Pelosi: Freeze Pentagon budget, too

[sabra]

Source: MSNBC

From NBC's Luke Russert
Toward the end of her weekly press conference on Capitol Hill today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) broke ranks with President Obama and reiterated her call for the president's proposed spending freeze to include the Defense budget as well.

She charged that much of the wasteful spending in the U.S. budget is directly related to the Pentagon.

"I support taking care of our veterans," she said (based on a rough transcript of her quotes), "but not entitlement programs for military contractors. ... We must not ignore the Pentagon completely."

Pelosi made the point that a spending freeze must come regarding military contractors. This has been a liberal cause because of the amount of money charged to Uncle Sam by companies like Blackwater and Halliburton. Pelosi then gave examples, quoting Reagan administration officials talking about how the Pentagon's budget is routinely bloated.

Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/28/2187789.aspx

[Enthusiast]

1. Recommended, Nancy!

You're not weak!

[dipsydoodle]

3. ditto

.

[Earth_First]

2. Not good enough

I want to see an annual DoD reduction of 3% for 10 years...

[Demeter]

8. And End Two Illegal Wars, While We're At It

[avaistheone1]

9. Absolutely

[Lorien]

13. +1 nt

[Xenotime]

79. Agreed. It has gotten too big. It needs to be cut in half.

[Ignis]

87. It would be a damned good start.

:thumbsup:

[apnu]

4. I've always thought that way, its nice to see Nacy agreeing with me.

But I'd go a step further and DEFUND all bases outside of the US and BRING THOSE TROOPS HOME where they belong.

If other countries want to use us as their cops, they can pay for it.

[Roland99]

6. +1

[WriteDown]

7. That would be very interesting..

Whole towns in places like Germany are built around the business they do with US bases and soldiers. Perhaps they should pay for that privilege.

[pberq]

15. Yes - the military budget is a big waste

[lib_wit_it]

56. +2

[thereismore]

5. Well, she has the power, so to speak. Just do it Nancy! nt

[optimator]

10. Nancy, do you know who drafts the budgets?

hint: look in the mirror.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. Thank you Madam Speaker!

K & R :yourock: :applause:

[Flaneur]

12. Good on Rep. Pelosi. The Pentagon should not be a sacred cow.

[jwirr]

14. There must be bases we can close and other non-vital spending

in the military budget that could be included in the freeze.

[bossy22]

20. not really

Yes there are bases we can close; and other things that are over-funded, but there is also much that is under-funded (like navy shipbuilding). The fact is now more than ever the military needs this money now more then ever, but they need to actually spend it corrrectly. In the past the military budget situation between it and congress was like a homeowner who needed $50,000 to save his house. He does to a good friend and cries that he needs the money to save his house and his friend gives it to him. Instead of paying off his mortgage though, the homeowner goes out and buys a $50,000 car. You wouldnt say that the homeowner didn't need the money, but that he needed and spent it foolishly. Thats how the military is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Ships? What do we need more ships for?

This isn't World War II.

If we didn't keep sticking our noses into countries where we didn't belong, we wouldn't have half the military "needs" we do now.

Yes, we need a defensive force. But every nation in the world, including Russia and China, gets by on a lot less than we do.

[bossy22]

27. Our navy is aging and shrinking

20 years ago we had almost 600 ships....now we have less than 300. The navy is our main source of power projection- soft and hard. Our navy allows us dominance in both the atlantic in the pacific.

and you are missing the whole point. Its not about just "getting by". It is about being dominant. as i mentioned in another post MILITARY PARITY ISNT A GOOD THING. China and russia are not actually getting by- look at the facts- china is in the midst of a major naval buildup; 6 new classes of ships in less than 10 years. Russia is looking at doubling its fleet tonnage by 2020.

Plus demographics are important too...look at when many of our ships were made- the 1980's...that means with an average 30 year lifespan many of our current ships are going to be retired and need to be replaced. Shipbuilding is an ongoing thing; you dont just build a fleet and then take a 10 year holiday (like clinton did) without serious force reduction problems in the future. Once you build the first ship you need to think about its replacement in the future and start planning for it.

and im not talking about us needing a massive build up- but we do need to increase production- ship production stands at about 7-8 per year and it should be increased to 10-12 in order to maintain a strategically necessary fleet of 300+ ships (current fleet is about 280).

thats unless you don't think we need to be the dominant pacific naval power and are with happy a dominant chinese navy running things.

also remember, your best defense is a good offense. Our large offensive capabilities provide us with deterrent; which is in a way more important than actual physical defense (because in war really no one wins)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Why DOMINATE? Why PROJECT POWER?

