, 2009 at 9:11 AM

email or call all your military friends, active & retired, & thank them for all they’ve done everywhere, including Iraq. Show our military that there are still patriots out here.

obama knows no shame.

kelley in virginia on February 1, 2009 at 9:26 AM

We lost wars under Clinton due to lack of military funds? Where do people come *up* with this stuff.

I didn’t see any reference to losing wars.

Where do people come *up* with this stuff.

Bishop on January 31, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I’ll give it a stab anyway. I don’t think Mogadishu, Somalia was a victory. I don’t think Kosovo was a victory. And I sure as hell don’t think saying no to the Sudan for Bin Laden was a victory. When you do not achieve victory, the best you can hope for is a Korean peninsula situation. At worst, you have a present-day Somalia.

RickZ on February 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM

RACING to the left. Was there any doubt?

marklmail on February 1, 2009 at 9:34 AM

The American people will eventually hear more about this when the inevitable “if we had this kind of weapon, whose development was halted during the Obama Administration, these soldiers would not have died”.

It’s like the “we didn’t deploy enough up-armor kits for our humvees”, only worse.

unclesmrgol on February 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM

I lived in Ft Worth and was near Carswell NAS.

Lots of wonderful military planes regularly.

There was this pub almost inline with the southern end of the runway.

All of the jets made noise but when the B1 took off the whole town shook, it was awesome.

The B1 isnt really the plane for this conflict, but if we were fighting an enemy with an airforce its ability to go fast and low would be very useful.

Sonosam on February 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 didn’t use them until the B2 and F22 had taken out most of the radar and anti-aircraft artillery sites.
Bradky on January 31, 2009 at 11:33 PM

BDA: Decided to take a final look….Bradky you have much to learn both tactically and strategically. The F22 has yet to be deployed to an active combat theatre of operations, (try F117) When in a hostile environment one should minimize exposure and reduce risk by utilizing timely intelligence, superior preparation and disciplined mission execution, your repeated responses served to further damage your argument and reputation.

dmann on February 1, 2009 at 3:06 PM

A democrat president, a democrat majority in Congress, I’m not the least bit surprised at this. My surprise is it’s only 10%. This is democrat history and legacy – socialism before defense. I guess Obama never heard of “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”.Clinton tried the same thing in 92. He wanted to slash the budget and 80% of the cuts would come out of DOD and he would dump the savings into social programs. But the Repub minority, before they became political eunuchs, put a stop to it.

abcurtis on February 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Where were those people who in the last election said they would vote for Kerry as it was important to not have all the power in the hands of one party?

Jamson64 on February 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Anyone who watched what Clinton did in the early 1990′s saw this coming a mile away. No wait, THREE miles away.

When Democrats are in charge Government will always get bigger while at the SAME TIME the military shrinks in size.

That means jobs going for the defense of the nation are reduced while jobs created for the federal bureaucracy increase.

At least it’s become more apparent than ever that the ’600,000 new jobs’ that Obama plans to create won’t be in the military or the defense industry.

What a relief! :P

Unlike private sector jobs, Government jobs HAVE NO COMPETITION. NO MATTER HOW INCOMPETENTLY, OR INEFFECIENTLY GOVERNMENT WORKERS PERFORM THEIR DUTIES, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AVAILABLE TO PAY THEM WILL NEVER SHRINK.

See, Government jobs are paid for with TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

In the private sector, jobs increase and decrease in alignment with the forces of a free market.

If I’m running a company in the private sector, I HAVE COMPETITORS. I am in COMPETITION for the public’s dollars for that particular service.

If I do a GREAT JOB and expand my customer base and make more money, I can hire more workers and expand my business.

If I do a LOUSY JOB, I end up with fewer customers, I make less money and I have to cut costs, let some people go, and reduce.

That’s not how it works if I’m in the government. Whether I do a good job or a lousy job, that same amount of money is coming in next year from the federal taxpayer funds regardless.

I have no incentive to get better, become more efficient, or improve my services. I get the money, no matter what. Because I’m the government. I HAVE no competition. There IS no market that I have to respond to.

I can even provide my services in an incompetent an inefficient manner for years, and over those years the money given to me will actually INCREASE in line with the expansion of the Federal Budget.

Another aspect of this to remember is that if you are someone in the private sector who cannot perform your job quickly, efficiently and competently, you will be FIRED.

Have you ever taken a look at all the rules and regulations and litigation that is involved in firing a member of a government bureaucracy?

Just one example: the rules and regulations regarding the firing of a public school teacher in the state of New York is bigger than most metropolitan area phone books. The department of education in New York literally CANNOT fire incompetent teachers. It costs too much. They actually have rooms where teachers are sent to play cards and nap all day rather than teach because they can’t trust these teachers to do their jobs in the classrooms, yet firing them would be prohibitively expensive. It’s actually cheaper to send them to a rubber room for 6 hours a day and pay them their salary.

Insane? Yes.

Typical? I’m afraid so.

Government will never shrink until government workers are held to the same standards of excellence as the workers in the private sector.

The pool of money available to spend on government jobs will NEVER decrease. No matter how lousy the government is at what it does.

And this fact becomes only more galling as we have to watch over the next few years as Obama & Co. reduce our military and expand the federal bureaucracy.

In the military as least if you do an incompetent job they demote you or discharge you.

Obama’s going to add hundreds of thousands of new jobs to the bureaucracy that are going to be essentially permanent because bureaucratic jobs will never disappear – why would they? Lack of money? Market forces? They are immune from such things.

manofaiki on February 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Stock up on weapons and ammo – clearly we are on our own for defense purposes.

Vashta.Nerada on February 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

55b is a > 10% reduction in the requested budget. Therefore the requested budget is > 550b. But replace the “>” with “=”, and that’s reducing the request to 495b. Last year’s budget was 512b, so with the “=” assumption, this year’s would be exactly a 10% reduction in the request. That’s a decrease in the actual budget of (512b – 495b)/512b or about 3.3%.

Certainly a pain in the rear, but I don’t how much of a pain.

JimC on February 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM

Instead of purging the military by sending its officers to the gulag, Obama plans to purge the military through cuts in funding. He’ll then replace the departed officers with a group of hard left loyalists who will give him control of the military and support his move for a third and fourth term in office. Sounds like the old Soviet way to me.

uncalheels on February 2, 2009 at 11:15 AM

This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TVset, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn’t that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China. If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs. If you purchase a computer it will go to India. If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic). If you buy a car it will go to Japan.

If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan. And none of it will help the American economy. We need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US. (from the WSJ)

Maxx on February 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5