U.S. budget needs to be re-aligned with eye toward military cuts
With the U.S. economy in deep trouble, it's time to ask the unthinkable questions about our "untouchable" military budgets. The U.S. military spending has jumped from $1,500 per capita in 1998 to $2,700 per capita in 2008, and we are now spending 50 percent more (even excluding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) than we did on 9/11.
It's time to ask our legislators to realign our budget so it reflects our concerns about human health and welfare. An article by Mark Thompson in the April 14 issue of Time ("How to Save a Trillion Dollars") outlines how that might be done.
A budget vote is coming up in the U.S. Senate: please contact Senators Levin and Stabenow to tell them how you feel about the budget and the use of your tax money.
Nancy E. Taylor Ann Arbor
Comments
Diagenes
Tue, May 3, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
We are $14 trillion dollars in debt. No department or program should be immune from real reductions in spending levels. T begin with you have to remember that the primary function of the federal goverment is national defense. Everything else comes second.
a2citizen
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 3:33 a.m.
Well, now we can pull out of Afghanistan. Just turn it over to a ruthless dictator and tell he can be replaced, if necessary. We'll leave the light on. This should help with the budget balancing.
EyeHeartA2
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 1:25 a.m.
Everything needs to be on the table. But let's not kid ourselves here. If you reduced military spending to zero, we would still be running in the red every year. Entitlements are roughly equal to the taxes we take in. Those need to be looked at for any hope to balance the budget.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 2:07 a.m.
It all needs to be on the table, Eyeheart: entitlement programs, defense spending, AND tax increases. Good Night and Good Luck
DonBee
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 1:11 a.m.
I suspect that the military budget can be cut. Maybe even significantly. Do we pull troops out of Korea? Are we worried about North Korea coming across the border? Should we be? Do we pull troops out of Europe (80,000 are still there)? Do we retain any presence there for rapid response? Should we retire some aircraft carriers? Do drones replace aircraft carriers? Do we pull out of Japan, Guam, Okinawa, et al? Do we leave the Pacific to China? Do we pull the nave back from the Middle East? Leaving the sea lanes to the pirates? Do we cut troop numbers? If so how do we replace the opportunity that the military is for low income children to step up in life? Do we do away with bases in the US? If so how do we deal with the hole closing that base leaves in the local community? Do we close the various remediation programs that clean up the bases? Remediation of old weapons? Remediation of old weapon development and manufacturing centers? If we disassemble weapons as part of a build down, were do we store the items that cannot be just recycled or landfilled? These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered. Yes, the military can be cut, there is a significant amount of waste in the military budget. But where do you start and what signals do you send to the rest of the world?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 2:05 a.m.
"But where do you start and what signals do you send to the rest of the world?" How about this for a signal: Since the Carter Doctrine's inception in 1980, the United States has spent nearly $7 Trillion guaranteeing the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf (or half of what is now our national debt). Let's tell the world that it can start to carry the vast majority of that burden by either replacing our military efforts there or by paying us for the services provided. Source: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/oeme/articles/US-miiltary-cost-of-Persian-Gulf-force-projection.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.princeton.edu/oeme/articles/US-miiltary-cost-of-Persian-Gulf-force-projection.pdf</a> Good Night and Good Luck
shepard145
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 12:20 a.m.
What "logic" is that Ed? The one that runs fresh out of information when any inconvenient truths about your heros Pelosi, Clinton and Obama pop up on Google? While Edward R Murrow also polluted the truth with his opinions, he seemed to have a much better moral compass then those hijacking his name these days.
shepard145
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.
This is what happens when folks mistake consuming extreme left editorial sound bites for actual information....or even "knowledge". President George W. Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln with a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign behind him and was absolutely right. Why? ..and why do so many bankrupt leftist democrats fail to know the truth despite what they read on bumper stickers driving to Trader Joes for all those years? LOL
David Briegel
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 3:29 a.m.
Moral compass. You TeaPublicans lost that a long time ago! Read my reply above. Celebrate! Democrats are tough on terror!! And SUCCESSFUL!! They didn't just bluster about it or land on carriers in jump suits accomplishing nothing!!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 11:42 p.m.
Shep's replies summed up: He cares not for facts or for logic. But, then, we knew that. And, to be honest, Shep, you're not my audience. I write for those people for whom facts and logic are important. Good Night and Good Luck
shepard145
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 11:40 p.m.
Ed., Item 1. is a special gem - context is everything honey. Did you write that because you don't know any better? LOL Item 2. is absurd, meaningless cast into the opinions of your like minded haters. Item 3. is a silly light weight editorial. Google is so amusing in the hands of amateurs. Information is just another tool in the hands of bankrupt democrat excuse makers and the dishonest who work to mislead and confuse readers who don't know any better. So much soft ineptitude Ed. Good luck with your quest to cast off your government issued talking points and new effort to find truth. It will not be an easy journey for you.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 11:24 p.m.