There's that military mindset again.

What's wrong with military PARITY?

I am totally opposed to military action for the purposes of

1) Projecting power (That's the streetgang mentality.)

2) Defending U.S. business interests

3) Trying to grab other countries' resources

4) Trying to change other countries' systems

Have you ever lived overseas or read the foreign press and seen what the U.S. looks like to other countries?

It looks like a big bully.

[bossy22]

30. what is wrong with military parity you ask?

well it brought us 2 world wars. Military parity makes war much more palitable because both sides have an equal chance of coming out on top.


1) Are you paying attention to what is going on in haiti? Well if you are you are watching a good representation of united states soft power projection. No other military in the world has the capacity to do what we are doign down there. The closest competitor right now is italy with its carrier bringing 9 helicopters- yet our carrier has double that amount. It's not street gang mentality. Its the same as a Fire Department doing a parade (which is essentially also a show of force); its a show of force for good

Also, is every person who is big, or has huge muscles a bully? no. That means we can have a strong military and not be the world's bully.

Also, do you realize that in the world there will always be countries that are more powerful than others. Look throughout history, there is always a country/group of countries that are much more powerful than all the rest. If we are not the "top dog" someone else will ascend to the throne- and again that country is most likely china- so i'll ask you again, are you okay with china running the world with their ideals (like censorship and total government loyalty)?

And why do foreign presses feel that way about us? multiple reasons including the bully one. Yes, at times we do bully, but having a strong military does not always mean we will bully. Plus i'd rather be the bully-er than the bully-ee (as i said before- there will always be strong countries and week ones).

The world is not just, its not fair, its not all good. Every country has their own set of interests and they sometimes conflict with each other. thats the way things are.

so again, there will always be a superpower/superpowers in the world- so why not be one of them?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Why?

That streetgang mentality is all part of it.

If "power" is your main objective, then you risk (and I think the U.S. reached this point long ago) losing sight of the reason you're supposed to deserve that power.

We tell ourselves that we project this power because we're the good guys. Only this single-minded emphasis on power has made us very much not the good guys in too many instances. Those aren't "mistakes." Those are "I know it's wrong but I want power" situations.

All this devotion to "power" has caused us to bleed the national treasury dry. At this rate, we will follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, with a massive, state-of-the-art military and declining living standards domestically.

By the way, we don't need a gazillion dollar military establishment to provide disaster relief around the world. Most of U.S. activity in Haiti has been decidedly uncharitable, such as deposing any leader who didn't play nice with U.S. business interests.

The last time the military defended the U.S. from any actual attack was World War II, and the last time it actually "fought for (anyone's) freedom" (maybe) was in Korea. The rest was all meddling and acting as errand boys for the business establishment and power plays, like a bunch of 12-year-olds playing Risk. Never mind who gets hurt, never mind that our country is being corrupted by this power, it's all gamesmanship.

I'm not a pacifist. But I wish there wasn't this macho swaggering attitude in so many Americans.

Who needs enemies? We're destroying ourselves with these asinine and illegal military ventures around the world.

[PacerLJ35]

44. It's not just offensive "power", it's defensive too...

In the realm of military power (offensive or defensive, it's irrelevant for this discussion), you always want to be in a position to dominate the enemy. So if the bad guys DO invade (you yourself said that China owns us and we're crumbling...so the age of the US as a dominant power is ending), you want to be able to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. Making it an "even board game" only makes things worse, and prolongs the violence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. We SAY it's defensive, but your attitude reminds me of a street kid I once worked with

He had been arrested for beating up another kid on a city bus, and when he came back, we tried to talk to him about his tendency toward violent outbursts.

"How would you like it if some bigger person beat you up?" one of the counselors asked.

"That's why I keep myself buff and don't take shit from no one," he replied. "Nobody talks shit to me and gets away with it."

