Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense

[Rose Siding]

In its latest move to draw attention to liberal ideas, the Congressional Progressive Caucus will introduce a plan today to divert $60 billion in defense spending to humanitarian assistance, social programs, energy conservation, homeland security and deficit reduction.

Leaders of the caucus argue that the military funding goes to unnecessary Cold War-era programs and could be spent better elsewhere.

“I think it’s time for Congress and the House to talk about the huge amount of tax dollars going for weapons systems designed to fight a Cold War that doesn’t exist,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the 62-member Democratic group. “I don’t think people realize the billions of dollars that are being wasted.”

The plan, dubbed the Common Sense Budget Act, would direct savings in military spending toward humanitarian assistance and food aid ($13 billion), modernizing public schools ($10 billion), providing health insurance to uninsured children ($10 billion), energy conservation ($10 billion), training unemployed workers ($5 billion), homeland security ($5 billion), deficit reduction ($5 billion) and medical research ($2 billion).

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030806/liberals.html

[Coexist]

1. I think I like this

[Brooklyn Michael]

7. I have no problem with this....BUT...

They should start by NOT calling it "cutting $60 Billion from Defense". That will go over like a lead balloon, and just give Republicans more ammunition for the old "Democrats / liberals are weak on defense" chestnut.

Why not call it "updating our defense priorities"? Not only does it sound proactive, but IT'S THE TRUTH.

[Odin2005]

9. Better way of saying it: Cut defense contractor pork.

[Brooklyn Michael]

10. not bad....

But the problem with that is, outside of the people (like DU-ers) who CARE about these issues and know where the Federal Wa$te is going, the average American Joe Six-Pack (or in Homer Simpsons's case, Joe Twelve-Pack), "defense contractor pork" will get a big "Huh???".

Remember why advertising works. Bright, shiny things to get the punters' attention, and K.I.S.S. (new liberal defense policy = better & streamlined.....old Republican defense policy = bad & outdated).

[LeftHander]

11. Screw Republican weak defense...bull...

If people can't wrap thier tiny stupid heads around the fact that we spend WAAYYY too much on death and little of helping people live...so be it. We don't have to say it is something else...

Tell it like it is. Not:


Ohhh yeah look...we are going to increase America's military strength with the new weapons system called "Cloak of Education". The new 14 billion dollar weapon system is designed to overcome our enemies by saturating the minds of America's youth with knowlege. These "Smart Bombs" are highly accurate and devastate a enemy regardless of defence.

[Brooklyn Michael]

16. OK...devil's advocate alert...

Not that I'm trying to start an argument here....but please look again at what I originally said.

"Why not call it "updating our defense priorities"? Not only does it sound proactive, but IT'S THE TRUTH."

So I'm not actually calling it something it's NOT. I'm calling it what it IS, but in a way that many people, with their "tiny stupid heads", can UNDERSTAND what it's about, beyond the (incorrect) Republican Talking Point that Dems are weak on defense.

Look, I know Dems aren't "weak" on defense, and you know it, but the average person who doesn't pay attention to politics or what their leaders do, or anything besides what the office loudmouth repeats at the water cooler about what he heard on O'Reilly the night before....they get the bullhorn of "Dems are weak on defense", and then we go and hand them a headline like "Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense".

If you insist on sticking to talking about issues in a way that plays right into the way Republicans FRAME those issues, you're doing their work for them....

That's my only point. Fire away...

[redqueen]

12. Agreed! And how long did it take you to work that one out?

Geez... it's like they intend to hand them ammunition.

[Brooklyn Michael]

17. .0002 seconds after I read the headline

...or was that sarcasm? :)

[redqueen]

18. hehehe... sarcasm...

but you prove my point... why can't the yahoos putting this stuff out there figure this out? It ain't rocket science... not like we don't know what's coming. Grrr.

[skipos]

28. I agree with you 100%.

Bush and Rove have mastered the art of marketing their bad ideas, I think dems should spend some time thinking about how to market their good ones.

[superconnected]

2. Sounds like a dream

what's the odds of it passing.

Oh yeah, 0.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Presumably, "defense" here means "occupation of Iraq"?

I would want to see specifically what is proposed for cuts before I could support such a gesture. Not all defense spending is unnecessary, after all.

[Rose Siding]

4. This targets cuts to cold war weapons systems

Not Iraq

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Cold war systems, good start

Quite a few legacy programs have never been used and have been overtaken by new and better technology, but are still receiving lots of funding.

I think recognizing failure in Iraq and withdrawing would also be a great fiscal move. That would free up billions; we could fire Haliburton and split the money between domestic needs and actually rebuilding Iraq.