Shep, Shep, Shep. You need to find a fact or two. 1) Since the end of the Second World War, the presidents responsible for the largest cuts in defense spending as a percentage of the defense budget they inherited were Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush I--Republicans all. Source: <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html</a> 2) Bush I, had he been re-elected in 1992, planned even deeper cuts. Clinton did cut the defense budget, but nearly as deeply as Bush would have done. Source: <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html" rel='nofollow'>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html</a> 3). The United States spends more on defense than all other nations combined. Why is it, do you suppose, that we feel so insecure despite all of those expenditures? Why is it that nations who spend far less that we do seem so much more secure than we do? Good Night and Good Luck
shepard145
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 10:13 p.m.
You mean as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did? Clinton played hide the cigar with Monica while terrorists trained for two years to take off and fly but not land passenger airliners in Florida. ...meaning he gutted our national security, which looking back was NOT a good value despite what the AA Extreme Left would love to believe. That is not to say that Trump's point does not have some merit, which is that if we're going to remain the world police force, protecting other economies as well as our own, we should be paid accordingly. The truth is that even in obama's naive dream world where peace occurs after his charm, hearty hand shake and cheesy smile is bestowed onto one of President George W. Bush's enemies, cutting defense would do little to solve the real problem. That PROBLEM resulted from a largely democrat failure to prepare the nation for the retirement, withdrawal from the labor/consumer market and financial burden presented by the rapidly aging baby boomers. No matter what you read or want to believe, there are no easy answers for what we now face. Even worse, all gimmicks that make our nation even less globally competitive (expensive phoney "green energy", job killing "green" regulation, corrupt democrat bargains with big industry, pharma and labor, etc.) continue to make the problem far worse.
David Briegel
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.
Well Shep, Clinton tried. Do you think your boy/hero was a huge success in his futile 8 yrs where "he didn't think about Osama much"? When he tucked his tail between his legs and cut and run with the chicken hawks for the folly in Iraq? Taking all the "special resources" from their mission of capturing Osama for HIS real mission to behead Saddam? For Jesus? And NOW, breaking news, I know you will heartily celebrate the victory in accomplishing the mission by Dems led by Obama and Pineta. Yes Shep, we know you will celebrate with us! And Shep, please read My Pet Goat!
shepard145
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 11:57 p.m.
Hey Johnny - for those who develop their opinions by driving around Ann Arbor reading bumper stickers, what you've written sounds right, doesn't it? LOL I do enjoy the reverence you leftists have for President George W. Bush, with your marveling expectations that he was capable of reconstructing our national defense 10 months after taking office. You must have had his photo over an alter in your trailer! ...but so disappointed when he could not overcome 8 years of Clinton incompetence so quickly. While I agree with you that he was superior to the democrat hacks that came before him, your expectations were not realistic in that time frame. On the other hand, I'm sure you are eternally grateful for his actions kept the nation safe for the rest of his 7 MORE YEARS IN OFFICE and two successful wars with record low KIA. If only the democrat incompetence that caused some 55,000 American service deaths in Vietnam were as talented eh? Do you think your hero Clinton still regrets letting bin laden get away in fall 2000 and the likelihood that 9/11 would never have happened? ....hero worship must be tough for those democrats living without benefit of your foil hats....
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 11:08 p.m.
"The truth is that even in obama's naive dream world where peace occurs after his charm, hearty hand shake and cheesy smile is bestowed onto one of President George W. Bush's enemies. . . " That's pretty funny. I thought it was Bush II who looked into Putin's soul (or was it sole?) and saw a peaceful utopia. So many angry opinions, Shep. So few facts and so little logic. Good Night and Good Luck
johnnya2
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.
Nonsense. When did 9/11 occur? Oh thats right, Bush was president. He had been over 15% into his term, and fully 10 months after he started receiving daily briefings. By the way, OKC bomber arrested, tried and convicted, first WTC bombers same, where is Bin Laden? He certainly isn't hiding in Iraq.If he cant get up to speed that quickly, he should be arrested for malfeasance.
tim
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.
If we spent more money solving the energy problem we wouldn't care less about what happens in the middle east. The Military money is being spent making sure that we get our oil fix. Too bad there isn't a international twelve step program for oil addiction.
Speechless
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.
It's only all too sensible and rational to suggest slashing the federal war budget. And why not, say, take it down from its current level of about $700 billion (or $1 trillion-plus if you include related line items) to $100 billion. That would put us on par with second-place China and still well ahead of third-place France. The U.S. does the world little overall good by playing the role of a bullying empire, and such nasty, ongoing gamesmanship is not financially sustainable over time, anyway. Every empire ultimately collapses under its own weight. However, rather than return $600 billion in savings directly to taxpayers, provide a limited tax cut while reallocating the majority toward education at all levels, universal health coverage (Medicare-for-All), mass transit, alternative 'green' fuels, etc. This would provide an opportunity to make the transition at last to a true peacetime economy, something this country has willfully neglected to do since the start of the Cold War in the late 1940s.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 8:20 p.m.
Come on, Nancy. Who are you kidding? Everyone knows that the budget can be balanced by cutting funding to NPR and to Planned Parenthood! Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Mon, May 2, 2011 : 3:30 a.m.
And it's a teleprompter that understands and speaks our language!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.
Yeah, 'cause no president before him EVER used a teleprompter. The teleprompter diversion is right up there with the birther nonsense--a wonderful distraction for the feeble minded. Good Night and Good Luck
Kafkaland
Sun, May 1, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
And Obama's teleprompter, as we learned last night...