In other words, his attitude of "self-defense" caused him to overreact to things that weren't really dangerous. He had to "project power" at all times.

That's what I mean by the streetgang attitude.

We don't need to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Aristide was no threat to us when we removed him. Chavez is no threat to us. But the latter two dissed the U.S., so our military took Aristide out, and I can see the buildup in the media to "do something" about Chavez.

We're a sick nation, and we do not deserve to be the only superpower.

[PacerLJ35]

47. Wow, you sure do like to make assumptions...

1. I didn't say we should be the only superpower...in fact in other posts in this thread I have alluded to the fact that our time as a superpower is coming to a close.

2. I never said we needed to attack Iraq, in fact I feel we had no business invading Iraq, although I did volunteer to be an advisor to their Air Force, only because I feel if we broke it, we should try and fix it.

3. I don't think Chavez is a threat to us. Never said that.

4. I never said we needed to project our power. But we do need a defensive force that's not literally falling apart, much like our current fleet of aircraft are in the process of doing.

And I really don't think I was saying something like a "street kid", saying "we don't take shit from no one". Seriously, where did you drag those analogies from? Your thought process is much like that of another poster who painted me to be a big, buff "meathead" that probably beats my wife, just because I'm in the military. It's pretty laughable.

[whathehell]

71. + 10

[ProudDad]

61. Bullshit

OXFAM could have done a better job in Haiti for 1/10 the money.

The bullshit military is a huge fucking waste of resources....

And if any other country is "more powerful" than the USAmerikan Empire, then look in the fucking mirror! USAmerika is the leading exporter of ARMS...

And only paranoids can believe most of your blithering pro-war bullshit...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. --->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4248260#4248410

[PacerLJ35]

74. Hmmmm, and the crews in my squadron thought they were helping...

I guess I need to tell them they are busy with the "theft of Haiti". I should ask those blood-thirsty war-mongrels who they've been killing, and what they've been stealing in between delivering pallets of food, water, medical supplies, and construction equipment.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

75. It's not the soldiers.

And it's not all anti-humanitarian.

But there is another side to the story, one well-rooted in history.

[PacerLJ35]

76. I've had this discussion with someone else...

What the folks are doing on the ground in Haiti *IS* the policy. You seem to think that there's a separate policy in existence that's disconnected from those military personnel in Haiti...but policy is useless unless you have folks to carry it out. So if you're saying the official US policy is to take over Haiti and militarize it, then that's what the people on the ground in Haiti would have to be doing. But they're not doing that.

[Lasher]

89. Would you trade the navy of today for the navy of 20 years ago?

Didn't think so.

In 1989 we had 14 carriers: 5 Nimitz class (over 100,000 tons), the USS JFK (82,655 tons), the USS Enterprise (92,325 tons), 3 Kitty Hawk class (81,780 tons), and 4 Forrestal class (60,000 tons). Their combined displacement was 1,160,000 tons. 6 of these carriers (less than half) had nuclear propulsion.

Today we have 11 carriers: 10 Nimitz class and Enterprise. Combined displacement is 1,092,000 tons. All 11 have nuclear propulsion.

We just launched the USS Poppy Bush. We're already building yet another supercarrier that's already named after yet another loser Republican president.

So what if we have 46 auxiliary ships today compared to 137 in 1989? Just comparing the total number of ships is intellectually dishonest.

We're spending way too much today on our military, including the Navy. And you know what else? We were spending way too much 20 years ago too.

[PacerLJ35]

34. Not to mention our Air Force is virtually falling apart

I don't advocate we go back to a 1980s sized Air Force with thousands of fighter aircraft...but the ones we do have are aging quickly, and virtually all the aircraft in our Air Force is getting very old, very fast.