[54anickel]

5. Not according to the article...

The savings in defense spending in the progressives’ plan would come from cutting programs dealing with the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, the Virginia Class attack submarine, the DD(X) destroyer, the V-22 Osprey aircraft, the C-130 J transport aircraft and all offensive space-based weapon systems. It would trim programs such as the tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat System.

The proposals closely parallel a plan put together by Larry Korb, an expert at the liberal Center for American Progress who served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.

[Solon]

25. Good, gets rid of wasteful "Pie in the Sky" programs, and the money...

will actually go to something that will HELP people rather than kill them. I think the F-22 and Osprey need to be cut loose, stupid assholes think dumping millions on outdated or unworkable technology is a good idea, I don't.

[Greeby]

6. When troops go unarmored and have to eat Halliburton maggotburgers

I hardly think they'd be missing out from these cuts

[ImNotBuying]

15. "defense" is the key word.

I suspect very little is spent on "defense" while the boatload is spent on ways to further our offense. Isn't having a populace that is educated, fed, and housed more worth "defending".

[Ignacio Upton]

13. With a headline like "Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense"

This bill is good as dead, which is unfortunate because aspects of our military ARE BLOATED. We need a military that doesn't spend money on pork porjects like missile defense, and spends more on body armor for our troops. The problem is that most politicans (Democrats mostly) are afraid of criticizing the military for extravagent spending because they'll get tarred with the "soft on defense" brush. Someone like Wes Clark could probably transcend this because he was a General, but most politicans won't be able to persuade the public.

[rodeodance]

14. this amt. is just short of the new funding Bush wants! simply do not fund

the wa in Iraq. yugga yugga

[Massachusetts]

19. Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense

Lets all REMEMBER how well OUR tax money has been spent on Defense by OUR Representative boys and girls.

As long as we get rid of wasteful spending on the "whistles and bells" thats O.K., BUT NOT ON OUR TROOPS AND THE EQUIPMENT THEY REQUIRE TO GET THEIR JOBS DONE.

[mom cat]

20. High time someone broke the taboo.

[MasonJar]

21. So we are going to keep wasting the money so we can say we

are not weak on defense, while undermining the life and health of our fellow citizens. What good are we? What good has it done us?

[libodem]

22. Good for them

There is so much spending boosting the arms cartel profits while a lot of service families qualify for food stamps...that is if the congress hasn't raised the bar on qualifying incomes. PS does anyone know how to find a pie chart of the Federal budget..it's not that I'm too lazy to do it myself but I just don't know how. I have a question in the research forum to that effect. I'm a real late internet bloomer...the only reason i can even type is so I can make remarks on DU. No, I'm not kidding:)

[Catchawave]

23. There's a lot of gov't waste, bet we can find it !

This article is about a year old, but a good start....

http://www.slate.com/id/2113274/
Rummy's Got a Secret
He's hiding up to $40 billion in defense spending. Let's find it.
By Fred Kaplan

[Rex]

24. The MSM should stop calling it defense.

The moment we set foot in Iraq it became offense. It will be offense until the day the last GI's foot leaves the ground in Iraq. When you occupy a nation, expect no help from the natives. Any taken is a weakness. This is Korea and Vietnam all over again. Shot the enemy, which ones the enemy, whose that guy, who shot at me.

As a matter of fact we had a Dept of Offense. Shouldn't invading countries be their job? How bout the Dept of Defense handle DHS and such. They seem kinda stupid when it comes to invasions. Just my 2cents.

[Rose Siding]

26. Supported by Reagan's SecDef, fmr admirals and generals,

business leaders and a majority of Americans.

Sources from a True Majority e-mail:

Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.), and former Commander, U.S. Second Fleet
Captain James Bush (USN, ret.), commanded a nuclear missile submarine
Brigadier General Dallas Brown, Jr. (USA, ret.), nuclear weapons authority
Ambassador Ralph Earle, directed the U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency
Colonel Everett Riccioni (USAF, ret.), air superiority authority and former test pilot
Franklin Spinney, former senior analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
Admiral Stansfield Turner (USN, ret), former Director of the CIA
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/csba/factsheet.php#advisors

Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1981-85, administered about 70% of the defense budget. He has prepared a report, identifying exactly where $60 billion can be saved from that budget.
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/pdf/korb_report_Finalb.pdf

Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/who_we_are.php

When presented the major items in the discretionary federal budget and given the opportunity to modify it, Americans make some dramatic changes. The largest cut by far is to defense spending...the largest increases are to reductions in the deficit, various forms of social spending, and spending on the environment.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/DefenseSpending/FedBudget_Mar05/FedBudget_Mar05_rpt.pdf

[humbled_opinion]

27. Yes this needs support

If the pubbies call weak on defense just reply yea right we were the ones that stopped the terrorists from acquiring control of the ports....