A-10: Most are around 30 years old
B-1: About 25 years old
B-52: Most are around 45-50 years old
C-130: Most are around 45-50 years old
C-17: Still getting new ones, but the oldest ones are 17 years old
C-5: Between 25-40 years old on average...C-5Bs are newer...C-5As are older
KC-135: Most are about 50 years old...some were built in 1955
KC-10: The "new" tankers are about 30 years old
F-15: Most are about 30 years old
F-16: The bulk of these aircraft are 25 years old
F-15E: Most are 20-25 years old

To compound the age problem, many airframes have flown beyond their designed hour limits. Since Bush Sr, the military has been deployed far more than it was deployed during the 1980s build-up, but procurements to replace worn-out aircraft virtually ceased in the early 1990s with the fall of the Soviets. A handful of replacement fighters were bought, but the only other "new" aircraft bought in the past 20 years are C-17s and F-22s....oh, and let's not forget the Beltway fleet of biz jets that has steadily grown over the past 20 years...but those obviously don't add any defense capability to our military.

Aircraft have already started coming apart in mid-air. An F-15 broke up in flight due to stress cracks. B-52s have had engines separate from the wing due to fatigue. C-130s and KC-135s have been grounded after maintenance crews found cracks in the wings and tails of the aircraft (thankfully they found the problems before a wing came off). Our military probably needs to become smaller and more defense-oriented. I'll agree to that. However it's going to require Congress not to raid the defense budget to replace the worn out stuff. This is just within the Air Force, too. Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr spent a lot of time deploying our military all over the place, but little effort into actually spending the money to make sure our stuff was replaced when it wore out.

[bossy22]

38. EXACTLY!!!!!!!

"Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr spent a lot of time deploying our military all over the place, but little effort into actually spending the money to make sure our stuff was replaced when it wore out."

This is what i've been trying to say all along. It's a good thing the defense budget has seen modest growth but the money was being ill-spent. Bush Jr. though was the worst offender since it was clear during the administration that there were going to be modernization and equipment issues and he ignored them. Atleast when Bush I and Clinton were president the armed forces were still reletively new due to the reagan build up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Why do you need that many aircraft unless you're going to bomb someone?

There is absolutely no one trying to conquer the world like Hitler these days, and there's no one on the horizon who might even try it.

The Chinese won't need a military to conquer us. We're selling ourselves to them. We'll crumble like Rome handing itself over to the barbarians, not perish in a rain of fire like Germany or Japan.

If these aircraft and ships are really necessary (and I have my doubts), then get rid of the unnecessary things FIRST. Close the foreign bases (everyone else but the British seems to get along without them) and pull out of current engagements. THEN start replacing the NECESSARY hardware.

I'm sick of the way the Pentagon gets a blank check and domestic needs always have to be fought for.

[PacerLJ35]

43. Most of those aircraft aren't designed to bomb...

If you plan on defending the US at all, all those aircraft (with the exception of the true bombers like the B-52 and B-1) are needed. Airlift gets stuff from point A to point B, and is used in other than war operations, such as peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Tankers (KC-10 and KC-135) allow short-range fighters like the F-16 to get airborne and fighter longer...refueling in the air instead of returning to base. Fighters are needed to keep bad aircraft out, and to attack potential bad guys on the ground if they do enter the country.

The US is a large country, and there's a lot of airspace. You can't have an Air Force the size of, say, France's and still cover all that area. Keep in mind that I wasn't saying we should replace everything 1 for 1. But we do need new aircraft because the ones we have are falling apart.

[ProudDad]

63. "If you plan on defending the US at all"

From WHOM?

The fucking USAmerikan Empire spends more on military than THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!!!

Why?

To steal 25% of the Earth's resources for 4% of the population...

It's called THEFT...

Defense?

You're incredibly naive to buy that line of bullshit...

[PacerLJ35]

69. Very informed and well thought out post....btw that's called "sarcasm"

[ProudDad]

62. I wish to hell they'd fucking get out of my town

The war machine and the profiteers have FUCKED my town...

Fuck 'em...

[PacerLJ35]

70. What town is that? I'm in the Air Force....

[saigon68]

80. Its either Davis-Monthan,Luke or Fort Huachuca,

And by the way--have a nice day

[PacerLJ35]

83. I'd rather be over there than here right now...middle of an ice storm

Been to D-M a bunch of times....last time, to deliver a 1961 Lockheed C-130E to the boneyard. That was an interesting experience.

[MadMaddie]

48. I beg to differ because if we didn't stick our noses in WWII

and stop Germany and Japan this world would be vastly different. Let's take it a step further if the U.S would have gotten involved earlier when Germany started it's march across Europe and Africa the loss of life could have been reduced.

Now having said that most if not all wars after WWII Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, the cold War with Russia....all unnecessary and all feeding into the war machine.

Let's be realistic Afghanastan, Osama Bin Laden and Saudia Arabia had a hand in the attack on the U.S on 9/11 most if not all of the criminals were from Saudi Arabia......while Saudi Arabia sucks the U.S dry for their gold oil they plot to destroy America.

Just sayin...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. I SAID that World War II was a justified war

Don't attribute to me things that I didn't say.

Nobody's trying to take over the world now.

[clixtox]

68. You have to be joking! Nobody?

Well, almost nobody! The USA has pretty much already taken over the world.

What we are seeing now are the humungous costs in lives, bankrupting expenses, pervasive, massive, corruption and opportunities squandered, needed to maintain our crumbling empire.

The USA is the absolute hub of the "Axis of Evil", we are the war criminals, the "bad guys" now, and as Howard Zinn had the guts to write, we have been since even before our nation was created.

It's just not as easy as it used to be to violently overthrow a democratically elected, progressive leader. Honduras worked, perhaps, but Venezuela was a ridiculous failure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Yes, you are right about that

But the other people in this dialogue are working under the naive assumption that America is the "good guys."

I have been ashamed of most of my country's foreign policies for over half my life.

[ProudDad]

64. If IBM and Henry Ford and the rest of corporate USAmerika

had starved the little son of a bitch instead of supplying him...Hitler wouldn't have gotten anywhere...

There were just as many good fascists in USAmerica as there were in Germany.

And if it wasn't gwb and company, a rag-tag bunch of ex-mujahadin, armed and trained by the USAmerikan CIA, took out the towers. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and for shit's sake Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

You're kinda right about all the wars after WWII. It was all bullshit designed to maintain the permanent war economy 'cause the Democrat Administration was scared shitless that USAmerica would return to the depression if they didn't artificially feed the capitalist war machine.

They've got no goddamn imagination and I'm afraid that the current admin. doesn't either...

Same old (war mongering) shit, different container...

[Gecko6400]

88. Never Happen

Closing bases and/or cutting defense contracts can have a devastating effect on employment in many congressional districts.

[onehandle]

16. Cue the Pelosi haters. nt

[Jennicut]

17. She has been very good lately as Speaker. Now if only we could find someone

better then Reid.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Absolutely correct, Nancy. nt

[bossy22]

19. its not about how much we spend, but on what we spend it.

I'm a big supporter of a well funded armed forces that put us well above most other countries forces.

The problem with the defense budget is not about how much we are spending. I think what we are spending is just fine- if the money goes to the right place. Our forces are in need of modernization; We need to build more ships to increase the effectiveness of our navy (who's numbers have been dwindling these past years). We must fund projects and armorments that deter growing powers like china (yes, china's power is on the rise in the pacific and we must keep that in mind unless we want to subjugate ourselves to the status of a lessar pacific power (like mexico or canada).

The issue is that congress doesnt really police the defense department. the DOD in many ways is like a teenager with mommy and daddy's (congress) credit card; they need to be supervised. Bush had the right idea to increase defense spending after the clinton hiatus of procurement (which is why our navy is in such a pickle right now) but he never supervised them. In fact alot of that money went to fund stupid R&D on rediculous programs that weren't fiscally feasable (such as the DDG-1000 or the future combat systems) while ignoring the pressing modernization needs and the shipbuilding issues. He also spent much of the money financing these two stupid wars we are in.

What needs to be done is for congress to start really controlling the way the pentagon spends. they need to force the pentagon to drop some of these rediculous fantasy programs and start spending money on things that are actually needed and feasable. they have to force the navy to give up on its quest for some super-duper ship and start building more ships that have been tested and are the back bones of our fleet (such as the arleigh-burke destroyers). We need to start putting money into revamping our nuclear deterrent delivery systems; which are aging and their reliability being questioned (I'm not exactly pro-nuke, but the reality is that for the forseeble future nuclear weapons will be part of our arsenal- and if we are going to have them we might as well make sure that the way we get them to their targets are actually working.)

So in conclusion- Obama and Gates are finally doing what they should be doing; not cutting the budget but forcing the DOD to spend the money on the right equipment and ending some of these silly money holes.

[maxsolomon]

23. i think it IS about how much we are spending

more than most of the rest of the planet COMBINED. i realize it's not politically feasible (don't "endanger the homeland"!), but i'd like to see (in addition to ending iraq & afganistan) a cut of 1/3 in the total DoD budget. the bigger your military, the more inclination we have to use it as our only tool overseas (see the last 8 years). i'm absolutely sick of the reverence this nation has for its military - it is definitely nationalistic, and verges on fascism.

they're smart folks at the pentagon, they can figure out how to function withing the parameters of the ridiculously bloated budget they'll still have after a cut of 1/3.

[bossy22]

25. not necessarily

a cut to 1/3 the DOD budget would be disasterous for this country in terms of strategic ability. we would probably fall into parity in the pacific with china (which is NOT A GOOD THING). We would cease to be a true world power and fall back to being a regional super power. You are right that we do use it too many times as if its our only tool overseas, but a large decrease in the budget will make it a tool that won't be able to be used effectively overseas. That issue is more about changing ideology than actual capability (it is a good thing that we have such great capability). Its a silly argument to make that the greater your capability the more likely you are to use it (in fact in some ways that is not always correct- for example our nuclear arsenal)s

Plus our military industrial backbone would be broken. Our shipbuilding industry survives only because of our Navy and cuttings its budget will start to force us to buy overseas leaving no domestic production capability; it would make us more dependent on other countries.

Remember, Military parity is not always a good thing. in fact parity brought us world war 1 and in ways also brought us world war 2. The fact that our force is so dominating that it deters wars from happening because countries know that they have no real hope of conventionally beating us (though this pushes them into irregular warefare which is a whole other issue).

The truth is the world system relies on a dominant american military; taking that away will leave a void to be filled by only a few countries; and the top u contenders are China and Russia. So would you like a world dominated by the military of a non-democratic repressive regime? If you think that won't happen you have to start reading some defense news- china is in the middle of a huge military buildup (especially is navy) in an attempt to come to parity with the US in the pacific.

[maxsolomon]

29. we're never going to agree

the military industrial complex is bankrupting us. industrial capacity aside, i'd LIKE it's backbone broken. so would have Eisenhower. the illegal war in iraq is quite a bloody, expensive, economy-destroying counter to your assertion that my argument is silly.

2/3 of where we are now is still the most domininant military on the globe. but as i said, it's not politically feasible, because most americans and their leaders live in absolute xenophobic terror of hypothetical threats. the only actual harm we've seen has come from asymmetric terror operations, not from China or Russia.

what's your answer to China's increased naval budget? maintain our dominance by INCREASING DoD expenditures? I seem to remember we baited the USSR into such a race & they collapsed in exhaustion.

[bossy22]

32. its not bankrupting us

our 2 wars are, but besides that the DOD isnt bankrupting us- we had a large defense budget under clinton and had a surplus.

So you'd like to have no domestic large shipbuilding industry like we are dependent on foreign oil?

My answer to china's increased naval budget (which is significantly smaller than ours) is not to increase overall DOD expenditures but to start spending money MORE WISELY. I'm not for massive increases in overall spending- i like the idea of small growth and think the current budget is adequate- what i want to see though is smarter decisions being made to where that money is going. Like instead of spending money on 2 DDG-1000's you could spend that money on procuring 5 DDG-51's (which are better than any other destroyer out there still). Smarter procurement decisions will be more beneficial to us in the long run and will make it so the defense budget will never really need a large increase.

if we cut our budget by a 1/3 we would cease to be dominant, but the first among more or less equals.

[bossy22]

33. btw

if you worry about bankruptcy, than you should blame the bail-outs and stimulus- if im correct they account for 80% current deficit. If you didnt took away all the stimulus/bail-out money, and get rid of the bush tax cuts and factor in inflation you would find that with everything as it is, we would only have a defecit of about $150 billion. Which in the grand scheme of things is very low and easily managable for a country our size (i don't know if you know that for most of american history, especially the last 100 years, the U.S. has run a year to year defecit in its budget)

[mbperrin]

51. Yes, the "race" killed the USSR.

Here we are on the same road, except we're racing phantoms here.

[PacerLJ35]

35. Perhaps we shouldn't always volunteer to be the lead force in nearly every operation

Too often the US jumps up saying "we'll do it" and then the UN/NATO forces usually look something like 20,000 US troops out of the total 25,000 international force. We need to make the EU and other nations start taking the lead in peacekeeping efforts (such as the Balkans) and other military operations around the world. We need to avoid starting conflicts that are dubious to begin with, and then commits us to stay to fix what we made worse (ie, Iraq).

Much of our budget goes towards operations...that is, operating and logistical expenses to keep the forces going in the field. About half the budget goes towards operational needs. If much of this money was then re-directed to the procurement budget, and we set priorities about how many aircraft, ships, etc that we really needed, we could re-equip most of the military in a decade, and then slash the budget once this was accomplished to accommodate a defense-oriented force that participated in an even-handed manner globally.

One other thing...we need to stop being 90% of NATO. The Soviets aren't positioned to invade anymore, and the EU needs to learn how to manage its own defenses without US military welfare. The reason why most European defense budgets are so small is because they know they have 1/4 of the US military stationed on the continent to do their job. If we pull back, and only have a blended multi-national force to run, say, Ramstein as a purely NATO base (versus a nearly all-US base now), we could afford to re-equip our forces and reduce the DoD budget.

[bossy22]

37. excellent points

I still believe that we should be in the forefront of most operations but that other countries should pick up some of the slack. And much of the money saved by doing that would be able to put back to procurement and R&D leading to future savings.

[PacerLJ35]

39. Many nations are capable of leading international forces...take the Aussies, for example

During the East Timor operations, they led the UN operation there, and the US assisted with a limited amount of airlift and ship-borne assets. The EU is more than competent enough to lead such forays. Even African countries, that are notoriously inefficient, have led UN operations in places like the Sudan. Unfortunately, most of those non-US led efforts tend to be all show with no teeth, so often the bad guys still get to do what they want, with the UN watching (remember Srebrenica?). Perhaps the US is often leading these efforts because they are know for putting their foot down and telling the bad guys "no", but I also think there's a definite sense of volunteerism within the Pentagon and the WH too.

[midnight armadillo]

49. It IS how much we spend.

Nearly $1 trillion annually (counting: straight DoD budget, ongoing wars, and spending hidden in the DoE on nuclear weapons) on the military means no money for many other pressing things - schools, roads, railroads, a conversion away from fossil fuels, science research, single payer health care, etc etc etc. We will spiral downward economically compared with other nations so long as we devote ever larger sums to the military while ignoring the real needs of the country.

If the DoD stopped those fantasy weapon systems (future combat system, most of missile defense, and so on ad nauseum) and built reliable, effective weapons systems with strict oversight of their contracting, they could replace aging systems with a vastly smaller budget. Let's start with half of what they spend now. You are certainly correct that the US is fundamentally a naval power. A smaller overall military with a smaller Air Force (and its expensive toys) and a well-equipped Navy for both littoral and deep water missions would still be effective in defending US interests but not be quite so tempting for use by politicians as a means of bullying the world. Investing in home-grown green energy would also reduce our need to start wars in oil producing nations.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-05-18/news/17491492_1_pentagon-gao-financial-accounting
In 2003 the Pentagon was unable to account for $1 trillion in spending. And that was when the annual budget was in the neighborhood of $400 billion a year.
From a 2008 GAO report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102789.html
The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

Auditors said the Defense Department showed few signs of improvement since the GAO began issuing its annual assessments of selected weapons systems six years ago. “It’s not getting any better by any means,” said Michael Sullivan, director of the GAO’s acquisition and sourcing team. “It’s taking longer and costing more.”

[ProudDad]

65. The whole fucking thing is a wasteful, useless money hole! (n/t)

[Blue Owl]

21. Now we're talking.

THIS is the direction that I as a Democrat want to see things going.

[struggle4progress]

22. Finally!

[Hydra]

26. Glad to see Pelosi of all people say this

I about choked during the SOTU address last night. It's not that I wasn't expecting it, but it was still sickening to hear that Department of War funding would not be frozen too.

[Luciferous]

31. I'm not a fan of Pelosi, but good for her!

[cbdo2007]

36. Thanks "All Talk - No Action Pelosi"

I'm sure she really thinks that's a great idea but not enough for them to pass some freakin' helpful bills through to cut out the military contractors shit!!!

Sorry for the tirade but she drives me crazy.

[dflprincess]

50. She'll get to work on that

right after she makes sure that the House passes a health bill with a public option because, per Nancy, no way will they vote for one that doesn't have one.

[Crowman1979]

52. Throw in Reid while your at it!

It sucks that we have spineless leadership. And the dems who back up their words with action are largely ignored by the party.

[ShortnFiery]

42. Who wrote this article for Luke Russert?

Nepotism anyone? :thumbsdown:

[panzerfaust]

46. Pelosi: Until you lead investigation into the treason of the * administration

don't much care WHAT you think or say.

[tomp]

54. big talk. nt

[Oldhat1970]

55. The War Machine

The DoD Freeze arguement is a tuff' one to chew on.

Biggest problem I see in it is that cuts and even freezes will kill civilian employment. I'm a Dayton Ohio guy, we've been hit hard, one of the last hopes we have in our area is Wright Patt Air Force Base of which there are roughly 22,000 civilian employees. Please don't quote me on this, but I think the lowest paying job is around $35,000 and runs up to around $150,000 on the top end.

Cuts and freezes may be needed but the additional unemployment that comes with it is a catch 22 at our current state. Not only do you lose those jobs, but you lose the 100's of 1,000 jobs that come from being a suplier to the war machine.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[lib_wit_it]

57. Why can't we put these same people to work on infrastructure projects?

[Oldhat1970]

58. In a mess

Because we need to put "other" (read as unemployed)folks to work on the infrastucture, gotta create some jobs versus simply moving them.

No doubt we're in a pickle with whatever we do, there is probably no right way to do anything.

[lib_wit_it]

59. Yes, but plenty of infrastructure projects to go around. Plus, not all of the jobs lost by a country

moving away from a war-based economy must be replaced by the infrastructure projects.

[ProudDad]

60. Freeze HELL! Cut the son of a bitch in HALF!!!!

for a start...

Then we'd only be spending 10 times what the next country spends on military bullshit -- the legions of Empire...

It's the war machine, stupid!

:nuke:

[eridani]

66. Well, good for her! Now how about that public option, 'K? n/t

[juajen]

67. Go, Nancy. I'm telling ya, most of the time I like her, I really like her. NT

[raccoon]

72. Way to go, Nancy! nt

[Crowman1979]

78. Well here are some good suggestions to slash the military budget.

1) De-militarize all nuclear weapons, and de-commission all SSBNs & missile silos on land.

2) Leave Afghanistan and Iraq NOW!

3) Close all military bases overseas and send the units back to bases in the USA. Keep a few shared bases for logistical purposes.

4) De-activate all operational commands and have them devoted to specific operations on an ad-hoc basis.

[defendandprotect]

81. Go Nancy -- Looks like Pelosi might be getting annoyed with her handlers???

Including Obama --??

The crack she made about "what he said during campaigning" and what he says

now was quite telling and informative!

[defendandprotect]

82. Nice -- but let's not forget who's been re-funding these WARS for three years . . . Pelosi/Reid!!

[Blue_Tires]

84. freeze?? try CUTTING

but freeze would be a good start...

[classysassy]

85. The military industrial complex

Should be dismantled.Over fifty years ago Ike warned the american public about those crooks.Billions for the military,zilch for the needy and sick,shame on us as a nation when we let a few greedy bastards enrich themselves and say fuck the rest of you fools.When will the average citizen(middle class and the poor),say enough is enough,vote for the congressmen and women that say they going to cut back on military spending,if they don't vote them out of office.

[classysassy]

86. The military industrial complex

Should be dismantled.Over fifty years ago Ike warned the american public about those crooks.Billions for the military,zilch for the needy and sick,shame on us as a nation when we let a few greedy bastards enrich themselves and say fuck the rest of you fools.When will the average citizen(middle class and the poor),say enough is enough,vote for the congressmen and women that say they going to cut back on military spending,if they don't vote them out of office.